[Cornucopia]

Originally Posted by iain

to be honest, its difficult to express an opinion without seeing relevant quotes from letters for each example.

i'm not sure why its so difficult to provide quotes from letters to illustrate each point.

Iain

It isn't difficult to quote letters.

It's never going to satisfy the pedants, though, because we can't know which letter(s) the BBC Trust had in mind (and curiously, the report itself lacks quotes).

Also, when I've quoted letters in the past, it is met with "well, that doesn't look very aggressive" - clearly subjective, and missing the point that the appropriate governing body thinks otherwise.

All I can do is point you here:-

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2006%20letters.htm

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2007%20letters.htm

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2008%20letters.htm

and let you find any examples that you think the BBC Trust might be referring to.

For my part, I find all of the many examples on that site to be unpleasant, potentially misleading and unworthy of public servants addressing members of the public. It seems that the BBC Trust is with me on that.

edit: Forced to choose, I guess I'd go with the audacity and dim-witted certainty of "June 2008".

[iain]

Originally Posted by Cornucopia

You need to consider where I was coming from in the original debate, and the original, original debate.

Since it was some time ago, I will re-iterate.

There is no "typical" pay TV channel. There are different types, and, yes, some of these types have, as part of their remit/business model a rough percentage target for repeats.

There are two "linear" channels that have been shown, upon inspection to be less than 90% repeats, Sky1 and Living. I note the quibbles about content types behind the headline figures.

Then there are very specialised and more expensive sport and movie subscription channels with their own repeats policies. I do not know the figures for them.

Then there are the premium "linear" channels - Discovery, History, Nat Geo, Arts, Sci-fi etc., which seem to target at the 90% level, although I haven't analysed further than Discovery. These channels are genre-specific and, collectively provide pay TV packages with a good overall level of new, high-quality content. This content typically matches or surpasses the breadth, quantity and quality of what can be achieved by FTA channels in the relevant genre. A lot of it will go on to be bought by FTA channels for re-showing.

Then there is everything else - repeats, classics, whatever you call them, that are 100% repeats, give or take. Within this group are about 15? channels that are half-owned by the BBC.

So... There is no "typical" pay TV channel. Repeats channels are mostly repeats - who'd have thought that might be the case. Everything else, right across the board ranges from single-figure% repeats of BBC1 up to around 90%.

there were indeed two linear channels mentioned.

Sky 1, its probably fair to say, is more than likely showing more new content than ever, and even then only provided marginally less than 90% repeats.

Living happened to be sampled during a week when it was showing more new stuff than typical on account of its [i]Most Haunted[/] specials.

that hardly changes the general point that digital channels typically show 90-100% repeats.

i'll trot out the football analogy again - it would be fair to say that football matches are typically 90 mins + up to around 5 minutes of time added on.

agreed?

or would you try to argue that that wasn't the case because very occasionally football matches have more than 5 minutes of time added on?

and don't forget that this IIRC was originally mentioned in reply to someone criticising the BBC for the number of repeats.

Iain

[iain]

Originally Posted by Cornucopia

It isn't difficult to quote letters.

It's never going to satisfy the pedants, though, because we can't know which letter(s) the BBC Trust had in mind (and curiously, the report itself lacks quotes).

Also, when I've quoted letters in the past, it is met with "well, that doesn't look very aggressive" - clearly subjective, and missing the point that the appropriate governing body thinks otherwise.

All I can do is point you here:-

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2006%20letters.htm

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2007%20letters.htm

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2008%20letters.htm

and let you find any examples that you think the BBC Trust might be referring to.

For my part, I find all of the many examples on that site to be unpleasant, potentially misleading and unworthy of public servants addressing members of the public. It seems that the BBC Trust is with me on that.

edit: Forced to choose, I guess I'd go with the audacity and dim-witted certainty of "June 2008".

well, subjective it may be, but looking at that first letter, i wouldn't say it was aggressive at all.

would you like to quote the part of that first letter that you would consider to be unduly aggressive or threatening?

Iain

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by iain

well, subjective it may be, but looking at that first letter, i wouldn't say it was aggressive at all.

would you like to quote the part of that first letter that you would consider to be unduly aggressive or threatening?

Iain

First letter does not take account of the possibility that the person has given up watching TV as it is broadcast.

Which thousands do every day!

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by PeterB

First letter does not take account of the possibility that the person has given up watching TV as it is broadcast.

But does that make it in any way aggressive?

Which thousands do every day!

They do? In their thousands? Is there a source for that, or was that comment made in jest?

[iain]

Originally Posted by PeterB

First letter does not take account of the possibility that the person has given up watching TV as it is broadcast.

Which thousands do every day!

firstly, that wasn't the issue.

secondly, do you have a source for these thousands of people giving up tv every day?

thirdly, doesn't the part about "Remember, you must have a valid TV licence to receive or record any TV programme service".

so presumably it follows that if you aren't receiving any broadcast tv, you don't.

you might now mention stuff like the iPlayer, although the iPlayer wasn't around in Jan 06.

Iain

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by iain

firstly, that wasn't the issue.

secondly, do you have a source for these thousands of people giving up tv every day?

thirdly, doesn't the part about "Remember, you must have a valid TV licence to receive or record any TV programme service".

so presumably it follows that if you aren't receiving any broadcast tv, you don't.

you might now mention stuff like the iPlayer, although the iPlayer wasn't around in Jan 06.

Iain

Please note the '!'.

Maybe a sentance 'If you no longer need a licence...'

[Vertigo93]

Originally Posted by Cornucopia

All I can do is point you here:-

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2006%20letters.htm

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2007%20letters.htm

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2008%20letters.htm

and let you find any examples that you think the BBC Trust might be referring to.

For my part, I find all of the many examples on that site to be unpleasant, potentially misleading and unworthy of public servants addressing members of the public. It seems that the BBC Trust is with me on that.

edit: Forced to choose, I guess I'd go with the audacity and dim-witted certainty of "June 2008".

Of course, if he'd actually replied after the first - and polite - letter, all that followed after would probably not have followed after.

At no point does the person say they made any attempt to contact TVL. Is it actually any wonder that the letters become stronger following the initial polite reminder?

He even reprints a British Gas letter by way of comparison which is clearly written from the point of view of him informing British Gas he was moving supplier as opposed to not informing TVL he no longer has a TV. Can you not even begin to see why there is a different tone in those letters then?

One reply to TVL from the start could have stopped that entire chain of letters. One reply. To then bitch that the letters get progressively more urgent or aggressive is idiocy. You don't poke a dog and act all suprised when it bites you.

My neighbour has damaged my property. He owes me money and structural repair work. He hasn't replied to polite letters, then he hasn't replied to legal requests and now I'm taking him to court. Now he's acting all suprised and hurt that it's going to court and he's going to have to pay both his and my costs, and do the repair work and pay me the initial money.

Do you think it was a good idea for him to ignore the initial letter because he felt he didn't have to explain anything to me? Or do you think he's an idiot?

[iain]

Originally Posted by PeterB

Please note the '!'.

i'm probably just being dim here, but

Maybe a sentance 'If you no longer need a licence...'

maybe.

but it would only be helpful for people who couldn't deduce when they wouldn't need a licence from a sentence explaining why they would need a licence.

Iain

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by iain

i'm probably just being dim here, but



maybe.

but it would only be helpful for people who couldn't deduce when they wouldn't need a licence from a sentence explaining why they would need a licence.

Iain

As in 'not serious'...

[Cornucopia]

Lots of issues, here. And a few old chestnuts.

Let's take one - the comparison with British Gas. Of course, there ARE multiple gas companies, and so it's rather more likekly that someone has moved (supplier), rather than simply given up using gas altogether. Not forgetting that you don't have to tell your old supplier that you are defecting (but they will know from the "industry messages" that flow around between utilities).

In the case of "TVL", the obvious assumption (and legally the only one "TVL" may make) is that you have either genuinely forgotten to pay, or that you no longer wish to use their services. There can (under British law) be no assumption of law-breaking without evidence, and yet "TVL" seem to automatically rush to that conclusion.

I'd be *much* happier to see letters from "TVL" on that basis, and much as I hate withering sarcasm, I'd sooner see accusations couched in those kind of terms that in the kind of over-blown and unjustifiable legalese that "TVL" seem to favour.

edit: As for whether they are threatening or not - I'm not sure what people expect - the letters are simply *not* going to be wrapped around a brick and thrown through a window. Threats in this case are unfounded threats of legal action - and there are plenty of those, or warnings of escalation of process (that are not consistent with the law).

edit2: the comparison with negligent neighbours and sleepy dogs are not relevant - the law as it applies to "TVL" is not the same law that applies to negligent neighbours. And, I actually don't want "TVL" to wander the land like an angry dog, and they don't have the right to do so, either.

