We are with Zen Internet and they've recently completed our changeover to
digital voice service. I was able to locate the correct how's your father
to connect into the back of the modem, and we have a functioning landline.
However it isn't in a very convenient location and I was wondering if
any/many of you had ditched the landline altogether and if that had led to
any problems. The phone isn't anything fancy like the. McToodles needed,
just a walk-around phone with an answerphone. I've had a look and there are
only a few people that ring us on the landline. We never use it to ring
out but always use our mobiles.

It wouldn't sadly save us any money to discontinue it.

So, I'd be glad of your collective wisdom.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK

On 15/07/2023 16:12, Sally Thompson wrote:
> We are with Zen Internet and they've recently completed our changeover to
> digital voice service. I was able to locate the correct how's your father
> to connect into the back of the modem, and we have a functioning landline.
> However it isn't in a very convenient location and I was wondering if
> any/many of you had ditched the landline altogether and if that had led to
> any problems. The phone isn't anything fancy like the. McToodles needed,
> just a walk-around phone with an answerphone. I've had a look and there are
> only a few people that ring us on the landline. We never use it to ring
> out but always use our mobiles.
>
> It wouldn't sadly save us any money to discontinue it.
>
> So, I'd be glad of your collective wisdom.
>
We have had a landline, but no phone connected to it since we came back
to the UK.

On 15/07/2023 17:05, BrritSki wrote:
> On 15/07/2023 16:12, Sally Thompson wrote:
>> We are with Zen Internet and they've recently completed our changeover to
>> digital voice service. I was able to locate the correct how's your father
>> to connect into the back of the modem, and we have a functioning
>> landline.
>> However it isn't in a very convenient location and I was wondering if
>> any/many of you had ditched the landline altogether and if that had
>> led to
>> any problems. The phone isn't anything fancy like the. McToodles needed,
>> just a walk-around phone with an answerphone. I've had a look and
>> there are
>> only a few  people that ring us on the landline. We never use it to ring
>> out but always use our mobiles.
>>
>> It wouldn't sadly save us any money to discontinue it.
>>
>> So, I'd be glad of your collective wisdom.
>>
> We have had a landline, but no phone connected to it since we came back
> to the UK.

Same here since I moved to Scotland. I don't miss it at all. Crossing
fingers here but I have very few scam calls on my mobile (which is
strange as I've had the same number for about thirty years. Which is
slightly alarming), and these days no-one seems to jib at only being
given a mobile number to ring.

--
Kate B

On 15 Jul 2023 15:12:59 GMT, Sally Thompson
<thompson.stonybrook@gmail.com.invalid> a gribouillé dans la poussière...

>We are with Zen Internet and they've recently completed our changeover to
>digital voice service. I was able to locate the correct how's your father
>to connect into the back of the modem, and we have a functioning landline.
>However it isn't in a very convenient location and I was wondering if
>any/many of you had ditched the landline altogether and if that had led to
>any problems. The phone isn't anything fancy like the. McToodles needed,
>just a walk-around phone with an answerphone. I've had a look and there are
>only a few people that ring us on the landline. We never use it to ring
>out but always use our mobiles.
>
>It wouldn't sadly save us any money to discontinue it.

I don't understand why it won't save you any money to do away with it.

Making these changes is definitely on my to-do list* (and it will save me
some money) so I'm interested in other's experiences.

* There are a number of things on the list, I wonder where I put it...

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

In message <khg561Fb2lnU1@mid.individual.net> at Sat, 15 Jul 2023
19:00:33, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>On 15/07/2023 17:05, BrritSki wrote:
>> On 15/07/2023 16:12, Sally Thompson wrote:
>>> We are with Zen Internet and they've recently completed our changeover to

(They're in my mind if I ever get too frustrated with PlusNet; I gather
they're the best - from a customer service point of view - of the
ordinary providers [i. e. excluding Andrews & Arnold]. Last time I
looked - which _was_ a few years ago - they were significantly more
expensive than PlusNet, but I might still accept that.)

