Do the dreaded TV vans still work ? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 12:04:11 pm
content: having seen the rather unpleasant and almost abusive letters my father and myself receive demanding we pay our TV license I've been wondering. Neither my father or myself watch TV so we don't have to pay but periodically we get these abusive letters from the TV licensing people.It makes me wonder and for all the pathetic threats of legal action and of "TV vans" being sent round I think it does just amount to a threat. Do TV vans still work ? what is their principle ? from what I know it is very difficult if not impossible to detect if one is actually receiving a signal, but surely it is so much easier to detect the 15+KV a TV set puts out, but wait, we are all buying flatscreen TV's now with no HT voltages involved.Is it a coincidence that as fast as we changed TV technology TV van's are becoming a mere mith ? perhaps they can't operate anymore ?So how do they tell from the outside of your house if you are using a TV set

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 12:20:36 pm
content: The UK is the only place that i know of where a TV License is required to watch TV. Interesting system, i am thinking it must run on the honer system. Tracking a TV in use would be a very complex task, made even harder by making the tracking system mobile.Regards

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 12:24:01 pm
content: It seems hard to me to distinguish between a computer monitor and a TV, since they employ the same technology. Do they knock on the door of every house with a computer without a license?Even if they have no way of detecting it, as long as the can convince most people that they can, they will be effective in enforcing: 'the TV van drove along yesterday, better pay soon before the come again'. Didn't they have a similar 'illegal software detection van' way back?

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 12:31:03 pm
content: Hey i remember the 'illegal software detection van' rumor. Maybe that van was made be the same company who made the 'This DVD has been copied' detector the video rental stores were said to have....Regards

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 01:02:01 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 26, 2010, 12:04:11 pmthis is how they do the detection. just send a dumb ass letter, when you come back to them with havoc anger, then they'll know (detected) that you dont own a TV.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 01:05:14 pm
content: Quote from: shafri on October 26, 2010, 01:02:01 pmyea they did get a mouthful out of me. I won't have people writing to me telling me I'm a criminal

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 01:14:35 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 26, 2010, 01:05:14 pmhave you recorded the conversation? if yes then the second time the letter arrives, meet them in court

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 01:23:53 pm
content: Remove any outdoor antennas so they won't think you're pirating anything.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 01:32:03 pm
content: well I'm not pirating anything anyway, I have the old falling down areal and that's all. It just struck me that with all the threats they make it sounds more like them trying to bluff. I think you could possibly genuinely detect a CRT TV but not detect that your receiving a signal

author: Nermash
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 01:55:20 pm
content: Quote from: Darkman1969 on October 26, 2010, 12:20:36 pmIn Bosnia and Herzegovina it is also mandatory to pay TV license fee monthly. Because of state TV "high quality" programming and inefficiencyto collect it from people, they have tied it with land line telephone contract and bill, inspite of consumer protection law strictly prohibiting it.So, for people in UK, if you have to pay bear in mind you're not the only one

author: the_raptor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 01:56:46 pm
content: Quote from: Darkman1969 on October 26, 2010, 12:20:36 pmThe point of the TV license in the UK is to fund the BBC in a way that allows it to be separate from government. Here in Australia the ABC receives funding from the government (although with a charter saying it is independent) which allows the government to tug on the leash occasionally.I don't know much about RF stuff but on previous discussions on this topic I have heard that they can detect a TV (at least old CRT ones) that is hooked up to an antenna due to some principle of radio technology. However the vans aren't omnipresent and the licensing authority tends to just send threatening letters to everyone who isn't listed as having a TV license. I also believe they were thinking of making people pay for Computer licenses as well due to all the BBC online content.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:05:59 pm
content: In Italy you have to have a TV licence although thousands don't pay. The thing there is if you want to stop paying it's hell to get them off your back. My grandmother told me of when a friend had a lodger in an joining house who died. the licensing people would not leave her in peace until my grandmother got out her sense of humor and wrote a letter for her as she could not read and write telling them that the person had moved and that they should send their requests for money to the following address, she then gave them the address of the local cemetery ! job done never heard from them again.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:11:15 pm
content: maybe the TV's HT signal backs up the areal so you can receive it from areals that have a working TV attached, but then that still makes them useless in the modern age.I really can't understand why the BBC make their content available online. and actually according to their terms and conditions I am allowed to use it to view prerecorded programs even if I don't have a license, so they can go get stuffed, I never asked them to make it available.

author: slburris
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:14:14 pm
content: So what happens if you were using a TV to play a video game? Are you taxed for justhaving a TV in your home or just using it to receive TV programs?It sounds like a very odd concept to someone here in the US :-)So the government doesn't fund the BBC, but sends vans around looking for RFsignals looking for illegal TV's? Then collects taxes to turn over to the BBC?Scott

author: jahonen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:18:46 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 26, 2010, 12:04:11 pmWell, one way is to detect the leakage of the local oscillator of the TV tuner. It's nothing magic, all superheterodyne receivers have this oscillator. It is usually IF frequency above the received frequency. You can try the principle yourself if you have two FM radios. Tune first one to relatively low frequency and second one 10.7 MHz above the first one. Now, the second one goes silent when it is tuned to this magic frequency offset. What you hear is the spurious leakage of tuner local oscillator of first radio receiver.In fact, this same principle can detect almost any receiver. Modern flatscreen TV's too.Regards,Janne

