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

291–300 of 562 posts

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#291

Post by hef19898 »

gyulai wrote: post #165

Many people here are commenting on the fact that public broadcasters tend to do documentaries and educational programming which wouldn't be able to survive at that level of quality under a free market system, which seems to be a cause that almost everyone can get behind and an argument frequently being used for defending this system. What riles me up personally: the ludicrous sums of money that these broadcasters pay…

I have two companies registered at my home address. In both cases I got, a coupe of weeks after incorporation, a letter with a form form the GEZ covering stuff like number of employees and so on. But having the same address, it was enough to provide them the registry number under which the residential fees were already paid. Than I got a letter confirming I don't have to pay any fees. That happened in 2019 and 2020, so it could have been different. The GEZ was known for some less than clean practices in the past. I never got directly an invoice from them so tight of the bat.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#292

Post by programLyrique »

glandium wrote: post #44
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…

You can add France and Japan to the list. In France, they don't go door to door, though, it's only a check box on some tax returns forms. In Japan they do come door to door. I've never heard about "detection vans" in either, though.

They might not come, but they will send you a letter to ask you if really, really, you don't have a TV.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#293

Post by nailer »

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.

> (the bCC) are primarily cheering on the Tory government + ministers of the day.

I was about to say the opposite:

https://order-order.com/2021/01/08/bbc-uses-old-picture-to-h...

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#295

Post by zelos »

_ph_ wrote: post #282
lultimouomo wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a state wants to fund public radio and TV stations, it doesn't need to do it through a mandatory, regardless of use flat fee. I would argue that that is the worse possible way to do it: * Increased bureaucracy (why not add a 0.1% to an existing tax?) * Regressive taxation (you pay the same amount regardless of your income; if you used the income tax, you would distribute it more fairly) * No market shaping (you co…

The point of having a fee vs. a tax is, that the government has no direct control of it. So they can't just adjust it at will. The fee is set for several years in advance and increased from time to time to adjust for inflation etc. But it is an independant entitiy deciding about this.

Could you have the same independent entity decide the total funding for the BBC and then have the government pay for that out of general taxation?

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#296

Post by nailer »

bergstromm466 wrote: post #209
haspok wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the UK there is content on TV worthy of watching (I got addicted to snooker while there, also some quite interesting shows like "Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole"), also, when I moved overseas they paid back the licence fee for the remaining part of the year, no questions asked. Now I'm in Austria and the "content" on TV channels is just ridiculous. Targeted at 70+ pensioners, but why should I pay for t…

> some quite interesting shows like "Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole" The show that demonizes, humiliates and dehumanizes working class people by filming them being evicted?

You seem to be implying that the BBC is discriminating against working class people by showing people on benefits / being evicted.

There are many working class people who are not on benefits or being evicted. You may wish to look for evidence of bias closer to home.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#297

Post by whywhywhywhy »

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...

I mean I wasn't against the licence fee until they invaded my privacy detecting the purchase of a new TV and started sending me threatening letters under the guise of "TV Licencing" which is a sub-brand they use to harass people to protect the image of the BBC.

I'll never pay it again.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#298

Post by nailer »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #256
gambiting wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

> Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it’s being shown on TV or live on an online TV service.

I find the wording here fascinating. Is watching a live stream over the YouTube app on my TV 'live TV'? Is watching a UFC event on the UFC app? What about the website?

What is TV? Is a monitor? A monitor with an aerial? Video content transmitted over certain bands?

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#299

Post by bnlpxg »

hef19898 wrote: post #254
cncndhJ wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, i…

The arguments you make are orthogonal to the discussion whether TV fees should be protection money or based on actual TV ownership.

The latter has been the status quo in Germany for the better part of time since WW2, and arguably people were less radicalized on both sides of the political spectrum than now.

It is when institutions get overtly greedy that people start to complain.

Post reply on HN