Cant help thinking that [number of black & white licenses] != [number of people owning black and white TVs] :-)
13,000 households in the UK still watch TV in black and white, telly licence fee collectors have revealed. In an age when TV sets are often internet-enabled with high-def plasma screens and 3D capabilities, some people obviously like to keep it simple. And cheap too. At £49, a black-and-white TV licence is cheaper than the …
In many ways, yes :-)
1 - [number of people owning black & white TV] will include those who already have a colour tv & licence
2 - [number of B&W licenses] <= [people who require one!]
3 - [number of B&W licenses] will also contain the set [those buying B&W licence to get the inspectors off their back and know to turn the colour off in the very unlikely scenario where someone comes round]
John Trenouth's suggestion that it is low income house holds that will have a B&W TV just doesn't hold water for me. It always strikes me that the 'low income' household tend to be on every benefit they can apply for and have all the latest technology such as large TV's, games consoles, iPads, Cars and holidays every year.
Eaqually likely that it is working families with 2 or more kids that have had to cut costs due to the cost of living shooting up like a rocket these days and wages not keeping pace.
"It always strikes me that the 'low income' household tend to be on every benefit they can apply for and have all the latest technology such as large TV's, games consoles, iPads, Cars and holidays every year."
Like that Cameron fellow claiming disability allowance for his son, despite being stinking rich you mean?
I did work hard at school and have worked hard in every job I've had since school and have a pretty good job at the moment.
In my comment I am just playing Devils Advocate. Basically saying that there is an assumtion being made that it is low income family with B&W tv licences and that this is not necessarily the case.
I also have no problem with "people not being allowed to starve to death in one of the richest countries in the world cos they cant get a job".
> surely it cant be that hard to send someone round to check up on these obvious fraudsters...
The TV licensing people have no right of entry to your property so all they can do is stand at the door and ask you of you have a colour TV or colour PVR*.
* If you have recording equipment connected to your B&W TV that can record in colour then you need a colour license.
They could always use their super-accurate TV detectors
It says they have them here, so it must be true. The BBC operate to the highest possible standards of honesty and integrity. They would never make inflated claims in a press release.
I assume this is because your license cover NAY device capable of receiveing a TV signal - If you have a 'normal' set-top box, you need a colour license. There were cases years ago of people with B&W TVs but with normal VCR's being done. But maybe the licensing authority has seen sense since then...
There's nothing special about it - it was a slip of the keyboard for whoever wrote it. Any black & white TV won't have DVB tuners in so, like DVB-tuner-less colour TVs, they'll need a Freeview box - any Freeview box. No special box for black-and-white TVs will be needed, as long as they have the usual RF "aerial" socket.
There is no such thing as a digital signal, it's all broadcast using the exact same UHF channels as analogue - the box merely interprets the "1s and 0s" to make up the picture.
"There is no such thing as a digital signal, it's all broadcast using the exact same UHF channels as analogue - the box merely interprets the "1s and 0s" to make up the picture."
That statement is nonsense of the highest order. You've essentially just said digital doesn't exist and then gone on to explain how it does.
There is no such thing as a digital signal,
conversely find me an mpeg decoder that can decode a stream that isn't analougue (i.e. made of volts and amps, suffering from ohms, farrads and henries)
it may be encoded in a way that _can be seen_ as digital, but the nature of the signal is analogue.
quote: "conversely find me an mpeg decoder that can decode a stream that isn't analougue (i.e. made of volts and amps, suffering from ohms, farrads and henries)"
Unfortunately for your argument, since electrical charge and magnetic charge are quantised then they are, by definition, digital. Quantum electrodynamics would indicate there is no such thing as an analogue electrical signal, since it can only be a subset of discrete values, rather than continuously variable :)
Note that digital and binary are 2 seperate concepts in this context.
if you electrical signals aren't different for analogue and digital I think perhaps you need some training in electronics and a demonstration of an oscilloscope.
Digital electronics and RF have square wave forms, analogue does not. If an analogue wave form is curved, then it is because it is attenuated and the data will be degraded.
Actually, it's about old TVs needing an RF analogue signal and modern digital boxes offering only Scart or better. If your cheapo Freeview has an RF out it's highly likely it's just a passthrough and thus the signal fed into your B&W telly will be useless.
I've fixed the par to make it clear what "special" means in this case.
> Freeview boxes will have RF sockets, like every other piece of broadcast equipment (like Sky boxes).