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:25:24 pm
content: Quote from: jahonen on October 26, 2010, 02:18:46 pmlovely, thank you, so the vans can pick up the IF that the set itself makes and will retransmit, which I presume in only generated when it is used to receive ?In the UK you are allowed to have a set with no license providing you are not using it to receive. In our case we watch copious amounts of DVD's although we have a family tradition of removing the tuner just to make things plain. So presumably the reason for the threats and no vans is that it's cheaper. In the UK the license is collected by a company that does just that and probably keep all the fines so are more than happy to go all guns ho to catch people

author: baljemmett
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:41:13 pm
content: Quote from: slburris on October 26, 2010, 02:14:14 pmThe latter, almost -- the license is required to watch any television transmissions 'as live' regardless of how -- so if the only TV set in the household is just used as a monitor for the Apple ][, you don't need one. Conversely you do require a license if you watch the online stream of something that is being transmitted at the same time, regardless of whether you own a TV. You also require a license to watch TV using a PC tuner, or to record transmissions with a VCR / PVR.QuoteNot quite. The BBC pay for TV Licensing (the organisation that collects the license fee and sends the goons round to harrass people with no television) -- this of course comes out of the license fee! The charter that allows the BBC to operate has to be agreed with the government periodically, and it's within that framework that the license fee is set and imposed etc.There were/are some functional detector vans (sometimes said to be Tempest-like so useless against LCDs I guess, sometimes said to be picking up the IF leakage which will still work), but it's likely that a lot of them are stuffed dummies. Driving a van marked "TV Detector Van" around a few residential areas for a day or two apparently often results in a sudden rush to buy licenses, whether any real enforcement action was taken or not.However, more often than not the only enforcement is in the form of periodic threatening letters to the occupiers of addresses where no license is held (because of course everybody has a TV and anybody who says they don't is a liar!), eventually followed by a visit from an inspector -- who as I understand it has no legal right to enter the property so can be left on the doorstep! All good fun...

author: JohnS_AZ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:51:03 pm
content: Curious ... is the BBC the only over-the-air broadcaster there?Here in the US there are loads of broadcasters. The main networks, churches and schools can broadcast. Heck, with the switch to digital TV *I* could easily go get a low-power UHF broadcast license.Maybe I should ... broadcast Dave's videos 24-7.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:51:53 pm
content: yep, thats why I gave them an earful by email and told them not to be offended if i was not waiting by the door to show the inspector round as having a life and a job means that I'm out a lot of the time and don't care for the garbage on TV (you really thing I'm paying for the likes of big brother). Nobody ever came round and I got a bemused letter telling me that they make letters "aggressive" because there are lots of bad people that don't pay and need convincing. I replied telling them that a strongly worded letter was not going to deter criminals and that I did not appreciate being accused without even any reasonable evidence. Haven't heard from them in ages.It's just how the vans do work that bugged me for so long.

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:54:59 pm
content: According to tvlicensing.co.uk, you need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.If the quality of UK broadcasting is similar to Australia, I'd demand that the government pay me to watch it!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:55:58 pm
content: Quote from: JohnS_AZ on October 26, 2010, 02:51:03 pmthe BBC is the only one with limited advertising that is paid for. otherwise your getting stuff like sky that is strictly controlled and paid for, technically you could own a TV and not watch any BBC channel and not need a license but they will never believe that. so once you've bought a sky or virgin media contract your automatically liable for the generic TV license that only pays the BBC as you can get all the "free" channel on any paid service. I guess it's a no mans land caused by the fact that we still work on the logic used when the BBC was the only broadcaster and there was not recorded media so having a TV equaled being liable for a license

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 02:57:40 pm
content: Quote from: GeoffS on October 26, 2010, 02:54:59 pmcorrect and agreed, that's why I told them in no polite language what to go do with their programmes, TV is utter garbage, and they want me to pay for itnow that's a joke

author: JohnS_AZ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 03:08:13 pm
content: QuoteI would agree with that as far as the main-stream broadcasters are concerned. I can receive a ton of stations here at my house for free, yet I pay a fair amount for DirectTV satellite service. That's the only way I can watch...Discovery, Science Channel, History channel, NASA, Smithsonian, The Learning channel, and a few other somewhat obscure channels, like the BBC!(I must confess to being a little hooked on Top Gear) hehe

author: Time
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 03:18:26 pm
content: Its weird that anyone even watches TV with over the air broadcast... and even more strange that anyone would charge for it... and very very strange that there probably are people paying fo it...I guess I am spoiled with my 25 MBps fiber data line and my 100 HD channels.

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 03:39:30 pm
content: Quote from: Time on October 26, 2010, 03:18:26 pmI watch digital broadcast TV as it's free to air. I can get a number of cable (30Mbps) channels but nothing worth paying $30 or $40 per month for.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 04:57:29 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 26, 2010, 02:55:58 pmIf that's true then why hasn't someone made a filter which removes all BBC signals or a paid TV service which includes everything but BBC?They could rent the device to people for less than the price of a TV licence.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 07:08:46 pm
content: I think TV's are made world wide ? so it would be a bit too complicated to make sets that refuse BBC plus you'd be a very small minority wanting this sort of set. As I said for some reason the BBC goes with TV's just like they did in the early days. I guess it's a historical thing TV=BBC, having a TV=watching BBC, nobody has ever assumed any different. as far as I know your sky/virgin contract does not include the BBC so you still have to pay separately. Having something like virgin you would not want to set up an areal just for the BBC so you get it also via the same cable but then you have to pay the license. Like I said, I have the universal solution: no tv at all and lots of DVD's, I spend most of my "TV time" on here or doing other stuff

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 08:40:11 pm
content: I'm not talking about a special TV, just a box with a filter or a cable which does not give you any BBC content.A filter should be easy enough to build. I remember, back when channel 5 first came out, some people had problems with it interfering with some old video recorders or satellite TV boxes so they provided them with band stop filters which passed all channels except for channel 5. I don't know if this would be as simple with digital TV but it should be possible as all the BBC channels are pretty close to each other.

author: baljemmett
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 09:35:17 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 26, 2010, 08:40:11 pmIt would make no difference; the license is required whether or not you watch/receive the BBC channels. It's not a subscription to the BBC, although there are people who would prefer that style of system.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 10:06:40 pm
content: Pretty sure nobody has ever been prosecuted for it who didn't admit anything. If they can't see through the window all they can do is knock on the door and go away when you tell them to 'koff.Apparently a threat of a harrasment charge is often effective.Opening the door and putting a video camera in their face also shuts them up apparently. Plenty of examples on Youtube.

author: .o:0|O|0:o.
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 10:53:19 pm
content: I received the same annoying threatening letter. When I say, "I", I mean "The Present Occupier" did. Since there was no one by that name and since it was a private company trying to sell a service I am not interested in, it went on the junk mail pile ready for recycling.The BBC do not routinely use sophisticated technology as they would like you to believe. They don't have to and they before most people know it. They own the number one propaganda machine in the UK and see first hand the "cause and effect" relationship between what they say in their programming and news and the effect it has at large. In other words, they say they have a van with secret technology and the sort of person who is entertained by Big Brother or Eastenders is compelled to believe it.The fact is that no one has yet been prosecuted based on evidence from the van; people have either confessed under pressure or been caught in the act (private agents have been known to push their way in to people's homes). Since secret evidence cannot be used in an English court for petty offences, the only logical reason the BBC has not used the van as evidence is that the secret is more powerful than the number of prosecutions it would bring (regardless of whether the technology exists at all). Furthermore, there are privacy laws in the UK. They would need to present compelling evidence to a court for a warrant to spy and then they would need another warrant based on collected evidence to enter your property (with a law enforecement agent) within a certain time (typically one month). If one day they decided to present the technology as evidence to a court, they could find themselves without a secret and with a ban on using it.They park a Licensing Authority van for a couple of days in a busy area (a supermarket over the weekend), advertising the threat of a fine. Then they visit the addresses that do not have a license according to their database. The visits start from autumn to winter when it gets dark earlier and they visit especially in the evenings because it increases the chances of people being home and TV activity being visible from outside.What usually happens before a fine or prosecution is the inspector turns up when the TV is on (they might listen through the door or look through the curtains briefly before knocking), the owner opens the door, they hear the TV and the owner either panics and confesses in order to avoid the fine or to get a reduction on the fine (subject to a signed confession), or the owner sends them away with strong evidence to supply to a court.In the past, the BBC have been pressed to give a statement of whether it was legal in their opinion to own a TV set for reasons other than receiving broadcasts. They admitted that as long as the equipment was not capable or configured to receive broadcasts then it was not an offence.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Television_Licences#Meaning_of_.22television_receiver.22Rise above it all and give up the TV. Besides, the BBC is not in line with the concepts of open competition or democracy.Recently they claim to have a handheld version of the technology from the van (yawn)..o:0|O|0:o.

author: JohnS_AZ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 11:12:38 pm
content: You would need to be certain that their detectors actually exist to make this worth while, but instead of hiding my tv I would find it much more entertaining to create a tiny circuit that emitted whatever signal they were looking for, and then pepper them all over the neighborhood.

author: JohnS_AZ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 11:17:59 pm
content: Actually, a quarter watt or so at 10.7 MHz might cloak a square mile.

author: dimlow
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 11:19:19 pm
content: these detector vans are a myth and are only propaganda see herehttp://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htmand herehttp://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/10/31/bbc-admits-that-tv-d.htmlutter bull, but still i pay it. Why? i guess the propaganda works.

author: dimlow
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 11:22:38 pm
content: @JohnS_AZ there be a nice business model here, lets knock up some sort of TV detector jamming circuit and sell on ebay! the BBC propaganda machine could work in our advantage. This device would only have to work as well as the tv detector van. ie it would have to do nothing, just look like it would do the job, in fact maybe just metal foil sticker that people can place in the window. Like them stickers people were selling that your stick on you mobile to save battery life or what ever it was.

author: .o:0|O|0:o.
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 11:38:59 pm
content: Quote from: JohnS_AZ on October 26, 2010, 11:12:38 pmEven better, make one and attach it to the underside of the van (disguise it as a caught up piece of rubbish in case)..o:0|O|0:o.

