This is fairly close to the truth. They charge you if you can watch the BBC, since the BBC is broadcast over the TV wires the same as free channels if you can watch those free channels you can watch the BBC, and therefore have to pay. They are also broadcast by Sky and Virgin, so if you have either satellite or cable TV you have to pay for the BBC, nice little deal they have there. Chances of getting caught aren't huge (this doesn't make it okay) and if you are caught you have the chance to start paying the £11 a month instead of the fine (which doesn't make it okay either).
They can't just request to come into your house if your a none payer, they have to have proof which means driving past in a van with equipment that can detect what is been watched, which is costly so they don't do it a lot (this doesn't make it okay either).
I don't know whether it's because it's always been there or because the vast majority of people like the BBC (including the radio) but the BBC is generally well liked, not that am suggesting that makes a draconian system okay either.
While I'm happy that this happens to work out in consumers' favor, it's still sad that the Feds can tell a company what to do. Actual competition works so much better, and we don't even need to consider the long run.
You've got it backwards. The actual competition comes from preventing one company from buying out its competitors and controlling the market, which is what this deal could lead to without the conditions imposed.
Did you think the same thing about Microsoft, in its "actual competition" with Netscape and others?
How many households have 4 different people watching different TV shows all month? You never have two people watching the same show?
And if that IS the case, then you REALLY need to get a life - since watching TV by yourself is apparently more important to you than doing things with your family.
Who said anything about "never"?
There is nothing wrong with solitary activities. We all get what you're saying though. Too much TV is bad. But so is too much of anything... now off to watch the some TV by myself while working out in my home gym. Oh, soooo unhealthy.
While I'm happy that this happens to work out in consumers' favor, it's still sad that the Feds can tell a company what to do. Actual competition works so much better, and we don't even need to consider the long run.
Bullshht. Deregulation leads to things like environmental disasters from pollution and oil spills, poisonous fake powdered milk and mining disasters. Thank God for regulation.
My point of view is that intervention in businesses will always be required because the people running them have one goal, dominate their industry and absolutely grind everyone else down into the ground and then lift the price once no one else can give the consumer leverage (competition) to keep things low. Which would also mean effort, talent, productivity and class going out of that area of business as they can no longer be bothered to hire people with talent, just accountants who know something about TV shows.
Bullshht. Deregulation leads to things like environmental disasters from pollution and oil spills, poisonous fake powdered milk and mining disasters. Thank God for regulation.
There is something magical about a poster who contradicts the sentiment of their own signature in the body of their post.
His Quote:
Quote:
...the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. - Thomas Jefferson
Perhaps he just needs to read up on Jefferson. Regulations existed for ALL the hazards the poster indicates. Simply holding businesses responsible for what they do is plenty. All regulation does is make it harder for new players to enter market place. Look around, do you see all these huge companies complaining about regulation? Hell no, they jump in and help craft the regulations - so that they can be a barrier to any new competition.
Wake up and educate yourself. More regulation is not a good thing. Sane laws that actually get enforced, no matter the size or influence of the offender is what makes a difference.
Comments
This is fairly close to the truth. They charge you if you can watch the BBC, since the BBC is broadcast over the TV wires the same as free channels if you can watch those free channels you can watch the BBC, and therefore have to pay. They are also broadcast by Sky and Virgin, so if you have either satellite or cable TV you have to pay for the BBC, nice little deal they have there. Chances of getting caught aren't huge (this doesn't make it okay) and if you are caught you have the chance to start paying the £11 a month instead of the fine (which doesn't make it okay either).
They can't just request to come into your house if your a none payer, they have to have proof which means driving past in a van with equipment that can detect what is been watched, which is costly so they don't do it a lot (this doesn't make it okay either).
I don't know whether it's because it's always been there or because the vast majority of people like the BBC (including the radio) but the BBC is generally well liked, not that am suggesting that makes a draconian system okay either.
France does the same. Paternalistic.
While I'm happy that this happens to work out in consumers' favor, it's still sad that the Feds can tell a company what to do. Actual competition works so much better, and we don't even need to consider the long run.
You've got it backwards. The actual competition comes from preventing one company from buying out its competitors and controlling the market, which is what this deal could lead to without the conditions imposed.
Did you think the same thing about Microsoft, in its "actual competition" with Netscape and others?
How many households have 4 different people watching different TV shows all month? You never have two people watching the same show?
And if that IS the case, then you REALLY need to get a life - since watching TV by yourself is apparently more important to you than doing things with your family.
Who said anything about "never"?
There is nothing wrong with solitary activities. We all get what you're saying though. Too much TV is bad. But so is too much of anything... now off to watch the some TV by myself while working out in my home gym. Oh, soooo unhealthy.
While I'm happy that this happens to work out in consumers' favor, it's still sad that the Feds can tell a company what to do. Actual competition works so much better, and we don't even need to consider the long run.
Bullshht. Deregulation leads to things like environmental disasters from pollution and oil spills, poisonous fake powdered milk and mining disasters. Thank God for regulation.
My point of view is that intervention in businesses will always be required because the people running them have one goal, dominate their industry and absolutely grind everyone else down into the ground and then lift the price once no one else can give the consumer leverage (competition) to keep things low. Which would also mean effort, talent, productivity and class going out of that area of business as they can no longer be bothered to hire people with talent, just accountants who know something about TV shows.
Bingo.
Bullshht. Deregulation leads to things like environmental disasters from pollution and oil spills, poisonous fake powdered milk and mining disasters. Thank God for regulation.
There is something magical about a poster who contradicts the sentiment of their own signature in the body of their post.
His Quote:
...the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. - Thomas Jefferson
Perhaps he just needs to read up on Jefferson. Regulations existed for ALL the hazards the poster indicates. Simply holding businesses responsible for what they do is plenty. All regulation does is make it harder for new players to enter market place. Look around, do you see all these huge companies complaining about regulation? Hell no, they jump in and help craft the regulations - so that they can be a barrier to any new competition.
Wake up and educate yourself. More regulation is not a good thing. Sane laws that actually get enforced, no matter the size or influence of the offender is what makes a difference.
R