Crosswords1 min ago
How Will The Bbc Possibly Be Able To Enforce This?
33 Answers
http://
This is what appears when you connect to BBC's iplayer.
Got a TV Licence?
You need one to watch any BBC programme on iPlayer - live, catch-up or on-demand. It's the law.
I have a TV licence.
I don't have a TV licence.
Which box do pensioners tick?
This is what appears when you connect to BBC's iplayer.
Got a TV Licence?
You need one to watch any BBC programme on iPlayer - live, catch-up or on-demand. It's the law.
I have a TV licence.
I don't have a TV licence.
Which box do pensioners tick?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hmm, lot's of misconceptions going on here, so as a as head of technical liason for a major TV manufacturer, an ex-principal BBC technical engineer and an advisor to TV licencing, perhaps I'll chuck my four pennyworth in.
TV detection is not smoke and mirrors. They have always been able to detect the reception of TV programs. For many years, TV detection was limited by the proximity of the detector van to the receiving equipment. This is no longer the case. Specialist hand held devices are available which can be taken up the stairs in blocks of flats etc and can indeed not only detect reception but a whole swathe of other information as well (NB. This is not confined to the channel being watched but other things as well!)
TV detector vans do not require ip adddress from isp's. The question of cost is immaterial OG. The principle is what matters here not the cost and millions are invested in the technology where the return is a mere fraction. That doesn't matter a jot as evasion is regarded as a prosecutable offence.
Packet Detection technology is indeed used but there is far more to it than has been published in the press. Licensed Radio Ham's can tell you a great deal about this technology should you desire to know more. However, it's not all about Packet Detection by a long chalk.
Jackthehat, it's untrue that there have been no successful prosecutions for detection by detector vans. If you take the contrary view, please cite the evidence.
Your television equipment both receives and transmits detectable signals and any view to the contrary is simply wrong.
Rest assured, I'm thoroughly familiar with the equipment used including the current state-of-the-art devices. Packet reception merely allows them to do their job more rapidly than previously. I can also confirm that the authorities have for some time been able to access and use router information.
TV detection is not smoke and mirrors. They have always been able to detect the reception of TV programs. For many years, TV detection was limited by the proximity of the detector van to the receiving equipment. This is no longer the case. Specialist hand held devices are available which can be taken up the stairs in blocks of flats etc and can indeed not only detect reception but a whole swathe of other information as well (NB. This is not confined to the channel being watched but other things as well!)
TV detector vans do not require ip adddress from isp's. The question of cost is immaterial OG. The principle is what matters here not the cost and millions are invested in the technology where the return is a mere fraction. That doesn't matter a jot as evasion is regarded as a prosecutable offence.
Packet Detection technology is indeed used but there is far more to it than has been published in the press. Licensed Radio Ham's can tell you a great deal about this technology should you desire to know more. However, it's not all about Packet Detection by a long chalk.
Jackthehat, it's untrue that there have been no successful prosecutions for detection by detector vans. If you take the contrary view, please cite the evidence.
Your television equipment both receives and transmits detectable signals and any view to the contrary is simply wrong.
Rest assured, I'm thoroughly familiar with the equipment used including the current state-of-the-art devices. Packet reception merely allows them to do their job more rapidly than previously. I can also confirm that the authorities have for some time been able to access and use router information.
jackthe hat, I suggest you read what you posted at 1600 and 1615 and carefully compare your views to that provided in your link. The link does not support your claims.
Unsureme, I'm afraid that that's the way it works. Always has and always will in government influenced circles. It's no different to the MOD paying £100+ each to fit replacement toilet seats in the barrack toilet block.
Unsureme, I'm afraid that that's the way it works. Always has and always will in government influenced circles. It's no different to the MOD paying £100+ each to fit replacement toilet seats in the barrack toilet block.
gumboot - Detector vans 'alone' have never resulted in a successful prosecution.
Prosecutions have always resulted from door-knocking after consulting the database.
Whether you want to believe these addresses have been flagged up by the sinister blue transit vans is one thing.........asserting that they have been successfully used in prosecutions is another, as per my link.
Prosecutions have always resulted from door-knocking after consulting the database.
Whether you want to believe these addresses have been flagged up by the sinister blue transit vans is one thing.........asserting that they have been successfully used in prosecutions is another, as per my link.
jackthehat:
"Prosecutions have always resulted from door-knocking after consulting the database"
Really? Unfortunately not. Those licence evaders who refuse to let the officer in would never get prosecuted if this were the case. You need to brush-up on the powers of TV licencing officers at the doorstep and look a little deeper into the legal aspect of it all. I suggest you consult an evader who has been prosecuted grasp a little of the procedure.
I've accompanied officers on quite a few occasions and I've seen at first hand what occurs.
"Prosecutions have always resulted from door-knocking after consulting the database"
Really? Unfortunately not. Those licence evaders who refuse to let the officer in would never get prosecuted if this were the case. You need to brush-up on the powers of TV licencing officers at the doorstep and look a little deeper into the legal aspect of it all. I suggest you consult an evader who has been prosecuted grasp a little of the procedure.
I've accompanied officers on quite a few occasions and I've seen at first hand what occurs.
The reality is that TV Detector Van technology has always been subject to public analysis in popular culture. I grew up in the 1960's prior to the advent of the first UK colour transmissions (1969) and I can vividly recall reading articles in populist magazines that claimed to explain how a TV Detector Van worked. At the time, licence evasion was rife and the norm in many parts of the UK, far in excess of contemporary evasion. Law abiding licence payers were often ridiculed in these communities. All this led to much advice on the most appropriate method of fooling the TV Licence authorities.
It was commonplace to visit people who had gone to the trouble of building a lead lined cabinet around their TV regardless of whether it was a table top or console model. People lined their homes with aluminium foil. Certain radiating components were removed or modified in TV sets to hinder detection. Ironically, a high percentage of evaders managed to evade prosecution because the detector van equipment was not up to the job rather than the effort made by the public to evade prosecution.
Nowadays, the situation is different. Receiving equipment processed carrier waves have been detectable for years. Intermediate frequency coil assemblies and modern tuners are a Godsend to TV Licencing aong with other components deliberately fitted to modern SMART televisions. Router access is a reality as is packet detection. Nevertheless, the mistruths about the ineffectiveness of TV Detector Van Technology continue to exist. TV Licensing will not correct these views as ultimately, it leads to an increased detection rate along with a high revenue recovery.
People are free to form their own opinion on the effectiveness of TV Detector Vans and their operatives. Those that evade the fee are committing a criminal offence and speculation on the technology in use will not save them from a hefty fine should they choose to consider they know better. The only people that do know better than the public are engineers who have spent years professionally involved in telecommunications . I'm one of that breed. I'm happy to discuss the issue further with anyone who can demonstrate similar knowledge.
It was commonplace to visit people who had gone to the trouble of building a lead lined cabinet around their TV regardless of whether it was a table top or console model. People lined their homes with aluminium foil. Certain radiating components were removed or modified in TV sets to hinder detection. Ironically, a high percentage of evaders managed to evade prosecution because the detector van equipment was not up to the job rather than the effort made by the public to evade prosecution.
Nowadays, the situation is different. Receiving equipment processed carrier waves have been detectable for years. Intermediate frequency coil assemblies and modern tuners are a Godsend to TV Licencing aong with other components deliberately fitted to modern SMART televisions. Router access is a reality as is packet detection. Nevertheless, the mistruths about the ineffectiveness of TV Detector Van Technology continue to exist. TV Licensing will not correct these views as ultimately, it leads to an increased detection rate along with a high revenue recovery.
People are free to form their own opinion on the effectiveness of TV Detector Vans and their operatives. Those that evade the fee are committing a criminal offence and speculation on the technology in use will not save them from a hefty fine should they choose to consider they know better. The only people that do know better than the public are engineers who have spent years professionally involved in telecommunications . I'm one of that breed. I'm happy to discuss the issue further with anyone who can demonstrate similar knowledge.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.