View Full Version : TV Detector vans
I was watching a news item last week about the new TV detector vans soon to be deployed in our area.
I have a couple of questions, in simple terms :dunce: how do they work, do they measure radiation from the TV tube?
If so, can they detect the latest LCD, plasma screens etc.?
timewarrior2001
08-07-2003, 10:38
They dont work, they know which houses dont have a licence, they catch you watching TV your nicked me ol son.
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
They dont work, they know which houses dont have a licence, they catch you watching TV your nicked me ol son.
Yeah, when I last moved house, and forgot to 'move' my tele licence, I had someone on my doorstep within a month of moving. The tele is visible from the outside, so I was 'nicked'. Well, the man then registered my licence on the new address.
A quick Google found this, but does this apply to LCD/plasma TV equipment?
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Technology/Original/t00033d.html#Top
timewarrior2001
08-07-2003, 10:50
If your TV and VCR/DVD player are only used to watch pre-recorded material (videos or DVDs) and never used to receive broadcasts, then you do not need a TV Licence. Keeping the broadcast receivers in the TV and the VCR de-tuned (DVD players don't normally contain receivers) is sufficient to prove to them that you do not use the equipment to receive broadcasts - but you must make sure that no picture, no matter how poor quality, is viewable on the screen. There is absolutely no need to physically modify, damage or remove the tuner or any other circuitry in the TV or VCR.
matty4donna
08-07-2003, 10:52
the licence is for the equipment with the ability to view the channels not for having it tuned in ;-)
Oh no it isn't...
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70177
Very interesting, nice to see that other forums get a bit hot under the collar;) I had to get to the post from SteveMcK to get a definative answer to my question, as well as your posts on the subject.
Thanks Altis.:tu:
timewarrior2001
08-07-2003, 12:09
Re-read my post, my partner worked for the prosecution dept at TVL.
If the ariel is unplugged and the TV is de-tuned so that ABSOLUTELY NO broadcast image is/can be displayed on the TV/VCR then you do not legally require a TV licence.
Yep. I've been involved in quite a few arguments on this subject. Unfortunately, peeps tend to get very irate and refuse to believe all evidence placed in front of them.
If you watch or record any UK television broadcasts then you need a TV licence. BTW, this even applies to stuff streamed over the net. If you just use your AV equipment for some other purpose then you don't need one - but you have to be able to prove it.
SMHarman
08-07-2003, 12:39
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Re-read my post, my partner worked for the prosecution dept at TVL.
If the ariel is unplugged and the TV is de-tuned so that ABSOLUTELY NO broadcast image is/can be displayed on the TV/VCR then you do not legally require a TV licence.
But how do you detune an auto tune TV?
duncant403
08-07-2003, 13:44
Originally posted by SMHarman
But how do you detune an auto tune TV?
I believe they only auto-tune if there is an aerial plugged into them when you switch it on.
If it's already been tuned it, either you can manually un-tune it (you should have an option to do that somewhere), or you could leave it unplugged for a sufficiently long period for the memory to be cleared.
They can find out what channel you are watching but it's a lot of trouble to go to, as others have said they usually just look at post codes and who hasn't got a licence etc.
They can use a very good directional aerial with a spectrum analyser to detect the Local oscillator that leaks up the feeder to your aerial and gets radiated, this signal will be 39.5MHz away from the Vision frequency of the channel you are watching.
The signal will be very small because the TV is not designed to be a transmitter, the front end RF amplifier allways used to be a transistor in common base configuration to provide an easy match to the 75 Ohms, another thing with common base is it provides very good input to output isolation, so it effectively stops the local osc signal travelling the wrong way through the amplifier and up the aerial.
Add to this a masthead aerial etc and the signal is almost undetectable, I guess the set-top aerials are the easiest to detect.
I think they would only use this sort of thing for the hard to catch offender.;)
zoombini
10-07-2003, 12:41
What about if say, you had a room full of TV's, no de-tuning done to them. NO aerial, but all connected to Xboxes for a LAN game?
And that room was say in the village hall.
Would a license be required then?
timewarrior2001
10-07-2003, 12:45
If they can display a partial signal of extremely poor quality, then yes. If they are in fact tuned to receive a signal on a known broadcast frequency then yes also.
Enterian
10-07-2003, 12:58
Originally posted by danielf
Yeah, when I last moved house, and forgot to 'move' my tele licence, I had someone on my doorstep within a month of moving. The tele is visible from the outside, so I was 'nicked'. Well, the man then registered my licence on the new address.
Some years ago I had someone round soon after I rented a telly cos I didn't have a licence, they hadn't done their homework though as the licence was in the name of my fiancÃÃâ€*’©e whom I was living with. He went away disappointed.:D
Althought I'd always recommend having a TV licence, if the inspector turns up on your door, remember he'll ask you to sign a form confirming what was said between you both, even thought there is no legal requirement to sign anything! This can buy you some time if you then went out to buy a licence.
Some years ago, a man called on our door claiming to be a TV Licensing officer. He said that they had no record of a licence for our address an asked if I could explain that. I said we did not own or operate a television and he just said thank you and left.
In the 20-odd years that we have not had a licence this was the only visit. In that time, they seem to have gone through both aggressive and meek phases . But I'm not sure where they're up to now that Capita has taken over the contract from Consignia.
timewarrior2001
10-07-2003, 13:57
They are up to about 50% redundancies as is per quota whenever Capita take over a contract. :D
Originally posted by altis
Some years ago, a man called on our door claiming to be a TV Licensing officer. He said that they had no record of a licence for our address an asked if I could explain that. I said we did not own or operate a television and he just said thank you and left.
I had a visit last year. The guy asked if he could come in and check and I said no. He went away muttering about he'd come back with a search warrant. I'm still waiting ...
Lord Nikon
10-07-2003, 17:39
I had a visit... The TV didn't actually work.. he was happy & left...
a week or so later the parts I needed to fix the TV arrived, so I fixed it, bought a license and sat back.
I then received a letter stating I didn't need a TV license and that they would check again in 2 years., followed by 2 prosecution threats.
I wanted to see it in court.. "Certainly your honor, wanna see the license? the letter saying I don't need one? your choice" lol
I didn't know you need a license to own a TV in Britain. Download Failed (1)
Originally posted by Jerrek
I didn't know you need a license to own a TV in Britain. Download Failed (1)
You don't. You need a licence to receive TV broadcasts, which is subtly different. You can own a TV and a VCR but if both are completely de-tuned, you do not need a licence. You can freely use them to watch rented videos.
The BBC has a special status conferred on it by Charter which gives it official State broadcaster status, and the right to collect money to run the service in the form of a TV licence (currently £117 a year for a colour licence - I've just renewed ours) :( You can't avoid the licence by just de-tuning BBC channels tho'. It is a legally enforced TV licence, not a BBC subscription.
The BBC uses this money to pay for 8 TV channels (only two of them avaialble as analogue broadcast signals tho'), about 9 national radio stations (5 on analogue), about 20 regional/local analogue radio stations, and BBCi, the new brand for its multimedia services available online and through digital TV. All these channels carry predominantly original, British-made programming and are 100 per cent commercial free.
Well worth the money IMO.
Originally posted by towny
Well worth the money IMO.
i hope you were being sarcastic :rolleyes:
the BBC wastes millions i only watch 1 program on a BBC channel and thats even on and off why do we HAVE to pay for the licence the BBC has gone commercial they do advertising on there cable/digital satellite channels and sell rights to shows abroad and merchandise selling videos of shows etc to the public there is no need for the tv licence IMO
Originally posted by kronas
i hope you were being sarcastic :rolleyes:
the BBC wastes millions i only watch 1 program on a BBC channel and thats even on and off why do we HAVE to pay for the licence the BBC has gone commercial they do advertising on there cable/digital satellite channels and sell rights to shows abroad and merchandise selling videos of shows etc to the public there is no need for the tv licence IMO
I was not being sarcastic. I get most of my news from http://news.bbc.co.uk , I listen to Radio 4 on my way to and from work and I watch predominantly BBC1, BBC2 and BBC3 at home. Even when I watch one of the other channels, more often than not it is a programme made by the BBC.
The money made by BBC Enterprises in flogging its programmes and merchandise abroad is re-invested in the BBC's core business, which is making programmes for Brits. And I happen to think they are very good at it.
The only 'advertising' they do is for their own broadcasts, which is fair enough, and their commercial products, which they are required to do without any fancy production values and carrying the caption 'other etcetcetc magazines are available'. Such announcemtns rarely last more than 10 seconds.
Conversely advertising on subscription channels is of North American proportions. More than enough time to go to the toilet, make a phone call and brew the tea without missing anything. It takes almost an hour to get through little more than 40 minutes of plot.
Having a state broadcaster has ensured there has always been a diverse range of quality material being produced in the UK. It has set standards that other British broadcasters have had to follow. Even if you never watch or listen to the BBC (and I suspect you might tune in to it more than you think) you have plenty to thank it for.
BTW, given that the BBC has just announced that it has managed to slash its internal management costs, where do you believe they are wasting 'millions'?
Ugh, you get your news from BBC? No offense, but... ugh...
I get my news from Fox. :) I watch mainly History, History International (eh, I'm a history nut), Discovery Times, Discovery Civilization, and the Science Channel.
Commercial free is nice though. :)
Originally posted by Jerrek
Ugh, you get your news from BBC? No offense, but... ugh...I get my news from Fox. :)
Well BBC is the world's biggest news organisation after all...much to Mr Murdoch's annoyance. And despite the current controversy boiling over here, I'd trust the BBC well before any commercial news organisation with possible business concerns clouding their editorial judgement.
I watch mainly History, History International (eh, I'm a history nut), Discovery Times, Discovery Civilization, and the Science Channel.
We had ntl's Family Pack for a while which included all those channels and others. I found their programming to be dumbed down beyond belief. Great for you if you enjoy them though.
Commercial free is nice though. :)
It is. You sit down to watch a 60-minute programme and you get 60 minutes of programme!
Stuart W
23-07-2003, 15:16
My frien owns a scrap yard. He has a 'macro card' which entitles him to buy goods from a trade warehouse. I was sitting in his office browsing through the macro catalogue when I saw a nice 52in TV for £130. I asked if he could get me it and he said he would take me next time he was going.
Sure enough I went with him and bought the TV. No-one asked me for any address as they allready had the cardholders companie address.
This was about 5 years ago. The TV has since broken beyond repair and been disposed of. My friend STILL gets letters threatening him with baylifs and all sorts. The are daft enough to think that he uses the TV in a scrap yard..... with *NO* electricity or aerial!!!
About 3 yrs ago I wrote to them explaining I had the TV and gave my address. They ignored it.
Well BBC is the world's biggest news organisation after all...much to Mr Murdoch's annoyance. And despite the current controversy boiling over here, I'd trust the BBC well before any commercial news organisation with possible business concerns clouding their editorial judgement
I thought CNN was bigger? Anyways, I don't think I would trust a news agency run by the government. Eh.
I found their programming to be dumbed down beyond belief.
What do you mean by that?
The TV has since broken beyond repair and been disposed of. My friend STILL gets letters threatening him with baylifs and all sorts. The are daft enough to think that he uses the TV in a scrap yard..... with *NO* electricity or aerial!!!
That is so funny. :D :D
Originally posted by Stuart W
About 3 yrs ago I wrote to them explaining I had the TV and gave my address. They ignored it.
There's nowt queer as the bureaucratic mindset. I wish I could understand how it is possible for a letter to be just 'ignored' in this way. Someone must have opened and read it. So exactly who decided, 'I believe the best course of action is to ignore this letter completely and take no further action.'
Is there a special training centre for public-sector workers to have all the drive and initiative beaten out of them before they start their jobs?
(I know this is a sweeping generalisation, before I get shot at)
Originally posted by Jerrek
I thought CNN was bigger?
Nope. The BBC's size is not widely known because it is not a commercial organisation, so does not report revenue, profit etc in the way others do. If it were to become a publicly-quoted corporation, it would dwarf all the others.
Anyways, I don't think I would trust a news agency run by the government. Eh.
The fact that the BBC isn't run by the Government is part of what's fuelling the scandal currently brewing over here. The BBC's continuing existence is authorised by Parliament (not Government) but its operations are independent of both.