You should test more, Test man. Sky boxes are among the very few digital TV receivers that still have RF modulators in them. I have an oldish Labgear/Icecrypt one that has, I've not seen others recently
"...added that Britons lead the world in accessing TV content over the internet. "
Thirty miles from London - and the digital TV signal is still unreliable due to local high buildings. Analogue was never a problem. BBC iPlayer isn't brilliant either - with its compression artefacts, jumps, and disconnections. The internet connection is apparently solid at 12mbps.
I'm about 25 miles from the Crystal Palace transmitter. No problems with either analogue (before the switchoff) or digital.
That said, if you're 30 miles away, you tried pointing your outside aerial at a different transmitter? If you are in the south of Hertfordshire, there should be one nearer Cambridge to point to.
Crystal Palace has always been the town's terrestial TV source. Sandy Heath is closer - but that path was blocked for just about everyone in my part of town by a very large building about 40 years ago. The CP analogue signal was good - and remained useable even after a tall building went up in the next street. However digital TV then went from mostly ok to almost useless. It has remained so even after the switchover and presumed power boost. The FM radio from Wrotham is reasonable - but DAB is very poor on most days.
you can adjust the colour balance and making an CVBS to rf-modulator is easy....
I have a BW license as i'm not paying the beeb the fucking rip-off amount they want so she can watch corrie...
£50 is more reasonable and as long as my name is on that database, i get left alone...
People call the license fee a rip off, but will spend the same over 2 0r 3 months with Sky. Virgin, and presumably soon BT.
The BBC license fee is an absolute fucking bargain for what you get. Spend a few months forced to watch TV in any other country on the planet and you realise how good ours is...and don;t fool yourself thinking ITV and a few other channels would be as good as they are if the BBC wasn't here.
I dont have sky, i dont have virgin and i most certainly dont have BT.
I have a cable broadband connection and a usenet account.
I can watch all the telly i like, in HD for very little outlay...
I have NO need for terrestrial TV but pay the bw fee to keep the buggers away from my door and save me getting up to abuse them....
So you don't watch broadcast TV but you pay them anyway?
Considering they can't do anything as they are not allowed in your house (they're not the police), you don't need to worry at all. All you do is send them a form saying you have no TV. Problem solved. Once every two or three years they'll visit or send a letter but that is it. Don't pay it if you don't have to.
"last time i checked - about 20 years or so ago - corrie was on ITV - non license payer funded"
The channel is irrelevant. If you watch broadcast TV in this country, you have to pay for a licence. It is an antiquated and unfair requirement (especially for those of us who pay for Sky), but a legal one nonetheless.
I hope that you are only using usenet for your content, because if you watch 'live' TV over the Internet (yes, it's a bit of an ambiguous definition, but I believe that it means material that is broadcast over the Internet while being broadcast to air, even if delayed by a few minutes), then you still need a TV license. Your computer becomes TV receiving equipment under the terms of the law.
But if you are using usenet, expect a letter from your ISP accusing you of copyright infringement.
What's not clear is whether the fact that you could watch Internet broadcast TV but don't is enough to remove the requirement for a license.
"What's not clear is whether the fact that you could watch Internet broadcast TV but don't is enough to remove the requirement for a license."
Actually it is VERY clear…
The mere possession of equipment capable (even tuned to the correct frequency) DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A LICENSE.
A license is ONLY required if such equipment is use to watch or record broadcasts (from any source, even the continent) as they are being broadcast.
I could have been previously licensed and watching BBC1, turned of my TV and cancelled my license, my TV is still tuned into BBC1, but as I am not watching or recording it, I need no license.
"But if you are using Usenet, expect a letter from your ISP accusing you of copyright infringement."
I think in this case the letter would have to come from the Usenet provider not the ISP, and only for uploaded content, which in any case wouldn't require a TV licence unless it had been captured from a live TV feed in the UK.
The TV licence isn't a rip off if you watch anything on BBC channels, or even ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5 as they all get a small proportion of the fee. It's even justifiable if you watch any Terrestrial RF or Satellite broadcast TV since some of the fee goes to pay the OFCOM licences for the RF frequencies.
That said, you should have a choice. There's no good reason I can see why you should need a TV licence if you have Virgin Media. The fees to the BBC should be part of the cost of the Virgin package, with no TV licence required, since there's no OFCOM licence fee for cabled broadcasting.
Stop paying for a BW license! If you don't watch or record live TV and use only catch-up services instead then you don't need a license. If you make a false declaration about having a BW TV then you could be in for more hassle than if you told them the truth.
I've had no TV license for more than 5 years. I have to visit their website every 2 years or so to confirm that my circumstances have not changed, and I've never had a visit. It's not worth paying £100 over 2 years to avoid 3 minutes' work.
"and don;t fool yourself thinking ITV and a few other channels would be as good as they are if the BBC wasn't here."
I wouldn't describe ITVs output for the last 10 years or so as in any way 'good'. They should just rename the channel to CTV - Cowell Television and be done with it.
I do agree with you thought that the BBC, however, well worth the licence fee. Some great programming, educational programmes such as Stargazing Live, Africa etc, great drama series, their comedy output is keeping Comedy Central's evening schedule filled (in between reruns of friends).
A bargain for what exactly? As a freeview user I have to note that I rarely if ever watch BBC channels. If I want to watch something intelligent I'll buy it and do so in my own time and as often as I want.
I sure as hell don't want to be subsidising the brain rotting shite that goes by the name of Eastenders. Nor do I want to be subsiding the kind of scum that 'get off' watching football.
As for 'wouldn't be as good' .... you are joking right? TV quality has plummeted over the last 30 years, and it wasn't very good even back then.
The BBC DO advertise. All of their radio and TV channels advertise the other BBC radio and TV channels, all day long. Radio 1 and 2 (I can only stomach the latter) have as many 'ad' breaks as the commercial stations, so I actually don't think there to be any improvement in the quality over commercial stations, which is why I usually stick on a CD.
The BBC do generate some great quality TV, but I can't remember the last time I watched it as it was being broadcast. It's all either catch-up or Blu Ray for me, which begs the question; why can't I opt for Sky to turn off the live BBC channels on my subscription and stop paying for the bloody licence?
Whether you watch in B&W or glorious colour, the programmes are still the same. The news isn't any different, the soaps are just as cheesy, the comedies either make you laugh - or not and the documentaries have the same pretty images and narrative, irrespective of whether your telly displays the chrominance signal or not.
The same can be said for 4::3 formats vs. 16::9 or SD / HD. No matter what format or technology, you still get the same old programmes. So if you're happy with B&W, can't tell the difference or you do manage to get away with the cheaper licence then great. You're not missing that much in terms of actual TV content: merely the superficialities of how you perceive it.
"Re: It's still the same old programmes
No, they arent, as they can be watched, in HD on iplayer later....
So no need for a license...."
Or, unless you live in central london with fibre to the door...
"<buffering> Welco<buffering>me t<buffering>o Af<buffering>ric<buffering>a." (Click HD off.).
Broadcast HD is still the best option for many of us, until universal high speed broadband is rolled out.
(And I do believe that you need a licence for iPlayer / computers as potential recording equipment, besides many a student using a laptop with TV card....)
I have one, about 1" to 2" screen 1982 model, works on composite only - video camera viewfinder.
To be honest who actually gives a stuff about B&W TV, no one would prefer it, if they really want TV just let them buy a cheap digital TV.
I haven't seen a real B&W TV since Ridge Hill went colour. (My dad was an early adopter)
The stats don't count people with an Additional B&W tv. But Colour licence as they have at least one Colour TV, nor do they count the fraudsters.
There could be more B&W TVs than stated by B&W licence in use before ASO. My B&W TV is now just used for the radio on it (2" set).
Modulators can be separately purchased.
My Mother had severe cataracts which effectively killed much of what she enjoyed visually, including TV.
So the idiot employees from TV Licensing came around and demanded she pay the fee. She said she had no TV to which they replied, recorded on a CCTV camera over the front door: "It doesn't matter, you still have to have a licence. Checking on people who say they have no TV is a waste of our time."
She never did pay and sure as hell, they were around the next year. A lawyer shut them up but their tracking van used to park outside the property from time to time.
No doubt the TV Licensing people think these people are cheating. Only cretins employed by TV Licensing would actually buy a new TV, especially since there is nothing but garbage on it.
The satellite channels are running endless repeats, the dog owned by Senior of OCC has been resuscitated, or has risen from the dead four times now - very poor program planning. The satellite channels have turned in to gun boosters where members of America's NRA can watch gun porn endlessly. No wonder they shoot school children.
Oh, and that BA pilot who was nearly sucked out of a window, he has done that trick 5 times, now.
There's a simple way to stop them from visiting - declare that you don't have a TV on the form. Don't merely say it to the licensing officer, actually formally write it down on the official form and send it to them. They may come once to make sure but otherwise that's it.
I don't understand why people think that by ignoring it it will all go away. Be proactive!
The licensing officer was 100% wrong and was probably trying to trick your mother into paying something, but if you get it formally down in writing the TV licensing authorities can't do shit.
I have done that, it stopped the snot-o-grams from TVL for all of 4-6 months....
Why the F*** should I have to "prove" to TVL that I don't need a license? I have told them using their website and forms numerous times and I'll be fucked if I'm going to wait in for them, providing them access to my property (that they have no legal right to), to confirm something that I have already told them…
They can go and swivel!
B&W TV is reality TV in Manchester, grey council blocks shrouded in grey drizzle for months on end whilst the grey people shuffle to and from their grey jobs eking out a miserable existence in a dreary grey environment.*
Colour TV is just taunting them.
(*I went there once)
This is Manchester (NSFW)
Pint icon, hmm Boddingtons (the only thing worth getting out of bed for in Manchester)
I think my old NTL/Virgin media pace box had a RF output you could tune into but the cheapest option to get digital TV on a old TV with no SCART input is to plug a freeview/sky/tivo etc into a the SCART input on a VCR then tune the TV into the VCRs RF output. People practically give old VCR's away now, i sold 2 on ebay recently they were working perfectly but only got a couple of quid for them
You have a TV. You need a licence. Full stop. You "only have a B&W TV" - tough - you're receiving the same content, so you should pay the same as everyone else. If you choose to watch in B&W that is up to you.
Back in the days when TVs were expensive, and colour doubly so, it was a valid excuse to have a B&W TV. Nowadays there is no difference - you either have a TV, or you don't. I seriously doubt many of the 13,000 remain on a B&W TV because they can't afford to replace it - I'd be fairly confident they have chosen not to replace it (or are cheating).
"You have a TV. You need a licence. Full stop."
A licence is only required to watch (or record) television as it is being broadcast.
Using it for DVDs, for consoles, as a computer monitor, or to be plonked obviously in front of a window to waste TVL inspectors' time are all perfectly legal without a licence.
Also, watching iPlayer (when the programme is not being broadcast) does not require a licence.
To be fair, even the enforcers do not all know this (or at least they may pretend so).
"pay for it out of the other tax revenues received."
At which point it would dissappear into some sort of governement accounting type blackhole, and the public would have little to no idea what they are actually paying.
This way it's up front and known about - and you can write letters to the newspapers starting "is this what I pay my licence fee for...."
Great, a TV License grants the right to rant to your newspaper of choice... such a bargain!
But wait, since it's all "up front and known about" perhaps that means the BBC will answer to FIOA requests...?
That's a no as well then... up front my arse! If they want to be treated as a private organisation then let them do it without depending on a government granted monopoly handout.
I don't watch enough TV to justify a colour licence. I had a b/w portable, for the odd occasions.
I didn't bother to renew it when I realized the TV hadn't been switched on for over 3 months, and I wasn't going to be home for the next few months. And also it had become very difficult to purchase a b/w licence after the contract went from the post office.
I got so many letters accusing me of being a criminal, I simply got rid of my (b/w) TV, and then threw them in the bin.
I have a monitor on the DVD/media player.
I quite often legally use iPlayer for offline programs. Had I not been accused of being a criminal by letter, I would have made the effort to buy a b/w licence, because I consider that a fair price for my consumption, however since it is not a legal requirement, after that they can get stuffed.
Had they not made it so hard to purchase a b/w licence I wouldn't have even thought about doing without TV at home in the first place.
Actually they do accuse you of being a criminal. The tone of the letter makes it quite clear that they don't believe it is possible for someone not to have a TV and then they further go on to let you know what your punishment will be once they have actually caught you.
I spent 10 years without a TV and only bought one when I had kids so that I could make sure they grew up to be thick scum like the rest of the UK's Eastender/Corrie lets go dancing x-factor watching population.
once you've ignored them (I've not had a TV in over 20 years) a few times begins "What to expect in court" which amounts to demanding money with menaces - OIOW extortion. Which is illegal.
Go away and die horribly Capita, who have the contract for enforcement, renewed for another 8 years in 2011.
This isn't a genuine news article, its PR by the BBC. The so called TV Licensing spokesman actually works for the BBC
If you google "13,000 Britons still have a black and white TV licence" you'll see just how dirty the BBC are, their basically calling people liars
Tronsmart Prometheus is powered by a 1.5 GHz dual core Amlogic AML8726-M6 ARM Cortex-A9 processor with Mali-400 graphics, 1GB Of RAM, and 4GB of storage.
That’s the same chip used in the G-Box Dyno and Diamond Multimedia AMP1000 media players. In other words, it’s not the fastest chip around, but it’s reasonably zippy and works with most Android apps and games, including YouTube and Netflix. You should also be able to run XBMC media center for Android on the Prometheus box.
Unlike many of the smaller Android TV sticks we’ve seen, the Prometheus has plenty of room for ports and features 3 USB 2.0 ports as well as HDMI and Ethernet jacks. It also has built-in support for 802.11b/g/n WiFi. The device runs Google Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. - ebay.com - geekbuying.com - liliputing.com
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019