How do TV detectors work

[sirjamesp]

*Originally posted by sailor *
If the country wants to pay for a TV channel then it should come out of the general taxes, like in Australia. I would object to that too but less than the British system which seems to me very unfair.

Surely the idea that everyone must pay even if they have no television is more unfair?

You prefer no advertising? Fine, you subscribe to no advertising channels and pay your fees (as is the case in most other countries).

But as London_Calling has pointed out, if I choose not to watch commercial television, I’ve still got to pay for it through higher prices in the shops.

However the money is raised, television channels must be paid for somehow. I think the idea of picking the pockets of only those people who actually own a set is a good one.

(Also, I imagine the direct method of charging also keeps costs down, as it it would be much easier to increase funding if it’s from a “stealth tax”.)

Oh, just got to mention this:

You can have a mixture of both: less advertising and lower fee. Whatever so long as it is voluntary. But I object to the government making me pay for the BBC just because I happen to own a TV.

Britain’s mixture of funding isn’t forced on the public by an evil regime - they have democracy in England now, you know.

[sailor]

I did not mean to hijack the thread but anyway, since you asked:

>> Does this mean you will only pay taxes for things that you personally will use? Does that mean you will personally use every National Park, highway, footpath, public library, Government funded welfare service, public hospital, etc in your country?
>> Surely the idea that everyone must pay even if they have no television is more unfair?

No, it means two things: First and foremost, that if the country wants a National TV the whole country should pay for it and people would contribute according to their wealth and capacity like with the rest of the budget. That a poor man and a rich man pay the same to maintain a National TV seems pretty unfair to me. Not to mention it would simplify collecting the money and there would be no need for the BBC TV hounds.

In the US if the Federal government decides it wants to have a national park in West Undershirt, Arkansas, then it pays for it from the national budget and allows the park to collect a fee from visitors to the park. What it does not do is grant the park the authority to collect money from the visitors the the amusement park which is next door to the national park.

And secondly I just believe there should not be any government sponsored media, TV or otherwise. IMHO the government exists to guarantee my rights and provide a framework where I can exercise them not to feed me the TV they think suits me best. But hey, it’s just my opinion.

I know people in the UK who cheat and I can’t say I blame them. I have difficulty equating this with cheating on your income tax. That a very poor person should be forced to pay the BBC such a high amount to be allowed watch another channel is pretty close to extortion in my book. I have reported people in the US who were stealing cable but I would help people in the UK evade this tax. Again, that’s just me.
>> The Government and people of Britain have long been able to make and sustain arguments that organisations like the BBC have what economists term public good aspects and present positive externalities for their communities in much the same way as the goods and services I list above.

I have already said that the Brits can do whatever they want. I am not denying anything positive the BBC may have. What I am saying is that, if it has to be funded by the public then it should be funded from the general budget and/or from BBC viewer fees and not from people who want to watch the Playboy channel.
>> if I choose not to watch commercial television, I’ve still got to pay for it through higher prices in the shops.

That is not true at all. You are free to buy products which do not advertise on TV or which do not advertise at all. You can find cheaper, generic products and buy them. You can buy the competing products which advertise in competing channels. But the only way to not pay for the BBC is to watch no TV and that does not sound fair to me.

>> Britain’s mixture of funding isn’t forced on the public by an evil regime - they have democracy in England now, you know.

I never said such thing and I have said and repeated that I recognise the right Brits have to run their country as they please so your comment is totally unnecessary. But in a democracy you are allowed to disagree and I know many Brits do. I do not think anyone would defend that anything a democratically elected government does is right.

One thing we’ll have to agree is that the system is pretty uncommon and I do not know any other country in the world which has a TV tax to support a national TV. Maybe they exist but I can’t think of any. Trying to impose such system in any country in Europe or in the US would be a non-starter. But I fully recognise the right of the UK to be as weird as they want.

And getting back to the OP: can the BBC hounds detect my watching TV on a computer?

Does the tax also apply to VCRs? Because I could record BBC shows on tape to view somewhere else.

Does it apply to a TV set with no tuner? (Which would not be able to tune to the BBC)

[Bromley]

It’s already imposed on many European countries per this usenet thread (I know, poor evidence ). However, just within that thread, it mentions Sweden and Denmark as having state taxes/licence fees for TV.

Also, see reprise above for evidence of an Australian tax. I found an indirect reference to an Italian TV tax and some (rabid ) discussion on a Canadian TV tax (although I don’t know if that was implemented).

1. Not sure.

2 & 3. Per this guy, any equipment manufactured to receive TV signals are covered. Come to think of it, if they caught you, that would probably cover a TV tuner in your PC.

Oh, and I see income tax as the correct way to redistribute wealth, not service related taxes. Or do you think rich people should pay more federal sales tax than the poor?

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by sailor *
**

No, it means two things: First and foremost, that if the country wants a National TV the whole country should pay for it and people would contribute according to their wealth and capacity like with the rest of the budget. That a poor man and a rich man pay the same to maintain a National TV seems pretty unfair to me. Not to mention it would simplify collecting the money and there would be no need for the BBC TV hounds.

The tax TV appeared at a time when TV was a luxury, and people wouldn’t have liked to pay for other people’s luxuries. Now, people are accustomed to this system and don’t really mind. On the overall, in the current situation (with pretty much everybody having a TV), your arguments make sense. Actually, the idea of paying for public TV has been debatted here, essentially based on the “simplifying the collect of money argument”. There are people who are opposed to it, though, because they don’t want to pay for something they don’t use (people tend not to mind about things they’re accustomed to, but easily point at the flaws in new systems) and because some people think the public stations would become too dependant on the good will of the government. And finally the governement doesn’t want to look like it’s raising the taxes.

And secondly I just believe there should not be any government sponsored media, TV or otherwise. IMHO the government exists to guarantee my rights and provide a framework where I can exercise them not to feed me the TV they think suits me best. But hey, it’s just my opinion.

And it has not much bearing on this debate. You must take as a given that there are public stations, in this case and propose alternate ways to fund them.

I know people in the UK who cheat and I can’t say I blame them. I have difficulty equating this with cheating on your income tax. That a very poor person should be forced to pay the BBC such a high amount to be allowed watch another channel is pretty close to extortion in my book. I have reported people in the US who were stealing cable but I would help people in the UK evade this tax. Again, that’s just me.

I totally disagree. If you’re not happy with the amount of your taxes, the way your tax money is used or the way it’s collected, you should vote for a party which promise to change these things. Not cheat on your taxes. If you think it’s fine in this case, you can argue as well that it’s fine to cheat on regular taxes because for instance you think the government should spend less, or because you think taxes shouldn’t be progressive, or because you think they shouldn’t be used for the military. There’s absolutely no difference.

I have already said that the Brits can do whatever they want. I am not denying anything positive the BBC may have. What I am saying is that, if it has to be funded by the public then it should be funded from the general budget and/or from BBC viewer fees and not from people who want to watch the Playboy channel.

Fine. That makes sense. But assuming that I think that at the contrary only people owing a car should pay for the roads, or that there should be a flat rate for taxes, or no VAT will you help me cheating on my taxes? In what way being opposed to the way taxes are paid suddenly makes not paying them right?

I never said such thing and I have said and repeated that I recognise the right Brits have to run their country as they please so your comment is totally unnecessary. But in a democracy you are allowed to disagree and I know many Brits do.

True. You’re allowed to disagree. But you’re not allowed not to pay when the majority has decided that you should, whatever the reason why you think you shouldn’t pay.

One thing we’ll have to agree is that the system is pretty uncommon and I do not know any other country in the world which has a TV tax to support a national TV. Maybe they exist but I can’t think of any. Trying to impose such system in any country in Europe or in the US would be a non-starter.

Actually, the same system exists in France (except that the license is way lower, and it resulted in public channels being eventually allowed to braodcast advertisments, which I found was a very bad idea) and as far as I know in many other european countries.

Actually I believe you’re not accustomed to this concept, which makes it look weird to you, and it involves the governments which transform it from weird to evil in your book.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by sailor *
One thing we’ll have to agree is that the system is pretty uncommon and I do not know any other country in the world which has a TV tax to support a national TV. Maybe they exist but I can’t think of any. Trying to impose such system in any country in Europe or in the US would be a non-starter. But I fully recognise the right of the UK to be as weird as they want.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/news/news180.htm

"A colour Television Licence costs £101.00 per year - less than 28 pence a day. A black and white Television Licence costs £33.50.
The level of the UK Television Licence is one of the lowest in Europe. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland are more expensive. Only France, Holland, Ireland, and Italy are cheaper - they also take advertising. "
What’s uncommon is the US model of broadcasting. Look sailor, you’re fully entitled to your views but I really don’t think you have a grasp of this subject matter. I know you think you do…

In particular, I think you fail to address any of the benefits of public broadcasting and, instead, blind yourself with the belief that market forces are the only justifiable route for teevee funding. It’s simply not the case and I don’t think you begin to grasp the concept.

