Cable Forum - Funding of the BBC

Page 2 of 25

Last »

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Funding of the BBC (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33707081)

denphone

21-11-2018 15:05

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35971829)

I don't think it is any way justifiable to charge people for an entertainment service they never use. Why would you even think that was fair?

Its been the fairest way hence thus so far and if it ain't broke you don't need to fix it

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35971829)

There is no doubt that many Conservatives do not like the way the BBC operates at present.

So you truly believe those OTT detector horns on top of the vans are actually capable of detecting anything? I think they are there to intimidate!

No wonder as if the ones who don't like it get their way the BBC many of us know and admire won't be here in 10 years.

heero_yuy

21-11-2018 15:06

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Quote from Taf:

The "radiation" they used to detect came from the aerial, they detected an active local oscillator. These do not exist in digital TV's. Picking up screen signals is easier than you think, hence so much security shielding around military commcens, including isolated mains lines and earth points.

An interesting conclusion from a paper on this:

Quote:

Each of these observations means a substantial complication
for anyone who wants to separate a compromising LVDS
signal of an LCD TV from background noise through periodic
averaging. The high diversity of the timing parameters
and the jitter on the synchronization signals also makes it
difficult to envisage an automatic TV detector predicting from
a broadcast TV signal the LVDS emanations of a TV set,
in order to detect them at a distance using cross-correlation
techniques, especially if the operation of the TV set is driven
by its own crystal oscillators and only loosely phase-locked
with the frame rate of a broadcast signal. Moreover, simple
EMC measures, such as careful layout and ferrite rings, can
substantially reduce compromising emanations from display
controllers and LVDS links.

Quote:

I think we'll end up paying a "BBC Tax", then after a few years the government, still strapped for cash, will introduce a tax covering all forms of signal reception. With a name such as Digital Access Tax.

Sounds pretty likely, probably paid as a surtax on any subscription or BB service. Who gets the cash is less predictable as El Gov might just want to pocket the lot.

denphone

21-11-2018 15:06

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35971829)

So you truly believe those OTT detector horns on top of the vans are actually capable of detecting anything? I think they are there to intimidate!

l am pretty sure there are technical ways of detecting a signal.

nomadking

21-11-2018 15:47

Re: Funding of the BBC

Not only do you have to detect a signal, it has to be identifiable as a live TV broadcast and you have to be able to determine it's location. No good detecting next door playing computer games.

OLD BOY

21-11-2018 17:02

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35971863)

Its been the fairest way hence thus so far and if it ain't broke you don't need to fix it.

Except you haven't answered my point. Why do you disregard the unfairness of someone having to pay a charge for an entertainment service they don't receive?

You'd be quick enough to complain if you were being charged for a channel or PPV film you didn't ask for. How is this any different?

denphone

21-11-2018 17:10

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35971878)

Its more a case of you not answering the question l posed to you earlier as you seem to have developed convenient memory loss when it suits you.

Here is the question again for you.

Quote:

Sometimes in life OB one has to think of the large majority rather then a very small minority don't you think so?.

Mr K	21-11-2018 17:22

Re: Funding of the BBC

Another day, another anti-BBC thread from OB... :sleep:

papa smurf

21-11-2018 18:07

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35971866)

l am pretty sure there are technical ways of detecting a signal.

Yes it involves a sofa and a tub of popcorn.

heero_yuy

21-11-2018 18:14

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Quote from denphone:

l am pretty sure there are technical ways of detecting a signal.

Pah! It's called peering in your window or listening through the letterbox. Nothing more sophisticated.

OLD BOY

21-11-2018 18:22

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35971880)

Its more a case of you not answering the question l posed to you earlier as you seem to have developed convenient memory loss when it suits you.

Here is the question again for you.

I framed my question in the light of your question.

Ok, in this case, the answer is no. It's different if you are providing essential services such as education and social care, then yes, everyone should pay as it is beneficial to society as a whole.

But this is not an essential service, it is entertainment. Why should the BBC be thrust down the throats of those who don't want it? There are other channels that are free of charge to watch, after all!

---------- Post added at 18:20 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35971881)

Another day, another anti-BBC thread from OB... :sleep:

It's not anti-BBC, it's anti-licence fee. You do like to twist things, don't you, Mr K?

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35971889)

Pah! It's called peering in your window or listening through the letterbox. Nothing more sophisticated.

I'm glad I re-read that. You said 'peering', not the word I thought you used....:erm:

Jimmy-J

21-11-2018 18:55

Re: Funding of the BBC

So those TV licensing ads were basically lying to the masses? Naughty BBC

OLD BOY

21-11-2018 19:12

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35971901)

So those TV licensing ads were basically lying to the masses? Naughty BBC

The last detector van I noticed had a much more impressive detector scanner. It looked like something out of the early 1960s Dr Who series!

heero_yuy

21-11-2018 19:18

Re: Funding of the BBC

All designed to keep the proles in order and paying the BBC tax.

Fake, fake, fake.

Over ten years now NOT paying the BBC tax but watching non-BBC output.

If their technology was that good it has failed. :rofl:

More fool anybody who is still paying this nonsense.

denphone

21-11-2018 19:31

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35971904)

You will have mail loads of complaints coming through your door old bean as the last time l counted there were about 30 million fools watching good old auntie.;):D

Mr K	21-11-2018 19:48

Re: Funding of the BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35971904)

Get the inspectors round to Worthing then ! Are you sure you don't use any BBC services, local and national radio, website, news, weather, iPlayer, BBC content on other channels? A high proportion of cable TV is repeating BBC output, which would have never been made without a licence fee.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40.

Page 2 of 25

Last »

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page