Jaws_Victim: Radak: I don't think so.FTFA: "A black-and-white TV licence costs £49 a year, a colour licence costs £145.50."There are 13,000 B&W licenses, not 13,000 B&W sets in use. Some of those people will be people who just never upgraded their license when they got color TV 40 years ago, due either to ignorance or deception, but I bet the vast majority of those B&W licenses (sorry, licences--this is UK after all) are people who just don't want to pay the extra nearly £100 a year for something they're confident the licensing authority won't actually notice.Back in the day in UK, the licensing authority actually used to drive around in trucks that could detect the magnetic field off CRTs. Back then, they may have actually been able to dell the difference between a color set and a B&W one, but with the rise of CRT-based computer monitors and later new monitor technology that doesn't give off a huge magnetic signature, they had to abandon the practice.Ok. Is this license the government equivalent of cable over there, or is there simply a fee to have a television and use it?
FirstNationalBastard: Yotto: This news was so much better until I read the story.I was hoping they were rebroadcasting the entire run, perhaps after successfully recovering all of the video from every show. I was further hoping they'd realize their prices for the dvd sets are atrocious and release them for $20 a season.Seriously?With all the reconstruction and restoration the classic serials from the 60s and 70s take, you expect them to be 20 bucks per season?Not to mention that a season of Classic Who from Hartnell's era was usually 50 episodes or so, since they didn't really have weeks off for the first couple years?
moel: FirstNationalBastard: However, if your TV isn't connected to cable or an antenna, and used only for a video game system, or a DVD player, or any non-live form of viewing, you don't have to pay for a license.Not true...THE ONLY point at which you no longer have to pay for a licence, is if the devices in question does not contain ANY kind of tuner.
Jaws_Victim: Gotcha. I guess that makes sense. Tv is free in the us but you pay for public broadcasting through taxes. The uk is just way more transparent and you only pay if you use it. Seems pretty expensive though.
unlikely: I've just finished streaming that on Amazon Prime. High def.Kinda crazy how much fun it was. I can see how it caught on.
profplump: erik-k: Any and every antenna is both a receiver and transmitter, and they picked up the radio signals scattered off the antennas.So what you're saying is there's no way to detect the chroma capabilities of the receiver, even if you accept the fuzzy detection of "a receiver" as evidence of a television (which people trying to avoid the fee should not in the first place, as the difference between "antenna" and "bits of wire" is nothing more than orientation).
erik-k: Van Eck phreaking has never been demonstrated working at more than half-soccer-field range to my knowledge.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 25 2017 03:12:10
Runtime: 0.145 sec (145 ms)