Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
>> for itself and for other broadcasters.
>
> Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
> completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
> all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
> name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
> the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
> the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
>
> Rod.
>

It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
worse.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:31:35 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
> <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
>>> been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
>>> sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
>>> prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
>>> makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
>>> does it do these days?
>>
>> The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
>> conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.
>
> I'm not ignoring Channel 4. It's simply not relevant to what I was
> talking about. I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch
> either its programmes or anybody else's. There has never been any
> suggestion that Channel 4 is some sort of public service that we
> should all pay for whether we want it or not.
>
> Rod.
>

We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income doesn’t
come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.

On Tue 26/09/2023 10:36, Tweed wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:31:35 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
>> <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
>>>> been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
>>>> sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
>>>> prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
>>>> makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
>>>> does it do these days?
>>>
>>> The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
>>> conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.
>>
>> I'm not ignoring Channel 4. It's simply not relevant to what I was
>> talking about. I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch
>> either its programmes or anybody else's. There has never been any
>> suggestion that Channel 4 is some sort of public service that we
>> should all pay for whether we want it or not.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>
> We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income doesn’t
> come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.
>

Actually, part of the licence fee goes to support Ch4.

Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Tue 26/09/2023 10:36, Tweed wrote:
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:31:35 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
>>> <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
>>>>> been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
>>>>> sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
>>>>> prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
>>>>> makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
>>>>> does it do these days?
>>>>
>>>> The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
>>>> conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.
>>>
>>> I'm not ignoring Channel 4. It's simply not relevant to what I was
>>> talking about. I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch
>>> either its programmes or anybody else's. There has never been any
>>> suggestion that Channel 4 is some sort of public service that we
>>> should all pay for whether we want it or not.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>>
>>
>> We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income doesn’t
>> come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.
>>
>
> Actually, part of the licence fee goes to support Ch4.
>

Are you sure? S4C yes, but I don’t think Ch4 gets anything.

On 26/09/2023 10:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch either its
> programmes or anybody else's.

You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!

Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.

On 26/09/2023 10:36, Tweed wrote:
> We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income
> doesn’t come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.

People moan about what people like Lineker get from the BBC but the
'stars' on ITV and Channel get paid far more and I don't think they have
to disclose how much unlike the BBC.

On 26/09/2023 10:19, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> The wares of large media corps are not paid for out of public money.

Have they got one of Corbyn's Money Trees?

Where do you think the money comes from?

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 10:15:06 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <hq7tgil9irfr76fge...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
> > means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
> > material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
> > for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
> > and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
> > certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.
> Curious when the same people tend not to complain when large media corps
> sell their wares country by country and get whatever they can squeeze out
> of clients.
>
> Jim
> --
> Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
> Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
> biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
> Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

I think in the EU they are trying to stop them doing that (as in USA), but here in the UK people voted for it to continue / resume.

This was how Karen Murphy was acquitted of criminal charges for showing PL footie in her pub - she bought a legit subscription and equipment in the EU. https://www.hospitalitylaw.co.uk/murphy-case-finally-ends-in-victory/

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:42:51 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 26/09/2023 10:19, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> The wares of large media corps are not paid for out of public money.
>
>
>
>Have they got one of Corbyn's Money Trees?
>
>Where do you think the money comes from?
>

They earn it by selling their programmes or by selling advertising
when they broadcast them.

Unlike the BBC, which is effectively given an annual allowance that is
only dependent on the number of people who can be persuaded to pay for
a licence, and not on the quality or popularity of the programmes.

Rod.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:33:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
>>> for itself and for other broadcasters.
>>
>> Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
>> completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
>> all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
>> name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
>> the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
>> the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>
>It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
>I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
>successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
>user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
>worse.

I have a downer on the anachronistic way the BBC is paid for.

Rod.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:39:26 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 26/09/2023 10:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch either its
>> programmes or anybody else's.
>
>
>
>You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
>
>Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
>how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.

We can choose what goods we buy.

Rod.

On 26/09/2023 15:53, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> They earn it by selling their programmes or by selling advertising when
> they broadcast them. Unlike the BBC, which is effectively given an
> annual allowance that is only dependent on the number of people who can
> be persuaded to pay for a licence, and not on the quality or popularity
> of the programmes.

You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product or whether or
not you watch the programme.

It can be a substantial amount of the price of the product.

The only way to avoid is buying unbranded low quality goods that do not
advertise.

In article <ueurt9$2i87l$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product
> or whether or not you watch the programme.

How do I pay for Mazda adverts if I don't buy a Mazda car?

> It can be a substantial amount of the price of the product.

> The only way to avoid is buying unbranded low quality goods that do
> not advertise.

So all good quality items advertise on TV but unbranded goods are low
quality. Is that true?

Bob.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:33:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
>>>> for itself and for other broadcasters.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
>>> completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
>>> all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
>>> name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
>>> the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
>>> the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>>
>>
>> It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
>> I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
>> successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
>> user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
>> worse.
>
> I have a downer on the anachronistic way the BBC is paid for.
>
> Rod.
>

Currently, in a similar fashion to democracy, it’s the least worst option.
Moving to advertising or subscription will suck a huge amount of money out
of UK creative industries. It’s one of the few things that’s currently a
successful British industry. There’s a diminishing amount of advertising
money available to the UK (ask ITV) as an increasing amount is going to the
US Internet giants and everyone, including the US giants are struggling
with the subscription model.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:39:26 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 26/09/2023 10:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch either its
>>> programmes or anybody else's.
>>
>>
>>
>> You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
>>
>> Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
>> how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund anything.
>
> We can choose what goods we buy.
>
> Rod.
>

Which supermarket do you use that doesn’t pay for TV adverts?

On 26/09/2023 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
> On 26/09/2023 15:53, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> They earn it by selling their programmes or by selling advertising
>> when they broadcast them. Unlike the BBC, which is effectively given
>> an annual allowance that is only dependent on the number of people who
>> can be persuaded to pay for a licence, and not on the quality or
>> popularity of the programmes.
>
>
>
> You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product or whether or
> not you watch the programme.
>
> It can be a substantial amount of the price of the product.

And it can snow in Death Valley. Just doesn't happen often.

Economists have debated the effect of advertising on consumer prices for
over a century. I've not seen a generally accepted answer to what
prevails most often between (a) higher prices from the advertising cost
or (b) lower prices from increased turnover and economies of scale.

> The only way to avoid is buying unbranded low quality goods that do not
> advertise.
>

And from a retailer who does not advertise. That seems to me to point
to independents in the high street - the ones closing down.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Tweed wrote:

>
> [SNIP]
>
> ... and everyone, including the US giants are struggling with
> the subscription model.

Indeed... Disney+ now feature an advertising tier on their streaming
platform in the US. Needless to say the 'non-advert' subscription costs
more per month. Meaning you can stream TV shows and still get a couple of
adverts in them if you choose not to pay the premium for the non-advert
subscription option.

What the BBC offer in regards to not featuring adverts in their
programmes is a unique service and it should be cherished... although I
admit that a universal licence fee for everyone with a TV, regardless of
whether they watch the BBC or not, can seem a little unfair on the face
of it.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 11:53:46 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>> We do all pay for Ch4 via the goods and services we buy. Its income doesn???t
>> come out of thin air. See also ITV etc.
>
> Actually, part of the licence fee goes to support Ch4.

No it doesn't. Channel 4 doesn't receive any public money.
Have you been listening to that Dopey bitch Dorries?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:33:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
>>>>> for itself and for other broadcasters.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
>>>> completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
>>>> all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
>>>> name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
>>>> the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
>>>> the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Rod.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
>>> I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
>>> successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
>>> user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
>>> worse.
>>
>> I have a downer on the anachronistic way the BBC is paid for.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>
>Currently, in a similar fashion to democracy, it’s the least worst option.
>Moving to advertising or subscription will suck a huge amount of money out
>of UK creative industries. It’s one of the few things that’s currently a
>successful British industry. There’s a diminishing amount of advertising
>money available to the UK (ask ITV) as an increasing amount is going to the
>US Internet giants and everyone, including the US giants are struggling
>with the subscription model.

If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't that
indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can choose to
pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand will result
in an increase or decrease in the amount of money available to supply
it. This seems much fairer than a constant amount of money extracted
by legal compulsion from everybody whether they want it or not.

Rod.

In article <phn7hit9gnkennlh08luip5khf0bcamfnj@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't
> that indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can
> choose to pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand
> will result in an increase or decrease in the amount of money
> available to supply it. This seems much fairer than a constant
> amount of money extracted by legal compulsion from everybody
> whether they want it or not.

Indeed yes.

