TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates and

Re: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates and

Mark Crispin (MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU)
Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:56:22 -0800

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Paul Coxwell wrote:

> British law requires a license to receive broadcasts which are
> originated or controlled from within the United Kingdom.

So, if I am in the UK with an NTSC TV set (or just a monitor)
connected to a satellite receiver that receives a non-UK satellite
service, I wouldn't have to pay the tax?

That isn't what the BBC's web page about the television tax says;
there's a specific statement to the effect that receiving any
satellite signal subjects you to the tax.

> Sorry, but it's far from everybody who feels that way. There are
> people who have no interest in the programming that the BBC turns out
> these days,

I can see why, having seen the BBC-origin trash on PBS in the US.
There is a subset of the American population who think that a British
accent automatically means "high culture"; never mind that the "humor"
(humour?) is low-brow and the production values are wretched.

[from Pat]

> I know it works that way in Chicago; if you dared to say 'show me a
> warrant' they would wink at you, and camp right there on your
> doorstep. They'd get on the radio to the office and ask the supervisor
> to 'go upstairs and see Judge so-and-so, get a warrant for (your name),
> send it via fax to the 'paper car' and have him drive over here with
> it to (your address).

Pat makes the mistake (as he has done many times in the past) of
assuming that Chicago can be generalized to the entire country.
Chicago is a world unto itself.

-- Mark --
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mark makes an error in thinking Chicago
is an exception to the rule. Far from being an exception, it is the
rule. Chicago Police simply make no effort to disguise or hide their
prejudice and disdain for the general populace is all. Chicago is not
a 'world unto itself'. You might try reading things like my 'Feed
Sweep' web page on td-extra (AP or BBC versions; I suspect you would
prefer the AP version) to see the 'raw' news feed from AP/UPI/Reuters
and others. You'd see where earlier this week *four* high ranking
police officers in Chicago (with more indictments on the way) were
arrested for *stealing money and dope* from dope dealers to be resold
by themselves (confirms your allegation that Chicago is a 'world unto
itself' maybe); but you'd also read where just Friday evening a brave,
courageous police officer in Rock Hill, SC felt it necessary to use a
*stun gun* on a _75 year old woman_ searching for a missing friend of
hers in a nursing home. Find the item at under the title, 'SC Police
Use Stun Gun on 75 Year Old Woman'. Why? Well because they are brave
and courageous officers I guess. And of course the story of Abner
Louima versus the New York Police and their broomstick is old news by
now. So big city or small town, Chicago or Rock Hill, no difference.
By and large our constitution went out the window a few presidential
administrations ago. People who say 'Chicago (politics) is a world
unto itself' are just fanciful dreamers. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Monty Solomon: "Verizon to Opt for Microsoft TV Tech"
Go to Previous message: Ed Clarke: "Re: Last Laugh! Patrick Townsend, Food/Restaurant Critic"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page