>>> digital voice service. I was able to locate the correct how's your father
>>> to connect into the back of the modem, and we have a functioning
>>>landline.
>>> However it isn't in a very convenient location and I was wondering if
>>> any/many of you had ditched the landline altogether and if that had
>>>led to
>>> any problems. The phone isn't anything fancy like the. McToodles needed,
>>> just a walk-around phone with an answerphone. I've had a look and
>>>there are
>>> only a few  people that ring us on the landline. We never use it to ring
>>> out but always use our mobiles.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't sadly save us any money to discontinue it.
>>>
>>> So, I'd be glad of your collective wisdom.

My view is that I'd _not_ ditch anything where doing so wouldn't save me
money - on the basis that if I did ditch it, it might not be available
(or only available at great cost or other inconvenience) if I later
decided I _did_ need it. Keeping it means they'd have to go to the
bother of telling me if they were going to remove it, with my having the
option of escaping contracts without penalty as a result.
>>>
>> We have had a landline, but no phone connected to it since we came
>>back to the UK.

Quite a lot of people seem to have a landline with no actual 'phones
connected to it.
>
>Same here since I moved to Scotland. I don't miss it at all. Crossing
>fingers here but I have very few scam calls on my mobile (which is
>strange as I've had the same number for about thirty years. Which is
>slightly alarming), and these days no-one seems to jib at only being
>given a mobile number to ring.
>
The majority of scam calls I get on my landline are "from" 07 numbers,
though spoofed (i. e. the blocking system says they're unknown, unlike
1471 [I've mentioned before, though not sure if here, that that ought to
be a simple way for the telecomm.s companies to block them]).
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea
that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing
things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

On 15 Jul 2023 15:12:59 GMT, Sally Thompson
<thompson.stonybrook@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>We are with Zen Internet and they've recently completed our changeover to
>digital voice service. I was able to locate the correct how's your father
>to connect into the back of the modem, and we have a functioning landline.
>However it isn't in a very convenient location and I was wondering if
>any/many of you had ditched the landline altogether and if that had led to
>any problems. The phone isn't anything fancy like the. McToodles needed,
>just a walk-around phone with an answerphone. I've had a look and there are
>only a few people that ring us on the landline. We never use it to ring
>out but always use our mobiles.
>
>It wouldn't sadly save us any money to discontinue it.
>
>So, I'd be glad of your collective wisdom.

I've had a mobile phone for almost 30 years. Wouldn't be without it.
I've never received a complaint about not having a landline.

My first internet connection (via Telewest, which became something
else, then became Virgin) came via the phone line, but that changed I
forget how many years ago. I stopped using my landline probably 15
years ago. When I moved to my current address 5 years ago, Virgin
installed a phone socket and gave me a new (geographic) number. I have
never used either. Earlier this year Virgin sent me a device to allow
me to plug a landline phone into my router, and my traditional phone
line no longer functions.

In message <nj97bid4n9b2nbgogrehgmlc9facnol9ea@4ax.com> at Sun, 16 Jul
2023 09:24:47, John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
[]
>I've had a mobile phone for almost 30 years. Wouldn't be without it.
>I've never received a complaint about not having a landline.

You probably aren't a business. I definitely remember, in the earlier
days of mobiles, consumer programmes and the like advising people to be
wary of any trader - or service provider, e. g. building services - who
only offered a mobile number. I grant, I have not heard them give that
advice recently, though I still personally would still use it as a
selection criterion, i. e. if choosing between two such providers who
were broadly similar in other ways (such as price and reputation), I'd
probably go with the one who provided a landline number. (No objection
to them having a mobile _as well_, of course.)
>
>My first internet connection (via Telewest, which became something
>else, then became Virgin) came via the phone line, but that changed I
>forget how many years ago. I stopped using my landline probably 15
>years ago. When I moved to my current address 5 years ago, Virgin
>installed a phone socket and gave me a new (geographic) number. I have
>never used either. Earlier this year Virgin sent me a device to allow
>me to plug a landline phone into my router, and my traditional phone
>line no longer functions.

I presume your broadband is _via_ what was a 'phone line, even if the
actual voice part of that no longer works.

Just out of curiosity, did they tell you that the landline number you
could give out for the "landline" via your router is the same as the one
you had previously? (I appreciate you may not know as you never used
it.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?

Sally Thompson <thompson.stonybrook@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> We are with Zen Internet and they've recently completed our changeover to
> digital voice service. I was able to locate the correct how's your father
> to connect into the back of the modem, and we have a functioning landline.
> However it isn't in a very convenient location and I was wondering if
> any/many of you had ditched the landline altogether and if that had led to
> any problems. The phone isn't anything fancy like the. McToodles needed,
> just a walk-around phone with an answerphone. I've had a look and there are
> only a few people that ring us on the landline. We never use it to ring
> out but always use our mobiles.
>
> It wouldn't sadly save us any money to discontinue it.
>
> So, I'd be glad of your collective wisdom.
>

I tried ringing a girlfriend the other day and thought it was her phone up
the creek, she said she as with Virgin. Anyway, having haggled with Virgin
and found how inflexible they are, she’s junked them and moved to Zen - but
they day in her area they have no landlines. She’s not a big phone user I
think, so has dropped her landline. She was ringing me from her fobile -
and it was cutting out on my spanking new cordless digital! It’ll be
mobile each way from now in, and hope they don’t play up, friends since
1958 so don’t want to lose touch thanks to rubbish technology

Mrs McT

On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:00:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> a
gribouillé dans la poussière...

>You probably aren't a business. I definitely remember, in the earlier
>days of mobiles, consumer programmes and the like advising people to be
>wary of any trader - or service provider, e. g. building services - who
>only offered a mobile number. I grant, I have not heard them give that
>advice recently, though I still personally would still use it as a
>selection criterion, i. e. if choosing between two such providers who
>were broadly similar in other ways (such as price and reputation), I'd
>probably go with the one who provided a landline number. (No objection
>to them having a mobile _as well_, of course.)

I tend to do that too, particularly with builders and roofers. Partly
because they often actually have a secretary who will take a sensible
message and prompt me for things like name, address and phone number which
I'm particularly bad at remembering to leave in a voice mail. I saw my
builder (not recommended) either cancelling an incoming call or blatantly
lying to another customer too many times.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:53:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris
<chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> a gribouillé dans la poussière...

> She’s not a big phone user I
>think, so has dropped her landline. She was ringing me from her fobile -
>and it was cutting out on my spanking new cordless digital! It’ll be
>mobile each way from now in

What technology do the BBC use these days for interviewing people who are
not in the studio. On TV it is usually a face call of some kind, rather
than a photo and a phone call, which is understandable, I suppose. In fact
I have seen an interview recently which I'd heard on the radio the previous
day.

I'm curious because frequently the call fails one way or another and there
are apologies and promises to go back to it when they've 'tried another
line'. Since both internet and mobile phone connections seem to drop far
more frequently than the older tech, I feel we are going backwards :(
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 16/07/2023 14:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <nj97bid4n9b2nbgogrehgmlc9facnol9ea@4ax.com> at Sun, 16 Jul
> 2023 09:24:47, John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
> []
>> I've had a mobile phone for almost 30 years. Wouldn't be without it.
>> I've never received a complaint about not having a landline.
>
> You probably aren't a business. I definitely remember, in the earlier
> days of mobiles, consumer programmes and the like advising people to be
> wary of any trader - or service provider, e. g. building services - who
> only offered a mobile number. I grant, I have not heard them give that
> advice recently, though I still personally would still use it as a
> selection criterion, i. e. if choosing between two such providers who
> were broadly similar in other ways (such as price and reputation), I'd
> probably go with the one who provided a landline number. (No objection
> to them having a mobile _as well_, of course.)
>>
>> My first internet connection (via Telewest, which became something
>> else, then became Virgin) came via the phone line, but that changed I
>> forget how many years ago. I stopped using my landline probably 15
>> years ago.  When I moved to my current address 5 years ago, Virgin
>> installed a phone socket and gave me a new (geographic) number. I have
>> never used either.  Earlier this year Virgin sent me a device to allow
>> me to plug a landline phone into my router, and my traditional phone
>> line no longer functions.
>
> I presume your broadband is _via_ what was a 'phone line, even if the
> actual voice part of that no longer works.

I suspect that it may be fibre. In which case a VOIP 'landline' is your
only option.

--
Kate B

In message <vb98bipdu62jm1i1l24qb22apj4nlht9pm@4ax.com> at Sun, 16 Jul
2023 18:22:29, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
[]
>What technology do the BBC use these days for interviewing people who are
>not in the studio. On TV it is usually a face call of some kind, rather
>than a photo and a phone call, which is understandable, I suppose. In fact
>I have seen an interview recently which I'd heard on the radio the previous
>day.

I think if it's TV, they always use digital - Skype/Zoom/whatever; I
suppose it is nice to have the person visible. But it seems they
virtually never keep an ordinary 'phone line open as a backup, which I'd
have thought was a fairly obvious thing to do - especially as initially,
if the remote person has broadband, they obviously had a 'phone line
(not now, as we're discussing, but when such interviews became the
norm).
>
>I'm curious because frequently the call fails one way or another and there
>are apologies and promises to go back to it when they've 'tried another
>line'. Since both internet and mobile phone connections seem to drop far
>more frequently than the older tech, I feel we are going backwards :(

I can't remember the last time they offered to try, let alone the last
time they succeeded: I think if the digital-with-video call fails, they
just either abandon it or go on to something else, or, if the person was
very important, they just try to re-establish the video link.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"One of my dearest memories is playing the leader of a gang of gay Hell's
Angels
thundering across the Golden Gate bridge on a motorbike in fog, wearing full
Nazi regalia with a young man in a purple dress on the pillion petrified we'd
crash into the bay." Christopher Lee (1997). ["It was in _The Serial_."]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:00:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <nj97bid4n9b2nbgogrehgmlc9facnol9ea@4ax.com> at Sun, 16 Jul
>2023 09:24:47, John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>[]
>>I've had a mobile phone for almost 30 years. Wouldn't be without it.
>>I've never received a complaint about not having a landline.
>
>You probably aren't a business. I definitely remember, in the earlier
>days of mobiles, consumer programmes and the like advising people to be
>wary of any trader - or service provider, e. g. building services - who
>only offered a mobile number. I grant, I have not heard them give that
>advice recently, though I still personally would still use it as a
>selection criterion, i. e. if choosing between two such providers who
>were broadly similar in other ways (such as price and reputation), I'd
>probably go with the one who provided a landline number. (No objection
>to them having a mobile _as well_, of course.)

No, I am not a business, and I agree fully with your remarks about
traders requiring a geographic phone number - and preferably a proper
(snailmail) address, too.
>>
>>My first internet connection (via Telewest, which became something
>>else, then became Virgin) came via the phone line, but that changed I
>>forget how many years ago. I stopped using my landline probably 15
>>years ago. When I moved to my current address 5 years ago, Virgin
>>installed a phone socket and gave me a new (geographic) number. I have
>>never used either. Earlier this year Virgin sent me a device to allow
>>me to plug a landline phone into my router, and my traditional phone
>>line no longer functions.
>
>I presume your broadband is _via_ what was a 'phone line, even if the
>actual voice part of that no longer works.

No, it's a separate cable, as it is also used for cable TV services.