We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that
myself.

If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing
round the block to advertise on this prestige channel. Same is true
for the subscription model, if its that good it will sell.

It all depends if the market thinks it's worth it which is how it
should be for a none essential service/offering.

Bob.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:33:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
>>>>>> for itself and for other broadcasters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
>>>>> completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
>>>>> all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
>>>>> name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
>>>>> the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
>>>>> the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC operating on a commercial basis.
>>>> I know you have a downer on the BBC, but it is part of a very rich and
>>>> successful UK media environment. Having seen what is available to the end
>>>> user in both the USA and many European countries, all the alternatives seem
>>>> worse.
>>>
>>> I have a downer on the anachronistic way the BBC is paid for.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>>
>>
>> Currently, in a similar fashion to democracy, it’s the least worst option.
>> Moving to advertising or subscription will suck a huge amount of money out
>> of UK creative industries. It’s one of the few things that’s currently a
>> successful British industry. There’s a diminishing amount of advertising
>> money available to the UK (ask ITV) as an increasing amount is going to the
>> US Internet giants and everyone, including the US giants are struggling
>> with the subscription model.
>
> If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't that
> indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can choose to
> pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand will result
> in an increase or decrease in the amount of money available to supply
> it. This seems much fairer than a constant amount of money extracted
> by legal compulsion from everybody whether they want it or not.
>
> Rod.
>

The advertising spend isn’t diminishing (plus minus variations due to the
state of the economy). The big change is it is all heading to the USA into
the coffers of Alphabet and Meta. They’ve already more or less killed off
our local press and local commercial radio is retrenching.

In article <uep96l$1bd5l$1@dont-email.me>, David Wade
<g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:

> > IIUC the BBC already can make income from selling its own programmes
> > abroad for other broadcasters to then show. If so, it would seem
> > reasonable for them to be allowed to run a service for this under
> > their own brand, then using the income to benefit making programmes.
> >

> The problem isn't BBC generated, its content they buy from elsewhere.
> The owners of that would be very unhappy if the BBC showed elsewhere...

That's fairy snuff. But it should be possible to have a scheme to allow
access to the BBC material for people who can 'buy a license' abroad. I
guess, though that other 'media makers' might regard that with a lack of
cheer...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5aea60e87cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <phn7hit9gnkennlh08luip5khf0bcamfnj@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> > If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't
> > that indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can
> > choose to pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand
> > will result in an increase or decrease in the amount of money
> > available to supply it. This seems much fairer than a constant
> > amount of money extracted by legal compulsion from everybody
> > whether they want it or not.

> Indeed yes.

> We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
> something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
> quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that
> myself.

> If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing
> round the block to advertise on this prestige channel. Same is true
> for the subscription model, if its that good it will sell.

> It all depends if the market thinks it's worth it which is how it
> should be for a none essential service/offering.

When MT set up an investigation (The Peacock Committee) into how the BBC
should be funded, ITV were horrified that the BBC might take advertising.
There wouldn't be enough for them.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 09:58:10 UTC+1, Tweed wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> > <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
SNIP
> >
> The advertising spend isn’t diminishing (plus minus variations due to the
> state of the economy). The big change is it is all heading to the USA into
> the coffers of Alphabet and Meta. They’ve already more or less killed off
> our local press and local commercial radio is retrenching.

Who has?

Local media was already waning well before the rise of internet media. Our local rag was acquired by Trinity Mirror three decades ago and subsumed.

In many other case it is just consolidation - The Times is now mostly online and a web site can hold far more information, including more local information, and be kept more up to date than a printed paper (notwithstanding the 1,000_ pages of the New York Times in the 80's).

Of course media companies do not always help themselves - for instance we used to take the Times, but James Murdoch decided that even if you bought a paper copy then you would have to pay again to access the online copy the same day - so now I don't buy either. Similarly Trinity Mirror sites are absolutely plagued with pop ups, response boxes and other Java tricks making the frenetic site almost not worth using unless you have a very good reason (e.g. local public transport break down).

On 26/09/2023 11:58, Tweed wrote:
> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>>
>> Actually, part of the licence fee goes to support Ch4.
>>
>
> Are you sure? S4C yes, but I don’t think Ch4 gets anything.

C4 has never received a penny of licence fee money.

In fact they were so fed up with Woody et al spreading the urban myth
that they do, that there was once a FAQ on their corporate website
stating as such.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.