No More Tv Licence For Me.....and For You.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: gpols

That's what they are suggesting, live TV that is.

Cable provider, or Sky TV aside. That information does not prove a thing, and the matter of them obtaining or using said info against you raises all sorts of privacy issues.

Buy any new TV and it generally has a camera attached these days. Smart TVs are pretty much Orwellian by there very nature.

That's crazy, I could maybe understand if you lived in an apartment with a window facing towards the street and someone walk by and seeing it, but the fact they actually have van's with equipment to detect if your TV is on. But then how do they know you're watching LIVE TV just because they know your TV is on?

originally posted by: Teddy916
What is a "TV licence"? I know in the states that we register for different companies like Comcast and Direct TV in order to get cable, or satellite, to watch TV.

In the distant past, when TV's first came out (, they were all valves and big chunky electrical components. One of the main problems was that each TV actually emitted radio-frequencies based on the channels they were receiving and that could affect neighbors. So the government classed every TV as a radio transmitter, and so you needed a "television license". Of course, now everything is flat-screen, digital and HDMI, so there's no problems with RF interference.

The alternatives would be funding through income tax (annoying people who don't have TV's), digital encryption/subscription based (would the population pay for channels they don't watch), a surcharge on devices that can receive live video (annoying people who just want basic service). The governments like the TV license because it keeps the BBC on a dog-chain. At any time, the government can choose to freeze, raise or lower the TV license fee.

a reply to: Phatdamage

Thing is the obnoxious bastards already advertise there own programs on there own channels and then claim a licencing fee anyway. Its bloody ludicrous the crap they attempt to perpetuate.

a reply to: gpols

They dont have vans buddy, trust me on that. As i have already said numerous other devices in your home that you are not required to have a licence for could be responsible for the type of signal. That pretty much makes the detection nether here nor there. And they cant just say they witnessed you watching TV unless you actually let them in to your home due to privacy issues.

Plus you hang around outside someones place of residence under the guise of watching them viewing television through a window you are about a hop, skip and a jump from being tagged a stalker/pedo/beast/rapist/pervert, take you pick because i imagine you can guess what would happen next.

a reply to: andy06shake

What happens if you just tell them "No I wasn't watching LIVE TV."

What happens then? I guess most of the rich people that have the resources to figure out how they are getting this knowledge just pay the fee instead of figuring it out.

I FEEL YOUR PAIN !

Well erm that's it , really , oh and the bbc are bastards !

Go Putin !

a reply to: gpols

Nothing good i imagine. As soon as you start a dialogue with the swine your doing there job for them. Best just to remove there access rights, shut the door and get on with your day.

It is absolutely astonishing that you guys keep whining about paying a tv licence.

The licence is demanded because the BBC has a contract with the state about being a Public Service, which means that they have to produce certain types of programs. News being one of them.

Other TV channels or broadcasting corporations are paid by adverts and as such they rely on broadcasting programs that do not offend their advertisers. Some people call it censorship.
Or in other words - you don't get critical programs about a company that pays for the programs.

Your licence fee ensures that you have TV that you can trust much more than advert paid TV.
Do you think you will have scientific programs on evolution on an American christian paid TV station?
And that's just one example. There are plenty more.
Just think of the mind numbingly stupid programs that comes on the advert paid channels.
Think of how Discovery and National Geographic are carpet bombing the viewers with pro gun, pro explosions, anti government, finding bigfoot, monster fish, another stupid idiot running around pretending to be Steve Irwing. Not to mention their new idea of making pretend documentaries about mermaids and megasharks.
Adverts are to blame. Stupid people watch it and they are also those most likely to believe the commercials.

Rnat over.....

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cut3ypie

the obvious question :

with the TV licence abolished - how are you proposing to fund the BBC ?

Why bother ..it's a club for kiddy fiddlers and deviants !!
/

a reply to: HolgerTheDane2

I don't watch any form of tv so I have no clue about megashark or mermaids
I just don't want to pay for something that I honestly do not use
good luck but without me thank u
2 words u need to know...on demand....and I don't demand it
I bid u a good day

a reply to: gpols

2 words u need to know....on demand which is after its been aired so nothing they said they'll come back in 2 years.....time will tell
this could be fun
tic toc lol
babs and bubs

a reply to: cut3ypie

Whats a tv license?

Been 10 years now since I last paid for one.

Watch all my stuff on the internet!

a reply to: cut3ypie

The answer is clear and simple for not paying a UK TV licence and quoting this is all that's needed:

It is illegal to financially support terrorist activity.

If you understand about the BBC's reporting of WTC7 on 9/11 then you'll get it.

In the good old days of CRTs (Cathode Ray Tubes) the old fashioned detector vans could pick up the broadband electrical noise coming out of the EHT section of your TV set,which in the case of colour TV sets was 20,000 Volts.All they could tell from this was if someone was using a TV set in that building and not which channel they were watching.You could hear the noise if you walked up to the TV with a portable radio tuned to MW or other AM band,that horrible raucous buzz was what they picked up with a directional aerial.

But having said that there was a case of a spy agency getting enough evidence against some one by reading what was on his monitor using this technique to convict him.They were parked outside his flat in an unmarked van 'watching' what he was watching for some time until they got what they needed.The noise you hear is the signal that's sent to the screen to be re-assembled into a picture one frame at a time.The picture they get from afar is very poor quality,but can sometimes show enough information to be able to see some of what's on the screen.

Modern plasma and LCD TV screens and monitors work on much lower voltages and have zero or very low emissions even when just a few inches away,making this technique unusable on all modern video devices.

I also recently filled in the online form declaring I don't watch any broadcast TV.I got a letter back a few days ago saying they're happy with my declaration but may still wish to visit my house at sometime in the future to confirm this.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cut3ypie

There is no such thing as TV detection vans, and even if there was the signal detected could be produced from numerous other devices, examples being a microwave, hoover, power drill, you get the gist im sure.

Well, unless you blackout the windows at night I think the flashing glow might give you away.

I am in the US, so asking another question that may seem silly. So, am I understanding it right that you pay a yearly tax to have access to the BBC legally? In order to receive other channels such as Discovery and National Geographic, you have to pay an additional fee or how does that work. Personally, I pay a monthly fee to Dishnetwork, a satellite TV service, to get all of my channels, but this is something I choose to do, not something that is required by law. It just seems absurd to pay a tax for watching TV.

originally posted by: Menrva
I am in the US ... It just seems absurd to pay a tax for watching TV.

That may be so, but I am in the UK and have never, ever, heard anyone complain about the licence fee.

originally posted by: Menrva
I am in the US, so asking another question that may seem silly. So, am I understanding it right that you pay a yearly tax to have access to the BBC legally? In order to receive other channels such as Discovery and National Geographic, you have to pay an additional fee or how does that work. Personally, I pay a monthly fee to Dishnetwork, a satellite TV service, to get all of my channels, but this is something I choose to do, not something that is required by law. It just seems absurd to pay a tax for watching TV.

You need a TV licence to receive "live" TV broadcasts from any source. there are some free to air TV channels and then you pay a subscription for premium channels.

You do not need a licence to watch catchup TV via the internet or things like netflix

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: cut3ypie

They wold just add it via some other form of tax in the end I think. Here in Canada we pay for the CBC through general federal taxes, but its' not a separate charge.

~Tenth

Nah all they have to do is realise that a laptop or any PC can be purposed as a recording device and add it to their list of "recording devices" that way they dont need to change any rules or go through boatloads of laws to enable another tax.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Like i said they cannot look through your window and observe anything no matter the time of day if you remove there right to access the property. And even if the could it would raise all sorts of privacy issues never mind that you could be using any TV for numerous other purposes. So any flashing glow observed or otherwise would prove nothing.