Hmmm… anyone know exactly what signals the vans look for? I don’t live in the U.K., so nothing fishy in my question. But “what they look for” I mean what type(s) of signal(s)? There’s a BIG difference between a receiver that picks up VHF-UHF signals and demodulates them, and the higher-frequency signals of a satellite dish.
The vans detect (possibly among other things) RF noise from the CRT; since this changes depending on the picture being displayed, they are (apparently) able to detect what channel you are watching.
A CRT will emit a small amount of (presumably radio frequency) radiation which can be picked up with the right equipment. I saw a demonstration of this some years ago as a possible espionage method as you could read what was on a computer screen through a wall.
In reality I think the detector vans are a gimmick to scare the public into buying the license. They do work but are totally impractical. The main way of catching people is to cross reference licenses with a list of who has bought a TV set. Retailers are required to supply the name and address of all customers who purchase equipment which requires a license.
I don’t think it’s the CRT tube that the vans detect, otherwise you’d be able to cheat by using a plasma or LCD screen, which I’m told isn’t possible. Apparently tuners contain a component called an oscillator that generates a weak, secondary signal from the one it receives, and that’s what the van detects.
Rayne Man generally answers the TV questions pretty well, so maybe he’ll be along to give you a more technical answer.
Here’s a discussion of what detector vans may/may not be able to detect, but the site also claims the vans are a hoax. Take your pick.
As far as I’m aware, it’s perfectly legal for you to have a TV and a video without paying for a licence as long as you only watch pre-recorded videos and DVDs. If you watch a video recorded from broadcasts (even if you haven’t recorded it) you’re liable for the licence fee.
I believe that’s something of a minefield, or grey area at least; the licence enables you to ‘operate television receiving equipment’ or something all-embracing like that.
Yes it is the local oscillator which is used by the detector van to track down your TV. This link below explains :-
http://www.tv-l.co.uk/penalties/penalties_detector.html
Another way they find people without a licence is from tip-offs. I once knew somebody who worked in the enforcement department and he told me they used to get a lot of anonymous letters saying " so and so hasn’t got a licence" . The usual cause was a falling out of neighbours who would then send off one of these letters. So keep on the right side of your neighbours or they will grass you up!
This is called Van Eck Phreaking; I first heard about it in the novel Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson.
While we’re on the subject, can we just dispel the oft-recycled myth that the BBC does not take advertising / is free from commercial pressures etc., and related nonsenses that defenders of the licence fee (= TV tax) are inclined to quote.
-
All BBC TV and radio schedules are absolutely saturated with relentless advertising. The only difference is that they are ALL adverts for BBC products and output (shows, books, tapes, concerts, tie-ins, websites… ad nauseam). On commercial (sic) channels, the free market at least means there is some variety and competition - no advertiser can afford to run one campagin forever, and in any case each advertiser wants to create a more effective ad than everyone else. On the BBC, these healthy competitive pressures do not apply because they can (and do) churn out crap and it makes no difference - they still get the cash. So the BBC can crank out endless smug, promotional hype about its own wonderfulness with a demented tediousness that it truly far, far worse than the commercial alternative.
-
The BBC has tie-ins and deals with all sorts of commercial operators, both domestically and overseas. In America, an ostensibly ‘BBC’ channel shows Graham Norton’s talk show.
-
If the BBC doesn’t carry advertising, what do you call the hype for, say, a Delia Smith cookbook after each and every one of her TV progs? A public service announcement? A shaft of divine wisdom?
-
Likewise, if the BBC is above commercial pressures, why does every record plugger in the industry move heaven and earth to get airplay on Radio 1 or a slot on TOTP? Because they enjoy hanging around Radio 1 DJs?
In comparison, an outfit like Sky (or BSkyB) is positively Trappist about its own merits.
Final thought for the TV tax supporters. First you pay the TV tax. The BBC uses the money (which you’ve just paid to them) to make a TV series. Then they put it out on video, and if you want to buy the vid, you’ll find it costs the same (£10-15) as an idnependently prodiced video. Now, in the case of the independent production, your £10-15 is used to pay everyone involved in making that vid available - the retailer, the distributor and the producers who actually had to stump up the money to make the prog in the first place. The BBC charges the same amount for its vids, and in some cases even charges more than the typical average price, even though we mugs - the TV tax payers - have already paid for the prog to be made!
Slagging off the BBC is a bit of a hobby for you ianzin, but whilst I agree that the BBC does promote its own products between the programmes you shouldn’t mislead American readers into imagining that these ads appear during the programmes themselves (there might have been some misunderstanding here).
Also, I hope the OP will not mind the hijack because the question seems to have been answered, but since you’ve raised the subject, I have a few questions:
[ul][li]Do you agree that, while advertising revenues for the main commercial channel have been falling for some time, it may not be possible for the BBC to find enough funding if it switched to conventional commercial status?[/li]
[li]If the BBC did take show commercials, would that finish off ITV and/or would the result be good or bad for overall competition in the industry?[/li]
[li]If the BBC abandoned the present method of financing, which of the other channels would it be most likely to resemble, and which would you prefer it to resemble?[/li][/ul]
I don’t work for the BBC, or have any particular axe to grind here.
Also, when you purchase a TV from most of the larger chain stores in the UK (Dixons, Currys etc) they pass on a record of that purchase to the TV Licensing people.*
I’m not sure whether the stores are legally obliged to do this, or whether they are just encouraged to, but a check is then made to see whether the billing address (I guess most of these purchases are either done on a credit card, or an address is needed for the warrenty) has a license registered there.
