For the countries which need Radio and TV licenses. How TV Detector Vans work... - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 05:38:47 pm
content: Here in North America, I find this funny, but, here it is:

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 05:43:03 pm
content: I wonder what happened when home computers became a thing, but you never tuned into any over the air TV broadcasts...Were people nailed for that?

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 05:47:45 pm
content: we used to have a tv license, then it came a "media" license, meaning if you had either internet or tv you needed one. now it is just a tax because everyone need one anyway. But decades before that they they dropped the detector vans because pretty much everyone had a tv, so instead it made more sense to just go ask those that didn't have a license if they had a tv

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 06:37:15 pm
content: AFIK the US has never required licensing of home TVs so the GOV didn't need to snoop for tax purposes but the TV networks did have at least one annual event where the networks wanted to see how many people where watching their shows (the bigger the audience, the more that they could charge the advertisers). I was told that they used hundreds of vans that drove around with equipment that could monitor the IF frequency of people's TVs and from the frequency they could tell what channel you were watching.Licenses are generally required for radio transmitters in the US and the FCC does monitor some transmitters but AFIK only when they they get a complaint about a specific person. In that case they may send out a tam of investigators with whatever equipment that they need in order to investigate that specific allegation.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 06:42:02 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on January 07, 2025, 06:37:15 pmThey scanned for leakage from the LO (local oscillator) frequency. In the US, the TV IF frequency is a fixed 45MHz.These vans were replaced by Nielsen cable boxes which reported back to the cable companies which channels were being watched and when...

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 07:39:58 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 07, 2025, 06:42:02 pmafaik Nielsen cable boxes was something you were offered (after random selecting) to do voluntarily and paid a small amount for

author: Postal2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 07:51:46 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 07, 2025, 05:38:47 pmI will give you an example to think about. When journalists describing the life of the northern regions arrived in one of the villages, they arrived just at the moment when it was time to turn on the electricity supply. The diesel power station was in a sea-type container, the man opened it. But he did not start it right away. First, he carried buckets of fuel from a tanker standing 100 meters away. And when the journalists asked if it would not be easier to install a pipe, the man answered that the station works automatically, and if the pipe is installed, his position will not be needed. Therefore, the head of the district, out of pity for him (so as not to fire him), allows him to carry buckets of fuel.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 08:18:53 pm
content: I always found the concept of TV licensing bizarre. It is like you pay for your own brainwashing.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 08:31:30 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 07, 2025, 05:43:03 pmI can't offer you any enlightenment as to whether anyone in the UK actually faced prosecution for it but in theory it was a possibility, as you were required to license any device which you held at your property that could act as a television receiver, regardless of whether you were actually using it as such. So if you had a television set as a video output for your Commodore 64, rather than a dedicated monitor (as most people did during the 8-bit era), the law stated that it was required to be licensed.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 08:34:55 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on January 07, 2025, 08:18:53 pmconsider it like a library, the TV stations that get the license are required to produce and broadcast information to the public, cover important national events etc. and can do so without having to cater to advertisers and such

author: Postal2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 08:39:17 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 07, 2025, 08:34:55 pmLet them just encode them, and those who want to can buy the cards.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 08:42:14 pm
content: Why it has to be my problem what some TV station is required to do? If the Gov requires it, the Gov should pay for it.Edit: and by the way, Public libraries are free, at least here.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 08:44:22 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on January 07, 2025, 08:42:14 pmAnd how do you think the government pays for any of these things?

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 09:12:29 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on January 07, 2025, 08:18:53 pmThat's what Orwell got so amazingly wrong. He thought the transition to totalitarianism would require threats and violence. Instead, it's "Hey, there's a sale at WalMart on Samsung quantum-dot telescreens! We should toss that old LCD out and get with the times. The new one has a built-in Facebook app!"

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 09:17:45 pm
content: Quotenot quite, regardless of what the propaganda would have you believe.it was the act of receiving the broadcast that required a license,complete with quirks like needing a colour license if you had a black+white telly and a colour video recorder.However if the telly was only used for example to watch videos or hooked up to yer zx81 no license needed.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 09:23:03 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on January 07, 2025, 09:17:45 pmHappened to me. I used a B&W portable to play with my ZX81 but also to view TV. Got a knock on the door one day and it's the TV Licensing people, and it just so happened that I'd been doing some programming on the dining room table, so the antenna wasn't plugged in (didn't reach). They took a look and were happy that the TV wasn't used for watching programmes

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 10:02:13 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on January 07, 2025, 09:23:03 pmSo I can see this being an issue in the early days, or less forgiving circumstances...

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 10:03:33 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 07, 2025, 08:34:55 pmFor Germany, the radio "tax" is intended to allow for a production and broadcast of politically neutral and informative program. However a huge part of that gigantic pile of money is now used for paying absurdly high pensions, even though the "tax" grows ever so often, the money used on the program is reduced on a regular base. Currently, the demanded rise in "tax payment" has been declined by state officials (I think for the first time in history), nevertheless the public broadcasters will receive their raise - they will take legal action against the expressed public and politic will, and they will succeed.And: Of course the public broadcasters make excessive use of hidden and plain advertisement.Good thing is, you can watch it in Danmark, for free. While we simply cannot watch danish TV, just across the border, even with the kids visiting the danish school. No, there is no way to obtain the required viewing accoung (unless someone "lends" it to you).

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 10:13:32 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on January 07, 2025, 08:18:53 pmPublic broadcasting in Australia was just funded by general tax revenue. I suppose it was because commercial broadcasting didn't reach remote areas initially. But now you can get brainwashed for free everywhere with the internet. Although you still bear the cost in several ways, advertising, data collection, loss of privacy and security, and time wasted.Gotta love progress.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 10:19:11 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on January 07, 2025, 06:37:15 pmEr, I don't think things ever worked that way; this is approaching tinfoil-hat territory. Would that even be possible (detecting someone's TV receiver IF frequency from far away)? I doubt it.So far as I know, all the TV ratings companies, like Nielsen, used designated groups of viewers who filled out forms showing what they were watching, and no high-tech snooping techniques like you're describing. (My best friend's mom used to work for Nielsen in Chicago.)

