Wouldnt call it faux ignorance, the section of society without one is likely quite large. It was before youtube and co took off and the number of viewers very likely went down afterwards.
I moved to the UK circa 2009 when I just turned 18. I was raised on the internet and broke enough not to own a TV.
Got harassed by so, so many TV tax envelopes and visits over the next couple years, they were just SO convinced I was lying to them because of course some 18-something year old kid would have a TV, how could he not?
I informed the TVLA that my mum's flat had been empty since her death and they can stop sending monthly harassing letters.
Picked up the mail there again last weekend, we're now on an 'Enforcement Action' and _will_ be visited, etc, etc.
Meanwhile, I'm 90% certain I'll be cancelling my own Licence soon and deleting iPlayer off my AppleTV, mostly because the BBC can't figure out how to make subtitles work on it, so if I'm going to have to pirate Doctor Who so my wife can watch with subtitles anyway, why bother paying in the first place?
The BBC is definitely an institution whose best days are long past. It's not really their fault - successive generations of political ruling classes have really hated them and wanted to see the end of public service broadcasting in the UK, but when presented with opportunities to showcase their value the BBC are definitely experts at stuffing it up.
They word that as vaguely as possible, far more vague than the actual law states, but basically no, only if the stream is the equivalent of watching live on a BBC channel. They're just hoping you interpret their vague nonsense as liberally as possible 'to be safe'.
Unless that person was a complete muppet they probably realized it was an excuse, but didn't think it was worth having a fight about it.
And you're not obligated to talk to them or let them enter your home. "I don't have a TV and I'm not interested in having a discussion about it. Good day to you."
a lot of chinese, korean, or japanese. basically phones targeting the asian market had them.
I remember buying a phone that had a retractable antenna on the side. most you were not able to buy outside asian markets since they would probably not work.
much like dual sim phone, there was a lot more of them on phone targeting asian markets but very rare when the phone is targeting the rest of the world.
Half remembering an article which I can no longer find from more than 15 years back...
But I seem to recall there being TV tuners available for SD slots on both Palm and Windows devices. Phones didn't necessarily ship with the capability.
In the UK there's a tax for viewing live TV, and more recently for a subset of on-demand content (specifically from the BBC). Yes, it's a tax.
Another bit of context that's important is that at the relevant times for this, you're looking at almost certainly 4 possible channels for most of the population of the UK.
There's a few ways of viewing some of this
One is simply that it's a lie and a deterrent. Not so interesting on the technical level. Most likely true but a dead end for fun tech ideas.
The more interesting is to think about how this could work - certainly some of the people in BBC R&D have. I'm sure someone will mention Van Eck phreaking, which is extremely cool but more than you need.
A much simpler approach, and one that actually seems easiest is
> it was thought that they operated by detecting electromagnetic radiation given off by a TV,
looking at the diffuse light through windows/curtains. You then simply need to have a live TV feed tuned to each channel and see if there's a direct match between the changing light and your own blurred monitor tuned to the same channel.
You can make this even easier by doing it at certain times, when Eastenders or Coronation Street is on, as a vast amount of the population would watch these.
How does that make it not a tax? You can choose not to buy goods and not pay sales tax, choose not to own a home and pay real estate taxes, choose to not have a job and pay income tax, etc...
In the UK, if you own a TV but do not watch broadcast/cable television, you specifically do not owe the fee. There are plenty of stories from the early days of the Internet before widespread adoption of streaming services, where saying you don't watch TV programmes would get funny looks and insistent claims that you couldn't possibly have another use for a TV, but the fee was in fact tied to BBC, not to the ownership of a TV.
If I choose not to use a service that costs a fee (such as Netflix), I am not hounded for not paying it. If I chose not to pay a tax, I am hounded with threats of prosecution and fines.
