• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

TV detector vans

ungoliant said:
that's right. i'll give my money to some greedy corporation BUT I'LL BE DAMNED IF I GIVE IT TO SOME COLLECTIVE COMMIE-LIKE INSTUTION LIKE A "GOVERNMENT"!

ps, i work for the world's largest media corporation and i don't even get free cable! in fact, i suspect they are charging me extra.....
Click to expand...

The government don't get the fee as profit, it is used to make television programmes. You get what you pay for:

BBC1
BBC2
BBC3
BBC4
News 24
BBC Parliament
CBBC
CBeebies
Radio 1 2 3 4 5Live 6Music 7
Regional TV studios
Regional radio stations including national channels for Wales, NI and Scotland
bbc.co.uk
No commercials

I expect that the money used to run the licencing authority comes from the fines they generate, but I can't find a source for that yet.

What is annoying is that you cannot opt out of these channels and avoid paying for your licence. If you want to receive ANY channels, you need a licence, which is the bit that's unfair.

The only way to not have to buy a licence is to do what I do, and not receive any channels at all. I didn't choose to do that to avoid the fee, but it's an added benefit. I recommend a TV-free life, you have much more time for...

...repeating yourself on internet message boards.
 
I recommend a TV-free life, you have much more time for...

...repeating yourself on internet message boards.
Click to expand...

i've lived w/o a TV several times and for years at a time. i didn't miss it.

but then i saw it again, and i was reminded of all the learning that is possible if you watch responsibly. and i believe it is better to have one and to be choosy about what you watch.

i love the science channel, and discovery, and discovery times, and history, and health, and cspan, and even music tv is good. when they show music.
 
am i the only person who automatically thought of the "cat detector van" from the eric the half bee skit?

i laughed for about an hour after thinking about it................i need help.
 
ungoliant said:
but then i saw it again, and i was reminded of all the learning that is possible if you watch responsibly. and i believe it is better to have one and to be choosy about what you watch.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Unfortunately, I wasn't disciplined enough to be selective, and found myself watching Friends and Frasier. I believe I also sat through an entire Jerry Springer weekend marathon.

I quit TV when Big Brother became more important to most people than their own lives.
 
tkingdoll said:
I completely agree. Unfortunately, I wasn't disciplined enough to be selective, and found myself watching Friends and Frasier. I believe I also sat through an entire Jerry Springer weekend marathon.

I quit TV when Big Brother became more important to most people than their own lives.
Click to expand...

oh, my sympathies! friends and frasier! yowza!

my girlfriend watches gilmore girls. what a crap show. i usually goto the bedroom and read or i go out.

i don't put her down or anything, but lordy, what a waste of time.
 
ZirconBlue said:
Ya gotta love the TV snobs.
Click to expand...

Tkingdoll is walking innocently along the thread, humming to herself and swinging a basket of cookies she baked for Cleon.

Suddenly, she spies something shiny lying on the floor.

"What's this?" she exclaims, kneeling to examine it, "why, it looks like BAIT. I think I'll take it!"

And that's exactly what she did.

Explain yourself, Mr Blue.
 
I understand that the fee is for receiving TV signals and not for just owning a TV. But is the license related to the TV set or not? If you borrow a TV set from your friend who has a license, do you need to get your own license? Also, if you have 2 TV sets set up to receive TV signals do you need 2 licenses or is 1 license per residence ok? What if you own 2 homes (with multiple sets in each home)? Help me understand, I'm a Yank!

LLH
 
LordoftheLeftHand said:
I understand that the fee is for receiving TV signals and not for just owning a TV. But is the license related to the TV set or not? If you borrow a TV set from your friend who has a license, do you need to get your own license? Also, if you have 2 TV sets set up to receive TV signals do you need 2 licenses or is 1 license per residence ok? What if you own 2 homes (with multiple sets in each home)? Help me understand, I'm a Yank!

LLH
Click to expand...

If you borrow a set from a friend and put it in your house with an aerial attached and tune it in, then sit and watch Eastenders, then yes, you would need a licence. The same applies to those odd 'rental' schemes where you hire your TV and don't actually own it.

You only need 1 licence per home, so you can have as many sets as you like as long as they are within the same address, although there are different rules for business and public premises, e.g. hospital common rooms.

If you own two homes with a TV in each, you need two licences.

Hope that clears it up for you!
 
ktesibios said:
There already is. It's called the "local oscillator" (if you don't know what that is, see here).

It's common for the LOs of commercial broadcast receivers to radiate enough signal to pick up on another receiver. Designing an antenna/receiver system specifically for the purpose of detecting the LO radiation from a TV set from a few dozen yards away shouldn't be beyond the bounds of feasibility.

If you can pick up the LO radiation from a TV receiver not only will that confirm the receiver's operation, but the LO frequency will give away what channel the set is tuned to.
Click to expand...

I know what the LO is. I suppose it's possible. Not sure that alone would be proof of "watching" tv. I doubt that would be a very effective method of detecting a TV set, can't imagine the LO radiation would be significantly strong enough. But it's in interesting idea, I won't discount it.
 