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2025, 11:59:02 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on January 07, 2025, 06:37:15 pm.I think they monitored leakage from the local oscillator, as the IF frequency is always the same, no matter what channel you are watching.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:02:55 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 07, 2025, 11:59:02 pmSorry, to me that sounds every bit as dicey as people who claim that "they" are monitoring their brain waves ...

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:07:02 am
content: Quote from: NE666 on January 07, 2025, 08:31:30 pmIt was hardly a high tech conversion to go to off air receiving.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:14:11 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 08, 2025, 12:02:55 amDo you have VHF brainwaves?Early valve/tube converter stages used fairly high LO levels, & were detectable, so it was a real thing.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:30:55 am
content: The famous E H Scott SLRM short-wave receiver, used by the Merchant Marine and Navy during WW II, employed careful shielding to minimize the leakage of the local oscillator back to the antenna.The first stage (tuned RF amplifier) used a 6K7 metal pentode with grid cap that had less leakage than the 6SK7 single-ended metal pentodes used in the IF amplifier.This was intended to hinder submarines' tracking of surface vessels, and to minimize interference with other onboard systems.("SLR" prefix referred to super-low radiation.)E H Scott was not related to H H Scott.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:34:51 am
content: OK, fine, you wrote about very carefully-shielded shortwave sets.What about television receivers? Would it have been possible for an unmarked van parked outside someone's house to pick up the local oscillator frequency of their TV set?(Forget parked outside an apartment bldg., with its jumble of mixed signals.)To me, this falls in the same category as "yepper, them satellites can read your license plate from space!" misconceptions.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 01:27:51 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 07, 2025, 10:19:11 pmOh really? (DO this today...)Get 1 FM radio and tune it to a blank station/static somewhere between 100mhz and 107mhz and keep listening.Get a second old analog FM radio and manually tune its dial to ~10.7mhz below the the first radio and you will hear the static disappear as the first radio will now be tuned to the Local Oscillator of the second radio.When I was a kid, I mangled an old clock radio with an audio jack tied through a cap to the supply voltage for the internal LO oscillation and made myself a pirate radio station which could be tuned in clearly for approximately 1 city block in both directions.A TV van with a directional antenna can easily pick up any turned on radio and TV's LO within around a 2 to 4 house radius. Since these vans use spectrum analyzers, they would see spikes for each channel come in and out as they would drive down a street.In fact, during the second world war era, special radio tuners were developed which went through extravagant means to shield the LO from leaking out to prevent detection. And you better believe that to do this, it was a nightmare.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 02:01:18 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 08, 2025, 01:27:51 amI would imagine the LO emissions from vacuum tube equipment of that era, was far more easier to detect compared to today's low powered integrated semiconductor circuits.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 03:16:58 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 08, 2025, 12:34:51 amYes.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 03:24:10 am
content: OK, a little online research reveals this. Admittedly not my preferred source (this is the Google "AI overview" in answer to my query), but it confirms what I believe to be true in this case, that at least in the era where it might have been possible for the surveyors to send out unmarked vans to snoop on unsuspecting viewers' LOs, that isn't at all what they actually did:QuoteSo while it might have been possible to do this electronically, it's quite doubtful that's how it was done. And it jibes with what I'd heard about the process of gathering TV audience surveys.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 03:36:13 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on January 08, 2025, 02:01:18 amYes, older tube equipment and older simple transistor based radio tuners, especially those with good receivers did radiate quite a bit. Especially old TV tuners as they usually outperformed the smaller tuners in VRCs and cable boxes.As for scanning neighborhoods to determine viewership ratings in the USA, I do not think this ever happened country wide. Perhaps as an experimental test in one city, but, it would take too long and there would be too many cross signals to isolate making the test a flop.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 04:37:31 am
content: I don't know, I think in any normally populated area there would be so much crap that it would not be possible unless there was some guy on your roof next to the antennaplugging a antenna into a 'power signal' in the power supply through a coupling capacitor is I think a bit more powerful then the natural emissions? are you sure thats a good comparison?not to mention faulty equipment and crazy wiring making the signals go everywhere? Especially if its tuned to regions that are not empty.Now, if a spy has a radio tuned in some RF 'dead zone' waiting for a signal, in some isolated place, that might be somewhat easier to pick up (waiting for numbers station broadcast), but if your listening in the normal 'fm band', in a normal populated area, with a normally hook up radio, I think it might be a bit of security theater going on.and I think if it was that easy, it would be exploited and known, i.e. burglars known to listen to RF signals to wait till someone falls asleep before doing some 'cat work'. Especially when you had battery powered radios, you basically know nobody would leave that on after they went to sleep, because its expensive, and also annoying to replace batteriesI would fully expect that getting a job as a " RADIO DETECTOR VAN DRIVER" would be a appealing position for any half decent criminal. Lights out, radios dead, whats that give you like a 50% lower chance of having a close encounter with a occupant during a burglary? You can even get rid of that nagging urge to revisit the crime scene to issue a citation later. And they basically let you case the place at night, regularly, with zero suspicion, so you can learn the exact habits of targets. I think this would give you real life 'criminal superpowers' And you can probably weasel your way out of a arrest or lessen charges because you can say you got job frustration about 'in determinant signals' or some other crap that possessed you to enter someones property.I suspect in practice this radio van did not work very well.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 09:06:49 am
content: QuoteNo idea what goes on over the pond, but here in the UK there was a strong rumour that the TV detector vans didn't actually detect anything and just went out for show. When they visited some area, the number of licenses being taken out increased...I am sure they did do detection (and that some were just for show), but they didn't have a readout "No. 6 is illegal" and it came down to the skill of the operator, who didn't always get it right. And it's cheaper to drive an empty van around than to equip it with the stuff and pay skill wages, etc.As to the relevant means of taxing, some countries did this out of general taxation and I think that was the wrong approach for public broadcasting. In the UK it's a license, and you only need to pay if you're watching the TV, so if you have some ideological reason against either paying or watching the solution is easy. And since the government isn't involved and doesn't get the dosh, the output isn't politically skewable (easily). Of course, the downside of licensing broadcast receivers is that it's relatively easy to freeload, whereas with paying from general taxation it isn't.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 09:19:00 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 07, 2025, 08:44:22 pmwith ~43% of my income?I also pay for my internet connection (with VAT of course) so i don't think i need to pay a license because i own a screen with a TV receiver (not connected, of course. My home came with an antenna, amplifier and cables, i'll be more than happy to strip them away if i have to prove i can't get TV)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 10:21:26 am
content: TV detector vans don't work in the UK (and I doubt they ever did). They are purely a marketing ploy by Capita (the contractor) and the BBC.There's a very simple way that the TV Licencing people know to write to you, because every time you buy a new TV the retailer is required to notify your address to the authority.But, owning a TV in and of itself doesn't require a licence; we do not consume BBC content any more and have gone licence free for some time.I think the BBC will need to reform how the licence fee is collected as currently any terrestrial consumer of content pays a licence fee (even if they do not watch BBC services) but no consumer of streaming content does; fundamentally what is the difference here?

