how do tv licensing inspectors carry out their inspection?

cing0

If I'm watching live TV on my mobile device in a coffee shop or the GP's waiting room, who's paying for the TV license?
Since broadband upload speeds are increasing, I could stream live TV recorded on a nice licensed friends PVR or media centre to me but what time delay would constitute not live ?

CharlieSpoon

cing0 - If you're in someone elses premises watching a live stream on a mobile device then it depends whether your mobile device is plugged into the mains. If it is then the premises owner is responsible for a license. If it is using the mobile device's own battery then it is covered under your TV license regardless of location.

A license is also required to record a live stream so I'd assume one would be needed to watch material that was recorded from a live stream.


yorkie98- Catch Up Services such as iplayer and 4onDemand do NOT need a license. Only watching or recording a live stream needs a license, regardless of the source of that stream (ie foreign channels via satellite or PC)

---

I'm curious about a potential grey area. Before I continue though I must point out I have a TV license and this is a theoretical question only....

I subscribe to VirginMedia and generally use the TV part for On Demand services only which do not require a TV license. However before accessing the On Demand menu I cannot avoid recieving a "live transmission" in between pressing the menu button and waiting for the On Demand menu to load. Would this minimal and unavoidable exposure be enough to build an argument for requiring a TV License?

Also, in one of the On Demand menus it broadcasts the current channel live in the top right corner while you're selecting what you wish to view - would this arguably count as requiring a license?

yorkie98

!!!!!! wrote: »

BBC admit that for legal reasons detector vans would/can only be used to provide evidence for a search warrant. To date no search warrant has been issued based on TV detector evidence.

Unless one was parked immediately outside your door, then at least 2 would be needed to get a positive fix on the location of the emissions. There is also doubt these days whether the emissions from LCD TVs are strong enough for detector vans to work.

I'm a broadcast engineer (and former domestic TV aerial installer) by trade and it's long been known within the industry (and is slowly becoming public knowledge) that "detector vans" were never capable of "detecting" anything. I'd need pages and pages to spell out why this is not, and never has been technically possible. The reason why evidence from a detector van (or handheld detector) has never been used is because no such evidence has ever existed.
Detector vans were a scare tactic and the method of detection is the same today as it always has been, a list of unlicensed addresses, no more, no less.
Although TVs do emit energy which may be detectable, the energy emitted is in a form so small and inconsistant that it could never be of any use for making meaningful measurements, especially in this day and age where there are so many radio signals of moderate-high signal levels floating around our houses and streets, the minute emissions from a TV would be drowned out by these legitimate signals.

societys_child

Ainsley1 wrote: »

For anyone who thinks the inspectors need access to tell if you are watching TV then let me say that is not true. Detector vans can tell from the TV radiated signals not only if you watch but what you are watching! In some cases they can even see the picture you watch and hear the sound you do!

:rotfl:Why else would they have a detector van?:rotfl:

Do you believe in fairies as well?

Buzby

Sorry, that makes no sense. A 'detector van' (now a hand-held device) was used to triangulate a set and its IF radiation to pinpoint a location. This would simply confirm their suspicions that a set existed at the premises and they could use this in evidence. A warrant was not required, simply the statement of the operator. Usually they got in with no problem (by stating that they have the evidence and it is better if you 'come clean'). The van/warrant approach would only be required if previous efforts were unsuccessful.

Of course, the Comminications Act says nothing about watching 'live' broadcasts, it is having the ability to view - so a working TV (with no aerial) is fair game - it will be up to the judge whether he believes you didn't.

For the viewer, an analogue TV (once the area had been fully digitised) is incapable of receiving broadcasts unless there is an adaptor, so the person would have to swear on oath that they did not have one.

System

Buzby wrote: »

Sorry, that makes no sense. A 'detector van' (now a hand-held device) was used to triangulate a set and its IF radiation to pinpoint a location. This would simply confirm their suspicions that a set existed at the premises and they could use this in evidence. A warrant was not required, simply the statement of the operator. Usually they got in with no problem (by stating that they have the evidence and it is better if you 'come clean'). The van/warrant approach would only be required if previous efforts were unsuccessful.

