Grounding an Appliance

[SimonH2]

And just remember - even the 'merkins benefit from our BBC. It provides a reference by which people can see how sh*t a lot of their own stuff is.
Having said that, I actually watch a fair bit of US produced stuff - but at least we get it with just the allowed 4 ad breaks. It's really noticeable how many times you have a "coming up ... same bit repeated" bit where it's clear there would have been an ad break in the US.
I don't have personal experience, but my parents did when they visited relatives - it was not a complimentary opinion they proffered when they got back

 

[JohnW2]

No, because they qwould be transmitting on frequencies licensed to the network operator(s) without a licence from the operator(s)....

Just like mobile phones, you mean?

Correct, if your TV is not connected to an aerial then no licence needed ...

In some strong signal areas, one can receive broadcast TV programmes without any aerial - or, at least, nothing that could reasonably be described as 'an aerial'

That's a whole new discussion, but I respectfully disagree. If we want to see what TV would be like without the BBC funded by a licence as it is now - just look across to the USA.

I think you have totally misunderstood my point.

Although I agree that what you mention, would be "a whole new" (and perhaps interesting!) discussion, it's not what I was talking about.

On the assumption (as I say, perhaps debatable, as a separate discussion) that it is considered desirable for the BBC to be funded directly by viewers, once we got to the stage that the vast majority of households had TVs, hence(should have) TV licences, it seems to be daft to continue invoking all the hassle and expense of specifically collecting licence fees from each of them every year (and 'chasing' non-payers), rather than simply funding it out of general taxation.

An (equally daft!) analogy would be to make every household separately and specifically pay their LA for refuse collection each year (again invoking a costly infrastructure for collecting the payments and chasing non-payers) - rather than, as is the case, rolling it together with lots of other things which are paid by every household in the form of local taxation (Council Tax).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

That's not how the ones I've experienced work. They did no conversion - simply repeated the RF signal as-is between inside and outside.

Wow, I can't even begin to imagine:
1, How it could work.
2, How type approval could be granted.
3, How they may have got a licence for for something like that.
4, How such a device could be considered as a working device in a digital mobile phone network.

Ah, different type of device. As I say, the ones I have come across were in an emergency planning office - and the idea of only working for registered phones would not have been acceptable. Just consider the complications when "something happens", and various services all pile into the EPU (emergency planning unit) to do their co-ordinated response - and everyone has to wait while their phones are registered.

The ones I've come across are designed, constructed and type approved for the purpose.

I too have worked with EPO's and in their control environments and setting up their emergengy radio kit and running county wide radio networks for voice and data.

The action of adding a phone to a repeater is a licence requirement and takes about 2 seconds, It would be done at the same time/part of signing into the centre. I've seen it in operation in Fire and Ambulance control rooms without any difficulty. However generally in an actual emergency it would be far more likely one of the service providers would deploy a proper base station rather than the toys we are discussing [and yes I've assisted with that too].

 

[JohnW2]

<lots of things>

I'm not sure how you managed it, but I certainly didn't write this ...

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Correct, if your TV is not connected to an aerial then no licence needed - subject to the new bit about watching live streaming.

Not correct. Our front bedroom TV aerial plug became disconnected which we discovered when boxes of Christmas decorations, were replaced after Christmas, the other side of the wall. Smart TVs store the information which can be and has been used in courts of law in licence evasion cases.
One of the 'protestors' on you tube who filmed the enforcement officers and police when they visited came unstuck when he posted his film and made them look very stupid. A return visit with a warrant to inspect the TV resulted more charges than just licnce evasion and a suspended prison sentence. There was no evidence of any form of TV aerial in the property.

At my last employer, we bought a number of large TVs for a customer to use as displays in their shops. Not long afterwards we started getting the snottygrams from TV Licensing.

Yes I mentioned that one earlier, just ignore it but whatever happens don't tune the TVs.

 

[JohnW2]

... but whatever happens don't tune the TVs.

I think you'll find that some of them 'auto-tune when first switched on if they find that they're not tuned in to anything.

Remembering that this is a DIY forum, this is unlikley to be an issue in most domestic situations, since most households have TV licences, even if they acquire some TVs for purposes other than receiving broadcast programmes.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I'm not sure how you managed it, but I certainly didn't write this ...
View attachment 226835

Kind Regards, John

No I have no idea how that happened either, all I did was quote Simons post, which happened to start with a quote from you.
My apologies, I've hopefully corrected my post as appropriate.

 

[JohnW2]

No I have no idea how that happened either, all I did was quote Simons post, which happened to start with a quote from you. My apologies, I've hopefully corrected my post as appropriate.

You have. Thanks!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I think you'll find that some of them 'auto-tune when first switched on if they find that they're not tuned in to anything.

Remembering that this is a DIY forum, this is unlikley to be an issue in most domestic situations, since most households have TV licences, even if they acquire some TVs for purposes other than receiving broadcast programmes.

Kind Regards, John

I've not found one yet which cannot be stopped, but I dare say they exist.

I take you next point on board but know of at least 2 domestic properties without a TV license, one of those has a dedicated gaming room with six 55" TVs and the other has a cinema. As it happens they both get fairly regular visits to check for a licence.

 

[JohnW2]

I've not found one yet which cannot be stopped, but I dare say they exist.

You're probably right, but one obviously has to realise that it's doing it before one would try to 'stop it'.

I take you next point on board but know of at least 2 domestic properties without a TV license, one of those has a dedicated gaming room with six 55" TVs and the other has a cinema....

There are bound to be some, but I would suspect that, in terms of the big picture, they would be a very small minority of domestic properties.

... As it happens they both get fairly regular visits to check for a licence.

... and that is one example of what I regard as the ridiculous and 'unnecessary' costs (ultimately borne by the general public) resulting from persistence of the concept of TV licences.

Per what I recently wrote to Simon, would you think it would be sensible, let alone 'cost-effective', for you have to pay your LA, separately every year, for refuse services, separate from your Council Tax payments? Apart from anything else, because of the costs of collecting those separate sums and chasing non-payers, the amount you paid for your refuse collection would then inevitably be greater than what you are currently paying for the same service through your Council Tax.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

No, because they qwould be transmitting on frequencies licensed to the network operator(s) without a licence from the operator(s).

Just like mobile phones, you mean?

Sorry, not going to build a whole line of quotes back to the source of this point.
In normal use phone base stations transmit on a very clearly defined set of frequencies, a phone never transmits on those frequencies, in fact phones are not type approved or licensed to and definitely do not have the ability to do so.

There is a serious issue with the introducion of a repeater as it has to transmit on base station frequencies and it has to communicate with the base stations/network. Therefore a special [dedicated] license is required on a case by case basis which has to include consultation with the service providers to prevent 'crashing' the system.

 

[SUNRAY]

Per what I recently wrote to Simon, would you think it would be sensible, let alone 'cost-effective', for you have to pay your LA, separately every year, for refuse services, separate from your Council Tax payments? Apart from anything else, because of the costs of collecting those separate sums and chasing non-payers, the amount you paid for your refuse collection would then inevitably be greater than what you are currently paying for the same service through your Council Tax.
Kind Regards, John

I'm in agreement with you on this one, I also signed a petition or three many years ago to increase the tax on petrol as an alternative to the road fund licence [tax disc].

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry, not going to build a whole line of quotes back to the source of this point.
In normal use phone base stations transmit on a very clearly defined set of frequencies, a phone never transmits on those frequencies, in fact phones are not type approved or licensed to and definitely do not have the ability to do so. There is a serious issue with the introducion of a repeater as it has to transmit on base station frequencies and it has to communicate with the base stations/network.

Yes, I understand all that.

I suppose my thinking was that the the bands of uplink and downlink frequencies were generally so close that the licensing probably covered both and that, as far as type-testing type-approval were concerned, there is no obvious reason for thinking that things would be different in the two bands.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm in agreement with you on this one, I also signed a petition or three many years ago to increase the tax on petrol as an alternative to the road fund licence [tax disc].

Indeed, that would also be 'equitable' (in the same way that abolishing TV licences would be for low-income folk), since one would be paying into the 'road fund' in proportion to one's use of the roads.

Do I take it, therefore, that you're agreeing with me that, if the system were sensible, TV licences would be abolished (and 'general taxation' increased slightly to compensate)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

I would rather the licence fee be abolished altogether and let the BBC become either a commercial or subscription based model just like every other TV channel in the world. I can’t remember the last time I watched BBC TV yet I still have to pay for them if I wish to only watch the subscription channel sky sports.