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2010, 11:48:40 pm
content: Yes, they do it by detecting the IF frequencies. Or at least they claim to, because I haven't seen a TV detector van since the 1980s. If you used an IF transmitter then they would prosecute you for having an licensed transmitter, which would probably be a heftier fine than that for having a TV. The antennas they use/used were directional anyway, so you couldn't flood an area. They are really nasty people sometimes, and will pester you over and over and over again, with all sorts of nasty threats about court, fines, and the rest, despite having no evidence. A friend of mine who used his TV purely for watching DVDs and playing console games ended up taking legal action against them to get them to desist from their threats.People outside the UK seem to think that all UK TV is BBC. This hasn't been the case since 1955! Looking at my TV with digital terrestrial adaptor, I currently have:BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC News, BBC Parliament + 2 Interactive channelsThen the independents:ITV1, ITV2, ITV 3, ITV4Channel 4, 4+1, More 4, E4, E4+1, Film 4, 4 Music (Also run with state aid but independent of the BBC)FIVE, Fiver, Five USASky Three, Sky NewsYesterdayQVCG.O.L.D. (pay)Dave an Dave Ja Vu (+1) (Mainly Top Gear and panel game repeats)channel OneVIVAQuestIdeal World, Bid.TV, Home, Big Deal, Create and Craft, Price drop TV, Rocks and Co, Gems TVESPN (pay)CNNSky Sports 1 , Sky Sports 2 (pay)10 or so "Adult" pay channelsTopup1/2/3 (pay)Thats on terrestrial standard definition alone, there are a few terrestrial HD channels, and umpty million more on Sky (satellite)

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 12:09:24 am
content: They should have it like cable with scrambled channels. Those who watch BBC then rent a descrambler.I remember when I was still in Taiwan the pron channel needed a descrambler, but if you tell the tv to go to the same channel when it's already tuned in just at the right time it will stabilize to a black and white with no sound. I used to watch it like that all the time.What? I was 8.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 02:17:45 am
content: Why couldn't they encrypt it and only give the paid subscribers the way to legally decrypt it?I remember reading that some of the satellite companies had problems with piracy. After some legal battles, it turns out that it is free to receive as it is unencrypted. They just encrypted it and that solved the problem since unauthorized decryption is illegal.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 08:00:36 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on October 26, 2010, 10:06:40 pmwell quite and that's why they seem to have ditched the vans for harassment methods and trying to scare you into stuff that you don't have to do. Oh they even tell you that they catch 1000 people a day, cor blimey at that rate nobody in the UK is paying for a license, it's just so funny.@hero the problem is you buy a TV and it is capable of receiving BBC, even with a filter that's made as an extra, you can remove it at will. I don't know how much less adverts the BBC has than other "free" channels and how much better quality but I'd say ditch the whole license fee.when a BBC star gets millions of pounds a year to insult in the most ungentlemanly way a young lady "on air" on a prerecorded program that was not intercepted and ditched (Russel fucking brand on the radio - still comes out of your license fee) in front of the nation that's not worth the money and the money obviously does not even guarantee decency of the content.

author: ziq8tsi
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 09:15:19 am
content: Quote from: Simon on October 27, 2010, 08:00:36 amno. the problem is that, like earlier in this thread, you still need a licence to receive any live tv, not just bbc.Quotegiven that you do not know, and are not required to pay for a licence at present, i am not sure that your opinion should be given much weight. but would you prefer the bbc to be funded directly, so that youwouldbe paying for it. or do you want to force the rest of us to sit through adverts for nappies, loan sharks, and price comparison websites, and 45 minute programmes that last an hour as a result. or perhaps you would like to scrap the bbc completely, with its sinister propaganda, and leave us with partial sources like rupert murdoch.Quoteoh please. the daily mail forums are over there --->

author: johnboxall
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 11:52:17 am
content: Quote from: Darkman1969 on October 26, 2010, 12:20:36 pmJapan has TV license fees as well, colour is more expensive than black and white.Instead of a detector van, elderly NHK (public broadcaster) employees roam the country collecting the fees. When they tried to shake me down I told them I didn't have a TV. Being a foreigner naturally I was a liar, so grandpa TV came in and had a poke around. Ended up giving him a cup of tea and had a chat.

author: david77
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 12:58:30 pm
content: Here in Germany we have a similar system to the UK. There are the public broadcasters and the private broadcasters.The public stations get their money from the so called "Gebühreneinzugszentrale" (GEZ), loosly translated as "Center for fee collection".This way the public TV and radio stations get something like 7.000.000.000 Euros each year! And they are not completely add free, because, obviously, 7 billion is nowhere near enough for them.The GEZ employs the same nasty methods as their counterpart in the UK. Threatening letters and TV adverts, people turning up on yourdoorstep, people spying on you in the street.Here they can not only claim a fee for a TV. No, even if you have a radio you have to pay, and since 2006 even for PC's, because theysee them as modern radio/TV receivers.We have never heard of detector vans, though. And those sh**bags working for this mafia-like organisation have also no legal rightto enter your property.At the moment you pay a licence for one TV, one radio and one computer per household. The GEZ is desperately trying to change that soyou have to pay for each device individually. You have 6 radios? Tough. Pay 6 times.It wouldn't be all that bad if the programming was of interest and good quality. But it isn't. German TV is dreadful for most of the time.There are some exceptions, but few and far between. And the news are really bad, they usually only tell what the government wantsthem to tell the public.I don't pay them a cent. I get the threatening letters and I throw them straight in the bin. I don't pay for something I don't use.Ooops... quite a rant

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 01:22:53 pm
content: almost comforting to hear that there is somewhere worse than the UK. unfortunately TV programmes are made for the masses who are largely idiots that like stupidity

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 01:42:00 pm
content: i dont watch TV. i pay for encrypted channels, but turned out to be only for my kids. The free channels sponsored by government, but i'll never tune to those channels even if i got plenty of time to watch TV.and TV licencing is not applied here, at least not since i'm alive.

author: david77
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 02:12:21 pm
content: A true word, Simon.I'm not saying all TV is bad, I like a good TV series, film or anything educational as much as the next man.What I hate is all that opium-for-the-masses-daytime-TV: Soaps, reality TV shows, chat shows, etc.On the other hand I realise that a public broadcaster has to cater to all tastes. They're there for everybody and have to showsomething for everyone. Obviously the majority likes the stuff that liquefies (sp?) brain matter...EDIT: For the UK residents:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vkjmyI've seen the first part and thought it was quite interesting, looking forward to part 2 and 3.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 04:08:56 pm
content: well I think broadcasters should also set themselves standards, if you don't show the reality crap people will have to come to like better programming. The thing is you show people silly stuff and they laugh, so then you show them stupid stuff and they laugh more, and so it spirals out of control.but then competition and money come to play

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 04:52:12 pm
content: To the best of my knowledge the TV License is a license to receive broadcasts within a certain bandwidth, much like radio hams and radio control modelers are licensed to receive and transmit at certain frequencies.It used to be the case that if you were in possession of equipment capable of receiving at the required frequency (Even if it was not connected) required a license.I think this was overturned in court when a user with his computer connected to a tv as a monitor fought his case and won, not having an Aeriel rendered the apparatus useless as a receiver.The law was once again changed when the bbc started to stream media via the internet I think as I recall a news item were a load of uni students were threatened with fines for viewing on iplayer without a license, cannot remember the final outcome but your TV license is not to allow you to watch tv content (Media) but receive 'broadcasts' at it's stated frequency.Digital Broadcasting has muddied the whole picture and the bbc take the view that the license fee IS for content.Would need a court case to give a final veiw

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 04:53:26 pm
content: Sorry Simon, remind me what is the whole point of this discussion? TV vans, like the subject indicates? So what is the point?If they don't exist they apparently can't sent the TV vans after you.If they exist, let them cruse around. Since you don't have a TV they can't detect a TV and are just wasting their time.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 05:10:11 pm
content: Quote from: BoredAtWork on October 27, 2010, 04:53:26 pmyes we have swayed a bit, but the original question was answered, the vans don't exist due to the cost but are feasable because the IF frequency seeps out of the connected antenna.last time I checked the iplayer terms I am free to view it as long as it is not live.

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 05:56:22 pm
content: I did see tv licencing detector vehicle in the isle of wight not long ago, it had a directional aerial on a telescopic mount 10 ft or more pointing at different homes.It could all be scare tactics. Personally I would like this scam of a licence come to an end.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 06:44:32 pm
content: I guess that there is a very limited number of vans left like a couple that are sent out on spot checks or to go after someone that is specifically suspect

author: jahonen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 07:18:00 pm
content: Slightly off-topic, it is actually quite amazing what one can do with a specialized wideband receiver, seepaper by Markus Kühn.Regards,Janne

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2010, 09:29:34 pm
content: Quote from: FreeThinker on October 27, 2010, 04:52:12 pmYou need one in order to view BBC iPlayer videos too.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 28, 2010, 12:49:39 pm
content: Quote from: Zad on October 27, 2010, 09:29:34 pmonly if you "watch as the program is transmitted" otherwise known as live, check the terms of iplayer, if your watching a program 1 hour after is was broadcasted live you do not require a license, you also are not allowed to view the iplayer unless you are in the UK which is crazy because unless there is some way of blocking IP's known to not be in the UK it's impossible to enforce and prosecuting would be a joke at best.

author: joelby
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2010, 02:08:33 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 28, 2010, 12:49:39 pmIt's actually not too hard to block IPs based on geographic region, for the most part. I bet you can't get to the ABC's equivalent service, iView:http://www.abc.net.au/iview/These blocks can be readily bypassed using VPNs or having someone save a stream to disk and send a copy to you, but for the majority of casual users these methods are good enough for satisfying copyright holders.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 28, 2010, 03:12:25 pm
content: yes correct I can't watch your iview stuff. if IP designation is that an accurate science then yes it's easily implemented

