OT - Call Centres......Arrrggggg!

Steve wrote:
> "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2006-08-23, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> But no! We have changed the TV licence over, but after 2 weeks we
>>> get the standard threatening letter to "The Occupier" threatening
>>> court action.
>> They can't do anything until they send someone round to find out who
>> you are and if you really are watching telly, so I wouldn't bother if
>> I were you. I paid TV license for about 2 years, the rest of the time
>> I never got visits other than when living in very densly populated
>> areas. My aerial broke in January and quite frankly TV wasn't worth
>> the hassle of getting it fixed, I've been TV free since then and don't
>> miss it. I told them that and I've not had hassle from them since.
>>
>
> I'm curious about how the TV licence rip-off affects non-electromagnetic
> wave propagated signals. I understood that the licence was a licence to
> receive television which, up until recently meant you poked an aerial up
> onto the chimney, connected the wire and the pictures appeared on the telly.
> With so many other methods of receiving moving pictures, digital cable
> satellite web-based, I'm wondering if the licence is still valid or whether
> we're actually being ripped off because we now don't actually need one
> unless you're still using the old aerial/chimney arrangement (whether it be
> connected to TV, video recorder, TV tuner card in a PC etc). I can get all
> kinds of moving pictures via the internet, including streamed news and other
> broadcasts, down the broadband line and which to me seem not to be telly in
> the sense of the licence wording. Any ideas?
>
>

Unless the law has changed recently ~ within the past 5 years ~ the
license is required if the equipment is "capable" of receiving tv
transmissions, irrespective of whether it is being used in that way or not.

--
Regards

Steve G

Srtgray wrote:

|| Steve wrote:
||| "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
||| news:[email protected]...
|||
|||| On 2006-08-23, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:
||||
||||
||||| But no! We have changed the TV licence over, but after 2 weeks we
||||| get the standard threatening letter to "The Occupier" threatening
||||| court action.
||||
|||| They can't do anything until they send someone round to find out
|||| who you are and if you really are watching telly, so I wouldn't
|||| bother if I were you. I paid TV license for about 2 years, the
|||| rest of the time I never got visits other than when living in very
|||| densly populated areas. My aerial broke in January and quite
|||| frankly TV wasn't worth the hassle of getting it fixed, I've been
|||| TV free since then and don't miss it. I told them that and I've
|||| not had hassle from them since.
||||
|||
|||
||| I'm curious about how the TV licence rip-off affects
||| non-electromagnetic wave propagated signals. I understood that the
||| licence was a licence to receive television which, up until
||| recently meant you poked an aerial up onto the chimney, connected
||| the wire and the pictures appeared on the telly. With so many other
||| methods of receiving moving pictures, digital cable satellite
||| web-based, I'm wondering if the licence is still valid or whether
||| we're actually being ripped off because we now don't actually need
||| one unless you're still using the old aerial/chimney arrangement
||| (whether it be connected to TV, video recorder, TV tuner card in a
||| PC etc). I can get all kinds of moving pictures via the internet,
||| including streamed news and other broadcasts, down the broadband
||| line and which to me seem not to be telly in the sense of the
||| licence wording. Any ideas?
|||
|||
|| It all depends on whether the content originates in the UK. Before
|| we moved away, we had satellite in order to watch EWTN (Catholic
|| television). Had a nice conversation with a bloke at TV licensing,
|| who eventually told us that the licence is required to receive any
|| kind of television type stuff, but only if it is broadcast (or
|| webcast) from within the UK. So we could watch EWTN (which comes
|| from the US) plus any number of European channels without paying a
|| licence. Which is exactly what we did.
||
|| Stuart

I'm not sure on the finer points, but AIUI when they send the van round they
are looking for a TV. If you sold your TV, and informed the licensing
people of that, I would have thought you'd be OK. If you got a visit, all
they would find was a computer and no telly. What you did with your
computer would be up to you. How would they find out if you had been (for
example) watching a simultaneously-streamed broadcast?

It's the telly that does it - you pay if you have the equipment to receive,
even if you never watch BBC, and even if the TV is in the loft and you claim
you never watch it (as some people have tried).

But ICBW...

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.

SteveG wrote:

> Unless the law has changed recently ~ within the past 5 years ~ the
> license is required if the equipment is "capable" of receiving tv
> transmissions, irrespective of whether it is being used in that way or not.

As usual we've allowed ourselves to be conned and have just let the
politicians walk all over us.

I appreciate that this is not the legal statement of the licence
requirements etc. but my current bit of paper states:
"to install and use colour and black and white receivers at the premises."
"to install and use any equipment to receive or record television
program services...."

Two thoughts -
What does 'install' mean in this context?
My recollection is that the wording used to be substantially different
mentioning something like 'receive broadcast signals' which is much
more precise. Does anyone have an old licence lying round?

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:32:51 +0100, Steve wrote:

>> I told them that and I've not had hassle from them since.

Oh don't worry the default "everyone has a telly" will soon click in and
you'll have to tell them again and again and...

> With so many other methods of receiving moving pictures, digital cable
> satellite web-based, I'm wondering if the licence is still valid or
> whether we're actually being ripped off because we now don't actually
> need one unless you're still using the old aerial/chimney arrangement

No you need a licence to recieve television broadcasts intended for
general reception. They word the licence requirements to cover cable,
terrestial, satellite in all formats. Not sure about broadband delivery
methods but with that starting to roll out, if it's not in now it will be
soon.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:48:43 +0200, Srtgray wrote:

> So we could watch EWTN (which comes from the US) plus any number of
> European channels without paying a licence. Which is exactly what we
> did.

So *all* of your equipment, by itself or any of the other kit, could not
recieve any UK orginated television material. In which case I'd agree but
I'd be surprised, unless you took some fairly extraordinary measures,
that you could only recieve non-UK broadcasts.

But this whole thing is *VERY* grey and the TVLA are like a terrier once
they get going and simply won't let go.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:24:14 +0100, Ian Rawlings wrote:

> ... something like if the streaming media is going out at roughly the
> same time as the radio signal then you need a license to receive it ...

But there hasn't been a Radio License for years!

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 23 Aug 2006 06:01:02 -0700, Greg wrote:

> The simple way to handle it is to forget the telephone, just write to
> them.

Aye, and if you use recorded delivery they have bugger all defense if
they loose the letter. The last couple of times I've moved I just
produced a form letter, a database with the relevant information in(*)
and did a mail merge. If they do loose the letter you just print another
and scrawl COPY over it...

(*) Their address, account number(s) etc

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:13:50 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:

>
>I just wish I had the time to set up a web site to provide info
>on how to deal with these morons and get this nonsense stopped. I
>really don't see it being my problem if they can't be bothered to
>have sufficient staff available to deal with customers, if we
>could just everyone to respond as above, their stupid systems
>would become untennable, and they'd *have* to do something.
>
>Feeling much better now!
>
>Richard


martyn's site www.commedia.tv always cheers me up, although that is
unsolicited calls.....
--

Simon Isaacs

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote"
George Jean Nathan (1882-1955)

ROT13 me....

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:12:28 GMT, [email protected] scribbled the
following nonsense:

>reminds me of a joke about training call centre workers in India - - bear
>with me i might not recall it properly. Something along the lines of "to be
>able to answer the phone in this call centre you must be able to deal with
>UK citizens. To this end we require to test you on your knowledge of
>english. please write a sentence with the following colours in it. Green,
>Yellow, Blue, Rose, Black,
>
>When the telephone rings, it goes "green green-green green", i answer and
>say "yellow" "how are blue" "rose calling please" "do you want a ring black"
>
>oh well, i thought it was funny
>
>Wolfie

The Highly Stupid Banking Company have severely annoyed me recently,
especially when "John" became "Manjit" later in the call......
--

Simon Isaacs

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote"
George Jean Nathan (1882-1955)

ROT13 me....

"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > GbH wrote:
> >
> >> It would be funnier if it wasn't so true!
> >
> > And if not for the fact that the people in Indian call centres speak
> > better english, with a better accent and better understanding of our
> > geography than those in many of the UK ones 8-(.
> > Greg
>
> Provided it's in the script.

They're scripted where ever they are, at least you can understand the
Indians when they read off the screen, more than you can say for most
Scottish call centres .
Greg

Greg wrote:

> They're scripted where ever they are, at least you can understand the
> Indians when they read off the screen, more than you can say for most
> Scottish call centres .
> Greg

There are Scots round here! We are offended!!

