TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
Werewolf said:
IIRC the principle behind it is very simple, but "detector vans" as such probably haven't existed since the days of transister radios (the equipment needed with valves would have been bulky much like old standard valve radios hence a van used, I suspect a transistor version would have fitted in a car and you could probably make a handheld version now).
Certainly old Radio and TV sets definitely put out easily detectable emissions based on the tuner, modern ones apparently still do but it's at a lower level (so you need more sensitive gear, but then the background noise in those frequencies is also lower now, and the equipment for radio receivers has got more sensitive).

The most plausible suggestion I've seen is that they've never used the evidence in court because it would be too costly and time consuming to explain and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the signal was from the property, so instead the vans were used to show the capability was there, but they use confessions and visual evidence.


*Even now you still get questions over speed cameras and speed detectors being reliable and every now and then the police have to fly in a manufacturers rep to spend several days going into great detail the checks and reliability the units go through.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that there has been the technological ability to do so, I'm just doubting their usage of it. It's far more simple to go down the psychological route by drumming up fear, akin to "be good or the boogey man is gonna get you" than actually spend out money on technology to see who is watching TV without paying for a license.

The most plausible situation is that they would just send branded up vans to areas with high rates of people who don't buy a TV licence, just to instill a fear of being caught.

There are a lot of people who would have just paid up upon seeing the van.
 
Amp34 said:
Not likely.. :p

And it'll be interesting seeing how they link the wifi signal to a particular house. "Hi, is your wifi network "all your bases...""?

"No, sorry mate. I think that's down the road somewhere".
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Most of the time it takes 1 minuet to work out and prove which wifi signal goes to which particular house. What they are doing is very doable and relatively easy.
 
Pottsey said:
What do you mean? Most of the time it takes 1 minuet to work out and prove which wifi signal goes to which particular house. What they are doing is very doable and relatively easy.
Click to expand...

You say prove, but I doubt they would be able to produce any evidence which would be sufficient to bring a prosecution using this method. It would merely be another pointless exercise towards the end game of persuading the householder to specifically admit they were watching live tv.

What I was more concerned with was the statement from the article suggesting that tv licensing had been granted what sounds like some sort of special dispensation to intercept comms.

Let's be honest, whatever method they employ will probably be thwarted with a switch of all traffic to 5ghz :p
 
Tom_ed1987 said:
You say prove, but I doubt they would be able to produce any evidence which would be sufficient to bring a prosecution using this method. It would merely be another pointless exercise towards the end game of persuading the householder to specifically admit they were watching live tv.

What I was more concerned with was the statement from the article suggesting that tv licensing had been granted what sounds like some sort of special dispensation to intercept comms.

Let's be honest, whatever method they employ will probably be thwarted with a switch of all traffic to 5ghz :p
Click to expand...
Proving a wireless connection belongs to a particular house is very easy. It takes minuets to gather sufficient evidence for the courts. Once that’s done that they just need to use the other method to show Iplayer is being accessed on that wireless without a licence.

Once they have a wireless connection accessing Iplayer that belongs to a house without a licence they have enough to bring a civil case against the target. They only have to prove their version of events is more likely than the targets version of events.

5ghz as I understand it will have zero impact on the method used to gather data.
 
In a addition to all the hassle and cost it's also a PR nightmare for them as well. Obviously they don't care about being loathed and being seen as a big brother organisation.

As mentioned the wise route would be an account / password system. Baffling. It's almost as though they want people to hate them even more.
 
Pottsey said:
Proving a wireless connection belongs to a particular house is very easy. It takes minuets to gather sufficient evidence for the courts. Once that’s done that they just need to use the other method to show Iplayer is being accessed on that wireless without a licence.

Once they have a wireless connection accessing Iplayer that belongs to a house without a licence they have enough to bring a civil case against the target. They only have to prove their version of events is more likely than the targets version of events.

5ghz as I understand it will have zero impact on the method used to gather data.
Click to expand...

Any evidence to back this up? Yes, comparing signal strengths is all fine and dandy but I'd like to know if something like this has ever actually been used in a court of law, and if so whether it's just a case of extra evidence to back up a claim, rather than the main evidence. For example working out which house a wifi signal belongs to in a block of flats or small terraced houses would be very difficult to do conclusively. How do you know which side of the party wall a router may be on? Or are we talking sniffing IP's here and then getting information from the ISP to match the house?

It'll be interesting to see if one of these ever comes to court as well. Once it does the technology will be out in the wild immediately because the BBC would have to PROVE in a court of law that their technology could distinguish between other digital video and live iPlayer streams.
 
