TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates and

Re: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates and

Joseph (JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com)
Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:12:53 -0800

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:50:19 -0800, Mark Crispin
<MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> Actually, it matters in that we choose not to fund PBS with voluntary
> contributions, and have been largely successful in eliminating PBS'
> funding from the public treasury.

And you can thank Mark's radical right brethren for that.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:54:02 -0500, Tony P.
<kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> wrote:

> In article <telecom24.44.9@telecom-digest.org>, rob51166@yahoo.com
> says:

>>> So, if I am in the UK with an NTSC TV set (or just a monitor)
>>> connected to a satellite receiver that receives a non-UK satellite
>>> service, I wouldn't have to pay the tax?

>> Yes you would. You own a TV set capable of receiving BBC. Regardless
>> of whether it's NTSC or otherwise it makes no difference these days
>> with modern TV sets.

> I beg to differ. NTSC and PAL are two different animals. The UK and it's
> more recent colonies use PAL if I'm not mistaken. North and South
> America use NTSC.

It's *generally" true that NTSC is used in the Americas. It's also
generally true that NTSC is used in the far east with the major
exception being the PRC (China.)

http://kropla.com/tv.htm (world television standards)

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Scott Dorsey: "Re: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates and"
Go to Previous message: Mark Crispin: "Re: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates)"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page