Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 562 posts

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#251

Post by andybak »

mrsuprawsm wrote: post #234
jonathanstrange wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBC is awesome, their news is very good and they produce some of the best series in the world. It's a shame that they have split up BBC UK and BBC International so strictly and do everything they can to lock all BBC UK offerings to citizens of the UK. It infuriates me that I'm redirected from bbc.co.uk to bbc.com and are being displayed something else than people in the UK. If I go to bbc.co.uk, I do that to find out…

Unfortunately BBC news really isn't that good any more. It's been on a long slow decline since about 2005 or so, and now the majority of their news programming (with a few small but notable exceptions) are primarily cheering on the Tory government + ministers of the day.

It sometimes seems like each side of the UK political spectrum is convinced that the BBC is irrevocably biased in favour of their opponents. The Tory right want to hamstring the BBC ("Bunch of Bloody Communists" used to be the witty cry) and jump on it at any opportunity.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#252

Post by galvin »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #221
xorcist wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just any private business. Compare with social insurance fees that must also be paid, it is not something you can opt out of while being part of the society. The fact that it is not a state owned organization is a feature, not a bug. In Germany specifically it is not a revolving door between public broadcasting and politics, and there is clearly journalistic pride in taking down corrupt politicians, so while…

You're contradicting yourself. You say it's good that the TV tax is levied by the government like social insurance fees but instead of it going directly to the government like social insurance fees, it goes to an "independent" organization and that's the "feature"? LOL, what?! Do you really think that money is no strings attached? Ideally it would be and I guess that's the idea on paper but in practice, the public br…

Democracy requires an informed electorate and publicly funded broadcasters are a means to achieve that. The government must have as little control as possible over their funding to ensure their journalistic independence.

That's the guiding theory at resulted in most European countries having some variation of a public broadcaster funded by TV (formally radio) licences.

There are many implementation differences between countries and none of them are perfect but I would argue that those I'm familiar with serve their purpose.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#253

Post by Nux »

mellosouls wrote: post #131
Nux wrote: post #98

Unpopular opinion: I agree to and support the BBC TV license. I think most of their TV and radio programmes are as good as they come. The Brits are lucky to have it. "But Netflix, Prime!.." - sorry, that's 99% dopamine inducing mindless entertainment, Idiocracy-style. I want more than that, for me and my family. They can never replace quality programmes done without so much pressure for investment returns, engagement…

I agree with the Beeb being publicly funded too, though would prefer it being part of normal taxation rather than the license fee which is so controversial. But I don't think attacking American providers is a strong counter at all, the days when the BBC led the world in quality are long gone, HBO set the standard for modern drama which no British service has come close to matching; Netflix and Prime provide plenty of…

Yes, in terms of drama other parties have had more success and set the bar higher, but TV is (or should be) more than that. Maybe I am being naive.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#254

Post by hef19898 »

cncndhJ wrote: post #197
stkdump wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the state exert power over the broadcasters if their income doesn't come from the government? Edit: When I say 'how' I don't mean 'why', I mean 'by what means'.

Because the broadcasters need politicians and courts to confirm that the TV protection money is constitutional. It is protection money: You haven't ordered any service and if you don't pay they'll make you pay and ruin your credit score in the process. In the collection process they pretend to be a government institution to avoid going through local courts, which sometimes are against them. EDIT: Also, I'm beginning…

I think it is downvoted because it ignores the complete historical context of this system. It was put in place after WW2, and with a lot of things implemented in the German Verfassung, it drew curcial lessons from the Nazis rise to power and their way of ruling.

Broadcasting, as opposed to the 100% Nazi party controll of media before, was thus setup to be independetly funded and run. The ZDF, if memory serves well, is allowed to be more of a government policy outlet than the ARD and the third programms. The goal is to prevent media to become government controlled, with the added benefit of being independent from add revenue. And that principal is still pretty solid.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#255

Post by saberdancer »

boffinism wrote: post #128

The BBC is currently dedicating hours of airtime a day to educational content to match our primary and secondary curricula because the schools are shut and lots of kids can't access online provisions. And still people complain about the licence fee in terms of whether or not they enjoy BBC gameshows...

