Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 82 total)
  • Television Licensing Authority enforcement officers
  • Cougar
    Full Member

    Wrong, you only need a TV license if you’re using equipment to receive TV signals.
    The very fact that it /can/ is irrelevant.

    Hm, that’s interesting. Has it changed recently, or have I been wrong for years? I could’ve sworn that used to be the case.

    scott_mcavennie2
    Free Member

    Jesus. That Young Ones clip.

    The TV licence investigator drinks in my local. Someone said he used to be on telly but I never really took much notice.

    redthunder
    Free Member

    “Television Licensing Authority” this is an outfit the governmeent should scrap. Defo vote winner.

    **** licence for a TV wtf. Make some real money and bring back the dog license at say £1000 per dog ;-).

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    john_drummer
    Free Member

    he’s kept his name off the electoral roll.

    how’s he managed that then?

    hitman
    Free Member

    Interestingly the authorities have stated that they wont (can’t) be chasing people watching live broadcasts through I player.

    Are you sure this is the case? – I thought that watching live tv on-line was illegal without a license

    Rockhopper
    Free Member

    It never ever been the case that you need a licence for equipment “capable” of receiving “live” tv. The moment that you do receive a “live” broadcast then you need a licence. “live” means received at the same moment that its broadcast (give or take a few milliseconds transmission delay), Iplayer is a delayed transmission which is why you don’t need a licence.

    You also don’t need a licence if you only use your TV to watch DVD’s or play computer games on.

    Tom
    Free Member

    It’s equipment “installed or used” for the purpose of receiving broadcasts. Lose the arial.
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/9/made
    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/search?q=install

    pypdjl
    Free Member

    Has it changed recently, or have I been wrong for years?

    You’ve been wrong for years, it’s a common misconception though.

    hitman
    Free Member

    “live” means received at the same moment that its broadcast (give or take a few milliseconds transmission delay), Iplayer is a delayed transmission which is why you don’t need a licence.

    Rockhopper – interesting, is there anywhere you can direct me to that states this?

    hitman
    Free Member

    From The Communications Regulations Act:
    In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.
    I would have thought that would cover “live” broadcasts on the iplayer?

    Rockhopper
    Free Member

    I must admit that I didn’t realise you could watch live TV on Iplayer – if you do you need a licence. If you watch their stored content then you don’t.

    he’s kept his name off the electoral roll.

    how’s he managed that then?

    Easy, he’s only registered for Council Tax as you have to do. That doesn’t mean you have to automatically register to vote. Some official paid him a visit and started talking about a 1000 quid fine until it was pointed out that it was for false information (not the same as no information)

    ebygomm
    Free Member

    “It is a criminal offence not to complete and return the annual registration form, or to provide inaccurate or false information; liable to a fine up to £1,000.”

    http://www.stratford.gov.uk/council/council-404.cfm

    Oh well, he’s the sort who wouldn’t care anyway. They’d have to find out who he is first.

    neilsonwheels
    Free Member

    Never minded paying the licence fee. The BBC provides me with a lot of services that I use. iplayer, radio and their web site. Much better without adverts every 10-15 mins.

    What I do object to is the threatening tone in the letters. They must waste an absolute fortune on paper alone. Mountains of the bloody stuff.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Make some real money and bring back the dog license

    Would the licence be cheaper if you got a black and white dog?

    andyl
    Free Member

    Every year student halls here get a letter for EVERY bedroom warning they don’t have a licence. That is several thousand letters wasting paper and money and I wonder how many other Universities get the same. I used to write “return to sender” on all of the 240 we used to get in halls and send them all back. It was worth the effort (was getting paid for being on reception).

    I lived without a TV for a couple of years and kept getting the “you are officially cautioned…bla bla bla”. In the end I called them and told them if they didn’t stop sending me letters and accusing me of having a TV I would take them to court for harassment.

    Last year I gave my TV to my GF and called them to cancel my licence – I instantly got questions of “do you have a laptop?” “a desktop PC?”….I told the guy I was cancelling my licence and that was the end of it and what other things I own is no business of him or the TV licensing people. They now assume that because you have a laptop you have internet and watch live TV. What happened to being innocent until proven guilty? For the record I also had no internet connection so my laptop was purely for work.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    IIRC there is a rule saying that if you are only away from home for a short time (ie a term) then you are covered under your home license, which means that they are wasting their time mailing Uni halls, in general.

    cinnamon_girl
    Full Member

    I think it is pretty shocking that the onus is on you to prove you are innocent. I thought we lived in a democracy.

    Good luck. 🙂

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I think it is pretty shocking that the onus is on you to prove you are innocent. I thought we lived in a democracy.

    Those two things are not linked at all!

    andyl
    Free Member

    Sorry I forgot to point out that the letters were sent in the summer and if the students who lived there the previous academic year had registered on the electoral role it was addressed to them personally – or if they had got a licence while they were there. If not it was just addressed to the bedroom.

    If your room in halls has a lock you need your own licence. In a student house you just need a shared one for the house (provided there are no locks on doors).

