TV Licensing

[sprinterguy]

True, I'd somehow overlooked the BBC specific tenet of the argument.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I actually don't mind paying for the BBC- hell would be a life with only ITV for company- I just deeply dislike the fact they can send people to prison for not paying them. In a modern society it is completely inappropriate.

 

[Busaholic]

I actually don't mind paying for the BBC- hell would be a life with only ITV for company- I just deeply dislike the fact they can send people to prison for not paying them. In a modern society it is completely inappropriate.

The moral of the story is, before one stashes one's ill-gotten gains in a Swiss bank account in the sure knowledge you'll never be prosecuted if the British tax authorities find out, make sure you keep back a hundred and odd quid for that TV licence because, as you say, you'd get not only get a criminal conviction but possibly a jail sentence for such a heinous crime

 

[Bevan Price]

They don't get tricked, they get bullied. When you have some 16-stone yob screaming and spitting in your face- a thug who is paid by Capita (yes, them again) purely based on the number of people he "catches"- it takes a lot of strength to get him out. Even if you know your rights and are not easily bullied, it takes a lot to stay calm and force him to leave.

As for the TV detector vans, they're mostly gone now because people know the technology can't exist. Even if the technology existed it wouldn't be able to tell which flat in a block of ten had a TV switched on. The way they catch people now is an electoral roll, a list of unlicensed properties, and peeking through your curtains.

The technology did exist for older TV sets using cathode ray tubes. They could detect in which room a TV was switched on, and apparently which programme you were watching. Not sure if it still works for current flat screen TVs.

 

[Hadders]

I listened to a programme on Radio 4 a couple of years ago on TV detector vans. It gave the impression that most of them were a just empty vans driving round.

The technology was nowhere near good enough to do what they claimed.

 

[ainsworth74]

The technology did exist for older TV sets using cathode ray tubes. They could detect in which room a TV was switched on, and apparently which programme you were watching. Not sure if it still works for current flat screen TVs.

It absolutely does not exist now and as far as I'm aware even if the technology did exist it was never deployed.

 

[jon0844]

There were ways to see what was being shown on a TV/monitor before, and I assume only for CRT sets. There was a concern at one point of people able to see confidential information on computer monitors in offices using similar equipment. In fact, I'd be inclined to believe that was a genuine problem, but the vans weren't actually doing anything at all beyond trying to **** people up.

I suspect LCD displays can't be seen in this way, and I am pretty sure you can't detect a tuner on a set top box either. Certainly not anything being streamed, unless you're monitoring the packets being sent/received - which is likely beyond what Capita would be allowed access to!

In other words, if you never let them in and told them to go away every single time, I'm sure you could get away without ever buying a licence even if you needed one. It would still, however, be illegal.

 

[dosxuk]

It absolutely does not exist now and as far as I'm aware even if the technology did exist it was never deployed.

The main way they used to work was by detecting the EMF that the CRT was producing. With all the high voltages floating around in the back of a CRT, they're quite electrically noisy and with a sensitive and directional enough detector it becomes trivial to find a CRT display from a fair distance away. And also, because this EMF was being triggered by the frame sync of the programme being watched, you can simply compare when it happened to the live broadcasts at the time and work out which channel was being watched. Most high school physics labs probably have sufficient equipment to demonstrate the theory.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You could sort of detect the electrical noise from CRT sets. It wasn't enough to prove that a tv was receiving live broadcast, or in later years that the CRT set was even a TV, which is why the evidence was never used in court.

They sounded like a scary threat, back in the
days when people cared less about privacy, but they never really existed.

The only way to catch remains peeking through the curtains or trapping people into a confession.

 

[richw]

You could sort of detect the electrical noise from CRT sets. It wasn't enough to prove that a tv was receiving live broadcast, or in later years that the CRT set was even a TV, which is why the evidence was never used in court.

They sounded like a scary threat, back in the
days when people cared less about privacy, but they never really existed.

The only way to catch remains peeking through the curtains or trapping people into a confession.

Peeking through the curtains doesn't proof anything. How do they know whether I'm watching the Eastenders that is on now, or last nights episode on demand.

Sticking with Eastenders, could you watch it on I player from the original screening if it is repeated later on BBC3, or plus one without a TV licence

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I listened to a programme on Radio 4 a couple of years ago on TV detector vans. It gave the impression that most of them were a just empty vans driving round.

The technology was nowhere near good enough to do what they claimed.

It absolutely does not exist now and as far as I'm aware even if the technology did exist it was never deployed.

The main way they used to work was by detecting the EMF that the CRT was producing. With all the high voltages floating around in the back of a CRT, they're quite electrically noisy and with a sensitive and directional enough detector it becomes trivial to find a CRT display from a fair distance away. And also, because this EMF was being triggered by the frame sync of the programme being watched, you can simply compare when it happened to the live broadcasts at the time and work out which channel was being watched. Most high school physics labs probably have sufficient equipment to demonstrate the theory.

