Older British comedy shows occasionally mentioned the “TV detector van” which apparently was sent ‘round to catch people watching TV who hadn’t paid their license fee (charged in lieu of commercial to pay for programming. Is this still the case?). Was there really such a thing? Did it really work or was it all a bluff to scare the gullible cockneys into paying up? Are they still used? I never seen so many bleedin’ aerials in all me life.
Question Two: What the heck does “leg before wicket” mean?
“Leg Before Wicket” is a term from the game of cricket. It basically is a form of illegal intereference with the play of the game. If you want the details:
The current TV licence fee in the UK is a whopping 101 pounds per year. This basically is to help pay for BBC 1 & 2 programs, as these channels are commercial-free (or were last time I was in the UK).
I think Australia and Ireland also have annual licences for TV…
Yes virginia there is such a thing called the tv detector van. It works like this, All tv’s receive in the vhf or uhf band that have frequencies set aside for different channels. Now in order to convert these (very or Ultra) high frequencies back down to video/audio, the internal workings of the tv set had to DOWN CONVERT these signals by way of a LOCAL OSCILLATOR inside the tv set. The local oscillator RADIATED outside of the tv set, sometimes up to a few hundred feet away. And this is what signal the detector van used to track down "unliscensed tv’s.
Here in the U.S., we have a cable channel called A&E (Arts and Entertainment). About 50% of their content is from England. Believe me, I’d be pretty mad if I had to pay for the likes of The Benny Hill Show.
Wait a minute. My American brain is having trouble with this concept.
Are you saying that in Britain you have to pay a licensing fee to own and/or operate a television set? Annually? And that the authorities actually roam the streets in vans looking for renegade TV’s?
It sounds kind of like registering a car - is that a decent comparison?
Wait a minute. My American brain is having trouble with this concept.
Are you saying that in Britain you have to pay a licensing fee to own and/or operate a television set? Annually? And that the authorities actually roam the streets in vans looking for renegade TV’s?
It sounds kind of like registering a car - is that a decent comparison?
Ireland does, although RTÉ does have advertising. It’s basically a user fee which if you think about it is somewhat fairer than making everyone pay tax for the channel even if they don’t own a TV.
Yes, Brad, that’s pretty much how it works. The government pays for the television broadcasts and finances it through a tax on television ownership. If you don’t want to finance televsion you don’t own a television, and vice versa.
As for you, sailor, what are you advocating? Are you saying that others should be paying their tax dollars (well, tax pounds) so you can watch television for free?
The license fee (the cost of which varies depending on whether you have a colour TV, black-and-white TV or a visual impairment) pays for the network TV channels offered by the BBC, and subsidises the scores of national and local radio stations also run by the BBC. Because there is no way to guarantee that a viewer is “only” watching the commercial channels, one TV license is required for each property with a TV.
The TV detector vans detect the signal, I assume by the means already described by QirQ, and cross-references against a database of customer records. Fines for non-payment are pretty heavy.
This website is the official site, and gives details on the why, how and all that…
Debates over the rights and wrongs of state-funded broadcasting have raged for many, many years. Supporters point out that it enables the BBC to make a more diverse range of programmes, free from “lowest common denominator” commercial pressures, which have had a noticeable effect on the commercial channels. The BBC’s output is very carefully scrutinised (accusations of bias or failing to meet a mandate are obviously a political hot potato) to ensure it is doing this. ITV in particular has been criticised by regulatory bodies for sticking to tried-and-tested gameshow and cop show formats, rather than investing in news, current affairs and drama.
Little Nemo, I guess that system makes sense to someone with a British mind but not to me or most people in other parts of the world. The way I see it I am buying a set which allows me to receive that signal, it does not mean I am actually going to receive it. The broadcaster is not forced to put the signal out, they do it voluntarily. There is a better solution (used in other countries) which is scrambling the signal and you pay to have it descrambled.
I am sorry but your system seems crazy to me and I am sure it would never be upheld in America or other countries.
I mean, a computer connected to the internet allows you to receive stuff. Suppose I put stuff up on my site and say I want everybody who has a computer to pay me a fee since they could, maybe, conceivably, possibly, download my stuff. Is this stupid or what?
And why can only the BBC (government owned) demand a fee?
I would forget the reason that it is supposed to pay for your receiving their broadcasts. It is simply a tax on owning the set, even if you do not use it.
In any case, I am not sure how the detector vans work but I suppose they detect some minor radiation put out by the receiver. I suspect if you knew how they work you could build an undetectable receiver. (I certainly would, few things would give me more pleasure than evading such a stupid tax)
The BBC is what’s usually called an “arm’s length” public body. It is an independent, non-profit-making corporation, but it is in the public, rather than the private sector. It broadcasts two national TV channels (with some local variation in programming for news, etc.), five national radio stations and a local radio station in each city or county. It is not allowed to raise money through advertising, but it may make money through other commercial ventures (e.g. selling its programmes to the US, publishing magazines that tie in with its programmes, etc.) It also broadcasts some subscription TV channels and an international radio station, BBC World Service, which is part-funded by the Foreign Office.
In order to pay for the BBC, every household with a televison must pay an annual licence fee. It is not a tax, in the sense that it is collected by the Government and then distrubuted, but it goes directly to the BBC itself so that the BBC is free from any political interference with its funding.
One of the great benefits of the system is that because the BBC does not have constantly to chase ratings to make money, it can produce programming which would not be commercially viable in a braodcasting free market. A good example is Monty Python, which was a ratings failure at first and would probably have been ditched after the first series by any commercial station. Benny Hill, IIRC, was produced by ITV, a commercial broadcaster. The BBC also broadcasts a lot of educational programmes for schools and the Open University which would have little or no appeal to a commercial broadcaster.
The only alternatives that I can see would be to do away with the BBC entirely (lose the quality programming) or to fund it out of general taxation (gain more political interference).
I don’t see why a “tax” (if you must call it that) on televisions is any different from a tax on cars, petrol, cigarettes, income or property ownership.
Can you avoid paying school taxes if you swear that you’re never going to have kids? See, we have tax laws like this in the U.S. too.
Personally, I found the BBC channels quite well done and would often watch these channels (even though we had Sky TV) just to avoid the sensory overload from commercial TV. In other words, I didn’t mind the TV liscense fee - I felt like I received a valuable service from it.
The TV contains an oscillator which controls the raster scanning - moving the one illuminated dot of light across the screen. The same aerial which captures the inbound TV signal also transmits this raster frequency. The only way to avoid transmitting it would be to completely shield your aerial against any form of EM radiation - which might degrade your picture just a little.
As colour pictures require a faster scan rate than black and white, different frequency signals are transmitted for each type, and can be used to identify the type of TV.
The detector vans move about the streets and can triangulate on the signal to determine - very roughly - the origin of each signal. I believe that their main purpose is intimidation, and that most of the work is done by analysing licence records, and assuming that almost everyone will have at least one TV in their house.
Yes, we do have a licence fee here in Ireland. It is £92 a year, and it goes to funding pretty much the same service that is in the UK. Irish television is commercialised though, but we have got a high quality of programming.
What I like about the BBC is the quality of programming. You can be sure to find almost anything you need on it (short of “Revenge of the Dirty Sluts” after all, thats what Channel 4 is for)
Also, we have a hell of a lot less Commercial Breaks over here.
RTE have one in a Half hour programme (none, during sports coverage, save for half time)
and you can watch A film right through without having to be interupted by Tampon ads.
(oh, and they dont have a Van anymore. Its all hand-held)
You wouldn’t need to shield the aerial (antenna in the US), just the box containing the receiver. I’m not sure whether the vans detect the line retrace signal as you describe, which is around 15 kHz in the US, and makes the whistling sound that I can hear when a TV is on (but most people can’t). I don’t think this is likely, since your TV is not big enough to be an efficient antenna at 15 kHz.
I think the vans are more likely to detect the local oscillator leakage as QirQ described.
Color pictures have the same scan rate as B&W. That’s why the signals are backwards-compatible. The color signal is a phase- and amplitude-modulated 3.59something MHz signal (US) overlaid on the luminosity signal.