TV detector van • Hacker News Board

Re: TV detector van

#51

Post by NeedForSweede » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

groundlogic wrote: post #34

noodlesUK wrote: post #13

This is such nonsense. In my opinion the BBC should be paid for by a proper tax, as an informed public benefits everyone, or they should just give up on calling it a license. The people going around houses just send threatening letters, and act as though they have some right to enter your home and inspect it (they don't). They go around terrorising people who don't know their rights, but don't watch TV anyway. I rout…

Swedish public service transitioned from a per-household fee (for households that held devices capable of showing RF broadcast TV) to a per citizen tax January 1st this year. Of course, they go to great lengths to avoid calling it a tax, but... well, it is a tax. I don't really like it. There's no opt-out any longer. And the content is predictably all-consuming leftist.

[dead]

Re: TV detector van

#52

Post by DanBC » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #44

arprocter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe when you buy a TV retailers are required to take down your address I bought one once and evidently they managed to typo the house number, so our neighbour down the street who didn't have a TV kept getting the 'we know you have a TV but no license threatening letters

>I believe when you buy a TV retailers are required to take down your address Is this for real? I remember thinking "dystopian as hell" when I heard about all the CCTVs in England, but this one takes the cake. I can at least see the points made by the other side of the CCTV argument, even though I very much disagree with them. Why cannot one just buy a TV in England without giving out their personal info?

It used to be true, the law changed a while ago.

The law wasn't "you must hand over your details when buying a tv", it was "you must ask for details when selling a tv". Customers were free to supply false information.

Re: TV detector van

#53

Post by djmobley » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

tomxor wrote: post #43

You might think these vans were crazy then, what's more crazy today is how they continue to force their opt-out licensing upon everyone like it's still 1946 and they are the only broadcasters in town. If you live in the UK and own a TV you must pay the BBC whether you want the BBC or not! I'm one of the minority who don't own a TV in the UK and even then they make it their business to inform me every two years about…

To be clear, a licence is required to watch live TV on any channel, not just the BBC.

Re: TV detector van

#54

Post by bcaa7f3a8bbc » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #41

The interesting thing is the Operation section sounds a lot like they're using the same principal behind TEMPEST [0] and van Eck phreaking where leaked emanations from electronic devices can be used to spy on the computation being done and data being displayed. Flat panel displays can be spyed on using this method [1] so it's not completely out of bound of reality that these vans could work as detectors. [0] https://…

It's very likely that those vans were used in the 1970s to capture the RF leakage from the local oscillator and other driving circuitry of the CRT TVs. But while it's still technically possible to detect RF leakage from modern LCD TVs, I'm not sure BBC has the capabilities to deploy those and achieve reliable detection. Many people would say these vans became hoaxes at some point in history.

Re: TV detector van

#55

Post by djmobley » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

Wistar wrote: post #40

DanBC wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a licence if you watch live TV as it's broadcast, or if you watch BBC iPlayer catchup content. You need a licence for any device that you watch live tv as it's broadcast. You need a licence to watch live tv, no matter where it's broadcast from. The wording of the law says "installed or used to receive", so in theory you need a licence if you have eg a tv plugged into an aerial. They don't prosecute those cas…

Record and time-shift it so that it is no longer "live TV?"

You still need a licence to timeshift.

See: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ95

Re: TV detector van

#56

Post by madeofpalk » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

noodlesUK wrote: post #13

This is such nonsense. In my opinion the BBC should be paid for by a proper tax, as an informed public benefits everyone, or they should just give up on calling it a license. The people going around houses just send threatening letters, and act as though they have some right to enter your home and inspect it (they don't). They go around terrorising people who don't know their rights, but don't watch TV anyway. I rout…

This is one of the reasons why I make such a point to not pay for the TV license (apart from, you know, not watching broadcast TV). I'm all for my tax to be increased marginally to pay for the operation of the BBC, but I am very much against these additional taxes added on top. Just send me one tax bill a year and I'll pay that.

Re: TV detector van

#57

Post by jdofaz » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

On the upside BBC viewers don't have to fast forward through pledge drives like on PBS.

This topic reminds me of when The Simpsons had Betty White and PBS pledge enforcement chase down Homer for not paying his pledge.

Re: TV detector van

#58

Post by tehlike » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

Another way this could be possible is embedding inaudible-to-human-ears audio cues into the stream.

Re: TV detector van

#59

Post by mytailorisrich » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

djmobley wrote: post #49

_-___________-_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, this only applies to television that is paid for by the license (BBC etc, including streaming via iPlayer). I have a television and use it only to watch Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, and am thus not required to pay the license. Which goes to show how ridiculous these vans are, since they can't tell where you're getting the content you're watching.

This is incorrect advice that could get someone convicted. A licence is required if you watch live TV on any channel. See: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ95

Netflix and Amazon prime are not TV and don't require a TV licence.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

But indeed, watching any channel on TV (not just the BBC) requires a licence.

Re: TV detector van

#60

Post by goldcd » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

mrec wrote: post #39

wyldfire wrote: post #8

While reading I thought, "for sure we will get to the part of the article where the British realized their folly and discontinued the licensing." But that part never came. Brits: is this for real, does this still exist? Do you pay a license to use your TV? Is it only for OTA programming or using the device in general?

It does, and it's every bit as ridiculous as it sounds, but I suspect it'll be discontinued within the next decade or so and the BBC will become something sane like a normal subscription channel. Anecdotally I've noticed a sea change in general-topic UK discussion fora over the past five years or so. It used to be the case that anyone criticizing the BBC was downvoted to oblivion, but the old reverence for it as an i…

I'm not sure I'd agree that there's been some "backlash" - on any discussion, both sides will quite happily criticize the BBC for bias, which I take to be a good thing.

The funding model behind the BBC is a bit suspect - I'd prefer a direct grant from the government.

Alternatives are not particularly palatable - it becomes a department of the government, or has to self fund and becomes just another commercial provider of dross.