johns@happy.uk.sun.com (John Slater) (06/04/90)
In article <8505@accuvax.nwu.edu>, nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1. fidonet.org writes: >the operations of the British Broadcasting Corporation were >supported, at least in part, by a license fee imposed on television >sets and possibly on radios as well. This is still the case. In fact the BBC is funded entirely by this method (apart from a small income from overseas programme sales {yes, that's how we British spell "program" when it's other that the computer sort}, merchandising and so on). Radio licenses were abolished a long time ago (in the 1950's or 1960's, I think), as they were too difficult and expensive to collect. Television licenses cost (if memory serves) 71 pounds per year for colour, and about 20 pounds for monochrome. There is a derisory discount of 1.25 pounds for blind people on each of these figures. Evasion is widespread, and personally I am deeply cynical about the efficacy or even the existence of detector vans (I've never seen one). I believe the authorities rely largely on non-renewed licences to catch defaulters. The money funds the BBC's two national television channels, including local television opt-outs, *and* all its radio services - 4 national services (5 soon) and numerous local stations. The BBC external services, including the World Service and all the foreign language services, are funded by the government, but are run by the BBC and are editorially impartial (really. It works. Somehow she manages to keep her hands away from it ...). I thought you might be interested in a little more detail. John Slater Sun Microsystems, Gatwick, UK
martin@bellcore.bellcore.com> (06/05/90)
In article <8658@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Slater <johns@happy.uk.sun.com> writes: >Evasion is widespread, and personally I am deeply cynical about the >efficacy or even the existence of detector vans (I've never seen one). >I believe the authorities rely largely on non-renewed licences to >catch defaulters. Oh, the detector vans do exist - I've seen them, and read about them in the telecom press. But you're also right about using non-renewal records to catch people. This is what happens: They (who *is* they these days? I don't thing it's BT) will target an area of the country where they want to do some enforcement. The detector vans are sent there, and there is a local publicity campaign sometime before the event. The non-renewal records are consulted, and the detector vans are sent by the houses of people who have not renewed. If a television is found operating there, the owner receives a knock on the door. I believe the idea is to scare the excrement out of people by publicizing the enforcement campaign before sending the vans in. I bet it costs more than 71 quid to prosecute someone. Martin Harriss (ex brit) martin@cellar.bae.bellcore.com
Mike Bell <mb@sparrms.ists.ca> (06/06/90)
johns@happy.uk.sun.com (John Slater) writes: >Evasion is widespread, and personally I am deeply cynical about the >efficacy or even the existence of detector vans (I've never seen one). >I believe the authorities rely largely on non-renewed licenses to >catch defaulters. Before all UK readers fail to renew their TV licenses, I can confirm that TV detector vans do exist - I visited one on display at the East of England show two years ago. The equipment inside looked about 1960 vintage. The operator seemed rather unknowledgeable about the principle of operation, but from what I surmised it is identical to the methods described by Peter Wright in "Spycatcher" for identifying enemy receivers listening to a particular frequency - ie. blip the transmitter frequency and correlate it with secondary emissions on other frequencies. (Note that this distinguishes between a TV being used with a VCR and a TV watching live transmissions - a license used not to be required for the former, although I'm not sure if this is still the case). The TV detector van gets fairly good range information from this source. The antenna can be rotated to give bearing - but it wasn't clear if it could be adjusted to give elevation. The operator is given list of houses in the area which do not have TV licenses from which to start... Even if the equipment does not work, it is often reported that large numbers of TV licenses are suddenly applied for in areas where it is publicized that the vans are operating! Mike Bell -- <mb@sparrms.ists.ca>
John Slater <johns@happy.uk.sun.com> (06/06/90)
In article <8677@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cellar!martin@bellcore.bellcore.com (Martin Harriss) writes: >I believe the idea is to scare the excrement out of people by >publicizing the enforcement campaign before sending the vans in. I >bet it costs more than 71 quid to prosecute someone. Yes, but what about the (up to) 400 pound fine when they're prosecuted? John
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.ruu.nl> (06/06/90)
In article <8677@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cellar!martin@bellcore (Martin Harriss) writes: |They (who *is* they these days? I don't thing it's BT) will target an |area of the country where they want to do some enforcement. The |detector vans are sent there, and there is a local publicity campaign |sometime before the event. The non-renewal records are consulted, and |the detector vans are sent by the houses of people who have not |renewed. If a television is found operating there, the owner receives |a knock on the door. In the Netherlands we have the same system. A few years ago there was an April Fools joke on the TV where they told that a new system was invented to detect non-licenced TV's by their radiation. The only way to prevent detection was to wrap your TV in alumin(i)um foil. Guess what happened. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31-30-531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31-30-513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete')
johns@happy.uk.sun.com (John Slater) (06/07/90)
In article <8716@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mb@sparrms.ists.ca (Mike Bell) writes: >(Note that this distinguishes between a TV being used with a VCR and a >TV watching live transmissions - a license used not to be required for >the former, although I'm not sure if this is still the case). As I understand the situation, an ordinary TV licence is required if a tuner for receiving terrestrial transmissions is present is the system. You do *not* need a licence if you have a tuner-less TV (e.g. a computer monitor with RGB or composite input) hooked up to a tuner-less VCR (e.g. a camcorder or a playback-only model - most recording models have their own tuners) or to a satellite receiver, or of course to a computer. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong about this. You used to need a special licence for satellite reception for a once-only fee of ten pounds ("non-recurring charge" ??? :-), but I think they got rid of that. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office
Andy Rabagliati <andyr@inmos.com> (06/08/90)
A program in the UK (Not the Nine O'clock News ?) once did a spoof on TV Licence payment :- The program stopped after five minutes, and a message was put on the screen to the effect that this television was found not to have a licence. Until this was rectified the television would not work. The phone number of the BBC collection service was left on the screen. It stayed this way for five minutes (!!). The BBC was deluged with calls, (I'm sorry, I forgot, please switch it on again...) Cheers, Andy.