I can confirm this.
Several of the vans were 'dummies' in that they were not equipped but presented the face of policing TV users. A few vans were equipped and did easily detect 2 of a user's TV set's unscreened identifying signals:
1. the very high voltage (over 100v) video intensity signal, and
2. the high voltage horizontal and vertical scan signals (due to their massive coil windings, they generated intense electromagnetic fields).

As dosxuk says, the H & V scan could identify one channel from another, but not neccesarily and conclusively, so without the realtime video signal as well, no conclusive proof could be provided in all instances, as to which channel was being displayed.
Anyway, the whole concept was based on the detection of signals remotely and attempting to identify the source. It might have been highly successful in communities of dispersed suburban bungalows, but in dense blocks of flats, was utterly incapable of providing robust evidence (though probably was as useful in frightening dodgers into paying as today's barrage of automated letters).
The technology of those detector vans is incapable of detecting a user's viewing behaviour on today's equipment for several reasons, despite the relatively high voltages that have to be generated in a flat screen TV.

. . . . it becomes trivial to find a CRT display from a fair distance away. . . . .

There was an experimental set up / party trick / scam by CCTV-avoiding crooks, which exploited that 'trivial' detection of a remote display.

 

[infobleep]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659

The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said.

The fee is "becoming harder and harder to justify" given changes in the media, according to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead.

The BBC said it agreed the licence fee needed to be modernised.

The select committee's proposals were made in a new report about the future of the BBC.

I wonder what long term proposals could be implemented that couldn't done in the short term?

If not paying the fee was decriminalised the BBC would lose £200 million so it's claimed. If catch up TV was included in the need for a licence fee, how much would use BBC made. If it was about £200 million or even more, could one not offset the other.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Peeking through the curtains doesn't proof anything. How do they know whether I'm watching the Eastenders that is on now, or last nights episode on demand.

Sticking with Eastenders, could you watch it on I player from the original screening if it is repeated later on BBC3, or plus one without a TV licence

You need to be covered by a TV licence to watch, or record, TV as it is being broadcast, regardless of medium used. This includes '+1' channels.

So you do not need a TV licence to watch this 'Eastenders' programme, of which you speak, on iPlayer after it has finished on BBC1 and before or after it is shown again on BBC3.

Slightly interesting is that, without a TV Licence, it seems as though you can watch the 'on demand' program (from BBC1) through iPlayer at the same time as the repeat is broadcast on BBC3, but you can't use iPlayer to watch the repeat on BBC3.

 

[jon0844]

I can see things being changed fairly quickly to include on demand, although enforcement is going to be another thing completely.

Of course, it's like not buying a train ticket because you know there's no staff or gates at the end station. It's still not acceptable to do it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can't. Bringing "on demand" services into the realm of the TV Tax will require changes to legislation. The legislation can be changed fairly easily- it is secondary legislation- but I can't see any political party having the political will to do so.

 

[jon0844]

I am sure it will have to. More and more people are using on demand all the time, and some people may well be perfectly happy to ONLY watch on demand.

Perhaps not even to be able to avoid the licence fee, but just because on demand is so much more convenient for all but things like live TV or news.

 

[infobleep]

I am sure it will have to. More and more people are using on demand all the time, and some people may well be perfectly happy to ONLY watch on demand.

Perhaps not even to be able to avoid the licence fee, but just because on demand is so much more convenient for all but things like live TV or news.

I know people who don't pay a licence fee and only watch on demand. They don't watch loads of TV so are quite happy just doing that for the small amount they do watch.

Interesting that the BBC doesn't make its news programmes available on demand but you can get individual news reports on their news Web Site, if the report has been made available on there that is.

 

[jon0844]

On my Now TV box there's a BBC app (actually some of my TVs have the app too) and you get a rolling news report using pre-recorded news clips that run through in a playlist (before repeating). I am not sure if upon repeating it will insert any new story if it's been added, or if you need to restart it.

It's pretty much like BBC News without all the silly links, weather forecasts and ads for other BBC programmes!

 

[Smethwickian]

No different to the BBC forcing you to pay for its content even if you have no desire to watch it.

I hate most of the garbage on ITV/ITV2/ITVbe etc including endless soaps, reality shows, wall-to-wall Ant-and-or-Dec, etc etc. I would gladly do without it. But I'm forced to pay for it even if I throw my TV out of the window and tear up my TV licence.

Same goes for the garbage spewed out by endless pop-and-prattle commercial radio stations (which are mostly part of national chains and no longer, contrary to the impression also given by posters on this forum, have any significant local remit or content)

Oh, yes I am forced to pay for it.