Again in this last post you talk of “Government sponsored media”. Sorry, it’s a nonsense. The very right to exist is independent of Government by virtue of Royal Charter…I don’t know what else to say…Okay, try this:

If the financial model didn’t work, I’d be at the front of the queue complaining and if a political party saw capital to be made by objecting to the BBC, it surely would. However, putting aside the principle of public broadcasting (education, minority programming, etc), the quality issue, maintaining standards, the value of it’s independent news and current affairs programming and much besides (including the web site), this is what I get for £2+/$3+ a week (from the same link):

“The Television Licence fee pays for BBC ONE and BBC TWO - which provide more than 12,500 hours of programmes a year; national Radios 1,2,3,4, and 5 Live; national radio services in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales - including services in Welsh and Gaelic languages; and 38 English local radio services. It also pays for new services BBC CHOICE, BBC KNOWLEDGE, BBC NEWS 24 and BBC PARLIAMENT and BBC ONLINE.”
In addition, I’m happier with the funding now the BBC has better grasped it’s commercial opportunities – BBC Worldwide better exploiting the potential of the current and back catolugue by flogging all manner of books, video’s, DVD’s…etc. Plus exploiting same through slowly growing advertising on BBC America – if I were you, I might start to question why US consumers will soon be subsidising my teevee programming.

[clairobscur]

Oh, and I see income tax as the correct way to redistribute wealth, not service related taxes. Or do you think rich people should pay more federal sales tax than the poor?

I don’t know what Sailor thinks, but personnaly, I would want sales tax to be suppressed. I think that people should know very clearly how much taxes they pay (like in writing a check for the total amount each year). I don’t like sneaky taxes like the VAT at all. I think the only taxes on sales should be intended to cover external costs (for instance taxes on gas for pollution costs or tax on cigarettes for healthcare costs). Not sure about taxes intended to limit the consumption of a given product (like tax on gas to limit imports or tax on cigarettes as an incentive to quit smoking).

[sailor]

>> The level of the UK Television Licence is one of the lowest in Europe. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland are more expensive. Only France, Holland, Ireland, and Italy are cheaper - they also take advertising.

Really? In all those countries you have to pay a yearly tax on the ownership of a TV set? Can people confirm this because I am very surprised by this. How is it collected? They also go around in the hounding vans detecting people who are watching TV and have not paid the tax?

I am amazed. Please confirm this.

[Bromley]

The method of collection is not specified. It may be that it is incorporated into income tax, as you seem to prefer, or by licence. My link confirms that the Swedish and Danish “taxes” are license fees. It would seem fair to assume that the majority are license fees, as that is how they would have historically been charged. Note, however, that some countries have changed that to normal taxation (i.e. Australia).

The “hounding vans” will represent a minutely small cost to the country. As has been said, most of the enforcement comes from fear of being caught and prosecuted, supported by database targeting. Note that the detectors can now be hand-held and that the vans have always (in recent history) been more for show - there were even dummy vans.

[Aro]

BTW, they have recently updated the current licence agreement to include ownership of computers (assumed to have the technology to receive channels) in the household.

It is the possibility of receiving television channels you are paying for, not the actual viewing of the channels.

[Shade]

I heard a case where a TV detector van spotted a TV in use in a house, and the driver walked up to the front door. He met a man coming out, who said ‘My license is on the mantlepiece. I’m just leaving, but my wife’ll show you.’

He knocked on the door and the wife answered. She said “Oh my, I know we have a licence, but I can’t remember where it is.” He said “It’s on the mantlepiece, ma’am.” and she said “Blimy! Those detector vans are good, aren’t they.”

[/joke] I didn’t feel qualified to wade into a public tv debate.

[CurtC]

Bromley wrote:
Oh, and I see income tax as the correct way to redistribute wealth, not service related taxes.

Since this is GQ and not GD, I’ll try to keep this factual. In the US, the income tax is meant to provide funding, not to redistribute wealth. Wealth redistribution is considered fundamentally immoral by a large amount of the population, including me. Keeping this in mind might give you a key to figure out tax debates in the US.