Please inform me when I'm no longer obligated to pay the following fees: National Insurance, Stamp Duty, Council Rates (for businesses), Vehicle Excise Duty, Air Passenger Duty, Congestion Charge, Customs Duty, Climate Change Levy, Apprenticeship Levy, Tuition Fees, Fishing Rod Licence, Dartford Crossing Charge along with other tolls for publicly owned roads and bridges, Retailer's Alcohol License, MOT Test Fee, Planning Permission Fee, Broadcasting Licence Fees for radio and TV, Scaffolding and Hoarding Licence Fees, Event Licensing Fees, Passport Application Fees, Shotgun Certificate and Firearms Licences.
These fees, while mandatory for certain public services, offer an element of choice in participation, thus not qualifying as taxes, correct?
On a brighter note, I've been free from the dog license fee of 37p since 1987, and the CB radio license requirement that was lifted in 2006
More importantly, the fees collected directly fund the public broadcaster.
Slovakia had a similar system, then the politicians decided to cancel the fees and make it so the public broadcaster is funded out of ministry of culture budget instead.
Now it's a year later and surprise, surprise, the new government which has gripes with the press has just cut the public broadcaster budget by 33%. If it was still funded by “tv licences” it would be much harder to do that.
> I wish they would block iPlayer if you don't have a TV licence.
It's not totally blocked but you do need a license for iPlayer legally. I wish they'd let me tie my license to my account so it stops making me answer whether I've got one.
The BBC turns out a lot of sh*te. Even its ostensibly high-brow documentaries are overemotional and condescending compared to what they used to be, and the corporation's impartiality is very very tenuous. License fee needs to go and be replaced by a subscription, because they're decades beyond their remit.
Legally speaking (under the laws as they were in the 1990s), provided you physically removed the RF demodulator from the TV set - and connected your Nintendo using Composite cables, you’d be in-the-clear.
…of course, no-one disassembles a TV to comply, that’d be unsafe (high-voltage CRTs are scary)
You don't have to remove the demodulator. Simply not connecting it to an antenna is enough. This circumstance is specifically covered in the examples of when it's not necessary to pay the license fee.
Receipt of the signals is not a crime though. Using them to watch live TV without a license is.
And my point is that the answer to "why do I have to pay if I don't use..." is that it's a tax. It's not a commercial decision it's taxing something to raise revenue to be spent on a public service.
> And funnily enough, the signals do work like that.[1]
I don't understand how that's related to making a signal of that wavelength miss a house.
Plenty of European countries do it like Ireland. Note that there were color and black & white licenses for b&w Televisions. You minimally needed a B&W license to listen to the radio.
You can own a television without paying the fee. You're required to pay the fee if you use it to watch live TV. If you use it for home movies, video games, computers, etc. you don't have to pay.
The UK license fee is the biggest bargain in the history of public service broadcasting and entertainment.
For £13 a month you get seven commercial-free TV channels, 12 commercial free national radio stations, at least one local station depending on where you live, and the amazing BBC website, which includes news, sport, weather, and, of course, the iPlayer, which offers almost all of the above on-demand, commercial free, and not even encrypted.
As an ex-pat I only wish that there was a mechanism for me to pay it from outside the UK. I miss the BBC more than anything else in the UK.
I’ve said a number of times over the years that I’d be happy to pay the fee to get the BBC in the US. Unfortunately it’s wrapped up in all kinds of licensing and legal agreements.
I recall the first year I was married encountering Doctor Who on our local PBS affiliate, and enjoying the heck out of it. A few years after that it was gone, having moved exclusively to BBC America. And now to Disney Plus…
These were most definitely a scam. They have/had some sort of database of addresses (especially ones where a license had previously been at that address and then had expired) and they just used to pressure people who are at an address that didn’t have a license by sending (very) threatening letters and insisting on coming around for an inspection saying they had detected a TV.
