The tv license detector van

[Sput]

Ever since the day I saw a TV License detector van that was just a minibus with blacked out windows, I've been skeptical of their ability to confidently detect what little UHF signal a TV gives out, and now I think they're getting just a little bit too full of shit in their claims to be remotely plausible. Admittedly this is based on 2003 so it could be even more ludicrous at this point. Here are their current claims:

1. "the technology is so secret that even the engineers working on different detection systems worked in isolation – not even they know how the other detection methods work."

That's just stupid if it's true, and it'd take years to develop anything. There also can't be THAT many methods available to them, and those that are aren't rocket science. Well, they are, but not special rocket science. If they HAVE developed anything, it's betrayed by the fact that they tend to send people without TV's their angry letters too.

2. For the first time the detector vans will use GPS satellite technology to track down targeted addresses. This will enable TV Licensing to precisely target individual evader homes using up-to-the-minute information from its database of 28 million addresses.

Now that makes no sense. You don't need GPS to find that a house is at its own address!

Go on, dish the dirt if you know the truth The reason I'm on this topic is that I'm currently looking into throwing away my aerial lead and just using the TV as a monitor to play games and watch films on. If I did let them into my flat to have a look, would that be convincing? Even stranger, it seems you're allowed to have a STB plugged into a hifi relaying sound only without a licence.

[Nini]

Be aware though that if you do give it up, you'll be killing the BBC by taking away the unique way it's funded, by you.

[lukey]

It was my understanding that the detector van was nothing more than a marketing concept - I really doubt they could actually reliably detect anything. And yeah, it seems they're close to admitting they're nothing more than vans with sat nav so they know where to find addresses they already know to be unlicensed. Real witchcraft going on there.

[Sput]

That's what baffles me about it: the scariest thing that can happen if they can detect you is that you get a knock at the door, and you don't have to let them in. Thing is, that's the exact same thing that they can do if all they have is a list of unlicensed addresses. There's nothing to gain by bullshitting people.

[Gavin Scott]

That's what baffles me about it: the scariest thing that can happen if they can detect you is that you get a knock at the door, and you don't have to let them in. Thing is, that's the exact same thing that they can do if all they have is a list of unlicensed addresses. There's nothing to gain by bullshitting people.

Except that if they have you convinced that they have "detected" you watching a television receiver, the more suggestible types will admit to it on the doorstep. Only at that point can they take the matter further. Some go as far as inviting the inspector in - when there's no compulsion by law to allow entry.

One should pay the licence if one has a television, naturally - but the burden of proof either way remains with the agency - and that's not an easy thing to do when the "detection" process is largely a propaganda exercise coupled with a database of addresses.

[Sput]

One should pay the licence if one has a television, naturally - but the burden of proof either way remains with the agency - and that's not an easy thing to do when the "detection" process is largely a propaganda exercise coupled with a database of addresses.

I think I'd invite them in so I could laugh at them as their hopes were raised by the TV but then dashed by the lack of any connection to the aerial. It's probably quite easy for me to evade though, since I just discovered a hidden camera in the front door patched into the UHF distribution system.

Not that I would. That'd be incredibly tight.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

I believe you would still be deemed to have apparatus that is capable of receiving television signals whether it is plugged into the aerial or not. After all, if simply the lack of aerial cable was enough to get away without a license, everybody would just be ready to disconnect the cable when an inspector arrives!
If your TV (or receiving equipment) has a UHF tuner in it, they have grounds to attempt to fine you.

[Sput]

And therein lies the confusion, well spotted. They themselves say that a digibox connected to a hifi is fine, which implies it's just the manner in which it's connected that makes it exempt.

[cdd]

Well presumably if they have some proof that you are watching TV without a license they can get a warrant?

Personally I am happy just to fall into the small percentage, which the BBC themselves acknowledged, who "have broadband but don't have a TV" and thus watch the iPlayer content.

[Stuart*]

I think I'd invite them in so I could laugh at them as their hopes were raised by the TV but then dashed by the lack of any connection to the aerial.

And therein lies the confusion, well spotted...it's just the manner in which it's connected that makes it exempt.

I doubt the ability of 'TV Licensing' to actually detect anyone. I suspect their information is simply those addresses without a licence. They will be checking on you, Spud, as the previous tenant will have transferred their licence.

The old adage was that if you had any equipment receiving TV signals then you had to pay the TV Licence levy. Which is fair under that law. However, there is conflicting advice available in the UK about whether TV signals received through a computer connection apply. BBC iPlayer states that you do not need a TV licence to watch downloaded files from its service on a laptop or other device. But, did they check whether I had a licence when I registered?

I pay for my TV Licence. I have been in the same property for many years, so I would find it hard to explain the continued presense of two satellite dishes and an ariel - if anyone came round to check if I suddenly cancelled it.

I'm sure I've avoided the levy in the past though - usually for a few months through a change of address, but I wouldn't recommend it is a permanent solution to saving £13 a month.

[Mr Q]

I just find the whole concept of needing a licence to watch TV utterly bizarre. I actually raised the concept in one of my classes earlier this year, and I swear most people in the room didn't believe me when I told them that such a scheme was actually used in the UK. It defies logic. The cost alone of trying to enforce it - such as apparently driving empty vans around as part of some charade of appearing to 'detect' TV signals being received - must take a significant chunk of the revenue that is actually collected. Of all the possible public financing schemes out there, this must surely rank as one of the least efficient.

I do not know how in this day and age Britons can be compelled to pay a dedicated fee to watch freely broadcast television. It is the very definition of a 'public good' in economic terms - both non-rivalrous and (importantly) non-excludable in consumption. Specifically, the signal gets broadcast and everyone within the relevant area can receive it without disrupting anyone else's enjoyment of it. Instead of doing the obvious thing - funding public service TV out of general tax revenue, collected through existing income and consumption tax mechanisms - bureaucrats end up designing this thoroughly convoluted and costly scheme that people can work out ways to evade anyway. I mean, what next? A licence fee for internet connections because people can now watch BBC content online? It's just dumb. It truly is.

As Sir Antony Jay (one of the brains behind the magnificent Yes, Minister) put it in an essay for the Centre for Policy Studies:

[T]here are still those who see the BBC as it was 60 years ago, who do not realise that for the vast majority of the nation it is just another broadcasting station, and its only difference from other subscription channels is that, even if you never watch it, you can be fined if you do not pay your subscription. And sent to prison if you refuse to pay the fine.

Obviously I think the BBC should be stripped down to bare basics. As a public service broadcaster, it clearly exceeds its remit. Yet this is neither here nor there. Even if you believe the BBC is fantastic as it is, or you even believe it deserves to be funded more than it currently is, this still doesn't justify support for what is a completely anachronistic approach to revenue-raising. If you're going to tax people, the objective should be to get the most money while imposing as few costs as possible. The licence fee does not and will never meet this criterion.