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2010, 04:49:10 pm
content: If you found a fast enough proxy server you should be able to do it but it's not worth the bother.How is our system much worse than any other?I don't see why the BBC would be more or less impartial than ITV or any other commercial station. Don't forget that even though commercial stations don't rely on the government for funding, they still need to be granted a broadcast licence which could theoretically be revoked if they piss the government off too much.I think the debate should be more about whether there should be a public service broadcaster or not rather than whether it's better to pay for it through general taxation or a TV licence. I think the licence is more fair than general taxation because at least only those who have a TV have to pay, not everyone. Advertising is another method but there would need to be a way to ensure the channel doesn't just try to get the highest ratings which is the whole point of having a public service broadcaster: to supply content which is needed but isn't necessarily commercially viable.

author: joelby
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2010, 11:05:52 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 28, 2010, 03:12:25 pmIt's not, but it's easier to classify residential IP addresses (eg, ADSL endpoints) because ISPs almost always give them reverse DNS records and WHOIS block information that include the ISP name and/or country. This trick is less likely to work for privately-managed IP space, but in most cases you won't care as much about that. It's also possible to determine geographic information using AS paths. If the route to some address goes through systems administered by a different country, assume that the endpoint is also overseas.

author: ArtemisGoldfish
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2010, 07:51:41 pm
content: TV reception licensing sounds so strange to me, also as a U.S. citizen. Could you get past it with something like a USB TV tuner for your computer?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2010, 08:05:45 pm
content: I doubt it. If the dreaded TV detector works and uses IF detection (there's no other way with modern flat screen TVs) it should be able to pick up a USB TV.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 30, 2010, 10:24:28 pm
content: Quote from: ArtemisGoldfish on October 30, 2010, 07:51:41 pmno as stated before you require a license to view or record live transmissions

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 01:00:37 am
content: You can get around it if you are using a TV receiver that works ONLY off batteries. This means no external mains adaptor socket. I suppose a car TVmightwell fall into this category.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 08:42:43 am
content: how would that work ? doesn't a battery TV still emit the signals ?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 09:41:54 am
content: I hear about that before, apparently do only need a licence for a mains powered receiver. I don't know if it's true, it sounds like rubbish but could be right. If so, just connect your TV set to a set of batteries and an inverter and only connect to the mains to charge the batteries when the TV is in standby.Better still connect the batteries to solar panels or a wind turbine and watch for free.

author: .o:0|O|0:o.
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 10:38:17 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 31, 2010, 09:41:54 amApparently this might have been true at one point. The TV had to be running on its own internal batteries and not be connected to mains or a car battery. Since the advent of broadband and the popularity of laptops, the regulations seem to have been updated and now the portable receiver should be covered by the owner's residential licence. Of course, there is no way to enforce the licence if you do not have a fixed residence, but then you probably wouldn't be interested in sinking into a TV induced stupor..o:0|O|0:o.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 11:08:17 am
content: as I said before you need a license if you are "viewing or recording transmissions live" simple dose not matter what the hec you use, yes to use a mobile phone to watch TV you need a license !

author: 8086
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 12:10:22 pm
content: Hey all, just thought you might like to actually see the rubbish us students have to put up with from TV Licensing:First a nice blue tear-open 'reminder' that you might need a license (quite poorly worded and intentionally confusing in my opinion, do you need a lisense if you own a laptop etc? You don't, but this tries to make out you do.)Ignore the blue letter at your peril! You will receive a RED one! How DARE you not buy a TV license!!I am surprised they are allowed to get away with such tactics.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 12:21:22 pm
content: At last someone's actually posted something concrete, rather than just saying what they think.So you obviously need a TV licence if you watch BBC TV on your laptop but what if you only watch ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 etc.?I'm pretty sure, they're not going to check to see if you've visited TV websites which deliver non-BBC content.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 12:43:17 pm
content: The fact that they present zero relevant facts (except some hand waving like 'most you have lots of free time, so you must watch TV') suggests to me it's just scare tactics, and they have no way of actually checking. Assuming they have an advanced piece of equipment that can actually pinpoint any real-time BBC reception to a specific room, I would expect them to use that as an argument to get people to pay. It looks to me like they just depend on people getting scared (better pay GBP 145 now instead of risking a GBP 1000 fine). I would be surprised if there were any prosecutions where people didn't admit it or do something stupid like boasting 'we watch BBC but don't pay for it' on a public forum.This kind of letter tends to make me very uncooperative, so I understand people refusing to watch any BBC programs and telling them to go fuck themselves.It looks like you should just download the TV shows (if they aren't served on demand on the BBC website). It's only watching live or recording that's covered by the license, watching shows someone else recorded and distributed should be fine.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 01:49:29 pm
content: The should be able to track you IP but if your PC is connected to the university's system via wifi would would be very hard for them to prove without ceasing your machine.The white text on a blue background mentions iPlayer which is the BBC site where programs can be watched or downloaded from but it's not clear as to whether a licence is only required to watch live TV.You could of course download from bittorrent but that's risky in itself.

author: 8086
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 01:56:18 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 31, 2010, 01:49:29 pmWell it is, but only if you read it very carefully. Of course the intention is to confuse, but the meaning is there somewhere. It says that you only have to pay for a tv license if you watch programmes as they're being broadcast (live). So iPlayer is fine, but the live streams aren't.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 02:05:22 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 31, 2010, 12:21:22 pmwell I've been saying it and all you have to do is check the iplayer terms, as i said before I HAVE because I'm in the position of not watching live but knowing that I'm legal to use the iplayer for recorded stuff that's not live. Yes that letter looks very familair, like i said it just tells you your a criminal and to pay

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 02:09:21 pm
content: Quote from: alm on October 31, 2010, 12:43:17 pmCorrect scare tactics, and said scare tactics lead me to believe that the van's either do not exist because they don't work or that it is obviously cheaper to send you nasty letters than it is to send vans round that need petrol, a driver a techy and maintenance. The same letters will tell you that they catch 1000 people a day ! and that you will be next, it's so pathetic it is laughable if they caught 1000 people (households) a day that's 365'000 houses so well over a million people that are not paying and heaven knows how many more. I'm really just waiting for someone to take them to court for defamation or something....

author: Nermash
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 02:11:30 pm
content: This is some real nazi crap from UK goverment, enforcing students to pay for watching TV in their room.If they realy want to take 145 pounds from students with no real income, then no amount of earthly money will be enough for their greedy little souls! Yes, this is rant!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 02:16:16 pm
content: considering most students live in 3+ bedroom houses I can't see that it is that expensive, do you complain about having to pay for the cinema ? I bet you spend more on cinema tickets than TV. Nothing's for free mate, wait till you really have to work and pay for your keep !

author: .o:0|O|0:o.
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 02:32:45 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 31, 2010, 11:08:17 amIn my previous post I was talking about an old loop-hole. Did I say you do not need a licence to receive transmissions??The full legislation can be found here:Quote from: .o:0|O|0:o. on October 26, 2010, 10:53:19 pm.o:0|O|0:o.

author: 8086
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 02:47:05 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 31, 2010, 11:08:17 amInteresting point, if students have a parent that pays for a license at their home address, they don't need an additional license for watching on 'portable devices'

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 02:49:28 pm
content: if the uni student is registered to an address other than their parents then i would guess that it's their problem, same as they have to pay their own electric and gas

author: LumpyGravy
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 03:07:43 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 31, 2010, 02:16:16 pmMost students live in halls for at least one year. If the door has a lock then it is classed as a seperate residence and therefore requires a license. As a student, £145 was not a trivial amount of money.Aside from anything else, when you go to the cinema you contract with the cinema willingly as two private entities receiving and providing a service. A TV license is enforced by statute, under threat of imprisonment. It is alicensefor operating a particular arrangement of electronic components, whether you receive unencrypted information pumped into your home or not. Whether you have a private subscription or not. Whether you want the services of the BBC and the other beneficiaries or not. It's an absurdity and so is your analogy. There are plenty of ways television could be provided ostensibly "for free", it is just that the government actively prevents it.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 03:11:16 pm
content: well I'm happy not watching any TV so can't see why i should put a penny into it. most uni towns have plenty of private lettings that are cheaper than the halls, so make your choice

author: LumpyGravy
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 03:21:04 pm
content: Well, you are one in 60 million. Many people want to watch TV but are unhappy with being forced to pay for an idiotic, draconian 'license' on the say so of the government. I am curious as to why you are, apparently, defending it?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 03:36:52 pm
content: well do you complain about paying for sky or virgin ? ok I agree that with private TV you should have the option of opting out of the BBC channels but if you want it you pay for it, I certainly don't want to see it paid for with my taxes thank you.

author: LumpyGravy
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 04:04:00 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on October 31, 2010, 03:36:52 pmThe license fee isn't just used to pay for the BBC. Some goes to Channel 4, some maintains the terrestrial infrastructure, some goes elsewhere. It is alicenseto operate a television receiver regardless of what you use it for, and that is absurd.Sky and Virgin is completely different. It is a voluntary agreement between two entities. The license is the government waving its fist and saying "pay us, or else", just like the mafia. No license, no virgin or sky.QuoteI didn't suggest any such thing.

author: JohnS_AZ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 04:36:05 pm
content: I have to say being in the US that this topic has been a little hard for me to comprehend. Then it dawned on me. They can call it what they want but it really isn't a license in the strict definition of the word. It's a recurring tax on television sets.The thing I find interesting (and amusing) is that you guys have this big licensing system, the BBC, deep government involvement in the medium, and you complain that 90% of the programming is crap.Here TV reception is totally free and un-monitored. The government (for the most part) is completely out of the loop, and we complain that 90% of the programming is crap.Sounds a lot like a lose-lose situation.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 05:41:15 pm
content: Well the Americans make some great TV and some UK TV is also good and lots of it is made by the BBC.I've never been to the US and watched TV there for real but my parents went there in the 70s and said the amount of good content was probably the same but split between many more channels, packed with adverts which made the viewing experience poorer.Yes the TV licence is a tax. It goes back to what I was saying before about public service TV and the funding model.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=1586.msg21724#msg21724If we decided to get rid of the public service broadcasters such as the BBC, certain niches such education and content for the deaf would disappear as they're not profitable. The government could try to force commercial broadcasters such as ITV to provide them but they probably wouldn't do such as good job and they'd have less money for other content. Don't forget that commercial TV isn't really free but is indirectly paid for in the cost of goods and services. There's a limited pool of money companies are willing to spend on advertising and whilst this would undoubtedly increase if the BBC folded, it arguably wouldn't be enough to fill the void created by the removal of the licence fee so the quality and quantity of content may fall.Of course this is all speculative, no one really knows what would happen. We can look at other countries without a licence fee but each country has its own unique culture so it can't be used to predict what would happen in the UK.People criticise the BBC for being biased but they also say the same is true for CNN, as I was saying before don't forget that commercial broadcasters also have to get a licence from the government.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 05:44:35 pm
content: that's why I go for the win win situation: not receive at all.lumpygravy: I have a number of TV's in my home and do not pay a license. I am not breaking the law because as the letters state I have to pay if I receive/watch or record a live transmission and I do not. So it is not a tax on TV sets. I usually rip the tuner out of the sets for good measure.I would agree that you should be able to not pay the license if you get virgin/sky and choose not to have BBC, as i said earlier due to the fact that the BBC is as old as the use of TV's historically the BBC is omnipresent and having a TV=watching BBC. You'd have to speak to davy cammy on that one