What is the point of this license fee in this day and age? Everyone has a TV, so everyone pays the license fee. Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC.

My problem with this type of license fee collection is that it bring forward a number of costs associated with it that could be removed if it went directly from taxes and that today everyone has TV so it doesn't really "tax the rich" that it probably was intended to do in the early days.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#256

Post by MaxBarraclough »

gambiting wrote: post #225
spuz wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, you must pay if you are capable of receiving live TV, not only if you do receive live TV. Even if it was never switch on, a TV that is plugged into an aerial qualifies as meeting that requirement.

That is absolutely 1000000% not true. You only have to pay the TV Licence if you ever watch live TV, not if you merely have a televion set. I've never paid the fee because I don't watch live TV, ever, and when you go on the TV licence page to fill out the form why you don't need a licence, one of the options on the form is "I only use my TV for games consoles, netflix, dvd players etc". So it's not some "clever hack"…

It's unhelpful to disagree with someone on a point of fact and to decline to provide a decent source. The result is that you've given the reader no reason to take your word over the other person's.

From what I can tell, your account of things is accurate. On the website [0][1][2] the requirements aren't concerned at all with what equipment you own or with how it's set up, only with the act of watching or recording live television broadcasts over any technology, including over the Internet. I imagine it still wouldn't hurt to disconnect your TV from the means to show live broadcasts, for the tiny off-chance things end up in court.

I think spuz's account may have been accurate in pre-Internet days, but this seems harder to verify.

[0] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/L...

[1] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ99

[2] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-policy-A...

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#257

Post by joking »

hef19898 wrote: post #193
ValentinPearce wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always mostly known public funded radios to be actually quite critical of the current ruling party. I do not watch much televison but I would expect a similar behaviour. Howerver I guess it depends on the country you're from.

A ssome else pinted out, by funding public braodcasting directly they can afford to be critical. Were the fundid by a tax, collected by the gevernment, and handed out by the government this independance goes right out of the window. One of the lessons Germany learned from the Nazi regime with government controlled media.

there is no difference if is in the government power to increase or decrease that tax.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#258

Post by hef19898 »

mattlutze wrote: post #249
bipson wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the only demographic that really kept watching Austrian stations is pensioners, and sports fans (the amount of skiing tournaments on our main station in winter is ridiculous). Everyone else often had cable or SAT, which gave you all the German and also Swiss networks, particularly the private ones, where the program is aimed at different demographics (also possible because of vastly larger pockets: Germ…

Is there an Austrian version of Tatort? I've only seen episodes/teams based in German cities.

Yep, Vienna has a team. There is also a Swiss one, I think.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#259

Post by Yaggo »

doikor wrote: post #154
lqet wrote: post #38

> The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for requiring those households which view broadcast television to purchase a licence for the privilege. I know at least three countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) which do the same (edit: according the Wikipedia [0], such a fee exists in basically every European country, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Namibia). In Germany, the situation changed a few years…

Here in Finland they just moved the payment into taxes in 2013. Basically 2.5% starting from income after 14000€ and maxes out at 163€ collected. https://www.vero.fi/en/About-us/newsroom/visual_aids_for_pre...

I remember the old times when there were inspectors going from door to door, often ex cops. Legally you weren't obligated to open your door, but if you did, and they heard a voice of TV, an invoice did follow. It was just crazy system.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#260

Post by saberdancer »

rock_artist wrote: post #32

Israel had similar fee for many years. (The public television was deeply inspired by the bbc). But here they solved it by a much easier way. * once you got married, you were automatically assumed to have a TV set. * any tv that was sold were reported to the communication ministry. * a car owner would pay by default. Assumption was all cars would have and use a radio. * to show you don’t have a TV set or it’s not rece…

Thank you for "mehikon" reference. It sounds as something out of a bad soviet joke.

Your point about random checkups is probably how it was done in most countries. You could opt out, but you would have to allow them to enter your home for a checkup. If you refused, you would have to pay again.

Post reply on HN