(Despite living within half a mile of the city centre of Scotland's
fourth city, I and many others are served by a "relay" TV transmitter
which has only a very restricted range of channels. Naturally, there
is no reduction in the licence fee for this third-rate service.)
>
>Just out of curiosity, did they tell you that the landline number you
>could give out for the "landline" via your router is the same as the one
>you had previously? (I appreciate you may not know as you never used
>it.)

There was no change to the number.

On 17.7.23 08:51, John Armstrong wrote:
> I and many others are served by a "relay" TV transmitter
> which has only a very restricted range of channels. Naturally, there
> is no reduction in the licence fee for this third-rate service.

Can you receive BBC1 BBC2 BBC3 and BBC4? I believe it is a BBC
television licence?

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 20:55:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> a
gribouillé dans la poussière...

>In message <vb98bipdu62jm1i1l24qb22apj4nlht9pm@4ax.com> at Sun, 16 Jul
>2023 18:22:29, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>[]
>>What technology do the BBC use these days for interviewing people who are
>>not in the studio. On TV it is usually a face call of some kind, rather
>>than a photo and a phone call, which is understandable, I suppose. In fact
>>I have seen an interview recently which I'd heard on the radio the previous
>>day.
>
>I think if it's TV, they always use digital - Skype/Zoom/whatever; I
>suppose it is nice to have the person visible. But it seems they
>virtually never keep an ordinary 'phone line open as a backup, which I'd
>have thought was a fairly obvious thing to do - especially as initially,
>if the remote person has broadband, they obviously had a 'phone line
>(not now, as we're discussing, but when such interviews became the
>norm).
>>
>>I'm curious because frequently the call fails one way or another and there
>>are apologies and promises to go back to it when they've 'tried another
>>line'. Since both internet and mobile phone connections seem to drop far
>>more frequently than the older tech, I feel we are going backwards :(
>
>I can't remember the last time they offered to try, let alone the last
>time they succeeded: I think if the digital-with-video call fails, they
>just either abandon it or go on to something else, or, if the person was
>very important, they just try to re-establish the video link.

It happens a lot on Woman's Hour and phone-in programmes. They do move on
and come back later if it takes more than a few seconds (I imagine someone
holding up a card which says 'You're on mute'). On phone-ins* the
connection is often poor and the sound drops in and out, making the content
unintelligible. It seems to me, from the audience point of view, a
pre-recorded conversation would be a far better option.

* I believe the BBC usually instigates the call - you contact them by phone
or email and they call you back to put you 'live on air'.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 17.7.23 08:51, John Armstrong wrote:
>> I and many others are served by a "relay" TV transmitter
>> which has only a very restricted range of channels. Naturally, there
>> is no reduction in the licence fee for this third-rate service.
>
> Can you receive BBC1 BBC2 BBC3 and BBC4? I believe it is a BBC
> television licence?
>

You say that but….. When it actually comes down to the rhubarb umbrellas,
you are paying for a licence for the right to possess an apparatus capable
of receiving a TV signal - No More - No Less - Not that Auntie gives a
brass razzoo as to whether you have decent reception or the number of
channels you may view!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 17.7.23 08:51, John Armstrong wrote:
>> I and many others are served by a "relay" TV transmitter
>> which has only a very restricted range of channels. Naturally, there
>> is no reduction in the licence fee for this third-rate service.
>
> Can you receive BBC1 BBC2 BBC3 and BBC4? I believe it is a BBC
> television licence?
>