Anecdote 1: My parents-in-law only got a television in the very last years of their life, but long before that they used to occasionally get the threatening letters etc and people coming round saying they had detected a TV. On one memorable occasion my father-in-law was so fed up he insisted on bringing the TV license inspector in the house and took him through an extremely exhaustive list of places where the TV could be, forcing him to check each one. “Perhaps it’s in the toilet cistern? We should check!” <gets TV guy to open the top of the toilet to check whether a TV is somehow hiding inside> “What about in the bread bin! You could probably get a small TV in there.” <forces TV inspector guy to look in the bread bin> etc
Anecdote 2: At one point in my life I rented a flat and didn’t have a TV. I started getting the letters, including some printed on red paper, saying they were going to get bailiffs to come round because they had detected me watching TV using their sooper seekrit special detector van[1] and stating the fines and possible criminal consequences and their determination to prosecute me and bring me to justice. I wrote to them saying they had to put up or shut up - get a court order and come see whether I have a television - and I would welcome seeing them attempt in court to prove I had one.
I’m a strong supporter of public service broadcasting and think the BBC is an amazing deal, but the tactics around TV license enforcement are and always have been really disgraceful.
[1] Clearly impossible since I didn’t have a TV, this was before streaming to devices and in any case at that time my life in the flat comprised me coming home, exhausted, in the very early hours of the morning, going immediately to sleep, waking up a (very) few hours later and dragging my sorry ass back to work. I did nothing other than sleep and shower in that flat. It was a pretty dark period.
Twice in my life, I've encountered unnecessary hassle from TV Licensing (TVL).
First, when I purchased my initial home, I didn't immediately get a TV. However, when I did, the retailer was obliged to inform TVL under The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967. The TV arrived, still boxed, and a TVL representative showed up implying he had the right to enter, which he did not. I had preemptively bought the license, but still faced this intrusion. His insinuations were met with a firm response, because it was clear they were trying to catch me off-guard.
Later, during a phase where I chose not to watch or record live TV, I didn't renew my TV license after moving. This led to a barrage of letters and threats from TVL, all addressed to "Legal Occupier." I called them to halt these communications, finding them harassing. They agreed to stop only if I disclosed my name. Valuing my privacy, I declined, suggesting they use "Legal Occupier" as my identifier. This was met with reluctance but eventually processed.
These experiences highlight the invasive procedures of TVL, especially for those who value privacy.
If it hasn't got your name on it, then it's not a contract and that's what they're trying to enforce. "The Legal Occupier" sounds like a pub to me, so I bin every letter wrongly addressed to my house with that name. TV licensing letters are also the only ones sent with windows on the envelope allowing you to read the threats inside, kind of defeating the point of an envelope. I'm not interested in TV but there's also zero chance I'm ever going to give money to a corporation who pays Gary Lineker thirty grand a week to talk about football for half an hour on a Saturday.
Indeed, I suspect this wikipedia page has been astroturfed, or at least is lacking prominent messaging that these are only for show nowadays (perhaps always were?)
A TV license is/was a Hobson's choice, and an unnecessary one that could've been funded by a tiny tax on corporate profits for the commonwealth of a better society.
In the interests of taxing the people with the least money in society, bathrooms were/are also often for-profit. My mother and aunt recounted sliding under stall partitions to dodge this tax on basic human needs.
This never made any sense to me. The licensing fee is required even though there's always been more to TV than just public broadcasting? Owning a TV was never sufficient to impose this.
Wouldn't it have made more sense from the very beginning to sell receivers instead? No, that would naturally limit the viewer count. Clearly the intent was to push propaganda and the license isn't significant to the funding, but rather a vote of loyalty.
83 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 158 ms ] thread"Huh, TV? I don't have a TV..."
Got harassed by so, so many TV tax envelopes and visits over the next couple years, they were just SO convinced I was lying to them because of course some 18-something year old kid would have a TV, how could he not?
Left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.
Picked up the mail there again last weekend, we're now on an 'Enforcement Action' and _will_ be visited, etc, etc.
Meanwhile, I'm 90% certain I'll be cancelling my own Licence soon and deleting iPlayer off my AppleTV, mostly because the BBC can't figure out how to make subtitles work on it, so if I'm going to have to pirate Doctor Who so my wife can watch with subtitles anyway, why bother paying in the first place?