    But the point was they were sending it to halls were students only live in their 1st year from October to June in the summer around August accusing the person living in that room of not having licence but having a TV. The rooms were all unoccupied and no matter how many times we contacted them about it they still sent out letters the following year. Complete idiocy.

    samuri
    Free Member

    I used to sub contract to BT. They kept the ‘TV detection vans’ in the car parks of the bigger exchanges in Manchester. It was basically an empty van with an aerial on the roof. Nice trick though. I’ll happily pay the license fee myself, I think the BBC provides a superb service.

    Drac
    Full Member
    samuri
    Free Member

    That’s a funny site.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Some dodgy reasoning on that site though

    The highlighted paragraph says that there are two dedicated members of staff working on each of the vehicles every week, completing the vans in a six month period. The conclusion to be drawn is that there are 26* vans.

    Nothing there says that they only have 2 members of staff in total – just that 2 members of staff work on each van. Hence the 26 van conclusion is flawed. Lots more examples of similar levels of reasoning (eg the legal evidence thing – they don’t use the evidence from the vans to prosecute, simply to advance the legal process in other ways, hence the evidence laws are different).

    I have no evidence whether or not they have working detector vans, but it would surprise me if they didn’t use such technology, given it’s very straightforward and could be very useful in determining whether somebody really does have a TV – I note a distinct lack of evidence from those who use a TV but have no licence on whether a detector van was involved.

    An amusing anecdote – many years ago I was involved with doing radio trials in Scotland which involved driving round in a white Tranny with a great big retracting antenna in the middle of the roof. One morning after staying the night at a pub in the middle of nowhere on Skye the landlord asked if we were a TV detector van, and commented that lots of locals were busy buying licenses 🙂

    Cougar
    Full Member

    However many vans they have is irrelevant, what they don’t have any of is “detector” vans. They might have plenty of vans full of pushy men in important-looking suits (though I’ve never seen any of those myself either).

    Ginger
    Free Member

    Our chimney had a bit of an incident and we lost both sat and ariel. Cancelled our license until it was up and running again (about 6 months). They were fine about it but did warn that they might visit as 80% of those who claim that they don’t need one in actual fact do. Don’t have a problem with it. It took as a couple of months to get round to cancel it. I would pay it for the radio alone if that was the rule – Radio 4 Comedy rocks!

    kaesae
    Free Member

    😯

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Certainly the science of detecting a TV is possible, in fact tracing local oscillator radiation from a Superhet receiver on known frequencies was a proven method of spy detection.

    However whilst that may have been effective in 1950 with one or two televisions in a street, the chances of being able to track down a single television on a street with 50 of them on at any time causing interference seems somewhat far fetched…

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Certainly the science of detecting a TV is possible, in fact tracing local oscillator radiation from a Superhet receiver on known frequencies was a proven method of spy detection.

    Even for a modern TV with say digital freeview, or sky/cable?

    Digital TV is, and always will be, transmitted in analogue.

    The principles used in decoding the incoming signal are always the same.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Even Sky and cable? Sky is much higher frequency tho is it not? Will that not travel as far?

    Yep.

    With analogue TV you use a simple analogue decoder to recover an analogue signal. In the old days the signal was then amplified and fed straight into the CRT display.

    With digital TV you use a much more sophisticated analogue decoder to recover a digital signal.

    Whether its sat, terrestrial or cable, the incoming signal is converted into a common (analogue) frequency (used to be around 39Mhz) It was that frequency that the detector vans used for monitoring. Actually not strictly true, but I dont want to go into Local Oscillator principles here 😕

    Savvy license dodgers could change that frequency, but it needed sophisticated test gear to do properly.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Yes I understand how receiving the TV works. What I don’t understand is the secondary radiation to which Z11 refers.

    NorthernStar
    Free Member

    We had a visit from the Licence inspector man once. We hadn’t had a licence for almost a year because the person in our student house who we’d given the licence money to (we later found out) had spent it on beer instead and had obviously hidden every TV licence letter that must have arrived.

    The inspector could see the TV from the front door and wrote on his form “TV on and watching BBC1”

    All he said was “best get a licence lads”. We got a licence the next day and we never heard from them again.

    brassneck
    Full Member

    Yes I understand how receiving the TV works. What I don’t understand is the secondary radiation to which Z11 refers

    The spy stories I’d heard where related to reading screens remotely, and this depended on an electron gun scanning the screen.. so LCD/plasma wouldn’t work.
    Don’t know if modern TV’s even use a superhet or replace it in software now?

    piedidiformaggio
    Free Member

    I have simply wrapped my house in bacofoil

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    When they come round, just cover yourself in chicken blood, and answer the door wearing only a balaclava and a pair of wellington boots.

    They won’t come back again….

    Don’t know if modern TV’s even use a superhet or replace it in software now?

    Signal is too fast and low level to do in software.

    One day perhaps.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 82 total)

The topic ‘Television Licensing Authority enforcement officers’ is closed to new replies.