TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

stevemcol wrote: »

If we all find ways to wriggle out of paying, the BBC would disappear in its current guise.

In what way am I wriggling out of paying :huh:

stevemcol

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I'n afraid "within a metre or so" is nowhere near close enough, given that TVs are often attached to walls, and the average party wall is only 0.23 metres thick.

If detection is so reliable, why have they knocked my door 10 times, in barely 3 years, when they could have confirmed my LLF status, by detection :huh:

As I understand it, detection is a scare and last resort. In most cases, stiffly worded letters and visits suffice.

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

In what way am I wriggling out of paying :huh:

I've no idea, I don't know you and the comment wasn't aimed at you personally. However, in general I believe if people watch BBC output in any form, the right thing to do is pay the licence fee. If you don't watch any BBC output and would be happy if it disappeared altogether then fair enough.

[Deleted User]

stevemcol wrote: »

In most cases, stiffly worded letters and visits suffice.

They've been trying that for coming up on 40 months, 38 letters, and 10 visits.

When do they deploy detection :huh:

Steve059

stevemcol wrote: »

<snip> If we all find ways to wriggle out of paying, the BBC would disappear in its current guise. I think we would be worse off without it.

Please explain how simply not having a television set, television tuner box, television recoder nor watching live (Or "catch-up" for that matter. If it was "chewing gum for the mind" the first time around, it's not likely to get any better with age.) television online is "wriggling out of paying".

new_owner

stevemcol wrote: »

They can. One easy method is to detect leakage from the IF oscillator. Using a directional antenna from more than one position will pinpoint the TV to within a metre or so. The frequency of the IF in the days of analogue could indicate the channel being watched. With digital, it will narrow it down to which multiplex.
There are other RF emissions from your TV or set top box that can be received, triangulated and demodulated.

Now you could try wrapping your telly in tin foil but don't forget the foil hat so they can't steal your brainwaves.

Analog days maybe. But not with monitors and tv being digital you would not be able to tell the difference between them. Plasma vs led yes but thats about it.

stevemcol

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

They've been trying that for coming up on 40 months, 38 letters, and 10 visits.

When do they deploy detection :huh:

I've absolutely no idea.

Steve059 wrote:

Please explain how simply not having a television set, television tuner box, television recoder nor watching live (Or "catch-up" for that matter. If it was "chewing gum for the mind" the first time around, it's not likely to get any better with age.) television online is "wriggling out of paying".

No problem with that at all. My only problem is with people seeking out innovative ways of watching BBC output without contributing. It's on a par with tax avoidance.

stevemcol

new_owner wrote: »

Analog days maybe. But not with monitors and tv being digital you would not be able to tell the difference between them. Plasma vs led yes but thats about it.

Digital receivers still have a front end local oscillator.

new_owner

stevemcol wrote: »

Digital receivers still have a front end local oscillator.

So do monitors/screens.

Cornucopia

stevemcol wrote: »

As I understand it, detection is a scare and last resort. In most cases, stiffly worded letters and visits suffice.

In what way "suffice"? They are sent to guilty and innocent alike. I can't see how that's in any way fair, efficient or sufficient.

Steve059

stevemcol wrote: »

<snip> My only problem is with people seeking out innovative ways of watching BBC output without contributing. It's on a par with tax avoidance.

Then these "iinovative ways" should be made licenceable, in the same way that the government or HMRC should close the tax avoidance loopholes.

However, I still suspect that BBC/TVL prefer, as Douglas Adams put it, "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."