The BBC is definitely an institution whose best days are long past. It's not really their fault - successive generations of political ruling classes have really hated them and wanted to see the end of public service broadcasting in the UK, but when presented with opportunities to showcase their value the BBC are definitely experts at stuffing it up.
It's the main reason I hate the BBC now.
What other service is openly accessible but you get fined if you use it?
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ33
Got away with it too.
And you're not obligated to talk to them or let them enter your home. "I don't have a TV and I'm not interested in having a discussion about it. Good day to you."
Did any laptops have built-in tuners that weren’t just PC-cards, though?
——-
EDIT: Huh… apparently the Lobster was actually TV-over-DAB and not DVB-H, which was used by some Nokia phones.
I remember buying a phone that had a retractable antenna on the side. most you were not able to buy outside asian markets since they would probably not work.
much like dual sim phone, there was a lot more of them on phone targeting asian markets but very rare when the phone is targeting the rest of the world.
But I seem to recall there being TV tuners available for SD slots on both Palm and Windows devices. Phones didn't necessarily ship with the capability.
Finally the inspector barges in and finds Vyvyan with a power cord hanging out of his mouth to which he replies “It’s a toaster”.
Van Eck Phreaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking
Another bit of context that's important is that at the relevant times for this, you're looking at almost certainly 4 possible channels for most of the population of the UK.
There's a few ways of viewing some of this
One is simply that it's a lie and a deterrent. Not so interesting on the technical level. Most likely true but a dead end for fun tech ideas.
The more interesting is to think about how this could work - certainly some of the people in BBC R&D have. I'm sure someone will mention Van Eck phreaking, which is extremely cool but more than you need.
A much simpler approach, and one that actually seems easiest is
> it was thought that they operated by detecting electromagnetic radiation given off by a TV,
looking at the diffuse light through windows/curtains. You then simply need to have a live TV feed tuned to each channel and see if there's a direct match between the changing light and your own blurred monitor tuned to the same channel.
You can make this even easier by doing it at certain times, when Eastenders or Coronation Street is on, as a vast amount of the population would watch these.
It's is very specifically not a tax, primarily because if you choose not to consume public service broadcasting, you do not have to pay it.
Hmmmm, not convinced that logic works tbh.
The license fee is just a fee. You pay it. You get the BBC. (And other national broadcast services, which also benefit from it.)
The clue may, perhaps, be in the name. It isn't called the "license tax".
You need to pay it if you never watch the BBC and only non public service broadcasting. You also get public things for free without paying for it.
> Taxes tax something. A purchase, your income, something.
This taxes watching live TV or on demand things from the BBC.
The license “fee” falls into the latter category.
The name was, perhaps, picked to trick people like you, who look at a turd named like a cake and eat it, perhaps.
These fees, while mandatory for certain public services, offer an element of choice in participation, thus not qualifying as taxes, correct?
On a brighter note, I've been free from the dog license fee of 37p since 1987, and the CB radio license requirement that was lifted in 2006
Slovakia had a similar system, then the politicians decided to cancel the fees and make it so the public broadcaster is funded out of ministry of culture budget instead.
Now it's a year later and surprise, surprise, the new government which has gripes with the press has just cut the public broadcaster budget by 33%. If it was still funded by “tv licences” it would be much harder to do that.
(Edit the relevant quote is "In January 2006, the Office of National Statistics classified the licence fee as a tax")
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbb...
> if you choose not to consume public service broadcasting, you do not have to pay it.
That is absolutely not true. You need to pay it to view live TV, regardless of who produces it.
https://youtu.be/pnq96W9jtuw?t=185
Now I am extremely negative about the BBC and I won't shed a tear when it loses its funding.
I literally watch 0 British TV apart from the news.
I wish they would block iPlayer if you don't have a TV licence.
I personally haven't had a TV antenna or dish attached to my TV for years.
Most of my entertainment is YouTube!