[Vertigo93]

Originally Posted by Cornucopia

edit2: the comparison with negligent neighbours and sleepy dogs are not relevant - the law as it applies to "TVL" is not the same law that applies to negligent neighbours. And, I actually don't want "TVL" to wander the land like an angry dog, and they don't have the right to do so, either.

Love the way you dismiss an analogy at the start and then take it utterly literally at the end for your own purposes. Tremendous work.

The analogy with my neighbour is extremely relevent. He could have saved himself all that trouble by simply replying to the initial polite letter. As it is, he thought he could do what he liked, and it's going to cost him far more - both financially and in time taken - than ever.

Whoever this chap is on that website could have done exactly the same by replying to the initial letter- if you feel it's impolite or aggressive, please quote exactly where you think it's like that.

He's no beacon of anti-TVL courage, he's an idiot who could have avoided all of that correspondence from the very initial letter - a point which you haven't actually addressed. If someone contacts me to request payment for something that I have no need of, I contact them to tell them I have no need of it. Oddly, that's worked pretty well for me throughout life.

[iain]

Originally Posted by PeterB

As in 'not serious'...

ah! OK.

its difficult to tell sometimes, round by 'ere!

Iain

[iain]

Originally Posted by Cornucopia

Lots of issues, here. And a few old chestnuts.

Let's take one - the comparison with British Gas. Of course, there ARE multiple gas companies, and so it's rather more likekly that someone has moved (supplier), rather than simply given up using gas altogether. Not forgetting that you don't have to tell your old supplier that you are defecting (but they will know from the "industry messages" that flow around between utilities).

In the case of "TVL", the obvious assumption (and legally the only one "TVL" may make) is that you have either genuinely forgotten to pay, or that you no longer wish to use their services. There can (under British law) be no assumption of law-breaking without evidence, and yet "TVL" seem to automatically rush to that conclusion.

true - but something of a red herring IMO.

there's commonality in that the person would have stopped using a supplier - ie British Gas or TVL.

and inconsistency in imforming one supplier of a change in circumstance, but not informing another.

as i've said all along - i fully respect people's right to ignore any and all communication from tvl.

but if they do, they must surely accept that they might continue to get letters.

I'd be *much* happier to see letters from "TVL" on that basis, and much as I hate withering sarcasm, I'd sooner see accusations couched in those kind of terms that in the kind of over-blown and unjustifiable legalese that "TVL" seem to favour.

overblown and unjustifiable legalese?

AKA - 'if you receive broadcast tv, you need to get a licence, and if you don't let us know'.

edit: As for whether they are threatening or not - I'm not sure what people expect - the letters are simply *not* going to be wrapped around a brick and thrown through a window. Threats in this case are unfounded threats of legal action - and there are plenty of those, or warnings of escalation of process (that are not consistent with the law).

if people in these discussions describe them as threatening and aggressive, i don't think its unreasonable to ask for the particular parts of letters that people are describing as threatening or aggressive.

there's surely little point in describing them as such if you're then unable or unwilling to say which part you deem to be so.

edit2: the comparison with negligent neighbours and sleepy dogs are not relevant - the law as it applies to "TVL" is not the same law that applies to negligent neighbours. And, I actually don't want "TVL" to wander the land like an angry dog, and they don't have the right to do so, either.

nonetheless there is a common principle. not only that, but it couldn't have been much clearer - ie take a bit of time to communicate, and (hopefully!) save yourself a lot of time, effort and aggro.

Iain

[Hammy]

Originally Posted by mikw

Commissioned by another channel, made for by another channel. NOT an original Sky One show.

Shown New (as it's not a repeat, having not been shown on Sky 1 or any other channel before) on Sky 1.

Free to air media should be allowed to strengthen. Better for all, TV at no extra cost.

Better for all? You mean better for you and the viewers who used those channels? And where do you think those FTA mefia get their income? As far as i'm concerened it's an extra cost to me.

It's not right that FTA TV be allowed to die, and viewers have to pay extra, to watch programmes that were free to view before. this helps no-one (other than pay TV providers who have little interest in commissioning new programmes).

Nothing is free, and if you don't want your FTA channel to die, then maybe YOU and their viewers should pay extra, as obviously they aren't getting enough income from YOU and their viewers, at the moment.

This really helps no-one in the end.

Hey, it was you who said they would probably go subscription, i just gave you an opinion as to why maybe it won't effect existing pay tv channels.

It's not about you, it's about everyone.

When it comes to commercial channels, who are out to make a profit, wanting to hog all the advertising money, which i contribute too and which may negatively effect my preferred viewing then you're damn right it's about me.

It shouldn't be at the expense of new programmes, this just leads to stagnation.

Well if they maybe made programmes that more people wanted to watch, then they would attract more viewers and a greater slice of the advertising income. Or maybe their funding method just isn't the right one, the days of a few channels hogging all the advertising money are gone, maybe they need to rethink as to actually where they can improve their income.

So, you should be allowed to pay for just what you want then, if we're talking about "choice" it should be choice on your terms, not anybody else's.

Does that principle of "choice" extend to the BBC and the FTA channels or is this "choice" limited to what you and the FTA viewers want, ie you have your BBC, FTA tv and cherry pick any good content that's left on pay tv for as little as possible, without having actually subscribe to it.

It will happen one day, and a strong free to air TV industry will be needed more than ever to provide the new stuff.

So the FTA channels will be exempt from providing "choice" and the viewer will have no choice in what they pay for? So while pay channels will have give choice and viewers will only pay for what they watch, BBC and Fta will continue to fleece everyone, some choice, huh?

Pay Tv is an overpriced luxury.

Maybe to you, but it's all my viewing and extremly good value as far as i'm concerned, get rid of Sky tv (no cable here) then i ditch TV.

You use more FTA TV than you think, a large amount of it (and it's staff) provide programmes for pay TV.

I thought pay tv didn't commission/make new programming?

Well, pay TV, non-sport, will typically work out at 90-100% repeats, that's just the way it generally is.

Speaking of repeats, Sky 1 this week.

Sat - 3 hours new - 87.5% repeats
Sun - 3 hours new - 87.5% repeats
Mon - 5.5 hours new - 77.5% repeats
Tues - 6 hours new - 75% repeats
Wed - 8.5 hours new - 65% repeats
thurs - 8 hours new - 66.66% repeats
Fri - 4.5 hours new - 81& repeats

38.5 hours new this week, nae bad.
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]

The comments were made for self gain, nothing else.

And he still works for a very successful company with millions of happy subscribers.

It wasn't made for Sky One, it wasn't commissioned by Sky One, it is not really a Sky One show.

Was it a repeat or was it new?

You're Sky One Sub does not pay for it, it's not created as a result of your money.

I don't subscribe to Sky 1, I subscribed to Sky's World Package, so my subscription did create it.

Perhaps you should look a little more closely.

More closely than what? Wgat am i meant to see?

Not always. And not in this case for reasons already stated. It's not shown as "new" on the crib sheet, it's actually labelled as "from Sky Sports".

It's new content and not a repeat, end of.

Because it's new to the channel, just like many other "new" programmes on pay TV, they may be new to the channel they're on, but they're not really new at all.

When and on which channel was it shown before Sky 1?

If they weren't interested in ratings they would sign a lower paid presenter less well-known presenter, that would actually mean some original thought and a bit of work for once though.

So you agree, folks do watch daytime TV.

[Hammy]

Originally Posted by iain

there's commonality in that the person would have stopped using a supplier - ie British Gas or TVL.

and inconsistency in imforming one supplier of a change in circumstance, but not informing another.


Iain

There is no commonality in how you stop them supplying you with their service, the difference is that with the gas supplier, or any other utility, you have a contract with them to supply you with gas until you cancel or they stop your supply for any reason. So to cancel/terminate the contract you need to contact them, it won't terminate itself.

The TVL on the other hand is only a license/contract for the right to watch broadcast Tv for one year, at the end of the year if you wish to recieve Tv for another year you renew your license, if you don't want to watch anymore tv, then you don't have to do anything, as your license/contract with TVL has expired. In this case to cancel is a simple non-renewal of license, no communication needed as license/contract with TVL is automatically terminated the day the license expires.

[Hieronymous]

Simple isn't it? All you have to do is reply.

And then:

http://www.marmalade.net/lime/erika/index.html

And that is but one example!!

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by Hieronymous

Simple isn't it? All you have to do is reply.

And then:

http://www.marmalade.net/lime/erika/index.html

And that is but one example!!

No update from him since 2001!

Next.

[Hieronymous]

Originally Posted by PeterB

No update from him since 2001!

My apologies. Quite obviously that makes it perfectly all right!!!

Er, him? Erika?

Next.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tv/

[mchammer]

Originally Posted by PeterB

No update from him since 2001!

Next.

The link I see goes up to 2004 when Erika loses interest in responding.

http://www.marmalade.net/lime/erika/TVLA_9.htm

[Cornucopia]

Originally Posted by iain

as i've said all along - i fully respect people's right to ignore any and all communication from tvl.

but if they do, they must surely accept that they might continue to get letters.

I fully accept that if I do not give the youths on the corner £5 they will trash my car - that kind of thing?

overblown and unjustifiable legalese?

AKA - 'if you receive broadcast tv, you need to get a licence, and if you don't let us know'.

What is wrong with: "we'd like you to let us know, but you aren't under any legal obligation to do so"? Isn't that "truer" than your version, and "TVL"'s?

if people in these discussions describe them as threatening and aggressive, i don't think its unreasonable to ask for the particular parts of letters that people are describing as threatening or aggressive.

there's surely little point in describing them as such if you're then unable or unwilling to say which part you deem to be so.

I've explained that any part that threatens an innocent person with legal process is threatening (IMHO). Virtually all of the June 08 letter that I recommended to you is like that.

nonetheless there is a common principle. not only that, but it couldn't have been much clearer - ie take a bit of time to communicate, and (hopefully!) save yourself a lot of time, effort and aggro.

As I've said time & time again, not only is there no obligation to communicate with "TVL", it is also unlikely to make any difference to their next steps - assuming that you tell them that you have no TV, or have one but don't receive live broadcasts.

We already know that they want to visit to check those kinds of claims - why do you not accept that?

"TVL" is like a scam - instead of scamming you of money, it is scamming you of rights. Scammers often work on the principle that after you've committed a small amount of money, you will be willing to risk more to see the return that you were originally promised.

That's how "TVL" work - scam you for information (that you really don't have to disclose), presumably because you hope to appease them and make them go away. Instead, they insist on coming to check your home. And even then, they want more - to actually question you about your presumed TV watching habits in the hope of catching you out (or if you are unlikely enough to be visited by one of their "bad apples", fabricate evidence to obtain commission payments).

It's a bad and unnecessary system - and as I've said before, I am committed to getting it reformed. It saddens me that the BBC Trust do not see these issues (or perhaps turn a blind eye in the name of pragmatism).

[Cornucopia]

Originally Posted by Vertigo93

Love the way you dismiss an analogy at the start and then take it utterly literally at the end for your own purposes. Tremendous work.

The analogy with my neighbour is extremely relevent. He could have saved himself all that trouble by simply replying to the initial polite letter. As it is, he thought he could do what he liked, and it's going to cost him far more - both financially and in time taken - than ever.

The situation is not the same - because (presumably) you have the Law "on your side", and "TVL" do not. It really is that simple. I personally find their pretence to having some kind of authority deeply offensive.

Whoever this chap is on that website could have done exactly the same by replying to the initial letter- if you feel it's impolite or aggressive, please quote exactly where you think it's like that.

He received a different initial letter to me, because he cancelled a licence and I started at a new address without one.

You can read the letters as well as I can. For the reasons I expressed to Iain, I don't bother to quote these letters any more - people simply and arbitrarily rule them: "perfectly acceptable".

For the record, I consider them not just impolite, but also threatening and misleading. And it is perhaps the latter issue (when connected to information on legal rights) that is of greatest concern.

He's no beacon of anti-TVL courage, he's an idiot who could have avoided all of that correspondence from the very initial letter - a point which you haven't actually addressed. If someone contacts me to request payment for something that I have no need of, I contact them to tell them I have no need of it. Oddly, that's worked pretty well for me throughout life.

As has been explained, the letters are just the start. See my post above for my theory of "TVL" as scammers.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by iain

the points made, or the quotes given are often so tenuous that they're essentially meaningless.

but no - from the search above (link provided), i couldn't see anything relevant.

perhaps rather than just drag this round the houses you could just remind me?

as i said before, my recollection is that all you ever posted was a throwaway comment from a DJ at the time - just someone expressing an opinion, and really hardly anything concrete in terms of 'the BBC admitting they were wrong'.

Iain

You don't even recall the BBC tv show on pirate radio and its discussion here? I didn't see it but all who did said it confirmed what I say.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by iain

to be honest, its difficult to express an opinion without seeing relevant quotes from letters for each example.


Iain

The BBC Trust says "perhaps the strongest theme" was a "public perception" the the tone of the letters was "to harsh", and your not convinced? No surprise!

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by iain

well, subjective it may be, but looking at that first letter, i wouldn't say it was aggressive at all.

would you like to quote the part of that first letter that you would consider to be unduly aggressive or threatening?

Iain

So, you believe the BBC Trust is wrong?