APPENDIX 16
Memorandum submitted by Mr T Appleyard
It has been noted that Government has many regulatory
bodies, however, when you ask who should deal with what no[one]
can tell you and the problem goes round in circles without resolution.
Whether you have an individual regulator or not we find that where
the law is concerned we have Parliament's answer but when the
matter is scrutinised the judge gives another. Where does this
leave Government and legislation? This will also affect the regulator.
In fact they like everyone else cannot find out the meaning of
the law they apply and can like everyone else only get or give
an opinion. Will all the official bodies under one regulator be
able to resolve the problem of the Government's law, its application,
what it means and enforcing it when no-one has managed this since
Parliament began.
At the present time the common answer is yes,
the law does apply but we do not know the answer and no you cannot
enquire within the judicial system because this is not how a law
works. It is your opinion against another and neither of you know
the answer. With hindsight you may find out from a judge but we
are told by all that this is not the case so all the questions
go without answer and the law.
Will the system work to the benefit of justice
or a legacy of a system no-one has looked at? How can the regulator
give legal answer unless he can tell us what the law means? This
they cannot do. They cannot rely on a judge to tell them after
the event as this is not the working of the law. You cannot have
a law which says we told you so after but this is how the law
works and everyone relies on it without question or reason. If
there is a new law will this have any benefit when we cannot find
out what it means and we only get opinions? We in the end have
no law although Parliament tells us we have.
Would the law be the application of the law
or something later and a person's opinion? You cannot resolve
the question of the law unless you look at the system.
At the present time digital television is in
fact analogue. The television is sold as digital with a set top
box or one inside. This does not make the television digital.
Trade description law would indicate that the digital description
is a problem which the regulating bodies may wish to avoid.
Digital television is only in theory as digital
is pay to view where the signal is jumbled up to make you pay
to view. If an analogue television displays digital as is used
at present how can it be digital?
Digital claims that narrow band width retains
high definition pictures but the television companies had broad
band licences for quality. You cannot have it both ways.
Consumers are being told their analogue televisions
are digital but no-one has explained how it can be where there
are no digital televisions made and sold according to information
form Philips Electronics as quoted over the media.
No-one has said what will happen to television
when the only company is Sky is reported to be subsidised by it
parent company. Is this to be wide variety or a monopoly? Is it
to be terrestrial or via a satellite?
We are boldly told that the signal will go where
no other goes, however, for the switching technology to work to
scramble the signal to make you pay to view then you need a strong
direct line of sight signal as UHF and microwaves are not affected
by atmospheric conditions to move the signal around.
According to reports from the Medway area, many
who now get television although poor would not get scramble and
pay to view called digital on a television set. This would happen
up and down the country and who would want the enforced cost down
a telephone line or cable? Cables systems overload and have problems.
Analogue switch-off is again a policy statement
and not a practical application. There is once again turn it off
and find out later when only the same low number of viewers and
not everyone fill the coffers of the company no-one has control
over and which may shut down tomorrow. Will it follow the dotty.com
scenario?
Communications and television is too wide a
topic to be left it its "talking up" then the provision
of a television not yet designed for which there are no standards
set and none made.
As the trading standards once said about matters
like this, that because the signal said stereo sound, it does
not mean the set is. The same can be said of the set top box or
set top box inside with an analogue television called digital.
Is the Government to lose its way with limiting
the signal to those who turn it off if you do not pay to view?
Are we being told the truth about non-existent
digital where the box holds you to ransom? Is it more to do with
the sale of goods from shops, advertising and the like? No-one
has explained what digital is other than pay to view. Is this
public broadcasting or private? What happens when the company
goes bust and everyone pays a lot of money for a television with
no signal apart from outer space from a dish?
How are you going to explain that the digital
television they have just bought works no differently to the analogue
television they had at a fraction of the price?
You can make a bill. Where will this stand in
law? Will you be taking people to court because they cannot know
the meaning of the law and can only get an opinion so that the
judge says my opinion is and this replaces Government's law!
5 December 2001
| 