You’re OK if you buy second-hand, or if you pay cash though…
*I’m not 100% sure if this is gospel… It might be another rumour to scare you into paying up - the Data Protection Act would perhaps be an issue if Dixons passed on customer details without express permission…?
Is the BBC so concerned that if people actually had the choice to pay (like we do here in the US with HBO, etc.) they’d be out of business? Why force everyone in the country to pay for a TV channel, then send a government van to park outside and scan your house if you opt out? I have to say I’m shocked to learn this of the UK.
May be straying towards GD territory here, but what the heck…
Well, the BBC has been unsubtly required to commercialise its operations, not least by ensuring that the licence fee hasn’t kept pace with the cost of maintaining programming… so, the BBC, at the moment, is partially funded by commercial means (BBC Enterprises, whatever) with revenue from this defraying the costs of the public service side.
The trailers for BBC programmes and products are fitted into the gaps between programmes - a couple of minutes out of every hour hardly counts as “absolutely saturated”, even by ITV standards, and doesn’t begin to bear comparison with the US. TV programmes scheduled for hour-long slots in the US get 45 minute slots on the BBC… conclusion, the BBC has 15 minutes less per hour in advertising time. The revenue lost from this is made up by the licence fee (and other, commercial, enterprises). Or, in short, you pay the TV tax so you don’t have to put up with interruptions. I’m happy to pay it on that basis. If you had some subscription channel with the same level of (i) programming and (ii) on-screen advertising as the BBC, how much would it cost to subscribe? I suspect it would be quite a bit more than the licence fee.
Since BBC output and products are all the BBC is allowed to advertise, that’s all we get. (And, even here, there are strict restrictions on the format and style of their advertisements.)
So, having been required to be more commercial, the BBC are doing it moderately effectively. Not sure I see a problem with this.
It’s an advertisement. Obviously. Raise the licence fee, and they wouldn’t have to carry it. Equally obviously.
Presumably, they want slots on Radio 1 and TOTP because that sells more records. So, again, the BBC is using the resources available to it effectively, producing programming that people listen to/watch. Which is the purpose of the organization… so what’s the problem here? Are you saying that the BBC should be made to be less effective because it receives public money?
BSkyB can afford to preserve a dignified silence about its own merits… because it’s plugged, relentlessly, in every other News International media channel. (Take a look at Private Eye’s “Plugged In” section for particularly eye-catching examples.)
I’ll try to muster two post-final thoughts…
-
So, the BBC charges what the market will bear for its videos. Any free marketeers got a problem with that?
-
If the BBC sold its videos (already partly paid for by us, granted) at less than the average market price, how many milliseconds would elapse, do you think, before we heard a howl of “Unfair competition! Subsidising cut-rate videos with public money!” so loud it would shake snow off the rooftops in Outer Mongolia?
OK. It would be nice if the BBC were fully non-commercial and funded solely by the licence fee… but to keep the same level of programming up, the licence fee would have to be huge. Or, it would be nice if the BBC were fully commercial and self-sustaining… but that would mean the loss of its non-commercial public service aspects. Personally, I’d like to keep the BBC’s public service remit; the price I pay for this is the licence fee, and the compromise that makes the BBC neither a government institution nor a private company. The fact that the BBC is actually making this compromise work, I count as a point in its favour.
The argument for the TV tax (I’ll call it that if you like) is pretty much the same as for any other form of taxation… sure, it would be nice if people weren’t made to pay for something they don’t want or use, but, in practice, if you need the service, you have to guarantee the money for it somehow. “Do we need public service broadcasting?” you no doubt ask, cogently. Yes, on balance, I think we do…
When the BBC was begun it was the only broadcaster, so they had make a decision about how to fund it - through advertising or through a dedicated tax. They picked the second option. As extra TV companies were set up, they were all financed from commercial advertising, but the BBC have kept the old funding method.
As you can tell from ianzin’s remarks not everybody agrees that they should have to pay for the BBC, but as I’ve already said most European countries use a similar method to finance their PBS stations. I know nothing about the American PBS - is it funded entirely out of advertising?
We’re running the risk of having two threads here instead of one. Maybe we ought to start a new thread called “how should the BBC be funded?”
Sky is absolutely not trappist about its merits. Scarcely an adbreak goes past without an advert for one of its programmes or why you should pay for more channels.
At least the BBC products are relevant to the programme you just watched. Plus, they don’t interrupt an actual programme to hawk to you, unlike any of the actual adverts you get on other channels.
In Ireland, we have to pay a licence fee AND get full commercials.
And this is from a government broadcaster.
I believe it’s also the case that the BBC are required to maintain the actual broadcasting equipment used by all UK TV operators…?
The license fee doesn’t just pay for BBC programmes, but also for the infrastructure that allows all other TV channels (including most satellite channels) to operate and broadcast throught the UK.
I don’t fully understand how it works, but I was told this by a friend who worked at the TV Licensing Call Centre in Bristol and found herself constantly fielding questions along the lines of “I only ever watch Sky/ITV/Granada Men & Motors etc, so why should I pay for the BBC”.
This is a financial report from Boston’s PBS station, one of the larger contributers to US programming. There is some government funding of PBS, but for the life of me I can’t imagine how something as subjective as taste in programming should be driven be driven by anything but the marketplace.