You say that but….. When it actually comes down to the rhubarb umbrellas,
you are paying for a licence for the right to possess an apparatus capable
of receiving a TV signal - No More - No Less - Not that Auntie gives a
brass razzoo as to whether you have decent reception or the number of
channels you may view!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 17.7.23 11:05, Mike McMillan wrote:
> krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>> On 17.7.23 08:51, John Armstrong wrote:
>>> I and many others are served by a "relay" TV transmitter
>>> which has only a very restricted range of channels. Naturally, there
>>> is no reduction in the licence fee for this third-rate service.
>>
>> Can you receive BBC1 BBC2 BBC3 and BBC4? I believe it is a BBC
>> television licence?
>>
>
> You say that but….. When it actually comes down to the rhubarb umbrellas,
> you are paying for a licence for the right to possess an apparatus capable
> of receiving a TV signal - No More - No Less - Not that Auntie gives a
> brass razzoo as to whether you have decent reception or the number of
> channels you may view!
>

You can say that again - oh you did.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

In message <u933oc$149cu$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:05:01,
Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
[]
>You say that but….. When it actually comes down to the rhubarb umbrellas,
>you are paying for a licence for the right to possess an apparatus capable
>of receiving a TV signal - No More - No Less - Not that Auntie gives a
>brass razzoo as to whether you have decent reception or the number of
>channels you may view!
>
Unless it's changed of late, I think you're paying for the right to
_use_ such an apparatus; simple _possession_ thereof does not require
one. Though in theory the onus is on them to prove you are using, in
practice it's more or less on you to prove you aren't - especially as
these days "use" means "view (or record) at the time of transmission,
including by online means rather than via an aerial/dish". ("I haven't
got an aerial - see?" _used_ to be a valid comment, but almost certainly
isn't now.)

The channels received to need a licence are any broadcast (not sure
about pay-cable only - good luck proving the only anyway), not just BBC.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Paxman, the man who has never used one sneer when three would do
- Elizabeth Day, RT 2015/5/2-8

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <u933oc$149cu$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:05:01,
> Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
> []
>> You say that but….. When it actually comes down to the rhubarb umbrellas,
>> you are paying for a licence for the right to possess an apparatus capable
>> of receiving a TV signal - No More - No Less - Not that Auntie gives a
>> brass razzoo as to whether you have decent reception or the number of
>> channels you may view!
>>
> Unless it's changed of late, I think you're paying for the right to
> _use_ such an apparatus; simple _possession_ thereof does not require
> one. Though in theory the onus is on them to prove you are using, in
> practice it's more or less on you to prove you aren't - especially as
> these days "use" means "view (or record) at the time of transmission,
> including by online means rather than via an aerial/dish". ("I haven't
> got an aerial - see?" _used_ to be a valid comment, but almost certainly
> isn't now.)

Which is why I worded the paragraph the way I did Jpeg, it used to be said
that unless you could demonstrate thatthe receiving apparatus couldn’t
receive, (such as the aerial socket being blocked up and the PCB having
tracks cut or whatever), then it was assumed you possessed a working
receiver! As you say, the onus was on the ‘user’ to prove they did not use
any such device.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:04:50 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
<toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> a gribouillé dans la poussière...

>krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>> On 17.7.23 08:51, John Armstrong wrote:
>>> I and many others are served by a "relay" TV transmitter
>>> which has only a very restricted range of channels. Naturally, there
>>> is no reduction in the licence fee for this third-rate service.
>>
>> Can you receive BBC1 BBC2 BBC3 and BBC4? I believe it is a BBC
>> television licence?

Our local cable company (now defunct but still identifying former
subscribers with thick black cables connecting one house to another) was
started in the '60s by retailers who wanted to sell televisions in this
valley. When I moved to this house, my relatively modern TV could get the
signal from it without a subscription. We had a reasonable signal for BBC1
and BBC2, sometimes got ITV and could always receive some cable channel I'd
never heard of, mostly showing sport. I already had a hand-me-up Sky box so
I went out and bought a dish.

These days, with an indoor aerial, I can sometimes get BBC1, BBC2 and ITV
from the relay station on the hill beyond the one the cable company used
(depending on wind and weather), but with wifi on the TV it's not worth the
effort.

