BBC Criticized For Snooping Under RIPA Powers

judgecorp writes "The BBC and other UK public bodies have been criticized for excessive and secretive use of snooping powers granted under RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act). The act allows the BBC and other to request information on suspected criminals, but it has been over-used, and used covertly according to critics. From the article: 'The BBC said it had not been secretive about how it was using RIPA powers. “The BBC uses Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for the detection of television licence evasion alone,” a spokesperson said. “It is only used as a last resort once other enforcement methods have been exhausted.The reason we do not release more details on how and when it is used is to ensure people without a valid TV licence don’t use this information to their advantage when attempting to avoid detection.”'"

Comments

In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have commercials on the BBC though.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth it to have the BBC. Seriously.

When V for Vendetta came out, I was watching it and thinking "Curfews? Meh. Government sponsored rape squads? Yawn. You call this a dictatorship? ...wait a minute, they've replaced the BBC with US-style propoganda TV? The bastards!"

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[bickerdyke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

You pay that there IS something to watch in the first place.... (Instead of fundfraising pleas from you PBS)

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[InEnacWeTrust]

Yes, and in return, you have one or several channels that are rely less on advertising resources for their survival. You also get news that is written more by real journalists and less by corporate bullies with political agendas (yes, I'm talking about Fox)... while still be independant from their government. You also get shows and other stuff that would not be considered mainstream enough to make money... Some countries decide that it's worth it to have some sort of tax on everybody to promote/create/garantee that sort of stuff. You have the right to disagree of course.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to have a TV licence for live TV. Most of the money goes towards the BBC and the TV, radio and other services it provides. The upshot of that is that BBC content is broadly well regarded quality wise and doesn't contain third party advertising. The down side is that some people don't see why they should have to pay the licence if they don't like the BBC's content.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

Not only in the UK, but in most civilised countries yes you pay a tv license fee.
BBC, Arte, Rai among others are all public broadcasters.
The reason behind this choice is that by having a public broadcaster you can ensure more or less objective news (among other things). Without a neutral (public founded) broadcaster you end up with a situation where the airwaves are at the mercy of private broadcasters (and they sure as hell don't care about democracy or telling news only infotainment). It sure beats the american way of doing tv. Private broadcasters that tell lies (cough cough fox news), and a semi-public broadcaster like PBS that has to ask, no beg viewers for donations.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Gordonjcp]

Only if you want off-air or live streaming. The BBC provides about a dozen advert-free channels of high-quality programming, and dozens of ad-free radio stations..

Compare this with the state of TV in the US, where you pay about the same amount of money (or more, depending on your cable or satellite provider) to watch ten minutes of adverts with two minutes of programme in between.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be great if someone is rich enough that paying the TV license is a moot point when it comes to affordability. However, whether or not there's exemptions for the poor, for those near poor it can be a burden I imagine. Why don't they just subsidize the revenue needed by shifting to a graduated income tax? Just get rid of the TV license. I imagine it'd be more cost effective to have one less method of taxation. Plus, I subscribe to the idea that communication should be tax-free.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[TrueSatan]

In the UK we a;lso have Channel 4 which is a QUANGO (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation) meaning, in practice, that it is funded by a mixture of (mainly) taxation bolstered by advertising revenue. C4 content isn't nearly as good quality, on average, as that of the BBC but its existance shows that either model can fund a public broadcaster.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Why don't they just subsidize the revenue needed by shifting to a graduated income tax? Just get rid of the TV license. I imagine it'd be more cost effective to have one less method of taxation...."

Yes, it would be much more cost-effective. If you only interested in making a profit. But that's not the point.

Ever since Lord Reith, the BBC has carefully guarded its independence. Do you think we haven't thought of funding through direct taxation? But The important (VITAL!) thing about the BBC is that it is NOT a government-run station. It is not beholden to government and dependent on a minister deciding to provide or withhold tax. That means that it can afford the huge and rare luxury of:

1 - not being commercial. Not only does that mean no adverts, it also means that unusual/experimental programs can be run depending on artistic merit alone, even if there is not an obvious market for them. Why do you think the BBC leads the world in development of novel entertainment?

2 - being able to criticise not only government policy, but ALL pressure and interest groups equally. This enables it to have balance, which no other broadcasting station can have. During WW2 the world listened to the BBC, because everyone knew that it would report stories accurately, no matter who was going to be annoyed...

3 - transmitting civilisation according to educated ideals. Lord Reith laid down the dictum that the BBC's job was "to inform, educate and entertain". In that order. No other funding system would be able to support that ideal.

In fact, what happens is that the British pay into a fund to maintain themselves and the rest of the world at a reasonably civilised cultural level. The BBC is neither commercial nor political in spirit. It is biased in favour of idealism. There is nothing anywhere else like it.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You also get programs like Dr Who (recently revived, but going back to 1963) that is difficult to show elsewhere such as the USA - such as the center of the Slashdot Universe at times it seems - because it has to be cut so much to fit in all the channel's adverts that viewers then try to cut out themselves using channel hopping or a DVR recorder.
Or do you all really, religiously watch all the adverts? You should! It pays for the programming remember...
Despite this I thought having to pay for TV License because I had *any* device in my property that could receive live TV was a little silly, expensive and wasteful for all concerned. It seemed such an outdated and unworkable system in the days of large apartment blocks (difficult to ascertain whether an unlicensed apartment really had a TV in it) when the receiver could be a little USB device smaller than the PSU of my laptop. What to replace it with though?
For a few months I just used the BBC i-Player and watched the shows from the BBC - including back episodes of Dr Who - on my Ethernet wired Internet connection for 15UKP / month (oh, almost the same as the TV license then!).
ITV (that get no subsidy from the TV License) also had a lot of their shows free to watch (and advert free) on their WWW site. Again these aren't live-to-air but I remember watching some of the classic Sci-Fi series such as Space 1999, The Prisoner and UFO on there - I'd never have thought of watching or buying.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[blackest_k]

There is very little in the way of subsidy , being blind reduces the licence fee and i think there is a provision for pensioners. Other than that there are fines and imprisonment as alternatives to paying.

  One issue, often stated, with bundling into general taxation is that it would probably lead to the government deciding what is or isn't acceptable to broadcast, especially when it is something which shows the government in a poor light.

It would make sense for the BBC to encrypt their channels and eliminate most of the thorny issues concerning licensing. Since if you want to watch the content you would need to pay for a card to decrypt it. Unfortunately the BBC knows that the revenue base would shrink dramatically. It would also put an end to most of Europe having free access to the BBC via satellite. Interesting to the note the contrast between Britain and Ireland in broadcasting to it's neighbours, There is a certain propaganda value to pushing British Culture to foreign parts one not shared by the more neutral Irish.

Ireland already does encrypt it's channels delivered by satellite, you need to access them via a subscription to Sky TV or use Digital Terrestrial TV *. Either way you will not be able to view outside of Ireland, to be honest you wouldn't be missing much other than Fair City, and Irish News and Sport. The bulk of the broadcasts are from UK, Australia and the USA, and are widely available anyway.

Ireland still has the curse of TV licensing and since digital terrestrial isn't encrypted an excuse to carry on with it into the future.

* Analog TV shuts off in Ireland in a few months time.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would ok with me if you could avoid the TV license if you didn't use any BBC content, but the TV license applies to all live TV. Even if I only ever watch commercial TV, I still need to pay the TV license. Perhaps that made sense when there were only a few channels, but not today. It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[BenJury]

As a fan of the BBC I wish all of this were true, unfortuantly its not quite. The BBC's budget is used as a politcal weapon. The Conservatives would like to reduce the BBCs size and thus influence, something they were calling for before they were in power. Personally I'd summise that if News International hadn't scored such an amazing own goal recently (as a lot of influence was coming from them) that the pressure to do so would increase. Their main problem is that like the NHS, on the whole people quite like the BBC...

Also it's woth noting the World Service I'm pretty sure is paid for by the goverment rather than from the license.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Hazel Bergeron]

This. The BBC has been a mindless lapdog since Hutton.

Interestingly, under the much more authoritarian Thatcher, it remained a thorn in the government's side. (It required a decades or two to remove all the activist management and gradually replace them with stooges.)

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"2 - being able to criticise not only government policy, but ALL pressure and interest groups equally. This enables it to have balance, which no other broadcasting station can have. During WW2 the world listened to the BBC, because everyone knew that it would report stories accurately, no matter who was going to be annoyed..."

Which they do so well that practically every ruling UK political party has accused the BBC of being biased in favour of the opposition. Including most recently our current abomination of a government. Basically because the BBC doesn't parrot what they are fed by the government they must be biased. Unlike the commercial media/press organisations that have been shown recently to have a disturbingly close 'relationship' with the UK government. It is just a shame this that will eventually be the death of the BBC as they get punished by those governments by having their funding cut. That and most people think that because they don't like *everything* on the BBC they shouldn't have to pay for any of it so are eager to support such actions.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[jo_ham]

It would ok with me if you could avoid the TV license if you didn't use any BBC content, but the TV license applies to all live TV. Even if I only ever watch commercial TV, I still need to pay the TV license. Perhaps that made sense when there were only a few channels, but not today. It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.

The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[itsdapead]

...unlike commercial television, whereby anybody who buys a packet of breakfast cereal is forced to make a donation to the cost of TV, even if they never watch it... and when they do watch it everything is effectively censored to avoid upsetting the advertisers. Or do you think the money to pay for commercial TV is magically conjured up by the Invisible Hand Fairy?

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[jo_ham]

Much of that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Daily Mail turning middle class opinion against it, for the very reason that it was a thorn in the Tory government's side.

If you can't kill it directly, go for a propaganda war. The Daily Hate Mail is very good at that sort of thing.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to feed the troll, but Doctor Who.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[RaceProUK]

It must be great if someone is rich enough that paying the TV license is a moot point when it comes to affordability.

It works out far cheaper than satellite or cable, and the license only applies if you're watching the broadcast in real-time. If you don't have a TV, and only use the iPlayer for catch-up, then you don't have to pay for the license.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[RaceProUK]

Not quite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4#Funding

C4 receives nothing at all from the taxpayer. It doesn't get anything from the license fee either. The main funding for C4 comes, just like ITV, from advertising.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[khallow]

Do you think we haven't thought of funding through direct taxation?

To be very blunt, I think your country is insane for letting the BBC have that kind of power over you. And yes, I don't think your country has thought about it. Else they would be funded differently.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[RaceProUK]

It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.

Wrong on two counts: first, everyone knows about it, and second, fee collection is enforced by the BBC, not by the police.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[khallow]

The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".

Well, I imagine a great majority of the other money that goes to the UK government doesn't actually go to the government either. It goes to people, businesses, and whatnot, that just happen to be, like the BBC, doing stuff that the government decided to force their citizens to pay for.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Interestingly, under the much more authoritarian Thatcher, it remained a thorn in the government's side.
Insightful? Really? How many cc tvs were operating under Thatcher? How many ASBO's were issued during Thatcher's time as PM? Oh, wait, only right wing authoritarianism is bad, left wing is ok.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[awrowe]

Unbelievably, I couldn't give a shit whether Americans are watching it or not, but here are a few incredible television shows created by the BBC which spank most - I did say most - comparable American products:

• Life on Mars
• Ashes to Ashes
• Top Gear
• Downton Abbey (which I thought was rubbish, but I hate period drama - rave reviews from others though

As far as journalism goes, The Daily Mail is an embarrassment. It's an affront to journalism which is purely aimed at tacky sensationalism which has only the most tenuous relationship with the truth.

But this conversation wasn't about "the UK's" journalism, it was about the BBC's journalism, which - while it has some weaknesses I have been known to bitch about - can only be regarded as among the best in the world. The ABC in Australia is the only organisation I can think of with a comparable code of journalistic integrity and surprisingly, the only better journalism I've ever seen comes from Al Jazeera of all places.

If you are handing out challenges though, how about you name just one solitary US news outlet which can be trusted to reliably provide balance to the news stories it broadcasts? Just one. I'll wait.

By the way, did you enjoy watching the Olympics live on NBC?

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Gordonjcp]

I don't think I've watched "live" TV in about 15 years. These days if there's anything I want to watch, I'll get it on iPlayer or grab a torrent, at a time that is convenient for me.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[jo_ham]

The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".

Well, I imagine a great majority of the other money that goes to the UK government doesn't actually go to the government either. It goes to people, businesses, and whatnot, that just happen to be, like the BBC, doing stuff that the government decided to force their citizens to pay for.

But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government. It is not a tax in that sense. It's set up this way to ensure that the BBC is not just a state-owned and controlled media arm of whatever government happens to be in charge at the time.

The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.

You might as well say that water rates are a stealth tax - the water companies are not part of the government, but you must pay water rates if you want to receive piped water into your house, and the collection of this fee is enforced by law.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[orra]

Also it's woth noting the World Service I'm pretty sure is paid for by the goverment rather than from the license.

This is no longer the case. One of the first things the Tories did when they recently got back into power was to "freeze" the BBC Licence Fee. From 2014, the BBC World Service will be funded from the Licence Free and not from the Government. The deliberate effect is to force bigger cuts onto the rest of the BBC.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[TheRaven64]

When did we have left wing authoritarianism? We went from Thatcher (Conservative) to Major (Conservative) to Blair (New Labour - Old Conservative) to Brown (ineffectual) to Cameron (Conservative). The only one of those who could possibly be considered left wing was Brown, and he came in at the peak of the financial crisis and spent his entire term on the defensive.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[robthebloke]

Wonders of the solar system.
Wonders of the Universe.
Everything & Nothing.
Chemistry: A volatile history.
Planet earth.
The frozen planet.
Science & Islam.

The majority of the UK population thinks: global warming is a massive environmental disaster, that we're all descended from a common ancestor, and that the earth has been around for a few billion years more than the bible claims. The quality of the BBC's programming is largely to thank for that, and so i'm happy to continue paying my license fee. Compare any of the above programs with the typical output of 'the history channel', and I think you'll quickly change your opinion about the program quality.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was enforced soley by the BBC, you'd be free to ignore their fines. Sadly, this is not the case.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[RaceProUK]

It is enforced solely by the BBC, according to Wikipedia:

Since 1991, collection and enforcement of the licence fee is the responsibility of the BBC in its role as TV Licensing Authority.

