one of the uni halls of residence in my city got done over by the tv licensing people and the uni... there was a fire drill one morning in february, while all the students were outside half asleep uni halls staff took a few tv licensing guys around, to check which rooms had a tv... uni staff reported that 300 people had been fined £1000. nice little money maker, i pity when they had to plead their parents for the money!
What do we think of the 'detector vans' and the threatening Orwellian ads they used to put on the TV?
I never ever really believed TV detector vans could detect your TV. The science behind it seemed too Star Trek to me.
Even if they did have the technology to detect your TV, e.g.: electromagnetic waves etc, I doubt the BBC could ever make it stick in court. They'd surely at least have to find the telly in your house first.
It would be like the police having a drugs-dog with a superhero sense of smell which reckons it can detect class A drugs from the street outside your house: cops have to find the drugs before they can throw the book at you.
It was/is a scare tactic and nothing more.
I never ever really believed TV detector vans could detect your TV. The science behind it seemed too Star Trek to me.
Even if they did have the technology to detect your TV, e.g.: electromagnetic waves etc, I doubt the BBC could ever make it stick in court. They'd surely at least have to find the telly in your house first.
It would be like the police having a drugs-dog with a superhero sense of smell which reckons it can detect class A drugs from the street outside your house: cops have to find the drugs before they can throw the book at you.
It was/is a scare tactic and nothing more.
Ravey Gravey Davy
Well-known member
Good story,with a few legal holes in -urban myth springs to mind as far as the consequences go.Quite a few students drinking an extra grand on their parents perhaps.basshead said:
Amadeus1756
Well-known member
grifz said:
I'm amazed you think like that. I think the BBC (1,2, 4 - not so keen on 3) is wonderful. Personally, I think it's worth a lot more than I currently pay.
chebby
Well-known member
Amadeus1756 said:
Totally agree.
Then there are all the radio stations (regional and local), BBC iPlayer (brilliant) and their website (including archives) and much else besides.
John Duncan
Well-known member
John Duncan
Well-known member
Totally disagree; the BBC is not incredible value for money. You can say it just costs £3 per week or you can say that the BBC receives £4,000,000,000 per year. They have too many employees, and are trying to do too many things. Hundreds of websites translated into 27 different languages, armies of reporters travelling around the world when there is no need, millions spent on taxi's, they waste far too much money.
BBC3 is a disgrace; some of the programmes are crass and totally cringe worthy. Also, not forgetting the fact that a lot of people are getting extremely rich at the BBC, becoming a multimillionaire on tax payer's money is just not right.
I don't want to see an end to the BBC, but people should have a choice whether they want to subscibe to it.
One last thing, Chris Moyles (£750,000 per year).
Rant over!
BBC3 is a disgrace; some of the programmes are crass and totally cringe worthy. Also, not forgetting the fact that a lot of people are getting extremely rich at the BBC, becoming a multimillionaire on tax payer's money is just not right.
I don't want to see an end to the BBC, but people should have a choice whether they want to subscibe to it.
One last thing, Chris Moyles (£750,000 per year).
Rant over!
John Duncan
Well-known member
SonofSun said:
Actually £3.45 billion in 2010/2011 of which £556 million was provided by the government for those over 75.
3.4 billion is a hell of of alot of money. what makes the bbc any different to sky? no right of entry, detector vans that can't detect modern televisions why do people still bow down these scare tactics. Isn't it enough that that but the television in the first place.
chebby
Well-known member
There is one way for the TV licence to be enforcable when the analogue signal is turned off, that it is to encrypt all programs and the annual licence fee pays for a viewing card.
If you don't pay you don't get. End of matter.
It would be a lot cheaper to administer and the savings in admin could be passed on to the viewer in a reduced annual fee.
If you don't pay you don't get. End of matter.
It would be a lot cheaper to administer and the savings in admin could be passed on to the viewer in a reduced annual fee.
chebby
Well-known member
chudleighpaul said:
Nice idea, but ... (a) it would be 'hacked' by someone within 10 minutes of launch (b) you would need every manufacturer who supplies TVs, PVRs, Blu-ray/DVD recorders, set-top boxes to the UK to engineer it into all their products. (Making them cost more.)
Then you would need to get the public to replace every TV, PVR, Blu-ray/DVD recorder and set-top box they own.
Most Freeview TV'S and stb's have slots for a conditional access module, so that would not be a problem. As for hacking I am not aware that the Top Up system has been hacked as yet. Sky is a totally secure system in any case, so with the right incentives they could include the licence fee into their subscription, the cable companies could do likewise, which would just leave Freesat.
The one problem I can see is for multiple TV households and PVR's with a built in tuner, but I am sure with a bit of thought it would be possible to solve that problem.
The one problem I can see is for multiple TV households and PVR's with a built in tuner, but I am sure with a bit of thought it would be possible to solve that problem.
chebby said:
That was men't to say isn't it enough that we buy the televsion in the first place.
John Duncan
Well-known member
chebby
Well-known member
Soopafly49 said:
Try that one on Sky or Virgin Media and see how far you get.
Next time you get a new Blu-ray player, insist they give you free movies for life.
Ravey Gravey Davy
Well-known member
Yes- so I should get free WHF mag on Zinio cos I bought the laptop/mobile phone( and if you don't sort it,my tank's bigger than yours.)John Duncan said:
IMO, the BBC gives the vast majority of the nation good value for money at just £3 per week. I know many people at probably fed up with the old "the BBC is able to give such quality because of the unique way it is funded" chestnutt, but I for one think its true.
The tv licence allows the bbc to invest in programme strands which wouldn't make money and wouldn't be made otherwise and I think that it's fair as a society that we all chip in a bit for programmes aimed at minorities.
Also, I shudder to think what the alternative might be like if the BBC were not available; wall to wall fox news anyone?
The tv licence allows the bbc to invest in programme strands which wouldn't make money and wouldn't be made otherwise and I think that it's fair as a society that we all chip in a bit for programmes aimed at minorities.
Also, I shudder to think what the alternative might be like if the BBC were not available; wall to wall fox news anyone?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!chudleighpaul said:
All I'll say about the BBC license is this.
If the BBC didn't exist, and the govt now launched it, and every household in the UK with a TV mandatorily had to fund it with a yearly £145.50 license whether they used the new service or not, it would quite possibly kickstart an anarchic revolution.
John Duncan said:
What makes the BBC any different from sky. I wouldn't mind so much if it was covering cost and a bit of profit. But the BBC makes milions on tv license. Is that right?
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Soopafly49 said:
It doesn't make a profit from the TV license, the only profit the BBC makes is from BBC Worldwide. I will admit the BBC is woefully inefficient, as is any organization of that size, however to state that they don't make anything worth watching is nonsense.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram