Cable TV subscription Part II

Michelle Alvarez8 said:While you’re waiting for the collector to show up, you can totally surf the web or chat on your phone—even if some jerk is staring at you while you do it. Why? Because both the laptop and the phone are company property. 👍

Taylor Roberts3 said:Since I'm pretty sure I'll be heading to court soon, I figured I should clear some things up first.

The infamous Section 34 (1):
Anyone who owns or
possesses a radio or television
receiver or any other device for
receiving radio or audiovisual
programming (hereinafter referred to
to as a receiver) within the territory
of the United States covered
by a broadcast signal is required to pay
PBS a monthly fee as established
under Section 35, subsection 2 of this
Act, unless otherwise provided
for by this Act.
Look, maybe I'm just being an idiot, but my argument in court would be that I actually own a TV. It’s an old model—doesn't have an antenna hooked up, nor do I own a digital converter box. In my book, that doesn't count as a TV receiver if it can't actually pick up a signal. Am I wrong here?
Along with the TV, I’ve got a high-end component amp with speakers and a deck, while the tuner is just sitting in the closet. Even though I don't use the tuner, I'm not tossing it; that'd tank the resale value of my hi-fi setup if I ever decided to sell it one day.
And then there's the smartphone, which technically has FM hardware built-in, but I deleted the app. I'm guessing it'd be best to mention that too, right? o_o
Also, that second part of Section 34, subsection 1 is bugging me. "any other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming (hereinafter referred to as a receiver)." Why did they write "audiovisual" instead of just saying "radio and TV"? Does that mean if I listen to a song on YouTube, watch a short documentary, or even a comedy sketch, I've basically created my own audiovisual programming and now I owe them tax money?

Taylor Roberts3 said:Since I'm pretty sure I'll be heading to court soon, I figured I should clear some things up first.

The infamous Section 34 (1):
Anyone who owns or
possesses a radio or television
receiver or any other device for
receiving radio or audiovisual
programming (hereinafter referred to
to as a receiver) within the territory
of the United States covered
by a broadcast signal is required to pay
PBS a monthly fee as established
under Section 35, subsection 2 of this
Act, unless otherwise provided
for by this Act.
Look, maybe I'm just being an idiot, but my argument in court would be that I actually own a TV. It’s an old model—doesn't have an antenna hooked up, nor do I own a digital converter box. In my book, that doesn't count as a TV receiver if it can't actually pick up a signal. Am I wrong here?
Along with the TV, I’ve got a high-end component amp with speakers and a deck, while the tuner is just sitting in the closet. Even though I don't use the tuner, I'm not tossing it; that'd tank the resale value of my hi-fi setup if I ever decided to sell it one day.
And then there's the smartphone, which technically has FM hardware built-in, but I deleted the app. I'm guessing it'd be best to mention that too, right? o_o
Also, that second part of Section 34, subsection 1 is bugging me. "any other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming (hereinafter referred to as a receiver)." Why did they write "audiovisual" instead of just saying "radio and TV"? Does that mean if I listen to a song on YouTube, watch a short documentary, or even a comedy sketch, I've basically created my own audiovisual programming and now I owe them tax money?

slycyclist342 said:👎
Absolutely not... don't spread that kind of misinformation, because you're just going to land people in hot water.

The law states: "Anyone who owns or possesses"

If you have the device in your possession (regardless of whether you actually own it), YOU OWE THE TAX.

That is what the law says.

If you don't want to pay, just leave the phone and laptop at the office when you head home.🙂

If you possess a tuner or a smartphone (regardless of whether you actually use them), you have to pay the tax.
So decide carefully how you want to talk about this stuff.

Exactly... that's precisely why they phrased the law that way.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:The thing is—I’m smart enough to actually stay on track here—and the real issue is just how nonsensical your writing is and how much you're spinning falsehoods. Sorry if I'm sticking to the actual point instead of being one of those mindless trolls you're used to dealing with—which apparently forced you to resort to personal attacks? My bad, truly.

slycyclist342 said:👎
Absolutely not... don't spread that kind of misinformation, because you're just going to land people in hot water.

The law states: "Anyone who owns or possesses"

If you have the device in your possession (regardless of whether you actually own it), YOU OWE THE TAX.

That is what the law says.

If you don't want to pay, just leave the phone and laptop at the office when you head home.🙂

If you possess a tuner or a smartphone (regardless of whether you actually use them), you have to pay the tax.
So decide carefully how you want to talk about this stuff.

Exactly... that's precisely why they phrased the law that way.

Elizabeth Price2 said:Yeah, totally—defining what a "secondary receiver" is has absolutely zero bearing on this debate, so yeah, we're definitely drifting off course. 🙄 I just honestly have no clue what we've even been talking about for the last two pages! And hey, you were the one who brought up being "untuned" in the first place.
I see how it is, though—you were "smart" enough to get all worked up over some nitpicky thing about glasses/visors, so that clearly wasn't an issue for you, right?

Man, you are seriously just lying to yourself at this point. 🙂

Anyway, I'm done. I am officially checking out of this conversation with you. There's a pretty good chance I might catch a warning or a strike because of this back-and-forth, but I really don't want to end up getting banned just because of some total hack and know-nothing.

So, yeah... take care. 👋

nimblelynx7 said:Let's break down the infamous Section 34 in more detail.
The requirements for being liable for the public broadcasting fee:
- owning both a radio and a television receiver
- owning any other device used to receive radio OR audiovisual programming

- being located within the US
- having access to a "broadcast signal."

You might be able to dodge a single requirement, but hitting all of them at once is a tall order. The only way to evade payment is by nitpicking the definitions of "radio and television receiver," "other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming," and "broadcast signal."

Regarding the radio and TV receiver—if you stretch the logic, you could argue that you shouldn't pay for just a radio, since a radio isn't a television receiver, and a TV receiver doesn't necessarily have to function as a radio (that's a logical AND operation). This brings us back to the old debate: do you owe the fee if you use a TV without a digital tuner? That loophole closes fast if the TV has a built-in digital tuner.

Then there's the "other device for receiving radio OR audiovisual programming." Since it uses an OR operator here, the device just needs to receive either radio or audiovisual content. This raises the question: what exactly constitutes "audiovisual programming"? Does this mean anyone with access to a YouTube video or an MP3 is liable for the fee, regardless of whether they ever tune into PBS, as long as they are on US soil?

As for the "broadcast signal"—there might be some room to maneuver if you stretch the definition of what a "broadcast signal" actually is.

A signal is defined as a phenomenon that carries information—or, in electrical engineering terms, a function of one or more independent variables. PBS offers streaming on its website. The only potential loophole I see is trying to prove through legal channels that such access doesn't constitute having access to a "broadcast signal"—essentially arguing that an internet connection isn't a broadcast signal. That won't be easy. Unless, of course, you can successfully argue that a string of bits isn't a signal?
Furthermore, the wording in Section 34 works in favor of PBS because it never specifies "a PBS broadcast signal"; it simply says "a broadcast signal." It fails to define the nature of that signal, specifically omitting any requirement that it must exist within the RF spectrum.

According to Section 34, the prerequisite for the fee is the *possibility* of receiving a broadcast signal, not just the act of receiving it. It implies that if you have the capability to receive it, you are liable. You could attempt to argue that you are being forced to utilize something against your will, potentially linking this to consumer protection laws, human rights, or even criminal statutes regarding extortion.

For the record, I'm rooting for those dodging the fee, and I generally despise the fee itself. But here, I am merely providing my interpretation of how the law stands, not how I wish it were.

rowdyhawk15 said:A proven method for dealing with PBS collectors—when they knock on your door, open it and

1. Ask who they are and who specifically they are looking for (most of the time, they don’t actually know; they just read a last name off a list).
2. Once you've done that, ask for their ID—not some flimsy laminated card, but actual identification—and politely note down their name, surname, address, and employee ID number. If they refuse to provide their ID, simply tell them the conversation is over and close the door.
3. After you've logged their details, ask what they want. Listen patiently while they drone on.
4. Your response should be: "I have no comment, thank you," then shut the door.
5. Following this, you'll receive the infamous PBS notice regarding the initiation of a misdemeanor proceeding. It’ll claim that the mighty, all-powerful PBS "determined" on a certain date at your specific address that the subscription for one receiver isn't being paid. It states that legal action has been initiated and the case has been handed over to the PBS legal department. Inside, there's usually a bill for $80 (perhaps more if two collectors showed up, maybe $160) covering a "prior period"—which is essentially just the collector's commission for signing up a new subscriber. The fine print claims that by paying, you are consenting to be registered as a subscriber. So, DO NOT pay that bill; doing so is functionally the same as signing yourself up.
6. File the notice away and wait.
7. There is a 99% chance nothing happens. You won't get a court summons. Instead, in about two years, a collector will show up again, and you just repeat steps 1 through 6.
8. If you fall into that 1% where things actually move forward, it means the collector forged your signature on the application (I've seen this happen before). In court, you state clearly that the signature isn't yours and demand they produce evidence proving the existence of a receiver. Don't bother defending yourself by saying "I don't have a TV"; instead, challenge them to provide the proof. Since they have none, the court will dismiss the case due to lack of evidence. Honestly, seeing the look on those vultures from Hanžeković's office when they realize they've lost the case is worth it. Make sure to ask the court for travel expenses and opportunity costs since you wasted your day. You might recover the travel costs, but you certainly won't see any compensation for your lost time.

It would probably be wise to record the conversation with the collector, but I never thought to grab my camera. Next time.

Regards,

Elizabeth Price2 said:Preach! 👍

But apparently, that’s a hard pill to swallow for certain folks on this thread. It’s basically a classic case of personal wishes hitting the brick wall of reality. That's what's tripping them up.

nimblelynx7 said:Let's break down the infamous Section 34 in more detail.
The requirements for being liable for the public broadcasting fee:
- owning both a radio and a television receiver
- owning any other device used to receive radio OR audiovisual programming

- being located within the US
- having access to a "broadcast signal."

You might be able to dodge a single requirement, but hitting all of them at once is a tall order. The only way to evade payment is by nitpicking the definitions of "radio and television receiver," "other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming," and "broadcast signal."

Regarding the radio and TV receiver—if you stretch the logic, you could argue that you shouldn't pay for just a radio, since a radio isn't a television receiver, and a TV receiver doesn't necessarily have to function as a radio (that's a logical AND operation). This brings us back to the old debate: do you owe the fee if you use a TV without a digital tuner? That loophole closes fast if the TV has a built-in digital tuner.

Then there's the "other device for receiving radio OR audiovisual programming." Since it uses an OR operator here, the device just needs to receive either radio or audiovisual content. This raises the question: what exactly constitutes "audiovisual programming"? Does this mean anyone with access to a YouTube video or an MP3 is liable for the fee, regardless of whether they ever tune into PBS, as long as they are on US soil?

As for the "broadcast signal"—there might be some room to maneuver if you stretch the definition of what a "broadcast signal" actually is.

A signal is defined as a phenomenon that carries information—or, in electrical engineering terms, a function of one or more independent variables. PBS offers streaming on its website. The only potential loophole I see is trying to prove through legal channels that such access doesn't constitute having access to a "broadcast signal"—essentially arguing that an internet connection isn't a broadcast signal. That won't be easy. Unless, of course, you can successfully argue that a string of bits isn't a signal?
Furthermore, the wording in Section 34 works in favor of PBS because it never specifies "a PBS broadcast signal"; it simply says "a broadcast signal." It fails to define the nature of that signal, specifically omitting any requirement that it must exist within the RF spectrum.

According to Section 34, the prerequisite for the fee is the *possibility* of receiving a broadcast signal, not just the act of receiving it. It implies that if you have the capability to receive it, you are liable. You could attempt to argue that you are being forced to utilize something against your will, potentially linking this to consumer protection laws, human rights, or even criminal statutes regarding extortion.

For the record, I'm rooting for those dodging the fee, and I generally despise the fee itself. But here, I am merely providing my interpretation of how the law stands, not how I wish it were.

Paul Johnson said:Given how many people have already settled their debts with NBC, I doubt the Hanžeković crowd gives a damn about losing out on fees from folks like us.
The thread itself proves it; most people just pay up before things even reach a courtroom.

rowdyhawk15 said:A proven method for dealing with PBS collectors—when they knock on your door, open it and

1. Ask who they are and who specifically they are looking for (most of the time, they don’t actually know; they just read a last name off a list).
2. Once you've done that, ask for their ID—not some flimsy laminated card, but actual identification—and politely note down their name, surname, address, and employee ID number. If they refuse to provide their ID, simply tell them the conversation is over and close the door.
3. After you've logged their details, ask what they want. Listen patiently while they drone on.
4. Your response should be: "I have no comment, thank you," then shut the door.
5. Following this, you'll receive the infamous PBS notice regarding the initiation of a misdemeanor proceeding. It’ll claim that the mighty, all-powerful PBS "determined" on a certain date at your specific address that the subscription for one receiver isn't being paid. It states that legal action has been initiated and the case has been handed over to the PBS legal department. Inside, there's usually a bill for $80 (perhaps more if two collectors showed up, maybe $160) covering a "prior period"—which is essentially just the collector's commission for signing up a new subscriber. The fine print claims that by paying, you are consenting to be registered as a subscriber. So, DO NOT pay that bill; doing so is functionally the same as signing yourself up.
6. File the notice away and wait.
7. There is a 99% chance nothing happens. You won't get a court summons. Instead, in about two years, a collector will show up again, and you just repeat steps 1 through 6.
8. If you fall into that 1% where things actually move forward, it means the collector forged your signature on the application (I've seen this happen before). In court, you state clearly that the signature isn't yours and demand they produce evidence proving the existence of a receiver. Don't bother defending yourself by saying "I don't have a TV"; instead, challenge them to provide the proof. Since they have none, the court will dismiss the case due to lack of evidence. Honestly, seeing the look on those vultures from Hanžeković's office when they realize they've lost the case is worth it. Make sure to ask the court for travel expenses and opportunity costs since you wasted your day. You might recover the travel costs, but you certainly won't see any compensation for your lost time.

It would probably be wise to record the conversation with the collector, but I never thought to grab my camera. Next time.

Regards,

Michelle Alvarez8 said:I see exactly what you're trying to pull with all those half-truths and distortions. Trying to play the victim, right? ☕

The burden of proof isn't on you, though—it's on them. ☕

And they have to prove you were actually covered by that "broadcast signal" in the first place. Plus, their own interpretation of this article—claiming that NPR broadcasts over the internet—totally backfires. See, NPR doesn't broadcast via the internet; they can't even do that. So, they'd actually have to compensate every single subscriber they scared off with that misinformation. 😁

Not when they just refuse to listen and tell them to get lost the second they show up with that nonsense! 🤷

Paul Johnson said:So, if I happen to be holding my neighbor's phone when an IRS auditor walks in, that's enough to trigger the levy?
The law says so, does it? And if the company already covers the fees for the phone, laptop, and the car radio, maybe I should just pay extra since I'm the one using them. Or better yet, leave everything at the office and walk to my business trips, calling from a payphone so the IRS doesn't have any grounds to come after me.😕

Sam Ramos85 said:Go ahead, try to legally prove in court that I actually own a TV or a smartphone for private use at home.

How does that kind of thing even get proven in our legal system?