Owning a working set is not an offence. A DVD player using an RF output would give the same reading on a hand held device as it being tuned to a TV channel.

BTW to triangulate you need either more than one device in different locations or the ability to POSITIVELY identify the same signal from different locations. (Giveaway is triangulate)

Buzby wrote: »

Of course, the Comminications Act says nothing about watching 'live' broadcasts, it is having the ability to view - so a working TV (with no aerial) is fair game - it will be up to the judge whether he believes you didn't.

It only requires a licence for live broadcast.

Taken from the TV Licensing Site
The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

This is an exemption as per para 363 (6) as I don't think they would be allowed to peddle this info without SofS agreement.

Buzby wrote: »

For the viewer, an analogue TV (once the area had been fully digitised) is incapable of receiving broadcasts unless there is an adaptor, so the person would have to swear on oath that they did not have one.

You do not need to swear on any oath. If they do not take your word then tough.

yorkie98

Buzby wrote: »

A 'detector van' (now a hand-held device) was used to triangulate a set and its IF radiation to pinpoint a location.

Triangulation (as it's name suggests) needs to have three recieving devices simultaneously taking the measurement and calculations made to establish the source of a signal.
Triangulation cannot be done by one device being moved to three places.
In any case, this type of detection never actually takes place, it's all for show. It relies on the fact that 99.9% of the population do not have the (very advanced) technical knowledge to know why this is not possible.

scottishperson2

yorkie98 wrote: »

In any case, this type of detection never actually takes place, it's all for show. It relies on the fact that 99.9% of the population do not have the (very advanced) technical knowledge to know why this is not possible.

The myth of tv detector vans came after Peter Wright, he of Spycatcher fame, was involved in the remote detection of passive radio receivers. The myth that technology could be adapted and used from TV detection sprang from there.
Total number of court cases where tv detector evidence has been used is around 0 I beleive.
The vans were used to ferry tv licencing plebs around.
These people work by coercing the individual to sign a piece of paper admitting guilt.
TV licencing people have been found guilty of perverting the course of justice, false accounting (after fabricated confessions by members of the public who hadn’t been visited) and assault in the past.
Would you let someone like that into your home?

Buzby wrote: »

A 'detector van' (now a hand-held device) was used to triangulate a set and its IF radiation to pinpoint a location. This would simply confirm their suspicions that a set existed at the premises and they could use this in evidence.

Errr, no they couldn't. Having a suspicion of something doesn't have much bearing in a court of law.

Care to cite one example where it has been used as evidence?

davidlizard

The number of court cases where evidence from detector vans or handheld units is indeed zero. The vast majority of evidence is collected by getting people to self-incriminate themselves.

The reason is quite straightforward: Any evidence used in court, which will include details on precisely how it was gathered, must be made available to the defence as well as the prosecution (in exactly the same way the details of equipment used for catching speeding motorists must be made publicly available).

The BBC are unwilling to release details of how detection equipment works into the public domain - numerous requests under the Freedom of Information Act regarding this have been refused. If such information was available then the public could use this to build an effective cloaking device to mask emissions thereby making the vans useless, or otherwise indicate that the vans themselves are simply there as a visual deterrent with nothing clever about them.

I have been taken to court just once for not having a licence. The case was thrown out almost immediately as the BBC had failed to follow the correct legal processes and entered my property after I had withdrawn their implied right of access, and I received nearly £1500 costs, which was a great result as the more money of the BBCs I can personally waste the better.

whizzocki

DavidLizard you are a hero!

The bullying tactics used by TV Licensing are unacceptable and outrageous. They themselves need to be taken to court a few times.

However, I am concerned by what is currently happening in Germany. A law is being passed requiring every household in the country from 2013 to have a TV licence, regardless of whether they have a TV. How long before this trickles down through EU channels?