If you're not up to speed on the David Kelly affair, educate yourself here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/david_kelly_inquiry/default.stm)
I found their programming to be dumbed down beyond belief - What do you mean by that?
Dumbing down = A British expression meaning 'to lower the intellectual level of a programme in order to appeal to a wider audience rather than to tackle the issue in proper depth,' or thereabouts. Discovery Channel is expert at this IMHO.
I don't watch Discovery, I watch the Science Channel. I like those channels I mentioned. I don't particularly feel it has been "dumbed down." And some of the programs are BBC productions. :)
And I still don't trust BBC. They're very biased against Americans. They attack us at every corner. Their hatred against Americans and Israelis are very obvious when you watch it... Probably why BBC doesn't have a big fandom in the United States.
Originally posted by towny
Is there a special training centre for public-sector workers to have all the drive and initiative beaten out of them before they start their jobs?
I think that they're born that way:D
Originally posted by Jerrek
And I still don't trust BBC. They're very biased against Americans. They attack us at every corner. Their hatred against Americans and Israelis are very obvious when you watch it... Probably why BBC doesn't have a big fandom in the United States.
Hang on hang on, you say
They're very biased against Americans
and
They attack us at every corner
I thought referring to yourself as American would be as backward as referring to Britain as 'England' :confused:
Just buy a licence, ya cheapskate!!! :argue:
How far is it to the Post Office? :walk:
Originally posted by nogger
Just buy a licence, ya cheapskate!!! :argue:
How far is it to the Post Office? :walk:
Given that he lives in Canada, the nearest post office where he could get a TV licence is, what, at least 3,000 miles away?:D ;)
I have American citizenship too. :)
Originally posted by Russ D
as backward as referring to Britain as 'England' :confused: whats wrong with that:confused:
We don't need to love the Americans, they love there selves enough:p
If we don't like them how come our prime ministers allways seem to bend over backwards to help them, I can't say that I have come across any people in this country who hate Americans.
There are however plenty who don't like other coutries close to us in Europe who try to tell us what to do at every opportunity, and stamp their feet until they get their way.
Originally posted by Jerrek
I don't watch Discovery, I watch the Science Channel. I like those channels I mentioned. I don't particularly feel it has been "dumbed down." And some of the programs are BBC productions. :)
Yes, those programmes air on BBC1 or 2 first and you can almost invariably spot when the closing credits are going to say, 'A BBC / Discovery Channel co-production'. Cable & satellite channels don't have the monopoly on dumbed-down TV but they are by far the best at it. IMO.
And I still don't trust BBC. They're very biased against Americans. They attack us at every corner. Their hatred against Americans and Israelis are very obvious when you watch it... Probably why BBC doesn't have a big fandom in the United States.
A lot of the world has a very different view of the USA than the USA has of itself. You are so self-confident as a nation that not only do you often miss this point, when you are occasionally confronted with it you find it impossible to understand. The BBC doubtless has a political agenda all of its own which is coming under extreme scrutiny at the moment thanks to its involvement in the Kelly affair (did you click my link above?). Just comfort yourself that they take a similarly critical view of the British government and the majority of middle-class Brits.
As for the BBC's popularity in America, this snippet regarding the BBC America cable TV channel seems to suggest the organisation is more popular over there than you think:
And it has done it often in partnership with the private sector, forging joint-venture deals such as its landmark UK pounds 340 million tie-up with the Discovery Channel in 1998 that culminated in the launch of the cable channel BBC America, which now reaches 24 million homes. source (http://brw.com.au/Stories/20020314/13669.aspx)
Originally posted by towny
BTW, given that the BBC has just announced that it has managed to slash its internal management costs, where do you believe they are wasting 'millions'?
im my opinion they are wasting money on so called dramas which cost huge sums to make and are frankly crap
Originally posted by kronas
im my opinion they are wasting money on so called dramas which cost huge sums to make and are frankly crap
lol :rofl:
Don't hold back m8, just say what you mean ... ;)
Originally posted by towny
lol :rofl:
Don't hold back m8, just say what you mean ... ;)
i have done i still dont think they need a licence as other 'arms' of the bbc can cope with alternative ways of funding
as i said i dont watch the bbc or any of its channels
Originally posted by Ramrod
whats wrong with that:confused:
Would you refer to Britain as 'Wales'?
As for the BBC's popularity in America, this snippet regarding the BBC America cable TV channel seems to suggest the organisation is more popular over there than you think:
I'm talking BBC World, not BBC America. And BBC America is bundled with just about any package, so of course it would reach a lot of homes.
A lot of the world has a very different view of the USA than the USA has of itself.
It isn't a matter of different views. Different opinions is OK. BBC though, bite and attack the United States and Israel at *every* opportunity, whether it warrants it or not. They refuse to consider the other side of the story. You can disagree with someone and still sound like you are neutral, but BBC oozes hatred against Americans when you watch it. That is why I hate BBC. I don't agree with everything Americans do, but it is one thing to disagree, and quite another to air propaganda and hatred baised against the United States. Hell, even the British Armed Forces were forced to get rid of BBC because they couldn't stand it. Now they're getting Sky.
Originally posted by kronas
i have done i still dont think they need a licence as other 'arms' of the bbc can cope with alternative ways of funding
as i said i dont watch the bbc or any of its channels
Sure they could go commercial, and with the size of audience they get they would have few problems getting revenue from advertisers. However one thing the BBC can do more easily than any other broadcaster is experiment and innovate, because at the end of the day it won't harm their income stream if a series flops. That to me is one very good reason for the licence fee.
Originally posted by Jerrek
It isn't a matter of different views. Different opinions is OK. BBC though, bite and attack the United States and Israel at *every* opportunity, whether it warrants it or not. They refuse to consider the other side of the story. You can disagree with someone and still sound like you are neutral, but BBC oozes hatred against Americans when you watch it. That is why I hate BBC. I don't agree with everything Americans do, but it is one thing to disagree, and quite another to air propaganda and hatred baised against the United States. Hell, even the British Armed Forces were forced to get rid of BBC because they couldn't stand it. Now they're getting Sky.
I doubt this to be the case. The vast majority of Americans seem to view any kind of criticism as a personal insult/attack.
OK don't laugh at my mistake with "England" and "Britain" and so on. I have no idea whether you live in England, United Kingdom, Great Britain, or a mixture of those, or whether I need to call you British, English, or Britons. Eh. I'm confused... Someone hep me a bit please? :) Over here your two islands are pretty much "England" and that is final. :D Going to Glassglow? Thats England. (Yes, I'm a tad ignorant, but help me please?)
Originally posted by towny
Sure they could go commercial, and with the size of audience they get they would have few problems getting revenue from advertisers. However one thing the BBC can do more easily than any other broadcaster is experiment and innovate, because at the end of the day it won't harm their income stream if a series flops. That to me is one very good reason for the licence fee.
yes so why cant the licence be abolished i mean why should i have to pay £117 for something i dont watch :confused:
and yes i know the licence fee is for recieving transmissions :rolleyes:
If you have a TV card in your computer, do you still need to pay the license fee?
Originally posted by Jerrek
OK don't laugh at my mistake with "England" and "Britain" and so on. I have no idea whether you live in England, United Kingdom, Great Britain, or a mixture of those, or whether I need to call you British, English, or Britons. Eh. I'm confused... Someone hep me a bit please? :) Over here your two islands are pretty much "England" and that is final. :D Going to Glassglow? Thats England. (Yes, I'm a tad ignorant, but help me please?)
Ignorant, and just a little insulting. It would be like calling Canada 'America' and vice versa. It always amuses me when supposedly intelligent Americans refer to the UK as 'England'....
Here's a tip: if the person you are talking to lives in the UK, refer to it as "the UK", and the person as 'British' - painfully simple and clears up any misunderstandings :)
It would be like calling Canada 'America' and vice versa.
Someone on this forum did... ;) But it wouldn't insult me. I'm pretty used to people not being able to distinguish Canada from the United States. Except the flag of course. Eh.
Do I call Scotts and Welsh "British" too?
Yes, although many would prefer to called 'Scottish' or 'Welsh'. You could call us anything other than English and we won't mind ;)
Gotcha. Thanks. You may call me "sir."
I'm glad we've cleared that up sir, now if you could just pass that message on to the 250 million americans living south of your border, that'll be great :D
Maybe if English President John Blair comes and holds a press conference explaining it...
Sorry... Had to do it. :D :D
Download Failed (1)
Originally posted by Jerrek
Maybe if English President John Blair comes and holds a press conference explaining it...
lol its tony blair and its prime minister :p :D
Originally posted by kronas
lol its tony blair and its prime minister :p :D
Good to see irony is not wasted on the young...... :rolleyes: :D
I knew that. Honest. Download Failed (1)
Originally posted by Russ D
Good to see irony is not wasted on the young...... :rolleyes: :D
lol im middle aged ya know yes i did get it hence the smileys :D
*cough* Knowledge test of two questions. Don't google for it, and please be honest.
1) What is the capital of Canada?
2) Who is the Queen of Canada?
1) it's not like it matters
2) it's not like it matters
:D ;) :angel:
toronto or ottawa its one of them dont know which for sure my moneys on toronto for question number 1
*sigh* It is actually Ottawa. Toronto is the biggest city, but Ottawa is the capital. Ah well...
*strolls back to his very unimportant and insignificant country.* http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/emotes/mope.gif
hey come on i was close no one else guessed :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Jerrek
*cough* Knowledge test of two questions. Don't google for it, and please be honest.
1) What is the capital of Canada?
2) Who is the Queen of Canada?
1) Ottawa
2) Shania Twain? (at least it should be instead of QE2, so long as Shania just get's butt naked and doesn't sing much)
I have an unfair advantage in that I lived in Canada for some years, and I hated it, I hated poutine, I hated ick Canadian beer, I hated Hockey, I hated the Maple Leaf's, I hated the fact that you had to go over the border to Buffalo to buy proper Marlboro, I hated the weather (-45 in winter and +34 in the summer wtf is the craic?), I hated Arby's (I think that's a given though), I hated listening to the Canadian national anthem on TV every morning, I hate the way they say "eh" as in "how's it going eh?", I hated having to work out the extra tax I paid on items at the counter (why they couldn't just add it in to the total price is beyond me). But, having said all that, I hated England far more, at least Canadians are psuedo friendly
lol http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/emotes/silly.gif
Originally posted by Jerrek
OK don't laugh at my mistake with "England" and "Britain" and so on. I have no idea whether you live in England, United Kingdom, Great Britain, or a mixture of those, or whether I need to call you British, English, or Britons. Eh. I'm confused... Someone hep me a bit please? :) Over here your two islands are pretty much "England" and that is final. :D Going to Glassglow? Thats England. (Yes, I'm a tad ignorant, but help me please?)
My Glaswegian wife is standing behind me reading this, and she's not impressed ...
There are two main islands that make up a geographic feature called the British Isles.
There are two nation states on those islands. The smaller is the Republic of Ireland, which occupies most of the land mass of the smaller island, which is also called 'Ireland'. The larger is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It occupies the whole of the larger island - called Great Britain - and a small chunk of Ireland.
The United Kingdom is comprised of a number of nations which are united either by conquest or political alliance. I shan't bore you with the details, although as you're never likely to get it explained properly on Discovery Civilisations ;) feel free to ask and I'll elaborate. Suffice it to say, those nations are England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
If you ask anyone from one of those nations what their nationality is, they will likely as not say English/Scottish/Welsh first and British second. British is technically correct in international terms. The exception to this is Northern Ireland, which is a heavily divided community. They will probably say just 'British' if they are of a Unionist persuasion or just 'Irish' if they are Nationalist or Republican.
And, seeing as you asked, yes you do need a TV licence to view with a TV card in your PC. I would imagine the same signal leak back up the aerial that detector vans use to spot TVs and VCRs would also trap people using PCs.
Well, tell your wife that the Canuck is sorry if I offended her... That wasn't intentional. I was trying to highlight the level of ignorance.
Thanks for the little bit of information. I know the history, but the legalities of what is correct and incorrect today eluded me.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Well, tell your wife that the Canuck is sorry if I offended her... That wasn't intentional. I was trying to highlight the level of ignorance.
You didn't need to do that!! 250 millions americans have done that for you ;)
bigboab5
23-07-2003, 19:58
Originally posted by Jerrek
Going to Glassglow? Thats England. (Yes, I'm a tad ignorant, but help me please?)
Try Coming to Glasgow Jerrek and saying you are in England, Hmmm. I wouldn't fancy yer chances!!!!
Bigboab5
(Frae Glasgow!!!)
:eek:
Originally posted by bigboab5
Try Coming to Glasgow Jerrek and saying you are in England, Hmmm. I wouldn't fancy yer chances!!!!
Bigboab5
(Frae Glasgow!!!)
:eek:
So long as he wanders around east Glasgow with his rangers top on I'll be happy.
bigboab5
23-07-2003, 20:13
Originally posted by Bifta
So long as he wanders around east Glasgow with his rangers top on I'll be happy.
Now that would be Sport Bifta!!!!
Lol
Bigboab5
Frae Glasgow
AND
Works in The East End Of Glasgow
And
Was in Sevillle
:beer:
When you're done, send him over here, we'll send him down round the Rossville Flats with a Sash on.
Originally posted by Jerrek
err, Rangers top?
You could always phone the Brazen Head and ask if they'll send you one mail order, +44 141 420 1530, ask for Ian Paisley, they'll love that!
I'll call tomorrow morning my time. It is too late now I think. Thanks.
I can forgive the BBC anything for the quality of programmes like Blackadder,Red Dwarf,Gimme Gimme,Only Fools and Horses,The Office,The League of Gentlemen and The Fast Show....etc.
Incog.:rofl:
Originally posted by Jerrek
err, Rangers top?
Alright, a 'soccer shirt'. Specifically, in the colours of Glasgow's traditionally Protestant football team. And the East End of Glasgow, before you ask, is home to their rivals, Celtic, and lots of their Catholic fans.
timewarrior2001
23-07-2003, 23:44
And yet I am neither Catholic nor scottish and I follow Celtic.......after Middlesbrough of course.
If I interrupted this thread by saying "The cat detector van, from the Ministry of Housinge", how many people would have the foggiest idea what I was on about?
Originally posted by Russ D
Would you refer to Britain as 'Wales'? Oh I see, your referring to the whole thing, not just England, sorry:D
Originally posted by Pritch
If I interrupted this thread by saying "The cat detector van, from the Ministry of Housinge", how many people would have the foggiest idea what I was on about?
Monty Python, only remembered by the excellent used of the word "houseinge"
Originally posted by Pritch
If I interrupted this thread by saying "The cat detector van, from the Ministry of Housinge", how many people would have the foggiest idea what I was on about?
The Fish Licence (http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/Fish_Licence.html) sketch ...
alan.ralskey
24-07-2003, 12:53
how is this about TV licence vans?
Originally posted by alan.ralskey
how is this about TV licence vans?
:notopic: :LOL:
Python is always off-topic. That's why it's funny.
I think we ran out of interesting things to say about TV detector vans a couple of pages back...
alan.ralskey
24-07-2003, 16:25
thats ok then.
I just came in and thought that this was completely off topic but never mind - you cleared that up for me great.
Originally posted by towny
Given that he lives in Canada, the nearest post office where he could get a TV licence is, what, at least 3,000 miles away?:D ;)
Duh! I didn't mean him. He can go learn some geography. :)
While we all go learn some French. :spin:
Originally posted by alan.ralskey
thats ok then.
I just came in and thought that this was completely off topic but never mind - you cleared that up for me great.
Just continuing the off-topic theme ... what's your sig all about?
grum1978
25-07-2003, 11:41
Originally posted by towny
Just continuing the off-topic theme ... what's your sig all about?
Can we plz get this back on topic :)
I wonder how many people are employed on TV licencing to find forums that discuss TV detection and then polute the discussion so any one person can not make up their mind if detector vans works or not. :erm:
I wonder how many people find forums and dig up threads which haven't been posted on for more than 2 years...
Blimey... Myron definitely gets this month's award for bumping the oldest thread! :D
Blame Google. I like awards. Any money rewards? :dozey: :disturbd: :) :angel:
ScaredWebWarrior
10-08-2005, 20:53
OK - I read some of the earliest posts on this and then noticed some 'noise' towards the end.
TV 'Detector vans' have equipment which can pinpoint the LF oscillator in a television. i.e. that's the part of the TV that deals with the signal AFTER it has been recovered from the aerial/digi-box. The specific frequency in use can also identify the channel that you are watching.
It is also true, that if the TV is not (readily) connected to an aerial - i.e. used ONLY for a Playstation/Xbox etc. then it does NOT require a licence.
It is furthermore also the case that simply knowing that you don't have a licence and that you were 'tuned in' to a given channel automatically means they have you 'banged to rights', since I do not believe they have statutory right of entry.
However, if you're using the 'gaming only' clause to get out of paying the licence fee, you're just robbing the rest of us who ARE paying the licence fee.
Having said that, for a number of years (some time ago!) I did have only a B&W portable, and it was interesting how 'active' the TV licence people were, as they seemed to assume I was using the B&W licence to defraud the system. Nice to know they'd rather go after the ones paying a B&W licence than the ones paying none at all.
Actually, what got me to acidentally bump this thread is 'cos of a discussion between my niece's boyfriend and me. These TV detector vans. Some people state that they are false and just decoys to instil fear into all those who don't have a licence and some say that they are genuine.
Well, guess what. I now got a headache.
So, which one is it. Are they decoys or are they loaded with electronics to detect TVs. Well... RF receivers within equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV signals.
eerrmmm
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showpost.php?p=548085&postcount=97:D
eerrmmm
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showpost.php?p=548085&postcount=97:DYes... I saw that post. There still seems to be enough people on the planet that will say that it's a load of cods-whollop and that all the vans have is what looks like antennas on the side, but nothing inside.
The niece's boyfriend says he knows someone who worked for TVL and told him this, but then I searched the net and found out what he said was too close-a-match to posts on different discussion boards so I take his comment with a pinch of salt.
Yes... I saw that post. There still seems to be enough people on the planet that will say that it's a load of cods-whollop and that all the vans have is what looks like antennas on the side, but nothing inside.
The niece's boyfriend says he knows someone who worked for TVL and told him this, but then I searched the net and found out what he said was too close-a-match to posts on different discussion boards so I take his comment with a pinch of salt.
i aint got a clue mate all i know is they normally go of unlicenced houses for spot checks or recently bought tv's wich you have to give a name and address:confused:
ian@huth
11-08-2005, 01:36
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdetectorvans.jsp has the official answer. Whether you believe it or not is another thing.
Most detection though is aimed at addresses that do not have a TV license registered against it. When you buy a TV or any equipment that can receive a TV signal the retailer has to get you to fill in a form with your details that they have to send to the TV licensing people. I would presume that the cable companies and Sky should likewise have to advise them of customers taking TV services.
Yes... I saw that post. There still seems to be enough people on the planet that will say that it's a load of cods-whollop and that all the vans have is what looks like antennas on the side, but nothing inside.
The niece's boyfriend says he knows someone who worked for TVL and told him this, but then I searched the net and found out what he said was too close-a-match to posts on different discussion boards so I take his comment with a pinch of salt.
I would guess that both are true, these vans are probably very expensive so why not use say a 1:3 ratio of real to fake vans. That way then they achieve the same level of fear at only 1/3 the cost :D
I believe it was true that when TV licence detector vans were first introduced, there were only about a dozen for the entire country!
SMHarman
11-08-2005, 09:45
Why do you need more, they work on the starting premise that every house in the country needs a licence and then filter down to establish why those that don't have a licence don't need one.
I suppose if you still don't believe the householder then you need to do some electronic sniffing.
I had a licencing officer approach me when I was house-sitting for a mate a few years back. There was no licence at the premises and I didn't have one as my usual address was with my parents so the inspector claimed that I was liable. I refused to give my name (as was my right) so he just carried on as if I was the householder, I even had the "you do not have to say anything..." mullarky so just to annoy him I said "Please take your foot off my head, it's starting to hurt". I couldn't care less if he made a note of me saying that, there was no recording of it or any witnesses.
:rofl: "please take your foot off my head"
lots of info here this helped me make a informed decision not to by a tv licence
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
lots of info here this helped me make a informed decision not to by a tv licence
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
Your informed decision is likely to land you in Court. Despite all his protestations about the methods used to police the TV licence, even the owner of that site admits he has been up in court and prosecuted for not having one.
Don't forget that when you've finished being a smart aleck on your doorstep and declining to answer their questions and refusing them entry, they can simply come back with a search warrant and a police officer in tow.
Did any one see the film clip on that site, I am glad that fella does not live next to me :eek:
Yep, I downloaded it. Scary! But I used to know a TV licence inspector so I can assure you they're not all violent idiots!
Still, that web site is quite informative.
Your informed decision is likely to land you in Court. Despite all his protestations about the methods used to police the TV licence, even the owner of that site admits he has been up in court and prosecuted for not having one.
Don't forget that when you've finished being a smart aleck on your doorstep and declining to answer their questions and refusing them entry, they can simply come back with a search warrant and a police officer in tow.
Thats it i have had no one knock on my door or a requrest to purchase a licence. Before i moved in it was a old lady that lived there who was excempt from paying due to age guess her details are on there systems still, until they demand it they ant gettin it
tv licencing arnt a full shilling
the licence is in my name at our address
my wife bought a portable tv for the kids and filled her details in (same address)
she then got a letter saying she was unlicensed and it said she had to fill out the form stating who had a licence
I binned it
A few weeks later knock knock knock :mad:
the guy nearly got my licence for lunch
tv licencing arnt a full shilling
the licence is in my name at our address
my wife bought a portable tv for the kids and filled her details in (same address)
she then got a letter saying she was unlicensed and it said she had to fill out the form stating who had a licence
I binned it
A few weeks later knock knock knock :mad:
the guy nearly got my licence for lunch
:shocked: wow thanks for the heads up on that guess ive been lucky
ian@huth
11-08-2005, 17:37
tv licencing arnt a full shilling
the licence is in my name at our address
my wife bought a portable tv for the kids and filled her details in (same address)
she then got a letter saying she was unlicensed and it said she had to fill out the form stating who had a licence
I binned it
A few weeks later knock knock knock :mad:
the guy nearly got my licence for lunchShe should have filled the form in as Mrs Minnie Mouse, 1 Wonderland Street, Disneyland, Paris. It beats me why you have to fill these forms in as anyone not intending to get a TV licence just fills in a false name and address and they don't ask for confirmation of the details you have entered.
She should have filled the form in as Mrs Minnie Mouse, 1 Wonderland Street, Disneyland, Paris. It beats me why you have to fill these forms in as anyone not intending to get a TV licence just fills in a false name and address and they don't ask for confirmation of the details you have entered.
:Yikes: how did you find where we live
Anonymouse
27-07-2007, 09:44
I have a question: has anyone on this forum actually seen a so-called detector van? I haven't in all my 41 years. I reckon the damn things are an urban myth perpetuated by Crapita.
IMO it's all cobblers anyway - how the hell can you detect a receiver? Surely the only emissions you could possibly detect would be power waves - and all the other electrical devices in your house, plus the streetlights, would drown those out anyway.
On a vaguely off-topic note, has anyone here who's been harassed by TVL tried withdrawing implied right of access? I recently did, but I signed myself as The Present Occupier, a) because that's how they referred to me and b) it made no sense to me to give 'em my name if they don't know it.
They wrote back saying they can't abide by my request as they need a name. First off, it was an instruction, NOT a "request", and they will leave themselves open to a civil suit if they ignore it. Second, I am not obliged to give them my name; the simple fact that I am the rightful resident of the property (which they could easily check with my local council, as it's a council flat) gives me the right to withdraw access if I so choose - which I have.
Mind you, it'd be interesting to see how they'd gain access anyway. The flat is one of four in a row of converted two-up-two-down houses, so we have one common front door, which has the usual intercom arrangements. I can't really see any of my three immediate neighbours allowing access to anyone from TVL just to let them check on me. First, why should they bother about anything to do with me? Second, since the front door has no windows, you can't directly see who's calling and therefore they could be anybody, so again, why should they? To the best of my knowledge, all three have a) a TV and b) a license, so they most likely won't let TVL reps in anyway.
I've emailed Jonathan Miller for a clarification of the legal issue, but I'm not worried in the slightest. They can get a warrant if they want - fat lot of good it'll do em, as I neither have a TV nor anything which can receive TV transmissions (and the TV aerial cable still doesn't have a connector on the end!). And I'll be damned if I'm paying for any damage to council property - Bolton Council can sort that out if it comes to that.
Plus two of my three neighbours have a bit of a temper; they're likely to be less than impressed if anyone tries to break in...:D
I have a question: has anyone on this forum actually seen a so-called detector van? I haven't in all my 41 years. I reckon the damn things are an urban myth perpetuated by Crapita.
IMO it's all cobblers anyway - how the hell can you detect a receiver? Surely the only emissions you could possibly detect would be power waves - and all the other electrical devices in your house, plus the streetlights, would drown those out anyway.
Why dig up a two year old thread?
Regarding detection, well this may or may not be true, but I've been told that TV's DO emit signals on certain frequencies.
The first post was over four years ago!
Yep, conventional (CRT-based) TVs emit a weak signal at the line scan frequency (15625 Hz) and this, I believe, is what they look for.
If you don't use a TV then I suggest you just sit tight and ignore all letters from TV Licensing. That's what we do. We still have no TV and over the years these letters have varied from the firm to the down right threatening. Only once have they ever turned up at the door. I politely told them we had no TV and they went away. They may not enter your premises unless you invite them. However, if they have strong evidence that you are using a TV they may borrow a police officer with a warrant to gain entry.
Regarding detection, well this may or may not be true, but I've been told that TV's DO emit signals on certain frequencies.
It is true... And not only can they detect if a TV is on, but also what you are watching in remarkable clarity. And this now applies to LCDs, long thought impossible to be detected in this way.
Also, detector vans aren't a myth. When I was in Halls, a lot of students got done. There was also a video of a customer confronting a TV licensing man on an anti-licensing site.
Why dig up a two year old thread?...
The first post was over four years ago!....
Off topic (but you guys started it!), I've seen this type of comment several times in this forum and don't understand why it should be an issue. Does it cause problems with the servers, or do you think forum users will get confused, or what?
It's certainly not an issue with me - I just made the comment as a point of, erm, correction(?) - well interest anyway.
I'm all for digging up old threads if they are relevant and, for that matter, the tight merging of closely related threads. There are far too many boards where the same topics get repeated over and over (and over) again. Dpreview springs instantly to mind!
Off topic (but you guys started it!), I've seen this type of comment several times in this forum and don't understand why it should be an issue. Does it cause problems with the servers, or do you think forum users will get confused, or what?
It causes the users confusion. Especially if (as has happened in the past) the thread refers to something that happened in the past, but doesn't now.
Doesn't cause a problem with the server, as one post is much the same to any other as far as the server is concerned.
It causes the users confusion.
I find that a bit patronising! :p:
Especially if (as has happened in the past) the thread refers to something that happened in the past, but doesn't now.
Also, new users are told to search for previous posts relevant to the topic concerning them.
If there are posts / threads that concern things that 'happened in the past' then can't they be closed?
There used to be a guy round this area who worked for TV Licensing..well that's what was on the side of his van..can't imagine what else the van was used for except detection.
There are certainly ways to detect frequncies coming off TV's but with so many appliances giving off waves they would be there for ages.
When I used to work part time in an electrical shop we had to take the address details of anyone purchasing any device that could receive TV signals, be it a TV tuner card, Satellite box, etc.
This then got passed on to the licensing authorities.
They then look at that list and compare it to the people who have registered by buying a TV license.
Those that don't show up on both get a visit.
Some people used to give fake addresses.
keithwalton
27-07-2007, 14:33
Yup tesco's now take your addy when buying tv related items unless you have a 'clubcard' which automatically passes on the details for you!
As for the vans, well you do get abit of back emf from your tv aerial which is noticable (a tuned tv will cause a dip in signal strenght locally to it) this way they can tell which analogue channel you are watching.
Of course this doesnt work with sky / cable, but then sky / virgin media will happily dob you in if you subscribe to there tv services.
Of coure the easiest evidence for them to get is you sat in your front room watching your tv with the curtains open :D
There are some privacy rules associated with this, however if its in plain sight from the street I think they're ok to snoop along in there vans.
Having read some of the paperwork they send out to students in halls, and all the adverts they stuck over student tv (bar / common place) / radio / newspaper etc, it wasnt just bordering on harrasment, it was harrasment.
Law students should collect all the mail they get for them and file there first lawsuit!
joglynne
27-07-2007, 15:00
Kind of still on topic, and taking into account the fact that more and more people seem to be using their computers to download TV programmes, does anybody know if you would still need a TV licence if you were watching TV programmes on your monitor and didn't own a TV set.?
Originally Posted by Gavin>It is true... And not only can they detect if a TV is on, but also what you are watching in remarkable clarity. And this now applies to LCDs, long thought impossible to be detected in this way.If you did watch in this way do you consider that it could be detected.
I don't know if already broadcast material downloaded would count as needing a license as it would be sort of like watching a DVD. I'm a little unsure about this area of things.
If you have a TV tuner card inside your PC to watch live TV on your monitor then you would need a license:
From the official TV Licensing website:
You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.
Kind of still on topic, and taking into account the fact that more and more people seem to be using their computers to download TV programmes, does anybody know if you would still need a TV licence if you were watching TV programmes on your monitor and didn't own a TV set.?
If you did watch in this way do you consider that it could be detected.
I don't think i'd want to use that as an excuse, as downloading TV shows is theft in itself.
---------- Post added at 15:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------
Here's what I was talking about though earlier about LCDs and CRTs: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/20/2048258
joglynne
27-07-2007, 15:31
I don't think i'd want to use that as an excuse, as downloading TV shows is theft in itself.
Well, thankfully I have no need or inclination to watch TV in this manner but I can imagine a lot of people do it and do not realise the legal implications.
:erm: :dozey: Call me naive but I have only recently realised (by reading posts on Cableforum) that when I copy my own CD's, so that I have a selection for the car, I am breaking the law.
Jo.
As far as I know, as long as you own the original recording and you are only using it for your own use and not for sales, broadcast, etc, you are fine to do a copy for personal use, just like people copy the tracks off their CD's to put on to their Ipods too.
joglynne
27-07-2007, 15:46
As far as I know, as long as you own the original recording and you are only using it for your own use and not for sales, broadcast, etc, you are fine to do a copy for personal use, just like people copy the tracks off their CD's to put on to their Ipods too.
Do you mean that I am legal after all. I quite liked the idea of being a lawbreaker, I felt as though I had maybe gained a little 'street cred' in my old age. Your'e a spoilsport for destroying my cool image.:bsmack:
Hope it thunders on you again, over there in SUNNY France.
Jo.:D
There have been many threads on here about when and when you do not require a TV licence.
For the horses mouth try the Communications Act 2003:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--l.htm#363
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm
The law says:
Originally Posted by my highlights
(1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
It is not suprising there is so much misunderstanding. There is much fear, uncertainty and doubt promoted by TV Licensing. Also try this thread:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...threadid=70177
Incidentally, the Comms Act 2003 has, I believe, change the situation slightly. Previously, the television had to be 'used' so they had to catch you in the act. Now it can be 'installed' or 'used' so, if by turning the TV on you get a picture, you'll need a licence. Previously, only broadcasts eminating from the UK were considered. So, for example, it was possible to receive broadcasts from Ireland without a licence. Now you do. Also, the notion of 'nearly live' broadcasts has been included. This is to cover the delay inherent in digital TV transmission. Previously, it could be argued that, because of the delay involved, a licence was not required. You still do not need a licence to watch a program that was previously recorded on licensed premises or for watching a programme downloaded off the web, for example from bbc.co.uk. However, you do need one for watching streamed live TV.
There is some, slightly out of date, information here:
http://www.jifvik.org/tv/
Follow the links to the scanned letters from TV Licensing that clarify various matters.
I don't think i'd want to use that as an excuse, as downloading TV shows is theft in itself...
:confused: Eh!
I have downloaded & watched many TV shows perfectly legally.
.
:confused: Eh!
I have downloaded & watched many TV shows perfectly legally.
.
I thought the BBC were launcing their own player this week too - can't see a download link on thei site though! :(
rogerdraig
28-07-2007, 01:00
It is true... And not only can they detect if a TV is on, but also what you are watching in remarkable clarity. And this now applies to LCDs, long thought impossible to be detected in this way.
Also, detector vans aren't a myth. When I was in Halls, a lot of students got done. There was also a video of a customer confronting a TV licensing man on an anti-licensing site.
got any info on lcd detection as i cant see how that works easy enough to do with crt i know its used by nefarious people to steel info from firms who don't shield their premises , i could just about see it with say a plasma tv but lcd seems hard to do
I thought the BBC were launcing their own player this week too - can't see a download link on thei site though! :(
you're really not missing much Shaun, but try the links from this thread http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20/33618556-sign-up-for-bbc-iplayer-beta.html and more about it here http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/23/33616703-bbc-iplayer.html
I was under the impression they were launching it - not beta testing it. What a lot of hype over nothing - typical BBC. :erm:
got any info on lcd detection as i cant see how that works easy enough to do with crt i know its used by nefarious people to steel info from firms who don't shield their premises , i could just about see it with say a plasma tv but lcd seems hard to do
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/20/2048258
I was under the impression they were launching it - not beta testing it. What a lot of hype over nothing - typical BBC. :erm:
hmm, I thought they had launched it now too :shrug: - but as I say, its still rather erm, beta-like. :LOL:
---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------
as for detector vans - it's not the van you need to spot it's the guy with a clipboard!
My neighbour downstairs has been 'caught' several times without a licence but always manages to wangle her way out of trouble... :mad:
rogerdraig
13-08-2007, 18:52
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/20/2048258
thanks off to set it up now lol
but think as they only got text so far you would still be fairly unlucky to get caught using a lap top
but i know some businesses who might need to rethink lining the offices to stop spying ;)
ps
just as thought it was safe to get rid of the tin foil hat seems that i need one for the lap top to
johnathome
16-11-2008, 14:37
I remember listening to a guy being interviewed on 5 Live. He hadn't bought a license since TB signed the Human Rights Act. He insisted there was a clause in their which meant he didn't have to. (Really wish i could remember the bit he was referring to).
Anyway he threw down the gauntlett to the BBC and said take me to court and i'll prove i don't need one. He was still waiting for a response, the license enforcment arm refused to comment. I guess they never took him to court because if they lost noone would need a license.
Anyway he threw down the gauntlett to the BBC and said take me to court and i'll prove i don't need one. He was still waiting for a response, the license enforcment arm refused to comment. I guess they never took him to court because if they lost noone would need a license.
Either that, or they did and won..
johnathome
16-11-2008, 15:55
Maybe, he'd been saying it for 2 years. I'll see if i can find anything on google
---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------
I think this is the guy. he lost in the British courts but may carry it into Europe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/16/broadcasting.bbc
if you have a right to information and cannot be forced to pay for it (which i think is what his argument is), can i just go and break into his house and turn the place up side down to look for a newspaper?
I think this is the guy. he lost in the British courts but may carry it into Europe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/16/broadcasting.bbc
I suspect that won't work.. If the court did rule in his favour, they'd effectively open the floodgates on a rush that could not only destroy the BBC but also any subscription TV or Radio channel as well as the media and any ISPs. After all, they could *all* be said to be interfering with our right to free information if the BBC could..
rogerdraig
17-11-2008, 13:34
this ( http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/lawlicence.html ) article has something to do with it
i suspect if any one did go to court it would have to be over the wording in the HRA on licencing
Quote
Article 10 - Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Unquote
it would depend whether the court says that is only the licensing of say C4 to broadcast or that it also includes licensing us to receive it
i tend to think the spirit of that law would be for the first interpretation but that a court would more likely take the second view
myself i still think having a non advertised based broadcaster is the better that not having one :)
ps it would seem to that this article would stop the taxing of the net and also banning people from accessing it ? that might start another thread ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.