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 11:46:57 am
content: Quoteno longer the case,it was scrapped around 2013

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:23:25 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on January 08, 2025, 11:46:57 amThat probably explains why I got letters at my address despite only having a second hand TV. They just seem to paper-bomb any house with an address. I did fill out a "don't need a licence" form at one point but they kept sending letters so I don't bother any more, let 'em waste their postage.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:35:59 pm
content: Quotehow can you get post without an addressBut yea it seems they just target every address thats dosnt have a license.Heard crapias more recent misinformation tactics is saying you need a license if your watching a live stream online ,conveniently missing out tv from the sentence.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:36:25 pm
content: Typo, corrected.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 12:55:30 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 10:21:26 amI don't think you really know what the license covers. From the TV Licensing website:QuoteTL;DR: You need it for reception of live broadcasting, not just BBC output.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 01:44:27 pm
content: I'm well aware of what the TV Licence covers, thank you very much.We do not have an antenna connected to the TV, and whilst the TV is capable of accessing BBC iPlayer, that function is not used.Only external HDMI devices and the integrated streaming functions are used - all of which do not require a licence fee to be paid.There is some debate over what the "live streaming" statement covers; but it's generally accepted that unless the stream is also accessible terrestrially as it is broadcast, it is not covered by the licence fee.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 02:00:43 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on January 07, 2025, 08:18:53 pmAgreed. Especially with all the commercials you got anyway. TV licensing used to be around in the Netherlands as well but it got turned into a tax. But since the dawn of ADSL internet I have been downloading what I want to watch and have not watched TV ever since. Its OK to pay for the content through commercials as part of buying a product for as long as I don't have to consume the commercials. To add to the insult, the programs on public (government funded) channels I pay for with tax money are behind a paywall so I can't see those.IMHO Netflix is a much better concept.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 02:43:16 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on January 08, 2025, 09:19:00 amIt's interesting how upset people get over the option not to pay for a service they don't use..

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 03:13:58 pm
content: Back in the day Nielsen households were top secret, maybe they still are.Each of them represented quite a chunk of viewers.There were also rumors that some were bribed by broadcasters.Maybe some bad stuff had too good ratings.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 03:14:40 pm
content: I think it's important to have some form of public broadcaster, for news and current affairs documentaries and such. That can be funded by a tax on, for instance, all streaming subscriptions.I am not sure it is appropriate to ask people to pay for Doctor Who (an entertainment show) if they want to watch, say, Sky Sports, when they had nothing to do with each other. Since Sky supplies its own infrastructure there is no cost to the BBC or the government for Sky's operations. Doctor Who is the kind of content that belongs on a streaming platform, where people can pay for it if they want to access it.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 03:21:35 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 03:14:40 pmBut bear in mind that the funding isn't quite so clear cut. Yes, they receive the majority of their funding from the licence fee, but they also make something to the tune of £1b from commercial activities - like selling the broadcast rights to Doctor Who.

author: DavidAlfa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 03:59:02 pm
content: That worked for very old tvs (Unshielded wooden box full of radiating wires), I doubt they can sense and LO or IF frequencies in modern tvs.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 04:03:13 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 07, 2025, 05:43:03 pmIn my case, yes.That must be now more than 35 years ago, I, as a small child, maybe 6 or 7, opened the door to a pair of license checkers. They asked me if i had a TV in my room, which i, having been taught not to lie, answered yes.That it was not used to watch TV, but was only connected to my Commodore 128 did not matter.In the end that truthful answer did cost around 600 Deutsche Mark.The german TV licensing scheme required a license for each and every receiving device, wether TV or Radio.I distinctly remember the big, fat warning in my Kosmos Electronics kit. That included an AM detector Radio, with a big warning that it is illegal to use without a license

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 04:08:26 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 03:14:40 pmIts not just paying for Doctor Who when you watch Sky. If you are a foreigner spending time in the UK, you never watch any UK broadcast TV, or use equivalent internet services like iPlayer, and merely stream the TV from your homeland over the internet, you need a UK TV licence.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 04:13:28 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 08, 2025, 03:21:35 pmI don't know if this has changed, but people who studied the economics of TV services used to complain about the BBC a lot for overpaying to get the broadcast rights to foreign TV shows (mostly American), while offering its own catalogue of highly desirable shows for the world market, like its rich natural history catalogue, at bargain basement prices.

author: pdenisowski
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 04:28:47 pm
content: Quote from: DavidAlfa on January 08, 2025, 03:59:02 pmOh,with the right equipmentyou absolutely can detect (and DF) an LO from a significant distance away - I've personally done this many times.It's also not an uncommon application: how do you think police catch people illegally using radar detectors?

author: pdenisowski
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 04:38:34 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 08, 2025, 12:34:51 amQuote from: Stray Electron on January 07, 2025, 06:37:15 pmQuote from: Analog Kid on January 07, 2025, 10:19:11 pmI'm fairly certain it's never been applied to TV licensing or viewership studies, but it absolutely is possible to see what someone is watching from outside of their home - just use a TEMPEST receiverhttps://www.rohde-schwarz.com/us/products/test-and-measurement/tempest-tests/rs-fswt-test-receiver_63493-310144.html

author: Postal2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 05:04:59 pm
content: Quote from: pdenisowski on January 08, 2025, 04:38:34 pmI wondered who this swindling trick was aimed at. Clearly not the specialist. That means his boss. We elect as bosses those idiots who cannot do useful work.This can be clearly seen in the history of Space Shuttle Challenger.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 05:33:23 pm
content: Some confusion here: there can be enough radiated power from a local oscillator (LO) in a superheterodyne receiver to be detectable with appropriate equipment nearby, but the power in the intermediate-frequency (IF) amplifiers is not likely to radiate.A typical double-balanced mixer, driven by +7 dBm into the LO port, has 50 dB isolation from LO port to RF (input) port. That's -43 dBm leakage (50 nW), but there is more power circulating in the oscillator itself.The CRT TV sets of my youth were not particularly well-shielded, usually in a plastic housing. Also, the input mixer was not double-balanced.Radar detectors use simple diode mixers from their receiving antenna, driven by a suitable local oscillator, where the isolation is much worse.TEMPEST is an interesting concept. Modern equipment must pass emissions testing to avoid interference with other systems, but TEMPEST is a tighter security specification for when the emissions might contain information of strategic value.When I first read of it, one had to show a need-to-know to find the actual specification, and ones supervisor could not access the specification unless he showed his need-to-know.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 05:41:10 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on January 08, 2025, 05:33:23 pmThat's true of most defence related specifications. The basics of TEMPEST are not classified, as the basics are just screen, screen, screen. The details are classified.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 05:52:02 pm
content: Quote from: pdenisowski on January 08, 2025, 04:38:34 pmMaybe they could start using it to detect people watching BBC TV fromhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayerI first saw a demonstration of remote viewing of a raster scan image in the 1980s, when we were first required to get serious about TEMPEST compliance. That was with a CRT, and I think the receiver was picking up radiation from the tube itself. What are they picking up strongly enough to reconstruct the raster from an LCD display?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 06:08:50 pm
content: I really doubt TEMPEST can work with modern LVDS signals as used inside LCD/OLED TVs - there simply isn't going to be enough radiated information there, and the encoding will be 8b10b or similar which means that a single incorrectly received bit makes the decoded codeword completely wrong (and creates no obvious difference between full white and full black data). You could make it work with VGA and/or CRT monitors because the analog signal provides just enough information to distinguish text and items on a computer monitor.

author: Postal2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 06:52:05 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 06:08:50 pmIt can work. With a specially selected picture and a specially selected laptop, at a distance of about one meter.Quote from: coppice on January 08, 2025, 05:52:02 pmThis was done by an optical sensor from a remote CRT, which has low afterglow.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 06:55:37 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 06:08:50 pmTEMPEST is actually a specification for securing sensitive information. It involves Faraday cages, product screening and other measures. The TEMPEST receiver is a test set to verify that the screening is adequate to meet the residual emissions requirements.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 07:01:25 pm
content: Its also designed to be future proofed for cold war paranoia, so just in case someone managed to get 20db lower noise on a new wonder weapon receiver you don't have to rebuild all your 'security infrastructure'I think now the real problem is 'add on software' , not sure if anyone would seriously consider more tempest instead of making a better worm?It seems like a pretty scifi concept, compared to a computer virus, which is well proven, makes alot of money each year, basically impossible to trace (though now you can probobly get some 'AI signature' possibly showing what they used to make more advanced ones) etcBTW for radar detectors, that is usually a directional horn antenna. that really focuses the power down.TV I don't know. FM radio, it seems that most would be just a rod antenna that is omnidirectional.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 07:08:08 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on January 08, 2025, 07:01:25 pmIt wasn't paranoia. A lot of interesting tricks have been used to extract information from opponents, and its not specifically a cold war issue. Practically all governments spy on anyone they can get away with all the time. The FVEY program may look like five buddy buddy countries, but you can be sure each of those five is endlessly spying on the other four.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 07:15:26 pm
content: The only 'good' one I heard of was the underwater spy bug the CIA made that clips onto fiber optics.It seems like usually the NSA is doing things with code more then anything else.Maybe its different in highly classified areas like space, it seems like the only place you can get giant ass complicated radios next to something important with impunity and some black paintand probably embassies, no one ever gives out info about those

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 07:56:12 pm
content: Sanitized CIA report:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000100310007-3.pdfThis underwater caper involved putting a sensor near an underwater cable on the sea floor, near Kamchatka.The Soviets would periodically pull the cable up to check for damage or penetration, to no avail, until the cover was blown by treachery.https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/operation-ivy-bells-the-us-top-secret-program-that-wiretapped-a-soviet-undersea-cable

author: valcher
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 08:47:17 pm
content: What amazing stories I learned from you, in the Soviet Union there were never any licenses for radio and television. Yes, we had few TV channels and they were all state-owned, many programs were aimed at praising communism, but there were also educational, entertaining, cultural, educational, and educational programs. We only paid for the use of a collective antenna in apartment buildings, and in private homes we installed our own antennas. Probably, some part of the money was included in the cost of televisions and radio receivers, but if you assembled your own television or receiver, no one demanded anything from you.Now, in the era of the Internet, everything has changed, terrestrial television has not yet died, but radio stations remain mainly only on the FM range.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 09:26:20 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on January 07, 2025, 09:23:03 pmThe make spot checks. It was most likely a coincidence. I've had a note through the door, which was a form, filled out by the licence inspector telling me they've called and will visit again, even though I wasn't there at the time and didn't have a TV switched on.Don't worry. You have no legal obligation to allow them into your property or even speak to them. The correct response would have been to simply say no and close the door.Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 10:21:26 amThat's true. I suspect that, even it was possible to detect an analogue TV, it was simply impractical to do so in populated areas and it's not worth their time to visit sparsely populated places.QuoteThey should just make a subscription service, like any other.Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 03:14:40 pmWhy?That was never the case before TV and radio. You didn't pay a for a licence/tax to buy a newspaper/magazine, so you can receive a government newspaper.The idea seems somewhat bizarre to me. All that's happens is the public broadcaster favours whatever political party is in favour of investing more. Any party who wants to cut back, will receive more bad press. To be fair this somewhat affects all radio and TV stations, due to how the RF spectrum is licenced, but it's not so strong.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 09:36:48 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 10:21:26 amI expect you are right about the current situation. However, a friend saw one working in the late 70s, and described it to me. Typical residential streets scanned OK, but flats defeated them. TVs were a lot less sophisticated then, and signals leaked like a sieve. These days, with an emphasis on EMI/EMC, things are very different. The signals they can look for are also very different, and a lot more diverse.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 09:51:03 pm
content: For those who didn't realize, older TV and radios LO oscillator was mixed with the antenna signal coming in and it also literally leaked and radiated out through the same antenna the TVs and radios used to receive their broadcasts.Yes, you can see each LO on these TV prior to the mid 90s with ease by a few houses in each direction.When sniffing with a directional antenna and spectrum analyzer, you can easily narrow down to every 1 to 2 houses.Everyone who says this is impossible never played with this equipment in the 70s and 80s. The signals are there visualized in spikes on the cheap analog RF spectrum analyzers of the time and the changes in their amplitude is easily seen on said spectrum analyzers of the time just by rotating your directional antenna.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 10:28:13 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 08, 2025, 09:36:48 pmIf they were a thing then why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 10:32:34 pm
content: A few years ago a public information film was broadcast on the TV here in the UK. It was very brief and to the point:"A list of all the addresses without a TV licence. That's all we need."I think it was addressing the (correct) growing awareness that digital services had rendered the old vans ineffective.

author: Postal2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 10:34:17 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 08, 2025, 10:28:13 pmThe license violators were tortured and were unable to tell anything.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 11:00:04 pm
content: Quote from: Postal2 on January 08, 2025, 10:34:17 pmCourt records of course.Quote from: SteveThackery on January 08, 2025, 10:32:34 pmWhich is a load of bollocks because just because an address is unlicensed, it doesn't mean it requires one. It's equivalent to saying "A list of people without driving licences."

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 11:27:04 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2025, 10:21:26 amI don't get it, perhaps due to my ignorance of the situation over there.Do people get BBC content over the air? If so, that would explain things; no way for them to really know whether you're consuming their programming or not.But if it's over cable, then wouldn't it work the same as here in the US where you get billed for a cable connection, and the connection goes dead if you don't pay?

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 11:41:37 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 08, 2025, 11:00:04 pmif a TV means you require a license what microscopic fraction of households doesn't need one?

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 11:44:19 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on January 08, 2025, 10:32:34 pmthe vans have been pointless for half a century, why bother with detecting when +99% of households have a TV? just visit the few that pretend they don't have one

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2025, 11:53:53 pm
content: [quote author=Analog Kid link=topic=449663.msg5776183#msg5776183 date=1736378824I don't get it, perhaps due to my ignorance of the situation over there.Do people get BBC content over the air? If so, that would explain things; no way for them to really know whether you're consuming their programming or not.But if it's over cable, then wouldn't it work the same as here in the US where you get billed for a cable connection, and the connection goes dead if you don't pay?In some countries outside of the USA, the funding mechanism for national broadcasting is a license fee on receivers. Here, the discussion is mainly about the BBC in the UK. Another example is Japan’s NHK, who employ door-to-door collection agents. Any compulsory payment scheme is bound to be controversial in that country.The Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago reports that two-thirds of countries in Europe and half of countries in Asia and Africa use television licences to fund public television. Television licensing is rare in the Americas.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 12:12:51 am
content: You didn't address my question: in the UK is that content sent over the air or by cable?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 12:15:57 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 12:12:51 amYes.Okay, less snarky: We have terrestrial transmission, cable, satellite, and streaming services covering broadcast television.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 12:20:21 am
content: I wanna see this working on video, because people still have old tv's and also spectrum analyzers

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 12:20:59 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2025, 12:15:57 amSo therefore some customers get TV over the air, so it seems to me those would be the only ones where there's any kind of problem getting them to pay a license fee: anyone who uses a wire can be disconnected for non-payment.Are there still a lot of over-the-air users there? Don't know what the figure is here in the US but I assume it's pretty small.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 12:27:36 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 12:20:59 amThe licence is not collected by the cable providers, and presence of cable does not imply use of TV services as they also offer internet connectivity.QuoteEveryone, more or less. We pay a licence, it pays for a transmission network.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 12:32:29 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 08, 2025, 11:41:37 pmHaving a TV does not require a licence in the UK. Watching live TV does. Yeah, its weird. When they needed to accommodate the internet they altered the rules to be around watching things live from a broadcast, whether over air, cable, internet, satellite or anything else. If I only watch video on demand from Netflix, Youtube, and so on I don't need a TV licence. A growing number of people are like this. We don't have a TV licence. 3 years ago when it came to renewal time we realised it was months since we had last watched anything requiring one, and the number of people like us seems to be growing quite rapidly from published licence figures.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 01:32:02 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on January 09, 2025, 12:20:21 amThis should demonstrate the initial functional point...Quote from: BrianHG on January 08, 2025, 01:27:51 amAs for someone with a RF spectrum which was designed to receive ~50 MHz to -> ~300 Mhz, you might be able to do this with a good SDR receiver which can sweep a wide band really fast.Then all you need is an old TV set to a known channel or FM radio which radiates within that window and scan away.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 01:34:27 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 12:12:51 amI might be wrong, but when it comes to Cable TV in the UK, the cable TV package usually had the government TV licensing fee built in to the cable bill. This spec I heard once from faded memory, so I am not sure.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 01:40:43 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 09, 2025, 01:34:27 amI ask again: in the UK, do most people get their TV over the air or by cable?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 01:47:47 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 01:40:43 amWhy do you ask the Canadian?Nearly everyone has access to terrestrial transmissions. Whether they prefer to receive those or use a free or paid satellite or a paid cable service is their business and irrelevant to the collection of the licence.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 02:07:03 am
content: QuoteI got my tv from a shop.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 02:13:31 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2025, 01:47:47 amYeah, I got that; same sitch here in the US. Everyone (for the most part, except those way out in the boonies) has access to over-the-air signals; few use that, though, compared to cable/satellite users.QuoteBut the question is still unanswered:Do most people in the UK get their TV over the air or from cable?Sheesh. It's not that hard a question.(My guess™ is "no".)

