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

541–550 of 562 posts

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#541

Post by 5cents »

visarga wrote: post #384
5cents wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They won some prices in Montreux, eg. https://tv.nrk.no/serie/montreux/1985/FUHA02008984 (in English) -- https://tv.nrk.no/ has lots of stuff freely available (as public funded productions should be...)

Their Montreux show about the winter olympics on Lillehammer is also hilarious: https://tv.nrk.no/serie/montreux/1994/FKUN46000293

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#542

Post by Mindwipe »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #433
seanalltogether wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've brought this argument forward many times since I moved to the UK, and everyone I've talked to hates the idea of turning the fee into a general tax. It's a weird refusal that I genuinely can't understand as someone not born here. Everyone seems happy enough with the idea of paying tax for public libraries or parks or other social institutions they may never use because it benefits society, but bring up the tv lic…

Have you seen how much BBC bosses and stars are paid? Far higher than other public servants, so yes I would be against making it compulsory https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/bbc_rich_list_2020_37_5m_b...

> Have you seen how much BBC bosses and stars are paid? Far higher than other public servants, so yes I would be against making it compulsory

It's not far higher than other public servants, and the Taxpayers Alliance are liars and fantasists.

It's like how they continually misrepresent the Prime Minster's salary as being in the low £100ks. It isn't. The Prime Minster's complete remuneration package is worth well over a million pounds a year.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#543

Post by Mindwipe »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #359
saberdancer wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "t…

Not everyone has a TV. Most, perhaps, but not all. Source: I don't have a TV.

Not "everyone" does, but to all intents and purposes it is a reasonable shorthand.

More households in the UK pay for the TV license than pay for water.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#544

Post by sdunwoody »

callamdelaney wrote: post #528
sdunwoody wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC would face significant cuts if that was the case. It would likely end up at a point where the quantity and quality of content was reduced due to less revenue, which then would cause additional people to cancel subscriptions. This would be quite damaging for the UK as the BBC is a great way of projecting soft power, plus it provides quite a lot of great resources (as has been pointed out in other comments). I'…

So I should pay the license fee to keep the quality of content I don't watch high? If the BBC's value proposition is so good, it will have no issue convincing the public of that.

You could hold a similar debate on every service the government currently provides, and you would essentially end up with toll roads everywhere and parents having to pay exorbitant amounts to educate their children properly.

The BBC is similar to these things in the sense that it provides good value for the taxpayer, and contributes quite significantly to society (even if it doesn't directly effect you in the sense of you consuming their content regularly).

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#545

Post by Mindwipe »

marcosdumay wrote: post #469
audunw wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

State media must focus on content that is useful to the society, not what is popular. Otherwise, why do you even need the state interference?

> State media must focus on content that is useful to the society, not what is popular.

It has to do both, because if you only focus on the "useful" you end up with a service nobody uses, and subsequently the use of it diminishes.

It also denies the role of national events in the public eye as "useful" for societal cohesion, which is wrong.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#546

Post by Mauricebranagh »

thesuitonym wrote: post #442
Mauricebranagh wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people say that but it is "not readily believable" to use a Civil Service Circumlocution. In that case why are you and those others not using a monitor.

I know you're just engaging in discussion, but non-TV monitors are typically more expensive than a similar sized TV.

And most TV's aren't very good as pc monitors.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#547

Post by whywhywhywhy »

wackro wrote: post #310
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They might feel personal but I'm fairly sure those letters are sent out blanket style. I've had 4 or 5 in the past and none have been addressed to me personally.

I lived in the house 5 years and never received one, only showed up about a week after I ordered a new TV on Amazon and IIRC specifically mentioned the purchase.

Funnily enough I had actually been paying a licence for those 5 years but for the address I moved out of, cancelled it after that and never paid since. The fact the BBC pretends to be a kind of official legal authority under a different brand and actually sends bayliff style thugs around to juicier targets like shared student housing is disgusting, I'll never pay again.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#549

Post by antibuddy »

OJFord wrote: post #475
antibuddy wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tax would be fairer than the actual system is. You have to pay a fixed amount regardless of your income. (At least in Germany and the UK)

That's not really 'fairer' in any absolute sense, and a tax needn't be a rate, nevermind one w.r.t. income, but it could be, or even progressive. I'd probably argue 'fair' would be per usage, or per television. The latter would even be easier to implement - just slap a duty on sales as with alcohol and tobacco. (Actually, that would be great, the defining characteristic would presumably be the presence of a tuner (or…

Here in Germany every internet capable device is considered for the license, so your system would fail there as well (being unfairer).

It would obviously fairer if they made a paywall, but also defeat the purpose (they don't fulfill anyway).

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#550

Post by beerandt »

scrooched_moose wrote: post #63
beerandt wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say simply, but I think that's much more difficult than just detecting the presence of em noise conforming to a broadcast standard. Anyone that's put an AM radio next to a CRT TV knows it emits em noise. The CRT itself is, to over simplify, a high voltage capacitor. It's one of the most popular devices used to power hobbyist Tesla coils... I don't know why everyone seems to think that just because TVs were "recei…

Maybe poor phrasing on my part, but that's the prevalent theory I've seen for how they do it today. Various other methods of EM leakage might have worked in the past (unproven as far as I know), but modern televisions are so much better built that visible light leakage is believed to be the only effective detection method.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect it to work on flatscreens, since they don't have the high voltage components wrt the CRT.

That said- it doesn't really have to do with being built better, just completely different.

Post reply on HN