Can anyone say they live their whole lives without using any product, supermarket, car, energy supplier, bank, insurance firm, holiday company, tin of beans, fashion brand or even funeral firm that has ever advertised on commercial radio or TV? Part of your shopping bill on any such item, service or product is reimbursing the spending on ITV whether you like it or not. And I find that far harder to appreciate than a simple, transparent payment for the diverse - and mostly good quality - output of the BBC.

 

[table38]

But I still have the choice to seek out many thousands of products, companies and organisations that don't use TV advertising if I felt so inclined. Indeed, I have often avoided companies whose advertising was particularly irritating as I felt I shouldn't be encouraging them

With the BBC's regressive TV Tax, I have no choice if I want to watch any live TV. It's like saying I must pay Waitrose even though I chose to shop elsewhere.

 

[yorksrob]

Frankly, given the choice between a bit of mild stateism or having to put up with endless crapverts about on line gambling and payday lenders on the TV and radio all the time, I choose publicly funded leviathan any day.

Doesn't fit in with what our friends at the Institute for Economic Affairs think we should believe, but that's just tough I'm afraid.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...al-overhaul-of-how-it-is-funded-10078945.html

The BBC will back a radical overhaul of the licence fee, paving the way for the end of the current system of funding the state broadcaster, the Corporation’s head, Tony Hall, is expected to say today.
In a speech to staff at Broadcasting House, Lord Hall is expected to indicate the Corporation’s backing for a broadcasting levy that would apply to every household, regardless of whether they have a television.

Apparently the idea is this tax would be incorporated into council tax.
Brilliant idea, this could herald a raft of other charges for things people don't have or want the list is endless.

 

[Busaholic]

97% of people in the U.K watch or listen to the BBC's output: it is irrelevant whether it is live, one hour later or one week or even month later. It has to be paid for somehow and everyone availing themselves of it should be paying IMO. Some of those arguing on here that they shouldn't be paying would be the first to be outraged if it was suggested that it didn't matter if some people got away without paying a train fare, on the grounds presumably that the train was running anyway!

 

[infobleep]

97% of people in the U.K watch or listen to the BBC's output: it is irrelevant whether it is live, one hour later or one week or even month later. It has to be paid for somehow and everyone availing themselves of it should be paying IMO. Some of those arguing on here that they shouldn't be paying would be the first to be outraged if it was suggested that it didn't matter if some people got away without paying a train fare, on the grounds presumably that the train was running anyway!

Of course if everyone who pays council tax has to pay then anyone exempt from paying council tax wouldn't have to pay. Aka students. Anyone on benefits would be able to pay less too.

Overall the numbers paying might still be higher, which might mean the costs people pay individually towards the BBC might be able to go down.

Unfortunately it would mean the TV licencing company wouldn't be able to chase as many people and if students don't have to pay then they would have to remove all the information on students having to pay when living away from home.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Students are probably far less likely nowadays than any other group of society to watch TV, though

 

[jon0844]

Brilliant idea, this could herald a raft of other charges for things people don't have or want the list is endless.

That's what taxes are for though. Works for the NHS, education, policing etc.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...al-overhaul-of-how-it-is-funded-10078945.html



Apparently the idea is this tax would be incorporated into council tax.
Brilliant idea, this could herald a raft of other charges for things people don't have or want the list is endless.

Such as telephone line rental. Some people choose to only use a mobile but BT Openreach still have to maintain exchange equipment. I can see the argument that everyone should pay regardless. So Council Tax, plus £145.50 TV charge, plus £203.88 telephone charge. Next item on the list? Gas, even though I don't have a gas supply?

Some things, such as education, health, defence, are essential public services which everyone has to pay for. Most people do not begrudge paying this although they may have views on detailed policy e.g. nuclear weapons, motorway building, specific expensive health treatments. You pay your taxes, you influence policy through the ballot box.

Some things are not essential public services. I class the BBC as one of those. When they were a competent, professional news organisation I may have had a different view but now they are a superficial, often inaccurate, politics celebrity and gossip focussed broadcaster. I manage without them thank you very much and I resent the recent suggestion that I will have to pay, come what may. A 'licence' for the BBC to become even less accountable once it becomes compulsory to pay simply because you live in a house. Time to buy a tent and live on the park?

PS I think commercial TV and radio news is even worse.

People who watch BBC (or TV generally) programmes, live, catch-up or on demand, should pay. Just as everyone who listens to a music album or film should pay rather than download illegally. People who don't watch the programmes, ever, should not have to pay.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Frankly, given the choice between a bit of mild stateism or having to put up with endless crapverts about on line gambling and payday lenders on the TV and radio all the time, I choose publicly funded leviathan any day.

Doesn't fit in with what our friends at the Institute for Economic Affairs think we should believe, but that's just tough I'm afraid.

There is another alternative - watch neither state leviathan nor commercial crapverts. Buy DVD's, CD's, newspapers (where adverts are easily bypassed). God forbid go and have a real conversation down the pub!