>You say that but….. When it actually comes down to the rhubarb umbrellas,
>you are paying for a licence for the right to possess an apparatus capable
>of receiving a TV signal - No More - No Less - Not that Auntie gives a
>brass razzoo as to whether you have decent reception or the number of
>channels you may view!

At least you don't need a radio licence any more.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 5:21:16 PM UTC, Penny wrote:

> At least you don't need a radio licence any more.

You say that but I'd actually be quite happy to pay for a radio licence. I might even be prepared to pay up to GBP159 provided they didn't call it a TV licence and spend the majority of their income on television. I think radio is brilliant and I'd like to support it.

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

In message <e9mabi1kk7aeunhmvghuv5c7570pkpr0dh@4ax.com> at Mon, 17 Jul
2023 18:21:04, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
[]
>These days, with an indoor aerial, I can sometimes get BBC1, BBC2 and ITV
>from the relay station on the hill beyond the one the cable company used
>(depending on wind and weather), but with wifi on the TV it's not worth the
>effort.

They don't have what David Gunson called vans with rotating roofracks
any more: it's all done with a database now (in other words they keep
records of who has a licence, and pester those who don't).
>
>>You say that but….. When it actually comes down to the rhubarb umbrellas,
>>you are paying for a licence for the right to possess an apparatus capable
>>of receiving a TV signal - No More - No Less - Not that Auntie gives a
>>brass razzoo as to whether you have decent reception or the number of
>>channels you may view!

I _think_ it's still IN THEORY down to them to prove you are actually
USING it, though they strongly lead you to believe otherwise.
>
>At least you don't need a radio licence any more.

As another has said, I'd not mind paying a reasonable amount to support
radio - even though I can't remember the last time I listened to
anything other than R4. It wouldn't wash though (and if suggested, might
encourage those who want to turn it into a subscription system).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Who came first? Adam or Eve?" "Adam of course; men always do."
Victoria Wood (via Peter Hesketh)

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 22:18:41 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> a
gribouillé dans la poussière...

>They don't have what David Gunson called vans with rotating roofracks
>any more: it's all done with a database now (in other words they keep
>records of who has a licence, and pester those who don't).

>I _think_ it's still IN THEORY down to them to prove you are actually
>USING it, though they strongly lead you to believe otherwise.

I've probably told you this before, but when I was working in the office at
our cash-strapped village school, there was a TV on a wheeled stand (so it
could be readily moved between classrooms) with a shelf below it for the
video player (all supplied by the fundraising of the Friends of the
School). I had been given a list by the teachers of the schools programmes
they wanted for classroom use that term and I ordered them from the county
education department. It was a free service from County and saved someone
remembering to plug everything in, including the aerial cable, and setting
the VCR to record the correct programmes which were broadcast during the
night. (Do they still do this, along with the Open University lectures?)

When the TV licence renewal letter arrived, I read it carefully and phoned
them up to ask if, as we didn't directly receive any broadcast programmes,
did we need a TV licence. The chap asked a few questions, checked with
someone else, and came back with the answer 'No'. He took us off the
renewal list.

I did report this saving to the Head but nobody told the teachers, who I
found one lunch time watching some sporting event in the reception
classroom - I really should have removed the co-ax cable...
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 16-Jul-23 14:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I grant, I have not heard them give that advice recently, though I still
> personally would still use it as a selection criterion, i. e. if
> choosing between two such providers who were broadly similar in other
> ways (such as price and reputation), I'd probably go with the one who
> provided a landline number. (No objection to them having a mobile _as
> well_, of course.)

Where small businesses are concerned (in this neck of the woods, at
least) that landline-ship sailed quite some time ago.

No-one under the age of <insert wet-finger estimate here, 40 maybe?> has
ever had a landline, nor would see any purpose in having one[1].
Hence small businesses run by such individuals would not offer one.

I have a niece, in her 50s, who has never had a landline.

[1] Once POTS goes the way of the Dodo, a landline becomes a nebulous
concept.

--
Sam Plusnet