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2010, 06:04:03 pm
content: I didn't know that Channel 4 got some of the licence fee but it makes sense as they're a government run channel. Some have also argued that ITV should get a share of the licence fee but others think it would be better if they remained totally independent. Some have also argued for reducing the licence fee but allowing some advertising on the BBC or at least sponsoring certain programs but others thing it would be better if the BBC remain free of commercial pressure and that one of the benefits of the licence is advert free TV.I think that having adverts on the BBC or ITV getting licence fee money are both bad ideas. I think if the government wants more licence fee money to TV with adverts they can put more into Channel 4.In my opinion, public broadcasting is a good idea and a TV licence fee is a fair enough way of funding it.

author: .o:0|O|0:o.
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2010, 03:25:15 am
content: In principle, if you think the BBC is not good value for your money you can choose not to renew the license the following year. It does not appeal to all demographics. Unfortunately, there is a sytem set up to dissuade you from ever taking that step (not having a license), supported by legislation.If you are unlikely to give up the licence, then the BBC are unlikely to have the strongest incentive to provide good efficient value for money.The technology exists to exclude unlicensed receivers from receiving the BBC, especially with the switch to digital. It is a matter of implementing it. However, for the BBC this would amount to waiving the system that pressures people to pay them huge salaries, and with falling subscribers they would return to being a lean news broadcaster.Perhaps, the BBC World Service (radio) could be supported by a small tax in its present format with regular local/national news bulletins and also with programming of wider interest, with the fee being strictly for BBC TV and not other channels. The world service would be unlocked for all on digital TV.This would keep the highly valued public service and allow the BBC to continue its profit making but on fairer grounds..o:0|O|0:o.

author: .o:0|O|0:o.
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2010, 03:45:56 am
content: Quote from: Simon on October 31, 2010, 05:44:35 pmWhile this seems like a reasonable measure if you know what you are doing, what is the legislation regarding modifying appliances in the UK?Clearly the TV warranty would be voided, but wouldn't this also compromise things like insurance on your property (in case the TV caught fire or something).If I am not mistaken, appliances that are connected to the mains have to meet certain requirement regarding harmonics in the grid. I know this doesn't really apply when extracting a receiver, but I wonder if there is legislation in place stating that you have to have permission in order to add custom equipment to the grid that might cause some form of noise, disruption or hazard.An easier analogy would be the case of BT telephone lines were you are not supposed to tamper with the wiring without permission and you are not supposed to connect non-approved equipment..o:0|O|0:o.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2010, 08:42:00 am
content: well what about all your home made stuff you may connect to the socket as a hobbiest ? all my TV's are old and donated so I have no warranty issue and the receiver is usually a separate board in a shielded box, sometimes you can unplug it often it is soldered down and I have to get under it with wire cutters I did it to a TV PC card that I have too. It would not cause the TV to catch fire and I keep TV's off when not in use, have no idea of the insurance though but put it this way: I built my own PC now they don't know what I might put into it.

author: .o:0|O|0:o.
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2010, 10:45:48 am
content: Quote from: Simon on November 01, 2010, 08:42:00 amI would be the first one to ignore silly legislation, but the question applies here a little more than in your examples. In the event that you were required to defend yourself in a court by using the fact that you have no receiver having removed it yourself, you might then find yourself confronted by unexpected legislation relating to other areas of the law.While removing the receiver completely removes the licence issue completely, and it is a good solution in principle, how would you go about proving to an inspector that your TV has no receiver. Unless they look inside and are qualified, all they will see is a TV and issue you with a fine or a summons..o:0|O|0:o.

author: dds
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2010, 10:52:59 am
content: Quote from: ArtemisGoldfish on October 30, 2010, 07:51:41 pmIndeed it's strange..I've always thought that TV license was obligatory only in socialism/communism dictatorshipwhere none bothered to see that communism propaganda crap on TV!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2010, 12:24:11 pm
content: Quote from: .o:0|O|0:o. on November 01, 2010, 10:45:48 amI wouldn't bother to tell them unless necessary about the removal of the receiver, as others have noted the inspector actually has very little power and unless he has a warrant to search your property can be told to go and get a life

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 14, 2010, 08:30:37 am
content: ok I'm in Italy for a few days, the iplayer radio is available but not iplayer TV