PiKe said:
Why are the BBC being so stupid about this? Make users register, require a TV license number as part of the registration, job done!
Click to expand...

They don't want a pay as you use model. If that happened, their income would decrease significantly unless they increase the licence price. But then they would start having to compete with commercial media organisations.

They just want as many households to pay as they can. The best way to do that is just give everyone access and the realisation that most people won't be able to help themselves.

It is why unsolicited goods rules exist, but this happens to be an exception.
 
The way I see it the TV license is basically that. A license to use TV. You need it even if you only watch Sky Sports which you pay Sky the privilege for.

It's a ridiculous system IMO. They should stick adverts on their channels and get rid of the license.

If that means they get less funding then they will have to make cuts, however I don't understand how ITV can pay their employees x times more if all their revenue is from adverts.

Adverts wouldn't effect most people as they can just record said show, and watch it 15 mins later than it aired and forward through them.
 
Amp34 said:
Any evidence to back this up? Yes, comparing signal strengths is all fine and dandy but I'd like to know if something like this has ever actually been used in a court of law, and if so whether it's just a case of extra evidence to back up a claim, rather than the main evidence. For example working out which house a wifi signal belongs to in a block of flats or small terraced houses would be very difficult to do conclusively. How do you know which side of the party wall a router may be on? Or are we talking sniffing IP's here and then getting information from the ISP to match the house?
Click to expand...
Well I said before flats can be a little more difficult but still doable worse case you narrow it down to 1 of 2 flats but I would have thought the wall between the flats would have let you work out which flat had the wireless some of the time. Terraced houses and other homes are easy. You just take measurements from a few points and use triangulation. Or you use a program that scans wireless access point locations. Had to use one myself in a building that had a WAPs in the ceiling and no one know where. The scanner let me find each wireless access point.

In a civil case you don’t have to prove with 100% certainly you only have to show your version of events is more likely than the other persons.
 
Last edited:
Psycho Sonny said:
The way I see it the TV license is basically that. A license to use TV. You need it even if you only watch Sky Sports which you pay Sky the privilege for.

It's a ridiculous system IMO. They should stick adverts on their channels and get rid of the license.

If that means they get less funding then they will have to make cuts, however I don't understand how ITV can pay their employees x times more if all their revenue is from adverts.

Adverts wouldn't effect most people as they can just record said show, and watch it 15 mins later than it aired and forward through them.
Click to expand...

It is just a tax, one that isn't even means tested.

Most people are liable to pay it (since they watch some form of Live TV, and now probably BBC iplayer) and the amount you actually watch BBC TV is irrelevant.

I bet they considered covering all catch up TV within these new rules but decided against it due to the inevitable backlash that would occur.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
Well I said before flats can be a little more difficult but still doable worse case you narrow it down to 1 of 2 flats but I would have thought the wall between the flats would have let you work out which flat had the wireless some of the time. Terraced houses and other homes are easy. You just take measurements from a few points and use triangulation. Or you use a program that scans wireless access point locations. Had to use one myself in a building that had a WAPs in the ceiling and no one know where. The scanner let me find each wireless access point.

In a civil case you don’t have to prove with 100% certainly you only have to show your version of events is more likely than the other persons.
Click to expand...

You've not actually backed up your claims with this post.
 
spoffle said:
You've not actually backed up your claims with this post.
Click to expand...
How have I not backed up my claims when I gave 2 easy ways to prove which house a wireless point belongs to. Try it yourself most of the time it’s easy to prove within reason that a wireless point belongs to a certain home. Just download any of the many decent wifi analyzers onto a mobile device or use basic math skills. I have used the software myself and its very easy to prove. Anyone with a mobile device can try the scanners.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
How have I not backed up my claims when I gave 2 easy ways to prove which house a wireless point belongs to. Try it yourself most of the time it’s easy to prove within reason that a wireless point belongs to a certain home. Just download any of the many decent wifi analyzers onto a mobile device or use basic math skills. I have used the software myself and its very easy to prove. Anyone with a mobile device can try the scanners.
Click to expand...
Not when you don't have access to a property.
 
I suspect the reality will be the courts will side with the BBC as they typically do if cases end up at court, even if the evidence is flakey.
 
spoffle said:
Not when you don't have access to a property.
Click to expand...
That correct but for the majority of property’s that’s not a problem. For your average property they can take the measurements while they walk to the letter box. Some places are harder then others but most are easy to work out which wireless belongs to which property. If the postman puts post though your front door chance are its easy to get close enough to prove the wireless point is inside your property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom