31 Mar 2014, 1:53 pm
Willard wrote:
babybird wrote:
the television detector vans
My gods, that's frightening, I thought all that licensing and "detector vans" was just another absurdist joke Monty Python made up! You have to have a license to watch signals being broadcast over the air? Do they tax your toilet paper by the square, as well? That's just Government-Run-Amok Uber-Orwellian Totalitarian insanity.
I'm so glad we had a revolution.
That's how the BBC is primarily funded. At the dawn of radio in the 1920s, England decided to set up a state run broadcaster, and fund it via taxing radios. When TV arrived, the tax was extended accordingly. I have a c. 1970 transistor radio from England with a licence sticker on the bottom. They don't tax radios anymore, but they still tax TVs. In the 60s it was illegal to listen to ANY radio signal if you didn't pay the licence, and young people were getting fined for listening to pirate SW radio broadcasts with licensed radios. If the signal wasn't approved by the Government, meaning pirate radio or most any signal originating from outside the UK, you couldn't listen to it. Also, the UK makes it illegal to listen to "utility" two way radio, such as fire and police dispatches. The UK has been a "soft totalitarian" state for decades.
31 Mar 2014, 2:15 pm
pezar wrote:
I dumped my TV a few years ago, and I'm perfectly happy about it. I'm in America, so I don't have to pay for a TV license, but recently the USA switched to digital television, and everybody had to buy new TV sets since the old ones no longer worked. I bought a digital TV. and the over the air signal was so bad that I sold it. The slightest hint of wind or rain will kill the signal. At least they could have been honest, and simply declared that everybody had to get cable, like the Netherland govt did, but no, they had to force everybody to buy new TVs. I suspect that the TV makers greased a lot of palms in Congress. 
The US had to upgrade to digital because it is a far more efficient use of bandwidth. It simply had to be done. The switch-over was, as I recall, postponed numerous times because people were scared of losing their TV and writing to their congressmen. Also I can't remember exactly but the government either subsidized or paid for decoder boxes that people needed to use with non-digital TV sets so they could continue watching over the air broadcasts in digital.
I don't know what cable is like in Britain or the Netherlands, but here in America you have to pay for 100 or so channels even if you only like 2 or 3 of them. It isn't cheap.
BirdInFlight
Veteran
Joined: 8 Jun 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,501
Location: If not here, then where?
31 Mar 2014, 2:16 pm
I agree with you, Willard.
Willard wrote:
babybird wrote:
the television detector vans
My gods, that's frightening, I thought all that licensing and "detector vans" was just another absurdist joke Monty Python made up! You have to have a license to watch signals being broadcast over the air? Do they tax your toilet paper by the square, as well? That's just Government-Run-Amok Uber-Orwellian Totalitarian insanity.
I'm so glad we had a revolution.
I really do think the system is an archaic, outdated abomination. And the BBC is the only set of channels that don't have commercials and use that to justify mandatory fees on any one who even buys a TV, or force them to prove that they "don't watch TV live" and only use it for DVD viewing. A very hard thing to prove when they're pushing to prosecute you if you can't.
If PBS tried to pull that stunt on everyone, can you imagine the outcry?
When you even just walk into a store and buy a television, the store clerk has to make you fill out a form that goes straight to the TV licencing body. Hell, they even made me do that when I recently bought a DVR at the local supermarket. Having lived in the USA where none of this even happens, it feels ridiculous to me now. And I'm originally British, so it's not like I'm a foreigner bashing the British way (incase any Brits take offence...) I was born into this system but even I think it's insane.
.
31 Mar 2014, 2:39 pm
Willard wrote:
My gods, that's frightening, I thought all that licensing and "detector vans" was just another absurdist joke Monty Python made up!
In practice, the detector vans are.Quote:
You have to have a license to watch signals being broadcast over the air? Do they tax your toilet paper by the square, as well? That's just Government-Run-Amok Uber-Orwellian Totalitarian insanity.
Not really - lots of other countries fund aspects of broadcasting through a licensing system:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26546570
It's certainly looking anachronistic these days and with the moves to decriminalise this "offence", I expect it will either become a small part of general taxation or a pay-per-view/subscription service - like you have in the USA, and in the UK too.
How many free cable and digital TV services are there in the USA?
31 Mar 2014, 2:40 pm
Fogman
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont
31 Mar 2014, 3:02 pm
31 Mar 2014, 3:14 pm
31 Mar 2014, 3:17 pm
31 Mar 2014, 3:17 pm
Fogman wrote:
Apparently they are quite real.
Oh I have no doubt that the vans are quite real - it's just the quantity and what they're supposed to be capable of that gets into Monty Python territory.From the site I linked earlier:
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detect%20th ... 20vans.htm
Quote:
Still though, what is absurd about this is BBC gets funding through licencing even if you don't watch the BBC. You have to pay the BBC to watch content that isn't even their content. It's somewhat like having to pay for, say The Playboy Channel' even if you don't watch it. If the BBC want to be fair about it, then they should switch to Pay Per View.
I entirely agree.Quote:
Suddenly listening to BBC World Service is nowhere near as nice as it was prior to this knowlege of their funding.
But at least you don't need a license!
31 Mar 2014, 3:20 pm
Eccles_the_Mighty wrote:
Take it from an engineer who knows these things, the TV Detector Vans are a con and it's impossible for them to work as advertised. Yes, I could bore you all with a detailed explanation of local oscillators, I.F. Strips and the Inverse Square Law but I'm not going to.
Ah - we're on exactly the same, erm, wavelength. Quote:
Then they call round, at which point you tell them to go away.
Yep. 
Fogman
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont
31 Mar 2014, 3:43 pm
Cornflake wrote:
Quote:
Suddenly listening to BBC World Service is nowhere near as nice as it was prior to this knowlege of their funding.
But at least you don't need a license! Yes, but now the integrity of it's content is now ironically compromised, much in the manner of this breezily cheery and sarcastic gem telling you that the BBC is watching you watch TV:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LweldrmZh50[/youtube]
31 Mar 2014, 3:55 pm
Gah - a BBC presenter at his over-emphasised, smiley and pseudo-enthusiastic, jolly-hockey sticks worst. Even some of the newsreaders act like this. 
Fogman
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont
31 Mar 2014, 4:06 pm
Cornflake wrote:
Gah - a BBC presenter at his over-emphasised, smiley and pseudo-enthusiastic, jolly-hockey sticks worst. Even some of the newsreaders act like this.
Yeah, the cheery face of Airstrip One's MiniLove, a bit like cake that's been frosted with s**t, and sprinkled with confectioners sugar.
31 Mar 2014, 4:15 pm
You know them so well...
Fogman
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont
31 Mar 2014, 4:28 pm
BirdInFlight
Veteran
Joined: 8 Jun 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,501
Location: If not here, then where?
31 Mar 2014, 4:51 pm