Original source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/licencefee.shtml

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[khallow]

But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government.

It most certainly is collected by government through both the law establishing the licensing fee, the government body that sets the fee, and the actual enforcement of nonpayment.

The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.

The TV license is not a "stealth tax" because it is overt. I do consider it a variation of a property tax since it is imposed by government fiat (on owning a working TV) not by contract.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Hatta]

You also get news that is written more by real journalists and less by corporate bullies with political agendas (yes, I'm talking about Fox)...

It's not just Fox. Every news source in the country is pro-corporate. The difference between Fox and MS-NBC is as illusory as the difference between Obama and Romney.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

To say nothing of The Office, which was butchered so badly by the Americans that it simply wasn't funny.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[AmiMoJo]

It would make sense for the BBC to encrypt their channels and eliminate most of the thorny issues concerning licensing. Since if you want to watch the content you would need to pay for a card to decrypt it.

Not really because hardly anyone has a receiver capable of accepting such a card. 99% of Freeview and Freesat receivers don't even have card slots.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

...since it is imposed by government fiat (on owning a working TV) not by contract.

It's nothing to do with 'owning a working TV'.
You can own a 'working' TV and use it to watch:
DVDs etc.
Any content from your own PC
Any Internet content including BBC iPlayer and other 'catchup'/on-demand service (but excepting live streams of broadcast TV)
In fact anything *except* live broadcast TV (delivered by Aerial, Internet, Cable or Dish)

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[asylumx]

I just want to point out that if you're talking to an American here, then half of them (us) think that everything in the UK is left-wing, even your most conservative politicians. I have a couple of friends who have moved here from the UK and often comment about how when in the UK they were die-hard conservatives but here they seem to fall into the "bleeding heart liberal" group instead.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[camg188]

You also get shows and other stuff that would not be considered mainstream enough to make money...

In other words, you get everyone paying for shows that only a few people (relatively speaking) are interested in watching.
That's a problem with publicly funded 'arts/entertainment'.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Elky Elk]

Downton Abbey was ITV.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[camg188]

enforced by the BBC

What happens if you refuse to pay? A civil suit? A fine?

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[RaceProUK]

It has the same legal standing as a tax, so fines and possible jail time.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[BenJury]

Yeah, I wasn't sure when that came into effect. Interstingly they're backtracking a little on the cuts they made to the World Service for certain areas of the world. I guess that will mean an ever bigger burden down the line.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[slimjim8094]

Well unlike any time in the last 90 years, maybe they'll think about it now due to your post.

I'm not usually that sarcastic, but the arrogance in your post is staggering. Because their decision is different from yours, rather than thinking that maybe they arrived at the decision based on different priorities or values or something else you're missing, you assert that an entire country of millions of people hasn't seriously thought about the license fee since it was implemented in 1922. Do you realize that you're implying that the currently-living 62 million people, and all the people before them, were just shit-chucking apes who couldn't make their own decisions correctly? And that's not a rhetorical question.

I suggest that you at least consider the possibility that other people did really come to the right decision for them, even if it's not the right one for you. I live in the US, and frankly I'd gladly pay the license fee for quality news and programming live, rather than catching the scraps over here.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, I must be blind. where's the insight here?

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[MrSteveSD]

Ever since Lord Reith, the BBC has carefully guarded its independence.

"They know they (the government) can trust us not to be really impartial" - Lord Reith in his diary during the General Strike in 1926.

The BBC is in no sense independent. The board of governors is appointed directly by the government. Trying to argue that the BBC is independent is like trying to argue that the department manager has no influence over you because you only answer to the line manager (who is answerable to the department manager). There are plenty of examples of the BBC being highly partisan and serving the interests of government. Perhaps one of the most notable is the BBC's involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup. The BBC broadcast the "go" code for the operation.

Most of the time though, you don't need to have some government minister secretly complaining to the board. Like most news organisations, the BBC is well versed in self-censorship. Even the language used betrays the establishment mindset. You can see this most clearly when you contrast reporting on a domestic issue with reporting on a similar foreign issue. So for example, when police are hitting protesters with batons in the UK, the BBC will describe it as "police scuffled with protesters". In contrast, when police in Iran hit Iranian protesters in similar ways, the BBC describe it as "batons swinging wildly at unarmed protesters" etc.

Another example is the seige of Grozny where the BBC reporter was allowed to get fist-shakingly angry (because Russia is an enemy) and demanded to know what right the Russians had to order the citizens to leave.

How many of them were incinerated, crushed by falling masonry or shredded by shrapnel nobody yet knows.
Moscow excused itself the trouble of worrying about such details by equating those who stayed on with terrorists.
Why should they go? By what right was the Russian army forcing them from their homes? So Russia could destroy what it itself dismissed as a handful of terrorists?

In contrast it is interesting to see how the BBC dealt with the very similar situation of the seige of Fallujah. This time the army carrying out the siege was the US army, so the gloves go back on. Instead of a angry reporter cursing the US, we had articles like "Fixing the Problem of Fallujah".

They also show a genuine concern for civilians of Falluja.
The big question is whether the rebels will stay and fight, or if they will simply melt away, as guerrillas tend to do when faced with a large conventional force.
But for the highly-professional marines, Falluja is also a return to the simplicity of combat after the complexities of peacekeeping and an enemy that never shows itself.

Notice the difference?

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[khallow]

you assert that an entire country of millions of people hasn't seriously thought about the license fee since it was implemented in 1922.

It's like a car wrapped around a tree. That doesn't happen when everything is working correctly. One doesn't need to know the details of the decision to fund the BBC in this way. The mere fact that it happened, indicates a problem.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[khallow]

It's nothing to do with 'owning a working TV'.

[...]

*except* live broadcast TV

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Cederic]

This. The BBC has been a mindless lapdog since Hutton.

You do realise that any given BBC news item is liable to get equal numbers of complaints stating, "Your reporting of this matter demonstrates your bias towards the evil Tories" and "Your reporting of this matter demonstrates your bias towards stupid Labour".

If you think the BBC are being biased, it's more likely due to how you interpret their lack of bias than because they are actually biased.

(Sometimes they are just biased)

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Cederic]

Yeah, because the BBC never give members of the Government a hard time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please - most of the posters here applaud Trotsky's death because he was clearly a reactionary trying to destroy the proletariat's revolution.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But of course it's not politically driven, since only the other side is politically driven...

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that the UK still retains a curious tradition where private individuals can bring criminal prosecutions - up to and including murder.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[iviv66]

If you own a working TV, but don't use it to receive live TV, you don't need a license. Such as all the instances mentioned by the AC. So you don't have to pay if you own a TV, its only if you use it for a specific use.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[jo_ham]

It's nothing to do with 'owning a working TV'.

[...]

*except* live broadcast TV

The TV can be working just fine (ie, it could receive live OTA TV if you hooked up an antenna or dish) but if you don't use that function of it, you don't need to pay for a TV licence.

You don't need a special "non working" TV - a normal working one is fine.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[khallow]

Ok, so it's that antenna rather than the TV that gets taxed. I still think it's insane.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[khallow]

It is rather obvious once one thinks about it, isn't it?

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Stuarticus]

A friend of mine hadn't bought a TV licence for about 5 years, at the time they were roughly £100 a year as I recall. I think he was fined £50. Of course they expect you to buy a licence after being caught.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Hazel Bergeron]

Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Cederic]

When 28 people complain that a TV programme unfairly favoured the Conservative Party and 28 people complain that a TV programme favoured the Labour Party, tell me, is the BBC biased?

I've seen those complaints. They were all for the same programme.

So no, I don't trust generic accusations of bias.

Disclaimer: I don't work in media or for the BBC.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Hazel Bergeron]

When 28 people eat chocolate, and 28 people have a beer, tell me, is the BBC biased?

Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.

(Sorry, I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion any further. There are essays all over the web discussing the post-Hutton BBC and you're starting from an untenable position.)

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Cederic]

I really don't get "made by some channel". But feel free to walk off without addressing my points.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[blackest_k]

Forward planning, if there was any intention to encrypt the BBC there would be decryption modules or at least a space for one on the freeview boxes. Unlike Sky where encryption increases revenue for the BBC it would lower revenue.

Making the BBC freely available should be good for me, but sadly even though I can receive the BBC via satellite I rarely watch their channels. The Olympics was an exception and particularly absurd since I could watch the BBC tv channels but was region banned from Olympic content on their website.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you know you're losing, hence the lack of interest in pursuing the discussion...

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only to you...

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[RockDoctor]

Strictly, no. We pay for the right to have possession of equipment capable of receiving and decoding television signals. Strictly speaking there is no need to have a TV license for a machine that is designed to only play back pre-recorded media (DVDs, video tapes etc.)

Considering that the money goes to fund the BBC, which even the most blinkered of Americans has to accept as being "one of the best" broadcasters in the world, and I can watch it's entire output for under 1/4 of the cost of my satellite subscription, I don't have any problem with that. See above comment about paying for a satellite service too, which is vastly poorer value (the satellite fuckers waste much of their income on retard-entertainment like sports!).

What I do still have a problem with, is that they got rid of the Radio reception license - it's incorporated into the TV license. So there is no way for someone who honestly has no TV but does have (and use) a radio to provide funding for the radio system without also paying the far higher licensing fee for the TV (which they don't have.

It's a few years since I succumbed to the wife's demand to have a TV, so I've forgotten some of the details. IIRC the Radio license was subsumed into the TV license in the late 1970s and cost around 1/6th of the TV license at that time. Cheap at twice the price.

Oh ... just try to envisage this : no adverts except for trailers. None. Nada. Zilch.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Hazel Bergeron]

No case to answer.

channel = channel of communication, not TV channel (i.e. particular complaints procedure)

And re-posting AC is kinda lame.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Cederic]

AC wasn't me.

Note that I didn't say in which channel those complaints were received. I believe those complaints were made via multiple complaint mechanisms, and not any single channel.

Your problem is that your initial post indicated an extreme bias and you're just not receptive to criticism based on first person anecdote that counters your unfounded claim.

No case to answer? You have no case.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[khallow]

Then it is indeed an insight. Maybe you should take heed rather than drop a bunch of one line quips.

Re:In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, name one current British television product that Americans watch.

Downton Abbey was ITV.

And your point is?

Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBW report found seven bodies, including the BBC, Ofsted, the Royal Mail and the Office for Fair Trading, refused to disclose how often, for what purpose and what type of surveillance they have undertaken using RIPA-granted powers.

So they might not actually have done anything and they most likely haven't done anything inappropriate and they don't have any obligation to reveal what they've used the powers for, but let's pretend they're all doing evil things with it 24/7 because it makes for a better article.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Gordonjcp]

That's about the size of it. It's slashdot, so they must maintain their rabidly anti-UK stance no matter what.

It's like they hate us because we're free, or because we keep pulling them out of the shit when they get embroiled in wars the US can't fight on their own, or something.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here was thinking it was the Television Licensing Authority that tracked down licensing violations. Still, it's better if you put "BBC" instead of "TVLA" because...well, because. The Daily Mail will be pleased!

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

they hate us because we're free

Yeah, could be that or...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_colonialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#Request_for_political_asylum_in_Ecuador

and quite a few other nasty things. Nationalism is cute though.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is about the general level of intelligence one expects on the subject, first raising stuff that happened hundreds of years ago to no one in living memory, then claiming some irrelevant current affairs come into it, and then claiming that not liking racism against your fellow countrymen is "nationalism", when the sad fact is that it's US nationalism that causes them to believe that *all* countries are inherently inferior (which does at least explain US foreign policy).

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your example kind of argues against your point.

You do know why Assange is hiding in Ecuador, don't you? HINT: He's not afraid of "special rendition" to Weston-Super-Mare.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloody hell I would be.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[_Shad0w_]

The US relied heavily on Britain's remaining colonial outposts during the cold war. They were quite vocal, in back channels at least, about us not divesting ourselves of them. A lot of them were in very useful places for placing either USAF or USN bases, or sigint and elint stations. Places like Diego Garcia are officially under the control of the British Government, but if you went there all you'd find is a US Naval base and a notional British Government official presence.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[AmiMoJo]

1. We know these powers have been abused in the past, and more generally speaking power is always abused when given. That is why we need oversight of power.

2. There is no oversight in these cases. It isn't just the BBC, there are other unmonitored organizations. You are correct in stating that we don't know if there has been any abuse yet (although arguably TV Licensing merely using such powers counts), and that is the problem.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[RaceProUK]

The BBC is the Television Licensing Authority.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[RaceProUK]

It's like they hate us because we're free

Free-ish. We're not as bad as the US, but we're getting there.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[khallow]

So they might not actually have done anything and they most likely haven't done anything inappropriate and they don't have any obligation to reveal what they've used the powers for, but let's pretend they're all doing evil things with it 24/7 because it makes for a better article.

That is a fair assumption to make about power. And since the BBC isn't a citizen but a public organization with a bit of power, there's no concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If they're not willing to show what they're doing with that power, then I'm not willing to assume that they aren't abusing it. That's how I roll.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[LordLucless]

first raising stuff that happened hundreds of years ago to no one in living memory

So history is irrelevant

then claiming some irrelevant current affairs come into it

As is the present. So what does that leave us with - the future?

and then claiming that not liking racism against your fellow countrymen is "nationalism"

Despite the fact that, broadly speaking, white Britons and white Americans are from the same racial stock.

it's US nationalism that causes them to believe that *all* countries are inherently inferior (which does at least explain US foreign policy).

Well, ok, one out of four I guess.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[drinkypoo]

It's like they hate us because we're free, or because we keep pulling them out of the shit when they get embroiled in wars the US can't fight on their own

Well, that's rich. When was the last time we needed you? What were the stakes? When was the last time you needed us? What were the stakes? The truth is that we just want you to share the ire of the world.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

No they're not. The TVLA is the TVLA, the BBC is the BBC. The BBC may fund the TVLA, but that doesn't make the TVLA any more the BBC than it makes the company that runs the BBC canteen the BBC.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[pjt33]

When was the last time we needed you? What were the stakes?

Afghanistan and Iraq: support in the UN and on the ground? Or special rendition flights refuelling in Scotland?

When was the last time you needed us? What were the stakes?

The Falklands: support in the UN and the purchase of a few missiles?

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Hatta]

Let's see... Surveillance cameras on every corner, no freedom of speech, no right to self defense, no protection against self-incrimination(encryption keys), and it's the very reason the term "nanny state" was invented. What's not to love?

I'm not saying the UK is worse than my country, but you clearly have serious problems. I don't see how anyone can consider the UK "free".

Re:Inflammatory much?

[drinkypoo]

Well, we needed your support in the UN, which was my point. We have our own refuelling equipment, it would just cost more money to put it into position.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true
no freedom of speech - not true
no right to self defense - not true
no protection against self-incrimination (encryption keys) - not true (not true)

If you do have evidence for all of these claims please make it public.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Hatta]

Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true

You're right, there are probably a few corners without CCTV. But there are enough cameras in the UK that there is one for every 32 citizens.

no freedom of speech - not true

Proof

no right to self defense - not true

Proof. Notice how strong the doublethink is in the judge, who exlclaims that "People have the right to use that reasonable force" while simultaneously sentencing someone for exercising that right.

no protection against self-incrimination (encryption keys) - not true (not true)

Proof

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof [bbc.co.uk]. Notice how strong the doublethink is in the judge, who exlclaims that "People have the right to use that reasonable force" while simultaneously sentencing someone for exercising that right.

Shooting people in the back when they're running away isn't reasonable force unless you're a psychopath.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm.. none of us were even born then. So yes it is irrelevant. You cannot judge people by what their ancestors did. If so then you should give America back to the "Red Indians"

Re:Inflammatory much?

[fremsley471]

Surveillance cameras on every corner. Bollocks.
No freedom of speech. Bollocks.
No right to self defence. Pretty much bollocks.
Encryption keys- you're right. This was part of "Computers are scary" legislation that had too little oversight.

Reduction of freedom from fear of murder counts a lot. No thought that the guy/gal who is being a dick to you will have a gun. Hooray!
8 775 gun murders in USA in 2010 compared with 51 gun murders in UK (popl 1/5 of USA) (12,996 vs 600 total murders). Hooray!
No "Please don't let me get sick as we'll have to sell the house". Hoo-fucking-ray.

We have all main road (and city) car movements tracked in real-time through an enormous increase in ANPR, the lack of discussion of which worries me. Boo!

We're not totally free, but with 60 million+ on these small isles, it's a different ball game.

Oh, and the BBC are pretty much the best broadcasters in the world, and I've tried most of the English language competition and much of the European language channels. Come and find the radio- recommend 6 Music and Radio 4. World Service's good too, if you want some proper news.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[fremsley471]

First of all, none of those links are 'proof'. They are mostly anomalous cases.

1:32 camera ratio includes shops, pubs, clubs; cameras are anywhere where private and public meet. I'm surprised it's not more. I can walk mile-upon-mile of streets in my city with no cameras anywhere. Most street surveillance are concentrated where there's booze and people. There's one hell of a lot of extrapolation in that cited article too.

The 'cult' prosecution didn't last 3 days- see the same page. I read the follow-up article [see link on your cited page] as suggesting the Scientologists had an inside man or two on that one, and as soon as it reached the 'normal' judiciary it was squashed. Also, the City of London has the oddest bye-laws in the country. One swallow doesn't make Britain a sunny country.

Finally, and quite frankly, if Tony Martin is your poster-boy, you have no fucking idea.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Hatta]

Um, how do you reconcile these two statements:

Surveillance cameras on every corner. Bollocks.
and
We have all main road (and city) car movements tracked in real-time through an enormous increase in ANPR

No freedom of speech. Bollocks.

You're just in denial here. The Public Order Act of 1986 makes insults an arrestable offense.

No right to self defence. Pretty much bollocks.

Again, this sounds like denial on your part. There are way too many stories like this:

Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal.

What actually seems to be the case is that the UK officially acknowledges the right to self defense, but has put so many conditions on it that you're likely to be victimized again by the state after doing so. That's not what I'd call having the right to self-defense.

Now I'll happily grant you your other points. I won't claim that the US is better than the UK. I am actually pretty sure that it is not. But that doesn't mean the UK is a free country.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true

You're right, there are probably a few corners without CCTV. But there are enough cameras in the UK that there is one for every 32 citizens.

An interesting part of that is "...The majority of these were inside premises, rather than facing the street, and only a relatively small number of Cheshire's cameras – 504 – were run by public authorities..."

The building I'm in has two cameras at every staff entrance and three at every public one. Look in any large American city and you'll find a similar amount.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Hatta]

First of all, none of those links are 'proof'. They are mostly anomalous cases.

It only takes one counterexample to disprove an assertion.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[fremsley471]

Car movements and cameras trained at people are very different. By driving a car with numberplates, you automatically have a way for the authorities to recognise you. The automated tracking WILL become an issue, but I'm guessing a little here; nothing public has ever been announced (ssshh, terrorists might be listening). Assume most western countries have something similar or it is planned, even if it's publicly there to reduce the "Police-Action" chases ? Not great, but a long, long way off a viewing-port in every dwelling and 'Enemy of the State' eyes, following our every move.

The Reform Section 5 campaign group will hopefully get their way- the current govt. has to give civil liberties a little boost to calm their right-wingers. This is being actively considered [by government] and it was always a bad clause. However, we're into detail. It's a long, long way from 'no free speech'. See the anti-TSA t-shirt wearing air traveller, just a few stories above, if you want an example closer to home.

Read the small-print after the Myleene Klass affair. She wasn't warned by police. Her agent told the press for a reaction/publicity. It was, hating to repeat myself, total bollocks. Can you find another? Look up Vincent Cooke for a man who killed an intruder in self-defence and take note of the remarks from the judge who last week sentenced the dead man's accomplice.

I think the UK has a long way to go. Many, many important issues are buried within celebrity news nonsense. Our journos and politicos all come from the same, small clique, which has pretty much drawn the wagons around it. However, I've never stuck my head above the political parapet [note to self: an interesting metaphor to choose], so haven't found myself on the end of any ways the state can grind you down- one assumes there are many. For my money, the UK isn't too bad yet and really not the 'Nanny State'. The biggest difference in my adult life is pre- and post-IRA, where many subtle rights have paradoxically disappeared as the authorities are not worrying about 'the terrorists winning' any more.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[fremsley471]

Unlikely though, as even in the US it would be seen as "cruel and unusual punishment".

Re:Inflammatory much?

[LordLucless]

I'm not American. I should be giving Australia back to the Aboriginals, and the British should be un-deporting me. That aside, history can have a valid impact on the attitudes of people. Are you saying that the Red Indians aren't allowed to feel anger towards the Americans for the actions of their ancestors? Because, after all, the people who did it are dead now.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad you see it that way - your original assertions were disproved by the counterexamples given.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time Britain 'rescued' the US in a foreign war, it was 1763.

Re:Inflammatory much?

[Stuarticus]

It would be OK though because it's outside US jurisdiction so it can be as cruel and unusual as you want it to be.

Heh! Heh!

[rts008]

In Soviet UK, TV watches you!

The right to not watch TV

[dgharmon]

> In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?

No, we pay for the right to *not* watch TV ...

Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Havenwar]

I haven't paid my TV license since I moved away from home some 10-15 years ago. Most of that time I haven't actually had a TV either, I get my media online these days... but the people who come asking why I haven't paid my license are rarely so easily convinced.

"Hello, I'm from 'Radiotjänst', we notice you haven't paid your TV license."
"I don't have a TV."
"Really? Can I look?"
"I don't have a TV, I don't have a TV card for my computer, or any other item that is listed as requiring me to pay your license."
"Are you sure, it covers quite a lot. If I can come in and have a quick look..."
"I'm quite sure, and no, you can't come in."

Then they'll usually call a few weeks later, because the inspector reports that behaviour as suspicious, so they call to ask. And then sometimes I get a letter as well, making sure I know that I seem to have 'forgotten' to pay my license.

Agencies like that are the basic reason why things like RIPA is a very, very bad thing. Guilty until proven innocent, and harassed until you confess whether actually guilty or not. Organizations with that mindset is what caused the inquisition, so we really need to keep them under check rather than giving them more power.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to provide a opposing anecdote:

Other than filling in a web-form every few years to say that I still don't own a TV, I haven't had any problems with TV licensing.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[mrjb]

The rules are simple and clear: If you're not watching or recording live TV, you don't need a license. Catch-up and on-demand services are exempt. I don't have a TV and don't watch live TV. With an hour of content being uploaded to youtube every *second*, I've got all the content I want. TV is dead to me. I've had it with being treated like a criminal whilst I'm doing nothing wrong. What these thugs are doing is even worse than stopping and searching pedestrians at random and demanding to see their driving license: What they're doing is akin forcing pedestrians to drop by at the Driver's and Vehicle Licensing Agency periodically, and force them to waste their time to prove that they DON'T own a car, when perfectly acceptable alternatives are available. I wonder how this ever had a chance to be signed into law. These thugs should be put in their place and the whole TV license should be abolished.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for you. Gestapo scum like that should be shot if they so much as set foot on your property. How low can a human being sink, that he would accept a job like that?

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[xiando]

RadiotjÃnst hassled me quite a lot back in 2005-2006. They called numerous times and asked stupid questions about "My television". They were asking in a way that assumed I actually had one in an attempt to make me admit I had one. I did not and I still don't. They eventually gave up when I actually told them that "You know, there is this brand new thing now that's called the Internet and that's far more interesting than the dull TV". RadiotjÃnst seems like a bunch of criminals imho.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Havenwar]

Well, that experience can actually happen here in Sweden as well - if you live rurally. The licensing agency here actually pays a commision on any cheaters caught, and anyone can apply to be one of their checkers, so in any city there are plenty of regular people who apply and get a list of local people "who aren't paying" and then have a financial motivation to find these non-payers out as cheaters.

But even so, why is the burden of proof on you? As in why do you have to so to say "apply for an exemption"? That's wrong on so many levels, and harks back to that whole guilty until proven innocent thing. If you're from Sweden then I can pretty much guarantee that the only reason that they don't harass you further for it is because they don't have the means to do so. Maybe you don't fall into what they call a high risk demographic, maybe you don't live around any controllers, maybe you just haven't made any purchases of media equipment or such (which can be reported to them voluntarily by the store selling it.) They don't have the resources to go after everyone, clearly...

Giving them those resources would be a horrible thing.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

for my computer

In Germany our local TV-tax harassment-brigade (GEZ) fixed that loophole: computers and smartphones are considered "novel" radio and television devices. They make sure you pay the tax even if you never watch any TV or listen to radio.

Around here you are forced to pay every last corrupt organisation (e.g. a private tax levied by corporations on blank media and reproduction equipment like printers) even if you never use their "services" and they then funnel huge chunks of that money to their friends instead of where it was supposed to go; like the good old-fashioned Mafia.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[arth1]

The rules are simple and clear: If you're not watching or recording live TV, you don't need a license. Catch-up and on-demand services are exempt.

The rules are seldom that simple, and depend on the country you are in.

In some, any equipment capable of receiving over-the-air signals in the designated TV bands is what prompts the license. Actual usage is irrelevant.

How I know? I was forced to pay a license for using an RF modulator for connecting an old hobby computer with RF output to a monitor. The store that sold the modulator was required to report the buyers as owner of a license-requiring device.

Anyhow, that's not the real problem. The problem is the British Broadcorping Castration placing the burden of proof on the individual, and presuming he's guilty until otherwise proven. That's very wrong.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

'Radiotjänst' is the Swedish version of the TV license. What does harassment from them have to do with the BBC abusing UK RIPA legislation?

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

A licence is absolutely not required for the use you describe.

A licence is required only if equipment is installed to or used to receive broadcast television; regardless of what the equipment is capable of. I.e. no licence is required if a television is owned, but not used to watch broadcast television.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Havenwar]

At one time they rang the door when I wasn't home. My girlfriend answered and said that we had a TV. Now apparently they aren't allowed to ask people who don't live there, but back then they rarely asked if the person that answered the door was a resident. Anyway, I got a bill, and tried to refute it. They refused. I ended up "admitting guilt" and then telling them I got rid of the TV because I didn't want to pay more, which meant I had to pay for only the week or soi I allegedly had it.

Haha, good story right, I got away with lying to them? No. Actually not. I didn't have a TV.

I did have a large monitor connected to my HTPC however, that for all intents and purposes looked like a TV. My girlfriend wasn't tech savvy enough to know the difference... The lack of tuner was the only "obvious" thing setting them apart, and that of course wasn't obvious since we never wanted to watch OTA programming in the first place.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Havenwar]

I think they'd have trouble doing that in Sweden, although I know it's been suggested. The reason it would be hard is because if everyone ends up having to pay then it's legally a tax, not a license, and private organizations are not allowed to gather taxes... and taxes can never be earmarked for one particular thing, so they couldn't get the entire sum for their business, they'd have to take whatever chunk the government budgeted for them, regardless of how much less that is than what was collected.

As for the blank media fee, yeah, we have that too, and it's ridiculous. But I think that's more connected to the whole music/film industry corruption rather than the TV license question.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Havenwar]

Hmm, yes, what could one country's TV-license organization harassing their "clients" possibly have to do with another country's TV-license organization harassing their "clients" through the use of RIPA?

I think the main clue is in the title: Glad we still don't allow that here. If that's not link enough for you then my statement that giving these types of organizations more power is a bad thing cements the link.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can withdrawn implied right of access to the TV Licensing organisation. Send them stating such and anyone acting on their behalf is trespassing if they come on to your property. This solved the problem for me after nearly 18 months of threatening letters and abusive inspectors.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Havenwar]

Thank you for the tip, if I ever end up living on "my own property" I'll be sure to check up if that's the case. In Sweden however a lot of people - most I believe - live in apartments, which means they don't have to set foot on my property to ring my doorbell.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[arth1]

A licence is absolutely not required for the use you describe.

Again, this depend on the country and the legislation in that country.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[drinkypoo]

What these thugs are doing is even worse than stopping and searching pedestrians at random and demanding to see their driving license: What they're doing is akin forcing pedestrians to drop by at the Driver's and Vehicle Licensing Agency periodically, and force them to waste their time to prove that they DON'T own a car

Even worse, it's more like turning up and searching your flat for keys to an auto... and taking note of anything else they might find.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've fight off them in court this last decade 4 times and gone to kronofogden once. Most of those that work for radiotjänst are police aspirants. And it hurts to get into kronofogden it means that your credit is lost you can't get contract on apartment, loans not even open a phone line or internet access. And it's in a so called state with functional justice system, Assange is right in not trusting Sweden as even if innocent and proven so you get punished

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

RIPA also give judges the ability to hand someone a life sentence. There are people rotting in UK jails due to the following tactic:

Judge: "Please give me the passcode to this device."
Defendant: "That is not my smartphone."
Judge: "Add another 3 years to the sentence. Defendant: What is the passcode?"
Defendant: "That is not my smartphone."
Judge: "Add another three years. Defendant, what is the passcode?"

Repeat as long as the judge wishes. Doesn't take long for a judge to be able to pass a sentence longer than a defendant has life... and there is no way to take this to trial, as it is an automatic sentence.

It is lame, but at least it is better than the US where one gets arrested for one charge, and a ton of other "possession of drugs in a drug-free zone/possession of drugs after dark/possession of drugs with a pocketknife" charges can be tacked on... and it only takes three to get someone put away for 20-life. Great money for the private prison system.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people rotting in UK jails due to the following tactic

Name one.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

And what country that the BBC broadcasts to would that be?

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[the_arrow]

Well, I hope you don't have a radio as well, as in Sweden you need to pay the license for radios too.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Havenwar]

Actually that's not true. While the collected funds pay for public service radio as well, it's only the TV-receivers that have to pay.

But no, I don't have a radio - streaming audio entertainment over the network or downloading just the songs I wanted was feasible long before the same was true for video.

Re:Glad we still don't allow that here...

[Stuarticus]

You do realise they have no right to search your house?

Hrm

[mrbester]

"The reason we do not release more details on how and when it is used is to ensure people without a valid TV licence don’t use this information to their advantage when attempting to avoid detection.”

Bollocks. The reason they do not release more details is that they don't want to.

Re:Hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the myth of the TV detector van, a bit of fear and uncertainty helps keep people in line.

Re:Hrm

[jo_ham]

The crucial thing is not to let Sky and its parent company know how they are checking who has licences.

Sky paid people to break ITV Digital's viewing cards and release "pirate" cards and the method for obtaining free TV without paying on the internet in order to drive ITV Digital out of business (it directly competed with Sky for Pay TV services), so I certainly wouldn't put it past them to "help" people dodge the TV licence to starve another competitor - the BBC.

Direct bribery and cosy relations with politicians are getting a little too high profile for them.

Re:Hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

The technology to detect what electrical devices are receiving (and transmitting) has been around since the 1950s. It was invented in England by Peter Wright, yes, that Peter Wright. It was used to sniff out cold war spies. Doing the same for a TV sets was trivial. Whether the BBC had vans beyond their prototypes in the field is a different matter, but the tech was certainly available all the way down to home electronic hobbyists.

Re:Hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

The vans do exist, what they don't like people knowing is there's only about 40 to cover the whole UK...

Re:Hrm

[mrbester]

Yes, was. In the olden days your RF receiver pumped out loads of modulated RF dependent on input frequencies so it was distinctly possible. Now with EU regulations governing emissions on all electronics you'd be lucky to even detect if it was switched on from more than a couple of metres away. Your ring main kicks out more than a LCD TV.

Re:Hrm

[bLanark]

Yes, was. In the olden days your RF receiver pumped out loads of modulated RF dependent on input frequencies so it was distinctly possible. Now with EU regulations governing emissions on all electronics you'd be lucky to even detect if it was switched on from more than a couple of metres away. Your ring main kicks out more than a LCD TV.

I disagree with this, I just bought a new LCD TV (and a UK TV Licence too!) and the TV sends out enough RF to interfere with my DAB radio in the same room. (I know, *now*, that DAB is cr*p and would never suggest anyone buy a DAB radio after experiencing it myself, but there is undoubtedly RF.). My laptop (old, but still with FCC and CE marks on the underside) is even worse in terms of interference to DAB. And I do suspect that Tempest technology could read what's on my screen, were "they" on the other side of the wall.

However, I doubt that there are detector vans still operating. Given the multitude of RF sources these days, it would be almost impossible to say "You're watching BBC1 on a TV in the back bedroom." Perhaps it could be used as a "foot in the door" tactic.

the problem with unchecked power

[Anonymous Coward]

once granted, it is always abused.

confused much?

[Anonymous Coward]

i think somebody is confusing the bbc with the tv licensing authority

Re:confused much?

[khallow]

The UK government does it too.

The BBC became the Licensing Authority with responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system in 1991.

Re:

[davide marney]

The funny part is you apparently think the other news programs in thw US have "real" journalists. CNN? MSNBC? CBS? These guys trip over their own ideological slant every day

How does RIPA help them?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I don't have a TV license but I watch live TV, how will communications data help them to find out? It's not as if I'd need to contact the dodgy guy down the road who supplies licence free TVs, it doesn't require any special equipment or knowledge.

BBS NOW !! PBS NEXT !!

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't want to fuck with PBS !! PBS makes the BBC look like a bunch of Dutch stoners !!

And be sure you pass the Dutch on the left-hand side !!

TV vs. Monitor

[brunes69]

What defines a TV in the UK? If I have a 50" flatscreen hooked to my PC and never use it to watch TV (very common), does that mean it is not a "TV"? Is it anything with a tuner? It's harder and harder to get a large flatscreen without a tuner these days.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

See my comment earlier. No licence is required to own a television (with any sort of tuner in it) so long as it is not used to receive broadcast television.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[TomC2]

See my comment earlier. No licence is required to own a television (with any sort of tuner in it) so long as it is not used to receive broadcast television.

Which therefore makes the enforcement of it ridiculous. We do not have a licence, and just to avoid arguments with the TV licencing stazi, the only TV we have in the house is disconnected from the aerial, all the channel presets de-tuned, and wrapped up in a bag where it cannot be used. But if I did have a set for watching DVDs etc, how can they possibly tell whether I use it for live TV or not?

TV Licencing do go round with "TV detector" vans, but I genuinely have no idea whether they really can detect TVs in operation or if it is just a deterrent.

It would be a lot simpler if there were some kind of technical means to stop non-licenced households watching TV - ie encryption with an access card, PIN code or something. I do not really understand why this is not done.

It also seems madness that I can completely legally listen to ad-free BBC radio, which is funded from the TV licence as well.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[u38cg]

Anything with a tuner and anything that can be used to watch online media. You need to be using it; having a dusty TV on top of a cupboard is OK, but having on your living room wall attached to your PC is probably not.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[xaxa]

A "TV" is something used to watch live television.

I've noticed all the angry posts above, refusing to let the person checking licenses in to the house (you don't have to).

However, not watching live TV is unusual, so I avoided all the hassle by letting them look at the TV, see that it very obviously was connected to 5 consoles and a DVD player (but no antenna, cable or satellite) and haven't heard anything more from them in two years.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

2 years? That's how long they gave me before they started bothering me again with demanding letters.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[drinkypoo]

I suppose you could disable the tuner if you were really worried about it, documenting the process. You'll want to buy a used (out of warranty) television for that, though.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Which therefore makes the enforcement of it ridiculous. We do not have a licence, and just to avoid arguments with the TV licencing stazi, the only TV we have in the house is disconnected from the aerial, all the channel presets de-tuned, and wrapped up in a bag where it cannot be used. But if I did have a set for watching DVDs etc, how can they possibly tell whether I use it for live TV or not?

They can't tell unless you are caught watching broadcast television or you admit to doing so. Most prosecutions are brought against people who admit doing so. The licence sales people (see Capita's advertisements - they are sales positions and they earn a commission) have no special rights at all. If they visit your property tell them to leave and that they do not have permission to return. If they return they are trespassing - call the police.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

TV Licencing do go round with "TV detector" vans, but I genuinely have no idea whether they really can detect TVs in operation or if it is just a deterrent

There aren't many of these around now. Most or all are just empty vans. They are often left parked at supermarkets or in busy town centre streets where lots of people will see them.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

In some countries in the past they used to try to detect leakage from the local oscillators that mix the received signal down to the IF. But I don't know if this is still feasible with modern TVs.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

The TV detector vans pick up the IF conversion oscillators of a TV in use, they know which channel you are watching, and by triangulation as they drive by they know appoximately which room of the house has the TV.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the TV, it's the receiver. If you don't have it connected to an ariel, then you don't have to pay a license.

Also, NEVER let the enforcers in. They have no legal powers to force entry.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Ash-Fox]

I've actually peaked inside one of those vans before, it was empty. No equipment.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked on the computer systems associated with enforcement in a previous contract.

The equipment is hand-portable, so is carried. Inspectors are provided with a list of 'suspicious' addresses (typically those where there is no record of a license, and no recent statement that the occupier has no television. They carry quite a small detector/notebook which will give them GPS direction to the address, camera, form-filling and printing ability and r/f detection capability, all packaged and forensically-approved so it can be used as court evidence.

If you get caught, say that you've just bought a TV and you're going to buy a license. Unless you have previous, they will always let you buy one and not prosecute. It costs money and bad publicity to go to court....

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

That's completely unnecessary. It's not having the equipment that's the problem, it's using it. If you're not watching live or near-live broadcast TV (however you do it: tv, internet, etc) then you don't have a problem.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Ash-Fox]

They carry quite a small detector/notebook which will give them GPS direction to the address, camera, form-filling and printing ability and r/f detection capability, all packaged and forensically-approved so it can be used as court evidence

I'm genuinely curious about the r/f capability you have mentioned. Outside of the oscillator signal, which is not detectable on modern flat-screens? I guess they'd need to detect the digital signal a screen emits, but the antennas to pick that up would have to be rather clumsy, which makes me doubt the portability.

As an amateur radio operator (and I'm okay with being proven wrong - still learning of course ;), I'm fairly skeptical that a decent portable device is feasible with current tech to read a digital screen's RF to determine live TV is being watched and to have enough evidence produced by this single function of the unit alone to prosecute someone over that information. This mainly because triangulation is a very messy science (hell, fox hunting can be quite a challenge for some of the most experienced in the field).

I also find it difficult to imagine TVLA would go to the extent of training more than a few people in the proper theory of radio and make them a licensed radio operator in order to make them a credible witness in court based off observations made by the unit.

I can imagine the other bits though of this device standing up in court though.

If you get caught

Skipping out on a TV license when you should have one is really no excuse IMO.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[metaforest]

The IF leaks out through the antenna. It is a small leak but it is detectable. This hasn't changed much with modern receivers as Heterodyne conversion is still very common. I don't see UHF/VHF direct conversion being affordable any time soon, and that is likely to have it's own detectable leakage components as well.

In the old days they only had to detect the leakage from CRT scan and see if it matched the current broadcast signal. The LF leakage from a CRT was easy to detect. In flat panels not so much.

Re:TV vs. Monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see UHF/VHF direct conversion being affordable any time soon,

How do you define "affordable"? The E4000 can do direct-conversion for the TV bands (and more) and while it is hard to find out the price, the fact that it is used in $15 DVB dongles suggests that it costs considerably less than $15. Is that too much for TVs that sell for at least $1000?

In the USA you PAY for the right to watch TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. All those adverts.

And how many FTA only merkins are there, by the way? Because otherwise you're paying for the right to watch TV.

Re:In the USA you PAY for the right to watch TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that you mean "OTA" and "Americans", then the number is 8% to 10% (depending on the poll) receive their tv programming over the air. Around 25 million people or so.

I've tried to pay it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've tried to pay for a TV license here in the states just to be able to get Top Gear UK legally. Top Gear America is the worst. They refused me saying that I needed a UK address. I asked if I could just pick an address and was hung up on.

I tried again with an actual valid address but only had a credit card from the US and they wouldn't take it. I was asked why I wanted a TV license so bad and I said for the Top Gear show. I was told that it would be easier for me to download it from the internet and have been doing that ever since.

Nathan

Re:I've tried to pay it...

[Anonymous Coward]

For many of the programmes the BBC only has the right to broadcast them within the UK, Top Gear being one of them.

Not a single comment about the actual story

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant. We have a story that mentions the name "BBC", and reading down the page, every single comment I can see is ranting either for or against the license fee.

And I'll bet that 90% of those putting their points across aren't even in the UK.

Well, I do live in the UK, and I've been to the US and other countries, and seen their TV. I know what I prefer. My opinion of the UK TV license is coloured by the fact that without it, we would have TV like the Americans. Frankly, I'd pay a lot of money not to suffer that.

New black?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems totalitarianism is the new black... oh right.
Same old, same old. Carry on then.

We have not been secretive ...

[wisnoskij]

... And this is why we have had to be secretive.
They really cover all bases in this article. They have both a denial that they have been secretive and an explanation of why they had to be secretive.

my short opinion

[Picha]

interesting, thanks. uzywane
ciagniki rolnicze.

TV license?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if Brits need a toilet license too. How can a people once free enslave themselves? Oops, I forgot, I'm an American. Were working that that pretty quickly too.

No, we don't need a toilet license.

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you refused to pay your brain license.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done sir! Excellent parody of bat-shit insane American!

power granted, then abused, sounds normal

[Nyder]

So, they gave the BBC permission to snoop on criminals then are surprised to find that the BBC abuses the privilege? Seriously? Those who do NOT learn from history are doomed to repeat history.

Man can NOT have unchecked power. At all. When you give someone power, you need to have checks and balances to keep that person from abusing that power, otherwise the power will get abused.

And we keep doing this over and over through out history. Will we ever learn?

Circumventions

[Thomas Shaddack]

Why didn't you ask a friend to buy it for you, or bought it on ebay or over the internet, or even built it yourself?

Re:Circumventions

[arth1]

Why didn't you ask a friend to buy it for you, or bought it on ebay or over the internet, or even built it yourself?

Because I didn't know this would be an issue until after I had bought it. All I wanted was to hook up my old hobby computer to a monitor, and an RF demodulator would do that.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason why I appear "bat-shit" insane is because it is true and I pissed you off. Typical for a communist, nigger loving anti american piece of shit like you. Then again, you could actually be a fucktarded nigger yourself as all niggers love communism.

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY!!!!!!!