Wow, $220 a year seems like a lot. Here in the USA my cable bill is $300 a year and that pays for maybe 150 channels (but most of them have commercials). Do these channels have commercials as well?

LLH
 
tkingdoll said:
You get what you pay for:

BBC1
BBC2
BBC3
BBC4
News 24
BBC Parliament
CBBC
CBeebies
Radio 1 2 3 4 5Live 6Music 7
Regional TV studios
Regional radio stations including national channels for Wales, NI and Scotland
bbc.co.uk
No commercials
Click to expand...
I guess tkingdoll already answered my question.

LLH
 
"No, no, no and no.

I AM NOT SAYING IT AGAIN!!!!

Oh, alright, I guess I am saying it again *takes a deep breath*.

If the TV was not connected to anything, then moopet will not, cannot, shall not be prosecuted. I'm going to shout, only because I want people to understand this bit: (etc) "-tkingdoll.

tk- There's a mismatch between practise and theory. In theory, for instance, the law supposes innocence until a reasonable case for guilt can be made. TVLUK operate very differently. Their default assumption (They have stated this in letters to me), is that where there is no evidence of a licence at a given address, the owner or tenant is operating a TV without a licence. (They are probably right in a fair percentage of cases. ) They then operate by repeated harassment, veiled threat and innuendo. The plan is that some people will be scared into buying a licence- and many are. hence the billboard ad campaigns - the latest of which specifically mention using computers to watch TV.
The threat of prosecution is used in some cases as a final lever to make people pay up. Most of the people so pressured are low income, often single parents, often poorly educated and with no access to legal advice. It's bluff, but it works or they would have changed tactics long since.

There are prosecutions though. If it goes that far, it's usually after a TVLUK agent has actually seen a set in the non-licensed premises. Whether it was plugged in or not is a matter of his word against the owner's. At that point it's up to the court to decide whether the owner should be fined or not.
TVLUK wants some prosecutions, because the publicity scares other people into paying. They don't want ones they might lose, for the same reason, so someone who steadfastly sticks to his story is unlikely to be chosen. They don't want too many, because that implies their methods are not proving effective.
They prefer easy targets: Articulate people with lawyers are unlikely to be hassled beyond the repeated letters.

For most people- who own a TV and have a licence- this is all a non issue. They never get the letters, they never even think about it and they probably feel licence dodgers deserve to pay up.

I see the whole issue from a different perspective. I don't have a TV and I don't see why I should be treated as a criminal. Hence the constant high-pitched whine . I won't go to the stake over this, but I would certainly go to court. TVLUK must realise that by now. I expect the letters to stop for a year or two and then to start again when the computer thinks I might have moved house.
 
Soapy Sam said:
"No, no, no and no.

I AM NOT SAYING IT AGAIN!!!!

Oh, alright, I guess I am saying it again *takes a deep breath*.

If the TV was not connected to anything, then moopet will not, cannot, shall not be prosecuted. I'm going to shout, only because I want people to understand this bit: (etc) "-tkingdoll.

tk- There's a mismatch between practise and theory. In theory, for instance, the law supposes innocence until a reasonable case for guilt can be made. TVLUK operate very differently. Their default assumption (They have stated this in letters to me), is that where there is no evidence of a licence at a given address, the owner or tenant is operating a TV without a licence. (They are probably right in a fair percentage of cases. ) They then operate by repeated harassment, veiled threat and innuendo. The plan is that some people will be scared into buying a licence- and many are. hence the billboard ad campaigns - the latest of which specifically mention using computers to watch TV.
The threat of prosecution is used in some cases as a final lever to make people pay up. Most of the people so pressured are low income, often single parents, often poorly educated and with no access to legal advice. It's bluff, but it works or they would have changed tactics long since.

There are prosecutions though. If it goes that far, it's usually after a TVLUK agent has actually seen a set in the non-licensed premises. Whether it was plugged in or not is a matter of his word against the owner's. At that point it's up to the court to decide whether the owner should be fined or not.
TVLUK wants some prosecutions, because the publicity scares other people into paying. They don't want ones they might lose, for the same reason, so someone who steadfastly sticks to his story is unlikely to be chosen. They don't want too many, because that implies their methods are not proving effective.
They prefer easy targets: Articulate people with lawyers are unlikely to be hassled beyond the repeated letters.

For most people- who own a TV and have a licence- this is all a non issue. They never get the letters, they never even think about it and they probably feel licence dodgers deserve to pay up.

I see the whole issue from a different perspective. I don't have a TV and I don't see why I should be treated as a criminal. Hence the constant high-pitched whine . I won't go to the stake over this, but I would certainly go to court. TVLUK must realise that by now. I expect the letters to stop for a year or two and then to start again when the computer thinks I might have moved house.
Click to expand...

My experience with them has been somewhat different to this. Whenever I've moved house (several times in the past few years), I've phoned them to say that I don't require a licence as my set is not connected to an aerial and is only used for watching DVDs. They always send the same patronising letter saying "thanks for letting us know. In our experience, many people who think they do not need a licence are mistaken. Therefore, we reserve the right to send our inspectors to check." They never have, however, and furthermore, they are not allowed to send me any more letters for a period of three years (actually it may be two years, I'll dig out the letter and check). I think some people have taken them to court for harassment and won, I'll look for a source.