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 03:36:54 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 02:13:31 amI answered it several posts ago, actually.Would it help if I explain that around half the population doesn't even have access to cable?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:18:35 am
content: OK; so around half of people (households) in the UK receive TV over the air. Gotcha.I'll only add that this is surprising to me; I would have thought that the country (countries) would be as well-wired as the US is. There must be reasons ...

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:22:41 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 04:18:35 amNo, but that's a nice conclusion to leap to if you want to appease your guesses. As I said, just about everyone uses terrestrial - even those who have chosen to pay for cable or satellite very often only use those on one set out of several. I would put the number of TV watching households actively using terrestrial transmission far closer to 90% than 50%.QuoteYes, we built a transmission infrastructure using the funding from the licence, because it was vastly more economic than running coax to every property.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:29:09 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2025, 04:22:41 amSo you couldn't have just fucking said that, say, about 10 posts ago?Sheesh. I'm done.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:32:51 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 04:29:09 amQuote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2025, 12:27:36 amFirst world problems..

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:38:34 am
content: Analog Kid: remember that current method of reception is meaningless relative to the topic of the thread, which was a historical situation.Both in Europe and in North America TV distribution was virtually 100% over the air in the 1940s and 1950s. In North America cable distribution started creeping in in the 1960s, mostly to address localities that were not economical to reach with over the air transmissions. Valleys in mountainous regions, or small towns a long ways from places large enough to support a TV station. Distribution of TV over cable in urban markets in the US was a late 1970s to 1980s phenomenon. Addition of digital streaming another 10 years later. I suspect that the pattern in Europe was not greatly different.What has varied greatly over the world is the way of funding these transmissions.I don't believe that armies of vans covered the country reading LO transmissions. But I find dozens of vans surveying selected markets very credible. Remember the inverse square law works for you when you are close. People demonstrate transoceanic transmission regularly with 10 W transmitters. So a van driving by a house at a distance of 10 meters has a million to one signal strength advantage over the receiver across an ocean. A 10 microwatt leakage is enough to get the same signal level. There are bandwidth differences and a couple of other issues so it isn't quite as easy, but the leakage is often more than 10 microwatts as mentioned previously. Be sure to check your intuition with numbers before you take a strong position on anything.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 05:00:07 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 09, 2025, 04:38:34 amAlright; but what explains the large discrepancy between what I'm told is ~90% of UK viewers still receiving signals over the air vs. a much lower fraction in the US? (Don't know the number but it's a lot less than 90%.)I don't think of the UK as a technologically backward place, so I'm assuming that isn't the reason.BTW, I've never had cable (or satellite) myself, and I do miss my old pre-digital OTA TV. But not much.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 08:24:29 am
content: I think you're missing something.There are public and private broadcasters.There are also commercial and non commercial broadcasters.Later it changed so that broadcasters became content providers and actual broadcasters were different entities.In UK the TV license is only for BBC, commercial ITV was not part of it.Here those parts were YLE and MTV.But the commercial part used public aerial transmitters.Here a list of "rouge" addresses were judged illegal.It's a tax like YLE payment now, so no "private eyes" needed anymore, and they were actually officials.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 08:27:44 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 08, 2025, 11:00:04 pmThats essentially how it works in germany now.All adresses have to pay. Wether you have a TV or radio or not.Before that, you also had to pay for computers.The gist was: You have to pay for every device that *can* receive radio or television. It does not matter if you use it or not, if it can receive, you have to pay.Internet radio was a thing, and computers *can* connect to the internet, so you have to pay for them. Graciously only the reduced rate for a radio though :pSo essentially this boiled down to "everyone has to pay" anyway.So to get rid of the buerocracy (yeah, yeah, unbelievable in germany) the government changed licensing to be household based.Every household pays. Regardless of how many or if any devices are present.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 08:59:19 am
content: Quote from: m k on January 09, 2025, 08:24:29 amThat's true, but a TV licence is still required to receive commerical broadcasts, even though the broadcasters don't receive any money from it.Quote from: langwadt on January 08, 2025, 11:41:37 pmWhat makes you think it's a small number of households who don't need a TV licenece?A TV licence isn't required to own a TV. It's only required to watch TV live, as it's being broadcast and iPlayer, the BBC's online streaming platform.There are a large number of people nowadays who don't watch live TV or use iPlayer. They use other streaming services.I dare say there are more of households who have a TV licence, but don't need one, than the other way round. That was the case for me. I stopped watching TV for awhile, then I realised, I no longer needed a licence, so I cancelled it.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 09:04:36 am
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 09, 2025, 08:27:44 amBack in the 1970s, the Australian government decided that the cost of administering Radio & TV Receiving licenses was greater than the revenue received & abolished them.The broadcasting environment in Australia included both taxpayer owned stations (the ABC), & privately owned Commercial stations, so it was easier to just finance the ABC from general taxation.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 09:24:08 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 08, 2025, 09:51:03 pmImportantly, there was far less "crud" polluting the spectrum in earlier years as switch mode supplies were virtually unknown & there weren't the other incidental radiators to contend with.I do think that the vans were probably more useful for obtaining statistics, rather than chasing down individuals.If a building showed strong LO signals on the standard channels used by the BBC, say, that building might be of interest for "follow up" activity.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:05:33 am
content: QuoteThat is so sensible I can't believe any government could accept it, never mind actually implement it

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:35:39 am
content: QuoteThe reason begins with t and ends in bitch,There were plans to fiber up the majority of the country way back in the 80's,but the cost made it look like the publicly owned company carrying out the work wasn't very profitable and that dont look good when your about to flog off said public company to make the country's books look good.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:40:06 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 08, 2025, 11:00:04 pmOf course, but it's not bollocks because the vast majority of addresses do have a TV licence, so it tells the enforcers where to concentrate their efforts.Having no TV licence does not mean you are automatically breaking the law, obviously, but it is an indicator that youmightbe whereas an address with a TV licence isn't breaking the law and isn't worth a knock on the door.I know you understand that really - perhaps you should take a breath before replying so intemperately.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:47:40 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 08, 2025, 11:41:37 pmA TV does not mean you require a licence. The point of "the list of addresses without a licence" is to allow the enforcers to not waste time on the licenced households and just make enquiries on the few households without a licence. It does not mean they are breaking the law, only that theymightbe.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:52:25 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 09, 2025, 12:32:29 amTo be more specific, watching "near live" TV also requires a licence, PLUS watching ANYTHING on iPlayer (the BBC's streaming service) regardless of when it was broadcast.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 11:03:56 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 04:18:35 amIt's just not that simple. Firstly, most households with a TV have an antenna or dish for watching broadcast television. Most households also have a broadband connection to the Internet which they use for streaming TV. Some streaming material is from the broadcasters, so its the same stuff that gets broadcast; some material is from the smaller players who only stream online, not broadcast. The key point is that it all gets carried over the Internet (using the UDP protocol, so no compelled packets)."Cable TV" - whereby several channels are transported over a dedicated cable to the premises which carries only TV and radio channels and nothing else* - has never been as big in the UK as traditional broadcasting and I suspect is completely obsolete by now.* I recall my grandparents had a cable service from Redifusion back in the 60s. It was a coax with a switch box on the end.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 11:11:59 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on January 09, 2025, 11:03:56 amSome people also receive over the air TV, even though they have good broadband. It means you can watch TV and it doesn't reduce broadband bandwitdth for others in the house who are using the Internet.Quote from: SteveThackery on January 09, 2025, 10:40:06 amPerhaps you shouldn't be offended so easily. If you read it again, you'll find I didn't say you were talking bollocks. My anger was obviously not aimed at you, but the public information film which I recall was deliberately misleading. Using a list of unlicenced addresses to send out reminder letters to (these are often worded in a threatening manner, but that's another story) is fine, but using it as part of a scare campaign is unacceptable.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 11:44:02 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 09, 2025, 09:04:36 amRevenue for german TV licensing was a whopping 9.02 billion Euro in 2023.This is only used for the public TV and radio stations. We have two main TV stations, a number of generalized regional stations (i think it's five or six), with even more regionalized news programming. And a some more specialized ones. There is also Arte, a collaboration between France and Germany.There is also the "Mediathek", comparable with iPlayer. But due to german competition law, shows *cannot* be permanently available, as the public stations are not allowed to directly compete with commercial stations since they are "subsidized"From what i know from the top of my head, a majority of costs of the public stations are pensions. And sports rights are also quite expensive.

author: pdenisowski
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 01:54:35 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on January 09, 2025, 12:20:21 amI don't have an old TV lying around, but I spent over a decade doing interference hunting and direction finding in the field (domestically and internationally) as part of my job working for a major test equipment manufacturer. I will admit that in the > 100 cases I worked, I never had to identify and track down a television set, but I found plenty of LO signals, including ones originating inside of concrete-walled buildings containing lots of other electronic devices. It's really not that hard if you have the right equipment (receiver and directional antenna) and a little bit of experience.I'll see if I can set up and record a similar test using a modern TV.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 02:41:58 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 09, 2025, 11:44:02 amAnd despite that much money and the official task to inform and educate we get mostly just (poor) entertainment. It's a disgrace!Quote from: Ranayna on January 09, 2025, 11:44:02 amIn total 21 TV and 70 radio stations/programs (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_%C3%B6ffentlich-rechtlichen_Programme_in_Deutschland, in German). BTW, Arte is one of the very few TV programs living up to the task of public-service broadcasting.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 02:44:56 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 04:18:35 amThe reason is there was little interest in cable until the 80s. However, satellites were going up at around the same time, and putting up a small dish antenna was cheaper than wiring each home. It took a while, and some bankruptcies, but eventual Sky's satellite service developed a fairly big market, and cable never got that big. They only wired up the denser neighbourhoods, where the cost per home was lower.Currently we can get the main TV channels from terrestrial broadcast, satellite broadcast, cable or internet. I don't think there are figures for how many people currently use each option, but a lot of people still use the terrestrial broadcasts. The TV licence is unrelated to the medium you use. If you watch live TV through any medium, even watching only foreign TV channels over satellites or the internet, you need a TV licence.Especially for young people, live TV is not part of their day, even for immediate things like news or sports. The BBC and ITV channels used to provide a lot of good stuff to watch, but they are now largely irrelevant, and the viewing figures for the most popular shows are way below those from the heyday of broadcast TV. So, the number of licences is falling. I think its dropping at about 500k per annum.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 02:57:45 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 09, 2025, 09:24:08 amYup, switching supplies from wall warts many LED lights, even toys as well as laptops and PC have raised the background noise level a ton. Not to mention all the new gadgets which communicate wirelessly like car key fobs. The spectrum has become a mess.In the 1980s, I could get a wireless phone operating on 25 & 50mhz region fine with ridiculous distance. Today, they would be nothing but all noise. Even the 5.1ghz phone can have problems unless they are digital and have channel switching.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 03:07:54 pm
content: Quote from: pdenisowski on January 09, 2025, 01:54:35 pmThat might make a great Youtube video (or is TikTok the in thing for youngsters now).This kind of thing is of the class that seems impossible and a joke to think of for most sensible people, but which surprises by someone actually achieving it. The now well-known and exploitable SPECTRE CPU issue, for instance, would have seemed a bad idea before working code appeared. Logging keystrokes by monitoring the power supply seems equally far fetched has been demonstrated.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 03:32:26 pm
content: QuoteA distant part of my memory is saying the original bsb,complete with squaerial, didn't require a tv license,am i remembering that correct?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:21:47 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 05:00:07 amWhy would you think of it as technologically backward?The explanation was also contained in my post - the licence pays for broadcast infrastructure, which doesn't require taking cable to every property. Satellite infrastructure exists and is quite commonplace for additional, directly paid channels. If you don't want any of them, why fork out for a subscription to them or for additional hardware to receive them?

author: Postal2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:44:39 pm
content: If you are watching a movie with a blue sky and suddenly a red commercial comes on, the change in spectrum can be detected optically at a great distance.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:52:51 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2025, 04:21:47 pmThe broadcast infrastructure is paid for by the TV companies that use it, not the licence. The licence vaguely pays for the BBC, although in practice its just money passing through the government like any other tax.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 04:57:46 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 09, 2025, 04:52:51 pmIncluded among those companies is the BBC, funded by the licence - and the infrastructure was rolling out long before there were more than a handful of companies and channels.Of course, I'm always open to seeing a detailed breakdown of funding for the infrastructure. Site by site would be nice.

author: pdenisowski
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 06:24:13 pm
content: Given the number of people from the UK on this thread, I'm very surprised no one has mentioned the cat detector van yethttps://youtu.be/M5MnyRZLd8A?t=174"I never seen so many bleedin’ aerials. The man said their equipment could pinpoint a purr at four hundred yards, and Eric being such a happy cat was a piece of cake."

