| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340136] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 15:25  |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2017 18:56:31 GMT, Huge wrote:
>
> On 2017-03-24, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>
>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>> commercial content.
>>
>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>
>> I vehemently disagree.
>>
>> A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
>> their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
>> the early 8-bit computers.
>
> Err, the license covers as many TVs as you like in the same house. We have
> three TVs - one license.
Also zero? That's the case in Germany from what I heard: you pay that fee
no matter if you even own a single TV, computer (you could watch TV on)
or radio. I guess Germans can consider themselves lucky not to be charged
by their government for breathing air.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you had to remove a toothpick for wedding pictures.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340159 is a reply to message #340136] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 19:39  |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 24/03/2017 19:25, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2017 18:56:31 GMT, Huge wrote:
>>
>> On 2017-03-24, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> commercial content.
>>>
>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>
>>> I vehemently disagree.
>>>
>>> A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
>>> their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
>>> the early 8-bit computers.
>>
>> Err, the license covers as many TVs as you like in the same house. We have
>> three TVs - one license.
>
> Also zero? That's the case in Germany from what I heard: you pay that fee
> no matter if you even own a single TV, computer (you could watch TV on)
> or radio. I guess Germans can consider themselves lucky not to be charged
> by their government for breathing air.
>
If you do not have a TV you do not need a TV licence. However video
cassette recorders counted as TVs.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340165 is a reply to message #340159] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 21:42 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
> On 24/03/2017 19:25, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2017 18:56:31 GMT, Huge wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2017-03-24, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> > US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> > commercial content.
>>>>
>>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>>
>>>> I vehemently disagree.
>>>>
>>>> A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
>>>> their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
>>>> the early 8-bit computers.
>>>
>>> Err, the license covers as many TVs as you like in the same house. We have
>>> three TVs - one license.
>>
>> Also zero? That's the case in Germany from what I heard: you pay that fee
>> no matter if you even own a single TV, computer (you could watch TV on)
>> or radio. I guess Germans can consider themselves lucky not to be charged
>> by their government for breathing air.
>>
> If you do not have a TV you do not need a TV licence. However video
> cassette recorders counted as TVs.
I remember reading somwhere, that VCR's required a colour license, even
if the household had no colour television sets. Was that true?
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340170 is a reply to message #340165] |
Fri, 24 March 2017 22:33 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 25/03/2017 01:42, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> On 24/03/2017 19:25, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar 2017 18:56:31 GMT, Huge wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-24, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> >> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> >> commercial content.
>>>> >
>>>> > Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>>> > Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>> >
>>>> > I vehemently disagree.
>>>> >
>>>> > A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
>>>> > their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
>>>> > the early 8-bit computers.
>>>>
>>>> Err, the license covers as many TVs as you like in the same house. We have
>>>> three TVs - one license.
>>>
>>> Also zero? That's the case in Germany from what I heard: you pay that fee
>>> no matter if you even own a single TV, computer (you could watch TV on)
>>> or radio. I guess Germans can consider themselves lucky not to be charged
>>> by their government for breathing air.
>>>
>> If you do not have a TV you do not need a TV licence. However video
>> cassette recorders counted as TVs.
>
> I remember reading somwhere, that VCR's required a colour license, even
> if the household had no colour television sets. Was that true?
>
Probably. The VCR recorded in colour.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340178 is a reply to message #340165] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 03:35 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:42:52 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> On 24/03/2017 19:25, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar 2017 18:56:31 GMT, Huge wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-24, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in
>>>> >> the US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of
>>>> >> the high commercial content.
>>>> >
>>>> > Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>>> > Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>> >
>>>> > I vehemently disagree.
>>>> >
>>>> > A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
>>>> > their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
>>>> > the early 8-bit computers.
>>>>
>>>> Err, the license covers as many TVs as you like in the same house. We
>>>> have three TVs - one license.
>>>
>>> Also zero? That's the case in Germany from what I heard: you pay that
>>> fee no matter if you even own a single TV, computer (you could watch
>>> TV on) or radio. I guess Germans can consider themselves lucky not to
>>> be charged by their government for breathing air.
>>>
>> If you do not have a TV you do not need a TV licence. However video
>> cassette recorders counted as TVs.
>
> I remember reading somwhere, that VCR's required a colour license, even
> if the household had no colour television sets. Was that true?
Yes, because they received a colour signal and were a colour receiver.
Otherwise you could record stuff and then play it back elsewhere, I guess.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340191 is a reply to message #340136] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 06:33 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-24, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2017 18:56:31 GMT, Huge wrote:
>>
>> On 2017-03-24, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> commercial content.
>>>
>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>
>>> I vehemently disagree.
>>>
>>> A TV license fee would mean that people couldn't economically keep
>>> their old TV sets they no longer use around to serve as monitors for
>>> the early 8-bit computers.
>>
>> Err, the license covers as many TVs as you like in the same house. We have
>> three TVs - one license.
>
> Also zero? That's the case in Germany from what I heard: you pay that fee
> no matter if you even own a single TV, computer (you could watch TV on)
> or radio. I guess Germans can consider themselves lucky not to be charged
> by their government for breathing air.
Dont provake them. One should point out that Germany and France, along with
high taxes, havd very good health and social welfare systems.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
