Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Martin Harriss Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Licenses for Television in the UK Message-ID: <8677@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 5 Jun 90 15:59:16 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Martin Harriss Organization: Bellcore Lines: 29 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 414, Message 6 of 10 In article <8658@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Slater writes: >Evasion is widespread, and personally I am deeply cynical about the >efficacy or even the existence of detector vans (I've never seen one). >I believe the authorities rely largely on non-renewed licences to >catch defaulters. Oh, the detector vans do exist - I've seen them, and read about them in the telecom press. But you're also right about using non-renewal records to catch people. This is what happens: They (who *is* they these days? I don't thing it's BT) will target an area of the country where they want to do some enforcement. The detector vans are sent there, and there is a local publicity campaign sometime before the event. The non-renewal records are consulted, and the detector vans are sent by the houses of people who have not renewed. If a television is found operating there, the owner receives a knock on the door. I believe the idea is to scare the excrement out of people by publicizing the enforcement campaign before sending the vans in. I bet it costs more than 71 quid to prosecute someone. Martin Harriss (ex brit) martin@cellar.bae.bellcore.com