Do the dreaded TV vans still work ?

[Zero999]

the 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.

If 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.

[Simon]

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

[Zero999]

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.

[baljemmett]

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.

It 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.

[mikeselectricstuff]

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.

[.o:0|O|0:o.]

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/4
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Television_Licences#Meaning_of_.22television_receiver.22

Rise 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.

[JohnS_AZ]

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. 

[JohnS_AZ]

Actually, a quarter watt or so at 10.7 MHz might cloak a square mile.   

[dimlow]

these detector vans are a myth and are only propaganda see here http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

and here

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/10/31/bbc-admits-that-tv-d.html

utter bull, but still i pay it. Why? i guess the propaganda works.

[dimlow]

@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.

[.o:0|O|0:o.]

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. 

Even 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.

[Zad]

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 channels

Then the independents:

ITV1, ITV2, ITV 3, ITV4
Channel 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 USA
Sky Three, Sky News
Yesterday
QVC
G.O.L.D. (pay)
Dave an Dave Ja Vu (+1) (Mainly Top Gear and panel game repeats)
channel One
VIVA
Quest
Ideal World, Bid.TV, Home, Big Deal, Create and Craft, Price drop TV, Rocks and Co, Gems TV
ESPN (pay)
CNN
Sky Sports 1 , Sky Sports 2 (pay)
10 or so "Adult" pay channels
Topup1/2/3 (pay)

Thats on terrestrial standard definition alone, there are a few terrestrial HD channels, and umpty million more on Sky (satellite)

[Hypernova]

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. 

[NiHaoMike]

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.

[Simon]

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.

well 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.

[ziq8tsi]

@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.

no.  the problem is that, like earlier in this thread, you still need a licence to receive any live tv, not just bbc.

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.

given 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 you would be 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.

when a BBC star gets millions of pounds a year to insult in the most ungentlemanly way a young lady "on air"

oh please.  the daily mail forums are over there --->

[johnboxall]

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

Japan 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.

[david77]

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 your
doorstep, 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 they
see 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 right
to 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 so
you 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 wants
them 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

[Simon]

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

[Mechatrommer]

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.

[david77]

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 show
something for everyone. Obviously the majority likes the stuff that liquefies (sp?) brain matter...

EDIT: For the UK residents: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vkjmy
I've seen the first part and thought it was quite interesting, looking forward to part 2 and 3.

[Simon]

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

[FreeThinker]

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

[Bored@Work]

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.

[Simon]

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.

yes 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.