Ian Rawlings wrote:

> On 2006-08-23, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I can get all kinds of moving pictures via the internet, including
>> streamed news and other broadcasts, down the broadband line and
>> which to me seem not to be telly in the sense of the licence
>> wording. Any ideas?
>
> ISTR this being covered on the TV licensing website's FAQs, something
> like if the streaming media is going out at roughly the same time as
> the radio signal then you need a license to receive it as you're
> deemed to be receiving the signal by proxy. That's from memory, so
> precious little point in asking me to comment further on what I've
> just said, as I've shot my load on that subject.
>

Just as a note of interest - in this country (Australia) radio and TV
licences (system was copied from the UK) were abolished about thirty years
ago. The problem with this is that the ABC (copied from the BBC) is
dependent on funding from general revenue, and hence much more subject to
political pressure by the government of the day.
JD

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:48:43 +0200, Srtgray wrote:
>
>
>>So we could watch EWTN (which comes from the US) plus any number of
>>European channels without paying a licence. Which is exactly what we
>>did.
>
>
> So *all* of your equipment, by itself or any of the other kit, could not
> recieve any UK orginated television material. In which case I'd agree but
> I'd be surprised, unless you took some fairly extraordinary measures,
> that you could only recieve non-UK broadcasts.
>
> But this whole thing is *VERY* grey and the TVLA are like a terrier once
> they get going and simply won't let go.
>
No, we asked if we had to disable the equipment in any way, but they
said there was no need. I suppose that woe betide us if they caught us
at watching UK broadcasts...

We had a satellite dish, Toshiba head unit, VCR, DVD recorder and telly,
none of which was altered in any way. I can give you the bloke's name,
if you're interested.

Stuart

On or around Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:13:35 +0100, Simon Isaacs
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>
>martyn's site www.commedia.tv always cheers me up, although that is
>unsolicited calls.....

I love the electricity leak one meself.

someone had a nice site along similar lines... now what was it...

oh yes:

http://www.wedonotuse.com/

I'm waiting for a window salesman to ring now...

"sorry, we use have windows here"

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10

On or around Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:51:08 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>It's the telly that does it - you pay if you have the equipment to receive,
>even if you never watch BBC, and even if the TV is in the loft and you claim
>you never watch it (as some people have tried).
>
>But ICBW...

and video recorders with tuners in 'em.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10

On 2006-08-23, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:

> Unless the law has changed recently ~ within the past 5 years ~ the
> license is required if the equipment is "capable" of receiving tv
> transmissions, irrespective of whether it is being used in that way or not.

Try going to the proper licensing website and reading about it, they
even give you a handy example, e.g. if you have a normal colour TV not
connected to an aerial that is only used to watch DVDs and play games
consoles. They state explicitly that you do NOT need a TV license in
such a situation as the equipment is not capable of receiving TV
signals, i.e. it doesn't have an aerial in it. The fact that it's a
telly is neither here nor there, it has to be a TV plugged into a
working aerial.

I am in the above situation, I have told them that I am, and they have
told me that I do not need a TV license but that they may send someone
round sometime to check (which they won't as I live in a small village
about an hour from the nearest large towns).

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-08-23, Dave Liquorice <[email protected]> wrote:

> But there hasn't been a Radio License for years!

Is there a cat license? I have a bee license for my pet bee Eric.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-08-23, JD <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just as a note of interest - in this country (Australia) radio and TV
> licences (system was copied from the UK) were abolished about thirty years
> ago. The problem with this is that the ABC (copied from the BBC) is
> dependent on funding from general revenue, and hence much more subject to
> political pressure by the government of the day.

It doesn't seem to stop Philip Adams on Late Night Live laying into
the government all the time, one of my favourite podcasts. Then again
I suppose he's on late at night for a reason!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> They're scripted where ever they are, at least you can understand the
> Indians when they read off the screen, more than you can say for most
> Scottish call centres .
> Greg

Oh I don't know, a nice female broad Scotish accent would probably be able
to sell me bottled air, in fact I felt almost gutted when a Scottish lass
called to find out why I'd moved from Scottish Power... it's all in the
voice I Guess.


<Shudders> right back to reality

Lee D

On 2006-08-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> There are Scots round here! We are offended!!

I was brought up in Scotland, but I still had to get one Scottish call
centre droid to spell a word for me recently, and was most surprised
to find that the word in question turned out to be "fountain".. She
was a tad miffed.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!