It's not totally blocked but you do need a license for iPlayer legally. I wish they'd let me tie my license to my account so it stops making me answer whether I've got one.
i have been visited by the enforcement agents. at the time i did not have a tv or an internet connection so i told them to piss off.
i do now not have a tv, but i do have bbc iplayer and i pay for it.
and actually, i used to work for the BBC!
…of course, no-one disassembles a TV to comply, that’d be unsafe (high-voltage CRTs are scary)
And funnily enough, the signals do work like that.[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Caroline
And my point is that the answer to "why do I have to pay if I don't use..." is that it's a tax. It's not a commercial decision it's taxing something to raise revenue to be spent on a public service.
> And funnily enough, the signals do work like that.[1]
I don't understand how that's related to making a signal of that wavelength miss a house.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3j_sclyX5o
For £13 a month you get seven commercial-free TV channels, 12 commercial free national radio stations, at least one local station depending on where you live, and the amazing BBC website, which includes news, sport, weather, and, of course, the iPlayer, which offers almost all of the above on-demand, commercial free, and not even encrypted.
As an ex-pat I only wish that there was a mechanism for me to pay it from outside the UK. I miss the BBC more than anything else in the UK.
I recall the first year I was married encountering Doctor Who on our local PBS affiliate, and enjoying the heck out of it. A few years after that it was gone, having moved exclusively to BBC America. And now to Disney Plus…
[1] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/967319/response/22998...
Anecdote 1: My parents-in-law only got a television in the very last years of their life, but long before that they used to occasionally get the threatening letters etc and people coming round saying they had detected a TV. On one memorable occasion my father-in-law was so fed up he insisted on bringing the TV license inspector in the house and took him through an extremely exhaustive list of places where the TV could be, forcing him to check each one. “Perhaps it’s in the toilet cistern? We should check!” <gets TV guy to open the top of the toilet to check whether a TV is somehow hiding inside> “What about in the bread bin! You could probably get a small TV in there.” <forces TV inspector guy to look in the bread bin> etc
Anecdote 2: At one point in my life I rented a flat and didn’t have a TV. I started getting the letters, including some printed on red paper, saying they were going to get bailiffs to come round because they had detected me watching TV using their sooper seekrit special detector van[1] and stating the fines and possible criminal consequences and their determination to prosecute me and bring me to justice. I wrote to them saying they had to put up or shut up - get a court order and come see whether I have a television - and I would welcome seeing them attempt in court to prove I had one.
I’m a strong supporter of public service broadcasting and think the BBC is an amazing deal, but the tactics around TV license enforcement are and always have been really disgraceful.
[1] Clearly impossible since I didn’t have a TV, this was before streaming to devices and in any case at that time my life in the flat comprised me coming home, exhausted, in the very early hours of the morning, going immediately to sleep, waking up a (very) few hours later and dragging my sorry ass back to work. I did nothing other than sleep and shower in that flat. It was a pretty dark period.
First, when I purchased my initial home, I didn't immediately get a TV. However, when I did, the retailer was obliged to inform TVL under The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967. The TV arrived, still boxed, and a TVL representative showed up implying he had the right to enter, which he did not. I had preemptively bought the license, but still faced this intrusion. His insinuations were met with a firm response, because it was clear they were trying to catch me off-guard.
Later, during a phase where I chose not to watch or record live TV, I didn't renew my TV license after moving. This led to a barrage of letters and threats from TVL, all addressed to "Legal Occupier." I called them to halt these communications, finding them harassing. They agreed to stop only if I disclosed my name. Valuing my privacy, I declined, suggesting they use "Legal Occupier" as my identifier. This was met with reluctance but eventually processed.
These experiences highlight the invasive procedures of TVL, especially for those who value privacy.
In the interests of taxing the people with the least money in society, bathrooms were/are also often for-profit. My mother and aunt recounted sliding under stall partitions to dodge this tax on basic human needs.
Wouldn't it have made more sense from the very beginning to sell receivers instead? No, that would naturally limit the viewer count. Clearly the intent was to push propaganda and the license isn't significant to the funding, but rather a vote of loyalty.