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

381–390 of 562 posts

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#381

Post by visarga »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #271
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…

Re BBC nature documentaries That's interesting what you have to say about international vs domestic documentaries. Could you give an example of either group? I mean, I appreciate the BBC documentaries that I've seen for their high production quality and photography, innovative CGI and all, and I think they inspired and pushed the limits and budgets for TV documentaries worldwide. But personally, I prefer old-school q…

ethno kitsch .... mmmm, tasty

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#382

Post by RGamma »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #155

In Germany, the GEZ (Gebühreneinzugszentrale, which roughly translates as "subscription fee collection agency") also had some of these infamous vans with parabolic dishes on them that allegedly could detect TVs in homes or offices. I never believed this but found it funny to which lengths they would go to get people to pay the public subscription fees for their TVs. Until the mid 2000's they also hired free agents th…

GEZ... schon gezahlt?

Given the sad state of journalism across the big pond (actually pretty much everywhere for various reasons), I'm glad there's such a system in place (and that there is a large viewership in the first place!).

Quality has its price, though I agree, maybe one should be able to pay more selectively for journalism and less for football licenses. But don't change a running system...

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#383

Post by gyulai »

audunw wrote: post #289
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 really don't understand why I should be forced to give money to corrupt organizations like FIFA and the IOC to hold sports events that I don't watch and otherwise don't have a stake in, State media has to broadcast some content that's actually popular, that most people want to watch, otherwise they'd soon lose political support. I hate it too, but fact is that these events are extremely popular, especially among…

> So I think it's a necessary evil unfortunately.

I don't think its necessary at all. Why is it necessary? It's just something we have grown accustomed to in Europe, because of our big government way of doing things, where group A wants wealth transfers from group B, and if group A is a majority, they get their way.

There are a lot of things where that makes sense:

Group A, healthy and rich individuals, pay for health care for group B, sick individuals who can't afford health care. I'm on board because it would feel cruel and heartless to me to let them suffer.

Group A, rich people regardless of whether they have children, pay for the education of children from group B, poor people with children, so that all children regardless of their background get to have a good education. I'm on board because I think that everyone should have access to the opportunities that come with a good education.

Group A, everybody regardless of whether they use public roads, pay for road maintenance so that they can be used by group B, people who make a lot of use of public roads. I'm on board, because I think it would be bad for the country if it had regions that are only poorly accessible.

...in each of those cases, you can make counter-arguments. Those are just my opinions.

Group A, everybody regardless of whether they like football, pay for group B, people who do like football, so that they can watch football. Hold on a sec... What the... What did I just say? ...that makes no sense! Why would I be on board with that? Now, as a taxpayer-licensepayer I'm just paying so that other people can get the things they like. That's clearly going too far. I just don't understand how so many people in Europe are no longer even weirded out by this stuff.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#384

Post by visarga »

5cents wrote: post #323
tallanvor wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway recently switched from a system where you paid a set fee if you owned a TV to a system where you pay based on your income and it's part of your tax form. The reasoning behind the change was that basically everyone either has a TV or internet, and since the channels are available online, everyone has access.

The Monty Python-inspired comedians in KLM made at least one story about it https://youtu.be/iaVMO4t_D8c (length ~1 minute)

That was hilarious.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#385

Post by TheGuyWhoCodes »

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…

"Solved" is a strong word.

People suddenly had to pay licenses for at least 7 years with fines and interest that shot up the "price" by a 1000% The public television involved lawyers as collection agencies and threatened people with writ of execution.

Good riddance.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#386

Post by permo-w »

flower-giraffe wrote: post #211

I think the funding and governance (by Royal Charter) of the BBC have historically provided a huge benefit to society in the UK. Advertising free children’s TV (and radio) may have delayed the onset or rampant consumerism fuelled by commercial TV elsewhere. The BBC microcomputer project is arguably the origin of ARM CPU’s. Initially the license fee was for radios, I can’t find a reference but I remember being told as…

The BBC also essentially invented online TV streaming services. Netflix credits BBC iPlayer as being their inspiration to move online like they did

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#387

Post by nailer »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #355
nailer wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

>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? If it's broadcast simultaneously by other means (e.g. satellite, cable, terrestrial transmitter etc.) it counts as "live TV".

What if an event is on YouTube but also shown by satellite, cable, terrestrial transmitter etc?

Does that mean I owe a license fee for YouTube? Am I obliged to check before every video?

(Obviously these are ridiculous hypothetical questions, and I don't expect answers, but the policy itself is ridiculous)

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#388

Post by lotsofpulp »

api wrote: post #379
flower-giraffe wrote: post #211

I think the funding and governance (by Royal Charter) of the BBC have historically provided a huge benefit to society in the UK. Advertising free children’s TV (and radio) may have delayed the onset or rampant consumerism fuelled by commercial TV elsewhere. The BBC microcomputer project is arguably the origin of ARM CPU’s. Initially the license fee was for radios, I can’t find a reference but I remember being told as…

On advertising and consumerism: we may be seeing that come back around. My kids have only watched Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. and have barely ever seen an ad. We've banned YouTube for multiple reasons.

The ads just moved directly into the shows and storylines for Amazon Prime and Netflix (and most everyone else).

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#389

Post by pjc50 »

andybak wrote: post #251
mrsuprawsm wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I take this "both sides" argument as a sign that actually it's just bad - platforming the most extreme people from both sides in order to get the best fight, as if this was Jerry Springer without the chair throwing, rather than a sincere attempt to get at the truth of the matter.

Edit: it's definitely going to get worse. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-richard-s...

There is no way that anyone with that level of donation to any political party can ever pretend that they or their organisation is "impartial". Being a Brexiteer just makes it even more ludicrous and guarantees that all the ongoing problems and losses of Brexit will be hidden by the state broadcaster.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#390

Post by scotty79 »

flower-giraffe wrote: post #211

I think the funding and governance (by Royal Charter) of the BBC have historically provided a huge benefit to society in the UK. Advertising free children’s TV (and radio) may have delayed the onset or rampant consumerism fuelled by commercial TV elsewhere. The BBC microcomputer project is arguably the origin of ARM CPU’s. Initially the license fee was for radios, I can’t find a reference but I remember being told as…

I wonder if people will ever notice how socially and psychologically toxic is advertisement business and regulate it stringently.
Post reply on HN