[sailor]

>> Look sailor, you’re fully entitled to your views but I really don’t think you have a grasp of this subject matter. I know you think you do…

Since the subject matter is my own opinion I think I am qualified to say what my opinion is.

>> In particular, I think you fail to address any of the benefits of public broadcasting and, instead, blind yourself with the belief that market forces are the only justifiable route for teevee funding. It’s simply not the case and I don’t think you begin to grasp the concept.

I did not say that. Read my posts. I said if the country is going to pay for national TV it should be paid from the general budget to which people contribute according to wealth and capacity. You have not addressed this point. Why should the poor and the rich pay the same?

>> Again in this last post you talk of “Government sponsored media”. Sorry, it’s a nonsense. The very right to exist is independent of Government by virtue of Royal Charter

So you are blaming the Queen and the government has no responsibility? If the BBC exists because the Queen says so and is out of all government control then I really have to object. People elect the legislature to enact laws and if the BBC is outside the democratic system then it really is inadmissable. And if the BBC get their powers from the government I cannot see how you can claim it is not government-sponsored. If it is government sponsored I find that unacceptable. If it is not government sponsored I find that even worse. So, What is it?

The fact that they may have great programming is beside the point. My main objection, as I have said several times, is why should a poor person and a rich person pay the same? Would it be fair to just have a fixed amount of taxes every person should contribute regardless of means or wealth? Why is it not a better system for the BBC to be funded through the general budget? That is my point.

The thought that the government keeps lists of who has a TV, a VCR a computer. . . that is repulsive to me. And again, that is just my opinion.

[Ximenean]

Here’s a snippet from an article at Charter 88 about BBC independence:

The reality is - and always has been - very different. For much of its history the BBC has been subject to discreet political manipulation by government. Mrs Thatcher, like any other Prime Minister, had it in her power to change the way the BBC was funded, to privatise it, to break it up, to abolish it by degrees. A Prime Minister has three immediate levers of control over the Corporation: appointing the BBC governors (who, constitutionally, are the BBC); fixing the annual licence fee; and renewing the BBC Charter. Mrs Thatcher at once began to turn the screws, ruthlessly packing the board of governors with the government’s friends.

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Aro *
**BTW, they have recently updated the current licence agreement to include ownership of computers (assumed to have the technology to receive channels) in the household.

It is the possibility of receiving television channels you are paying for, not the actual viewing of the channels. **

Is this true? Is there an online cite? So now it’s not a matter of supporting the BBC, but a matter of taxing any computer that could receive the signal?

Here’s one thing I would like to know - are there hard statistics on the amount of adverts on the publicly-funded UK stations, versus the “free” US ones? (in terms of minutes/hour) Because I can tell you - it appears to me on nearly every station in the UK that there are at least as many adverts as US stations, if not more (well, at least they are much better and more interesting, so maybe that’s why it seems like there are more…they don’t get tuned out by my brain)

But if the amount of adverts on the tax-funded stations is even half of what the “free” US stations have - doesn’t this mean that their business model is failing?

[Una_Persson]

sailor, take a look at these links. They may at least provide a path to a definite answer on “can they detect the PC cards” issue. And it answers my query about the license fees - ummm…kinda.

A licence to print money?

Only UK viewers have to pay for the BBC on the PC

TV licence needed to watch the BBC on your PC

[Aro]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**
Is this true? Is there an online cite? So now it’s not a matter of supporting the BBC, but a matter of taxing any computer that could receive the signal?
**

Not sure if it is on-line somewhere, I was just going by what is actually printed on the back of my current TV licence. It states a licence is needed for B&W or colour TV, or a computer capable of watching television. Not sure if they would actually go so far as to check to see if you had a video card installed or not.

Will have a look for a site showing the licence small print…

[Aro]

Here is a site saying the computer issue is only being looked at now.

Maybe they have put in on the licence to make people aware of the possibility of bringing in the changes. But it doesn’t seem to be actual enforceable yet. Sorry for causing confusion there.

Another news site here.

Although to go backwards, this site here states you DO need a licence if you have a computer. Now I don’t even know which is correct.

[Ximenean]

Anthracite, there are no adverts on the BBC at all. About 15 minutes per hour on commercial channels.

[Ximenean]

And this guy says that you only need a licence if you actually use the TV/VCR/computer to receive broadcasts.

[Aro]

Usram
To be completely fair, the BBC do spend a fair amount of time advertising future BBC programmes that they seem particularly proud of, in between other scheduled programmes.