If the inspectors did come round, they would have to look at the back of the set to ensure it's not connected to an aerial. They would also ask me to switch it on and scroll through the channels to make sure there is no signal. If there is not, they cannot prosecute. Yes, if that inspector decided to lie on his report, you'd be a bit shafted I suppose, but it's unlikely as he'd have to lie in court, too.

But if you genuinely do not need a licence and you're well informed enough to let them know in the right way, they will leave you alone. I think the problem arises if you buy a TV but don't bother to call them to explain what it's for (or not for). Yes, you shouldn't HAVE to call them, but a two minute call saves a lot of hassle later. I can understand their default position that EVERYONE watches TV, I would be willing to bet that 99.9% of the population do.
 
Excellent quotes from http://www.tvlicensing.biz/

"A television licence is legal permission to install and use television equipment to receive or record television broadcast signals. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, you need a television licence to receive or record television programmes. This applies if you use equipment to receive or record BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, or cable programs. If you are watching 'Sky', or any other satellite service, controlled from within the UK, you must have a television licence.", M. W. D. Kimball Customer Services.

"When you only use a TV for:
- playing video games
- watch pre-recorded videos [VCR/DVD]*
- closed circuit monitoring [CCD]
- displaying -for example- presentations using your PC
Then -again- you do NOT need a TV licence.

All of the above are isolated set-ups as they are not connected to an aerial. Make sure, however, to detune TV receiving equipment as such that it only displays noise whatever channel chosen. "

Also, further info on viewing over the Internet (and good news for me!):

"An interesting case here ...

The BBC faces losing hundreds of thousands of pounds in licence fees because of a legal loophole that allows viewers to watch television on the internet for free. Soaring take-up of broadband and technological developments are making internet-streamed television a reality. Last summer, for the first time, the BBC broadcast coverage of the Olympic Games 2004 live on the internet for people to watch on their computers. It has promised to put further broadcasts on the internet as part of a corporate social responsibility drive aimed at boosting broadband take-up and preventing users "falling on the wrong side of the digital divide".

However, although the licensing authorities maintain that anyone watching television on their computer would need a television licence, Ofcom, the communications regulator, and the Department for Culture, question that claim.

Ofcom says that there is a grey area as to whether a licence is required for watching television on the internet.

A spokesman for the Department for Culture said initially that a licence would not be needed and that it was "monitoring the situation".

However, it later said that it would be "inappropriate for the Government to comment on licensing requirements . . . for specific types of equipment".

... So if you receive programme services, live via the internet, for example, BBC On-line [Newsnight is one such broadcast], then you do NOT need to buy a TV Licence."
 
"... So if you receive programme services, live via the internet, for example, BBC On-line [Newsnight is one such broadcast], then you do NOT need to buy a TV Licence."- tkingdoll
Yes, that seems to be the legal situation at the moment, though if you have an RF tuner in the PC of course, you do need a licence, because it's aTV in all but name. I'm willing to bet though, that TVLUK in its public ads and in letters will continue with its present deliberate ambiguity, because they know that some people will buy a licence even if they don't legally require one, just to be safe, or do the "right" thing.

The government needs to wake up and smell the coffee. In a few years, mobile phones will be able to receive TV. The technology will continue to render the licence concept more and more ridiculous. It needs to be rethought completely.
 
Soapy Sam said:
The government needs to wake up and smell the coffee. In a few years, mobile phones will be able to receive TV. The technology will continue to render the licence concept more and more ridiculous. It needs to be rethought completely.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Let's face it, they had to abolish the radio licence when every car and "ghetto blaster" (ha ha!) was receiving the signal. If it's not policeable, then it's not enforceable.

I think the licence's days are numbered and there are plenty of precedents in other countries which have abolished similar schemes. I give it five years, we'll resurrect this thread in 2011 and claim the million.
 
tkingdoll said:
Tkingdoll is walking innocently along the thread, humming to herself and swinging a basket of cookies she baked for Cleon.

Suddenly, she spies something shiny lying on the floor.

"What's this?" she exclaims, kneeling to examine it, "why, it looks like BAIT. I think I'll take it!"

And that's exactly what she did.

Explain yourself, Mr Blue.
Click to expand...

:D Brilliant!

I guess what I was trying to say, is that I am just tired of (what I perceive to be) people looking down their noses at those of us who enjoy television as entertainment. "I don't even own a television." "I own a television, but I only use it to what esoteric foreign art films on BetaMax/Laserdisc." "I only watch boring television, such as the Senate Hearings on the Exploitation of Breakfast Cereal Mascots miniseries currently running on C-SPAN 2." Puh-lease!

Television is a just another medium, no more or less worthy than any other. There is bad television, in the same way that there are bad books, bad movies, bad comics, etc. And, where you have creators that take full advantage of the medium's stengths you get some outstanding programs that stand right up there with the outstanding achievements in film, comics, books, etc.

Now, whether the public should be forced to pay for it, as a "public service" is another matter entirely....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom