|
So's molesting teenage girls, but the BBC was content to let their employees do that, too.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Back when CRTs and analog broadcasts were a thing, it was possible to triangulate their positions when they were turned on, if you had the right (really sensitive) equipment and a relatively quiet background level of electromagnetic fields. They'd be used to check for unexpected monitor use (for instance, someone with a CCTV setup) and stuff like that, but were never really reliable and it was easier to just look out for radio activity from broadcasting microphones or cameras. It was also, theoretically, possible to read the variances in EMF radiation and use them to recreate the images on another screen, remotely. This is known as Van Eck phreaking. When this was first proposed and proved in laboratory conditions, the BBC became very interested. They were so interested, in fact that they... ...just put people in vans with antennas on and sent them to addresses of places that used to have licenses but discontinued them. Like they always have. There's no evidence that those vans have ever had functioning monitoring equipment in them, and there have been 0 cases of license avoidance prosecuted using detector van evidence. I've got a friend with a dual citizenship who's from the UK but lives in the US most of the time. He still owns a small flat back there, and every year when he renews his power/water services the BBC tries to bust him for avoiding license fees despite the place being empty for 8 years now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Finland had the licence fee for like 30-40 years before they just gave up and switched to funding out of the state budget. There was never any talk of detector vans. If such a thing existed surely they would've used it. It was just retired policemen earning extra, walking door to door with a list of those households that hadn't paid the fee and asking "Do you have a TV?" and hoping you were dumb enough to say "Sure" or to have the TV visible from your doorway. In predominantly student neighborhoods no one opened a door to anyone if they didn't know you were coming because of the inspectors (and panhandlers, salesmen, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Antti posted:It was just retired policemen earning extra, walking door to door with a list of those households that hadn't paid the fee and asking "Do you have a TV?" and hoping you were dumb enough to say "Sure" or to have the TV visible from your doorway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
This guy's site is still going since 2006: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/ TLDR: He stopped watching TV, stopped paying the license and uploads all the letters that he has had for the past 11 years. They go through cycle of evermore threatening letters, before giving up and starting again from the beginning. It's actually mildy-interesting to read. Also: quote:I used to work for TV licencing driving around in the detector van. It was full of fancy looking equipment for show only, NONE OF IT WORKED! They have a database of the houses without licences which they got by selecting streets and looking at who HAS got the licence. The remaining are targeted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Why does England suck with tv?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqG4ysu2ksU
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
I stopped watching live telly about 10 years ago, I've had a bunch of those letters and one time a guy even turned up and asked if I had a TV and if he could come in and check. I told him to go spin and that was the end of it. If they had some sort of Netflix like system where I could pay by use I'd actually be tempted. I happily pay for Prime and Netflix, but BBC only have a couple of shows that I bother watching in comparison, and it's more expensive than both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
Yes but what about the cat detector vans from the Ministry of Housinge?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:
Thing is they'd charge far more than they should for it. Because they're bastards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Yes but what about the cat detector vans from the Ministry of Housinge? Never seen so many bleedin' aerials.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
88h88 posted:Thing is they'd charge far more than they should for it. Because they're bastards. Yeah, I'm sure they'd just use it as an excuse to make it more expensive than it is now. After they murdered Top Gear all I want is Attenborough documentaries and Robot Wars, the rest is loving tripe right now, even the good dramas tend to be imports rather than BBC productions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Golem II posted:Why does England suck with tv? Because they have to fund the worlds best remaining news organization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Golem II posted:Why does England suck with tv? It really doesn't. Living in Canada I can say the BBC is leaps and bounds better than the CBC who I can not opt out of funding and doesn't have any sort of mandate and caters to the baby boomers from the hippie generation. They have a handful of good programs but honestly at least the BBC sort of gets held accountable for trying to cater overwhelmingly to one demographic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
I think they specifically mean governance of tv rather than tv itself. Ofcom and the tv license are two areas of tv governance that kind of suck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
I've said this in IRC a couple of times but I can't fathom a reason they don't just give a login/pass with each year's TV license and require it to watch BBC iPlayer live TV. It is the simplest solution and wouldn't be terribly hard to implement, they could even still do blocking based on the IP's location (not UK) if they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Budgie posted:I've said this in IRC a couple of times but I can't fathom a reason they don't just give a login/pass with each year's TV license and require it to watch BBC iPlayer live TV. It is the simplest solution and wouldn't be terribly hard to implement, they could even still do blocking based on the IP's location (not UK) if they wanted. But that costs money that could otherwise be going to child molesters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Budgie posted:I've said this in IRC a couple of times but I can't fathom a reason they don't just give a login/pass with each year's TV license and require it to watch BBC iPlayer live TV. It is the simplest solution and wouldn't be terribly hard to implement, they could even still do blocking based on the IP's location (not UK) if they wanted. Because all the technophobes who watch iPlayer on their smart TVs wouldn't be able to work out how to do it and kick up a huge fuss and all the technically-literate people would simply use someone else's login details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Why not just make the license fee mandatory (as in, everyone pays it as part of their taxes) and cut out all the enforcement and nonsense? You could maintain funding and charge less per person, since everyone would be paying and you wouldn't have to piss away money on any sort of enforcement system.1500quidporsche posted:It really doesn't. Living in Canada I can say the BBC is leaps and bounds better than the CBC who I can not opt out of funding and doesn't have any sort of mandate and caters to the baby boomers from the hippie generation. They have a handful of good programs but honestly at least the BBC sort of gets held accountable for trying to cater overwhelmingly to one demographic. CBC is terrible because they can't stop masturbating with self-satisfaction after airing their latest bland, inoffensive "multicultural" comedy. Oh, we're done with Muslims now, how about we go Korean next! They're paralyzed be the abject fear of causing even the slightest offence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:CBC is terrible because they can't stop masturbating with self-satisfaction after airing their latest bland, inoffensive "multicultural" comedy. Oh, we're done with Muslims now, how about we go Korean next! They're paralyzed be the abject fear of causing even the slightest offence. I don't even have a problem with that since that's just generic Canadian comedy crap, I forget what that show is called but it committed no crime worse than the gas station show on CTV. Where I do take issue is the idea the average CBC viewer has that they have some sort of cultural superiority because they watch the CBC instead of American programming when as far as I can tell at least a third of their programs are ideas brought over from abroad. Also the very notion that Randy Bachman is some sort of Canadian cultural touchstone whose "divine" playlists interjected with subpar anecdotes need to be listened to on a weekly basis or that I need to hear Stuart McLaren wheel out his "wacky characters" in repeat four times a week across two radio channels and whatever that comedy debate show is makes me angry. F1DriverQuidenBerg fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why not just make the license fee mandatory (as in, everyone pays it as part of their taxes) and cut out all the enforcement and nonsense? You could maintain funding and charge less per person, since everyone would be paying and you wouldn't have to piss away money on any sort of enforcement system. Finland did this and it is a much better system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Probably because when the license fee was created, there were a bunch of pensioners who didn't and would never buy a TV so they refused to let the government waste their money on some devil box.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I don't even have a problem with that since that's just generic Canadian comedy crap, I forget what that show is called but it committed no crime worse than the gas station show on CTV. Canada is also where comedians get sued for offending people 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
The argument I've heard for licence fees is that it means your state broadcaster is technically self-funded, which means they are decoupled from the political whims of the changing governments. That said, Norway just this year did like Finland and moved to a general tax instead of a license, and I'm not too worried. As for van Eck phreaking, the father of a friend of mine worked for Ericsson from the '60s to the '80s. He claims they were contacted by a company that had a working prototype, and showed it off by parking a van outside their headquarters and inviting them out to look at what they could pick up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
This is the first time I've heard of Van Eck phreaking since I read Cryptonomicon, I'd actually kind of written it off as something Stephenson had made up so he'd have an excuse to write that weird rear end letter to Penthouse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why not just make the license fee mandatory (as in, everyone pays it as part of their taxes) and cut out all the enforcement and nonsense? You could maintain funding and charge less per person, since everyone would be paying and you wouldn't have to piss away money on any sort of enforcement system. They did a similar thing here in my state with Ambulance cover. Instead of an opt-in format for individuals, they are now a small part of each building power bill. It's not something I have ever had to use or worry about but nice that it's there. The 'Road Improvement' levy on my car registration on the other hand can gently caress right off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I don't even have a problem with that since that's just generic Canadian comedy crap, I forget what that show is called but it committed no crime worse than the gas station show on CTV. YOU TAKE THAT BACK Corner Gas is gold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why not just make the license fee mandatory (as in, everyone pays it as part of their taxes) and cut out all the enforcement and nonsense? You could maintain funding and charge less per person, since everyone would be paying and you wouldn't have to piss away money on any sort of enforcement system. This is a good idea in theory if the government committed themselves to funding the BBC and all the good things that they do; however I'm not confident that you'd not get a government that wouldn't just slash the BBCs budget - plus also it'd basically make the BBC a state controlled broadcaster which it isn't at the moment. Also all the people who don't pay the license fee would probably moan a lot if that happened
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
The current government would rather sell the BBC to Rupert Murdoch than even entertain the idea of making it fully state-funded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:This is a good idea in theory if the government committed themselves to funding the BBC and all the good things that they do; however I'm not confident that you'd not get a government that wouldn't just slash the BBCs budget - plus also it'd basically make the BBC a state controlled broadcaster which it isn't at the moment. Also all the people who don't pay the license fee would probably moan a lot if that happened Couldn't they just as easily cut the license fee or eliminate it altogether if they wanted? Maybe I don't understand the license fee, but "the government forces you to pay this money if you have a TV, and then gives it to the BBC" doesn't seem meaningfully distinct from "the government forces you to pay this money, and then gives it to the BBC." It seems like the only difference that exists is if you don't have a TV or view BBC content online, which has to be an absolutely negligible portion of the population at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
The significant difference is that the BBC is authorized to collect it themselves - the money goes straight from the public to the BBC, collected and enforced by BBC employees (and the legal system). Of course, retracting that authorization would have the same effect as stopping their funding, and I can't see how the former would be significantly harder to do.
Computer viking fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Wow I just found out that Jeremy Clarkson used to be a Video Game Journalist before Top Gear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biGN6EP5Klg
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
So are they sending out e-mails to everyone who applied to the audience for the SoCal show, or should I piss myself right now? quote:Yesterday we sent you an email requesting your daytime phone number. It is important we speak to you personally as part of the selection process for the audience of The Grand Tour in southern California.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
I didn't get one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
a quick search on twitter/reddit seems to suggest not everyone is getting one I guess Cautiously optimistic
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
We're going to have to set up a thing where you live feed us what is happening and we live
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
I got one, my wife got one, we both wrote witty commentary as to why we should be selected + live in Los Angeles + have been Prime customers for like 10 years. e: They just called me and asked if I'd be interested in the Sept 23/24 weekend show and asked a few other questions, I'll find out this weekend if I'm in. Ether Frenzy fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Ether Frenzy posted:I got one, my wife got one, we both wrote witty commentary as to why we should be selected + live in Los Angeles + have been Prime customers for like 10 years. "Is your wife hot enough to be in the front row of
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
I didn't write in any particularly witty commentary, but I'm in CA too - seems like they offered preference to people close to the show from what I gather. I guess I should say I'm bringing a hot model or something on the call.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:"Is your wife hot enough to be in the front row of Yes, and I told them as such, I know how this works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 00:09
|
|