The Elusive BBC TV Detection Vans

[free_electron]

good luck scaning for my flatpanels local oscillator... it ain't got one. ( no tuner )
and is fed only HDMI sinals coming from network receivers.

[ecat]

Only £145.50? You don't know how lucky you are.

Indeed there are many here in UK who don't know how lucky they are. Which is strange because the BBC is one of the few things we in the UK have left to be proud of.

That £12 per month gives us four main T.V. channels + 24 hour news and a kids channel, over 10 radio channels, the BBC web site and the on-line iPlayer service. Some of the content is of dubious quality but some is truly world class (1). And best of all? There is not a single commercial break - I hear there are some broadcast services that charge a monthly fee and then waste their subscribers time by filling 25% of the schedule with advertisements, I doubt this sort of thing would ever catch on 

Another great thing about the BBC, Rupert Murdoch hates it.

(1) Keep an eye out for Wonders of Life (Brian Cox), the first episode was yesterday and it's looking good.

[mazurov]

Well that's the thing about laws. Society can enforce them whether you agree with them or not. We might say it's just as outrageous to forbid the growing of recreational herbs in your back yard for personal use, but yet, that law exists.

Healthy society, like one where I live (Colorado) can change that.

[Kevin.D]

However, it would seem unfair if overseas subscribers could get BBC content free of ads since they are not paying the license fee. So the BBC website has ads on it. And the BBC iPlayer is not accessible. And other parts of the BBC web site are blocked as well.

The irony is that I would happily pay $228 per year to receive all the BBC output without restriction. I'm just waiting for them to offer that service.

 The other irony is that many people here would happily forgo there right to watch the BBC on there telly and not have to pay a liscence fee ,and instead just watch  the subscription stations that they have paid for voluntary ,they are just waiting for the BBC (government) to offer them that service .

[8086]

Except the licence fee doesn't just pay for programming. If you have a signal at all, the infrastructure that means it exists has been partially paid for by licence fee payers. If you were to decide you didn't want to watch the BBC, that would be one thing, but you would have to give up your right to the broadcast infrastructure that makes watching any of the free-to-air channels possible. The BBC even works with other networks to create programmes. It's not as simple as just not watching the BBC.

[tom66]

Some of the license fee goes to Channel 4 to produce their... umm... "educational" programs.
And it pays for the radio stations as well and a lot of the infrastructure for that too.

[aargee]

In Aus we pay x cents a day (x used to be 6 but not sure now) for the ABC. Funding for the four channels of  ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Our version of the BBC) and four channels of SBS (Special Broadcasting Service - multicultural & now indigenous TV) is quite a hazy grey area, a high percentage of tax dollars with some advertising revenue on SBS.

I don't mind funding them, it certainly gives an alternative to the reality/news drivel on the commercial stations.

[Bored@Work]

I happen to have friends in australia, romania, england, spain, holland, and other hplaces.

Ah, the "some of my best friends are foreigners" spiel. I feel well entertained.

[jaqie]

As someone said right after you, if you had bothered reading for anything but trolling material, your statement is false.  I was correct to say your information was false.

[EEVblog]

We used to have Tv licensing here, but abolished in 1974.
The taxpayer happily funds our ABC channel to the tune of $1BN a year. 
Yet Rommney wanted to axe funding for PBS to the tune of a lousy $444M 

Dave.

[GeoffS]

And it's money well spent.
I don't have a TV so I watch ABC online. 

[Simon]

I'm not sure how they can tell if your watching online unless you have to sign up to say who you are. I doubt the vans exist much anymore judging by the nasty letters I get from the TV licensing people - aka bailiffs, when I told them what to go do with their insults they said they had to word letters like that because it made bad people pay up. Last time I checked you were innocent until proven guilty in this country.

[8086]

Last time I checked you were innocent until proven guilty in this country.

Must have been a while ago

[Simon]

I'm just waiting for an inspector to come round at which point I'll tell him where to go.

[madires]

Yes and it costs £145.50 (~$228) per year for the privilege. Or £49 (~$77) if you still have a black and white TV!!

We got those fee funded public TV and radio stations too for about 216 Euros/year. Starting this year every household or office has to pay that fee even if they don't got any TV or radio. Before that you had to pay the full fee for a TV (incl. additional TVs and radios) and a lower fee for a radio (radio only). All together it sums up to 7.5 billion Euros/year. Insane, isn't it? IMHO there are just three TV programs worth to watch and pay for, which are 3Sat, Phoenix and Arte. And the funny thing about those is that they are just by-products, not the main channels. The public TV is distributed by DVB-S/S2 (digital, satellite, free), DVB-T (digital, terestical, free), cable TV (extra fee for the cable company) and partly internet. Of course there are a lot of private ad-driven TV channels and Pay TV channels.

[Simon]

you could always have a window tax 

[flolic]

In my banana republic of Croatia, every household which own TV or radio receiver is obliged to pay TV/radio licensing fee. You can own as many as you like receivers, you pay only one fee. OTOH, businesses pays for every single receiver they own, my firm pays three separate fees for three car stereos 
Fee (or better say tax, but they will never confess and call it that way) is paid for owning a receiver, not for watching their programs.

That money goes to public radio and television house HRT, which currently produce 4 national channels. Two main channels, HTV1 and HTV2 are full of commercials, two other channels are so far commercial free, but they started emitting just few months ago.
Despite all that money, HRT somehow manages to finish every year with losses measured in millions... 

Monthly fee is 80HRK (13US$) for TV, half of that for radio. Once they register you in system, there is practically no easy way out. You must pay for as long as you own any receiver. You can't just "unsubscribe" and continue to own it, because on HRT's "unsubscribe form" you must sign that you are willing to let their inspectors to you home to check for any TV or radio receiver...
Off course, that's against the constitution and law, but no one seems to care...   
So, the best solution if you are not already registered, is to never let their inspector in in the first place 
 

[Simon]

Monthly fee is 80HRK (13US$) for TV, half of that for radio. Once they register you in system, there is practically no easy way out. You must pay for as long as you own any receiver. You can't just "unsubscribe" and continue to own it, because on HRT's "unsubscribe form" you must sign that you are willing to let their inspectors to you home to check for any TV or radio receiver...
Off course, that's against the constitution and law, but no one seems to care...   
So, the best solution if you are not already registered, is to never let their inspector in in the first place 

Similar regime to Italy, when my grandmothers neighbor had problems with the licensing authority because a tenant had died and the TV was thrown out they ended up having to reply with a sarcastic letter giving the old mans tomb address in the cemetery. After that they finally got the hint.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Those of you who want to know what has been going on at the BBC lately, might want to have a look at the below article, which provides a good run down of some of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer money, by the Beeb since the Andrew Gilligan debacle. Such as lying to the people about the process, and the qualifications of the panel on AGW, which led to decision to only report in favor of the AGW Hypothesis. And the latest imbroglio, which has to do with the Beeb ignoring a pedophile friendly subculture, in its midst, and then falsely accusing a former conservative MP of child molestation, based on trumped up evidence. The BBC has since published a retraction, paid a cash penalty and fired a scape goat. Much as it did in the Andrew Gilligan "Sexed Up Iraq Documents" affair. For some reason there seems to be less interest in this sort of thing, by the press at large when it is the BBC, than if is was the Catholic Church.

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/some-direct-questions-for-the-bbc-that-itll-never-answer/

--In the US, PBS consistently takes a left of center approach to everything political, not even attempting to give the other side a fair shake. I would think that if they were dealing only conservative cards from the bottom of the deck, perhaps they would be receiving less uncritical support in this esteemed forum. You only need to look as some PBS on air personnel. I.E. Bill Moyers, former Johnson Administration Press Secretary, who headed up the hunt for homosexuals in the administration after the Walter Jenkins scandal. Mr. Moyers also tried to convince the FBI to "find homosexual dirt" on Republicans, to balance things out. And the recently deceased Daniel Schorr, who before leaving CBS tried to associate then candidate Goldwater (who's father was jewish) with German Neo-Nazis “there are signs that the American and German right wings are joining up.” Now back to you, Walter, and have a nice day!" NPR's Nina Totenburg who having left private sector journalism soon after she was caught red handed at plagiarism, went on to help orchestrate the smearing of Clarence Thomas using leaked FBI files. So yes indeed, PBS like the BBC hires the kind of people, who warm a liberal's heart. Instead of calling them PBS and BBC, how about the Ministry of Truth.

"All I wants of you, Cap'n Simmons, is plain seevility, and that of the commonest goddamndest kind!"
Zeph W. Pease

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[baljemmett]

For some reason there seems to be less interest in this sort of thing, by the press at large when it is the BBC, than if is was the Catholic Church.

You obviously didn't pay any heed to the reaction of the British press (and other media, including the BBC itself), then?

[ecat]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Those of you who want to know what has been going on at the BBC lately, might want to have a look at the below article, which provides a good run down of some of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer money, by the Beeb since the Andrew Gilligan debacle. Such as lying to the people about the process, and the qualifications of the panel on AGW, which led to decision to only report in favor of the AGW Hypothesis. And the latest imbroglio, which has to do with the Beeb ignoring a pedophile friendly subculture, in its midst, and then falsely accusing a former conservative MP of child molestation, based on trumped up evidence. The BBC has since published a retraction, paid a cash penalty and fired a scape goat. Much as it did in the Andrew Gilligan "Sexed Up Iraq Documents" affair. For some reason there seems to be less interest in this sort of thing, by the press at large when it is the BBC,

News just in.
The BBC, employer of tens of thousands of people has over the course of its ninety history made some mistakes. Full story at 10.
 

[lewis]

Here's a schematic of a TV licence detector van from British Telecommunications Engineering magazine in 1984:

http://www.schematicsunlimited.com/?z=TV-license-UK (you don't need to press 'donate' on the download page, just click 'download file' after the captcha)

What do the RF engineers amongst us (I'm not one) think of the functional description? Would it have been possible to detect TVs even when they had analogue superhet receivers and before EMC regulations?

There's even more info about vans here: http://www.televisionlicence.info/tvl/detectors

[lewis]

News just in.
The BBC, employer of tens of thousands of people has over the course of its ninety history made some mistakes. Full story at 10.
 

Don't be glib.

When the BBC makes a mistake it can influence long-term government policy which in turn affects the lives of the entire British population and to a (much) lesser extent that of the rest of the world; it can permanently blemish the reputation and livelihood of otherwise upstanding citizens; it can knowingly harbour paedophiles and therefore condone the physical and sexual abuse of children; it can divert public attention away from otherwise 'uncomfortable' issues; it can control and manipulate its news reporting to encourage group delusion of the populace; it can override its own governing charter to promote bias and propaganda, and on an on.

When one of my suppliers makes a mistake I can choose whether or not to buy from them again or whether or not to hold someone accountable for the mistake. When the BBC makes a mistake, the director general resigns with a £450,000 payoff and an £877,000 pension. And I am forced to subsidise it even if I choose not to consume its output.

[JuKu]

Would it have been possible to detect TVs even when they had analogue superhet receivers and before EMC regulations?

Yes, a CRT is a rather strong transmitter at line frequency. A directional antenna is needed to detect that it is in your house and not in the neighbors, but in principle, not even a difficult problem.

[SgtRock]

Dear Balejemmet:

--I freely admit that there has been for a short span of time a goodly interest in this topic by pretty much only the British Fourth Estate. If multiple heads roll at the Beeb, I will grant you the point, but if it is just confined to one scape goat, as was done in the Andrew Gilligan scandal, then I will say that it is cover-up as usual. The handling and reportage of the AGW Panel alone, where no heads rolled, leaves BBC management, to my mind at least, convicted of fraud and deceit.

--The fact that over the years, BBC entertainment programming has been consistently the Best in the World, is a completely different kettle of fish, owing more to British Culture (what is left of it), rather than British Governance. No government should have a broadcasting arm that purports to report objectively on policy matters. The Government should step before the Press from time to time and give its views, not maintain a Ministry of Propaganda.

"Alright, I am ready to reform. Which one's got the orange juice"
Alfred Hawthorne Hill 1924 - 1992

Best Regards
Clear Ether