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 06:31:05 pm
content: Does it have to be the German girl to address the title of this thread directlyJust read this:BURLING, K. G. and FANNING, J. C.. A New Detection System for Television and V.H.F. Radio Receivers. P.O.E.E.J. Vol. 55, p. 219, Jan. 1963.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/POEEJ/60s/Post-Office-Electrical-Engineers-Journal-1963-01.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijsrO1n-mKAxXeZ0EAHV0DGKYQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0EMyXjQF1V_WAIRPXXktVs

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 06:40:02 pm
content: That article from 1963 states that the prior system involved detecting radiation from the horizontal deflection system (reasonably high power at 15,625 Hz), and the new system detected radiation from local oscillators (called "frequency-changing oscillator"). A problem with the latter is that receivers use different intermediate frequencies: that is discussed in the paper.In the former system, the horizontal deflection frequency for different transmissions (ITA and BBC) differ slightly, and the resulting radiation from more than one receiver will have a heavy beat effect. Also noted is the increase in interference from other low-frequency systems, including automobiles.There are good photographs of an automobile with a large antenna on its roof (suitable for conspiracy theorists) and other equipment (including a periscope to locate the source), along with a description of the "panoramic receiver", which is an older term for spectrum analyzer.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 07:23:56 pm
content: The early detection system in the UK utilising the radiation from the horizontal deflection system was because that very early receivers wereoftenTuned Radio Frequency, as they were single channel (BBC) sets and therefore did not have local oscillators, so although the technological knowhow would have been available to detect the LO, it wouldn't have been of any value. Superhets only became universal with the introduction of ITV in 1955.Both BBC and The later ITV service used a line frequency of 10,125Hz which was 405 lines, and was transmitted on band 1 and 3 VHF, it was only later that the BBC2 service was started on UHF with the 15,625 Hz 625 line horizontal timebase on band 5.X

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 07:59:51 pm
content: Was early BBC television transmitted on only one channel (per locality) for very long?A TRF set is practicable for a single preset frequency, but superheterodyne with LO is much better for selecting between multiple frequencies.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 08:22:28 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on January 09, 2025, 07:59:51 pmYes. The UK had only one BBC channel until 1955. Then regional commercial channels began, one in each region, referred to as ITV.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 09:41:57 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2025, 04:21:47 pmWhat, are you baiting me? Please reread my comment: I said Idon'tthink of the UK as being technologically backward.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 09:51:02 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 09, 2025, 09:24:08 amStill, I read about things like simple refrigerator compressors blocking microwave wifi. I am almost sure that there could have been poorly maintained motors that do all kinds of havok to measurements. Like elevator, appliance, alternators on the street from cars, etc. I still think you must have had a fair bit of crap to deal with, even back then. Now I would think its basically impossible lolApparently simple electromechanial street lights could make up to 10Ghz interference! Especially with how shoddy some switches on lower cost things used to be before they come up with good platings, not to mention good brushes. And this was before everyone replaced everything (coins in the fuse box).While there is less guaranteed RF sources, I think you had enough shoddy electrical engineering and maintenance practices that must have made it at least difficult or temperamental. And poor knowledge of ground bonding techniques outside of advanced places like radio stations, bad weathering on shield infrastructure, poor electrical jointery. I noticed unless its something expensive, things looked mega shoddyand crappy insulating arcing.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:02:14 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 09:41:57 pm*sigh*Why do you equate terrestrial broadcast with being technologically backwards?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:18:32 pm
content: OK, maybe not backwards, but my prejudice, if I have one here, is that it seems like an inferior method in some ways (multipath, interference, weak signal strength, etc.), compared to cable or satellite. Of course it does have its advantages too, certainly less and simpler infrastructure for one.I will say that this whole thread has been an eye-opener for me, as I knew practically nothing about how people receive TV in the UK.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:30:28 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 10:18:32 pmThe UK is smaller than the US, so most people are not a crazy distance from a transmitter. Most houses with the modest sized aerial on the roof get a very clear signal. My parent's house had an issue with a tower at the end of the road blocking enough direct signal to a rooftop antenna, leaving them with the ghosty picture made up mostly of reflections. We put an aerial on a pole at the end of the garden, where it saw past the tower. With a cheap amp at the aerial, to boost the signal to overcome losses in the extra 50m of cable down the garden, they got a very clean signal with no visible ghosting. Of course, now we have all digital broadcast TV none of the degradation issues matter.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:35:18 pm
content: also that makes me wonder for this van, would it not need to have a tall antenna to receive emissions from the high up antennas? near the ground things suck

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:42:11 pm
content: In the article cited by Xena E abovehttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/POEEJ/60s/Post-Office-Electrical-Engineers-Journal-1963-01.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijsrO1n-mKAxXeZ0EAHV0DGKYQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0EMyXjQF1V_WAIRPXXktVsthere is a clear photo of a large antenna assembly atop a normal automobile.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:52:26 pm
content: For some reason that looks so veddy veddy British to me:

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 10:55:28 pm
content: lmfao the driver of that thing has nerves of steelalso where is the video footage of them chasing it down the street in the wind

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 11:00:51 pm
content: This whole thread puts me in mind of a song from long ago:Quote

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2025, 11:23:50 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 11:00:51 pmA Laffer minute.

author: Canis Dirus Leidy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 12:34:24 am
content: Quote from: valcher on January 08, 2025, 08:47:17 pmNot quite. Since the mid-twenties, a subscription fee has been charged 'per receiver' (official justification: broadcasting network maintenance), so they had to be registered on time to avoid a fine. In 1961, this fee was dropped, and, "to reimburse the costs of broadcasting", prices for radio equipment were raised by 15-20% instead.1. The value of which depended on the type of receiver. In the thirties, the simplest crystal set receiver cost three rubles per year, and a mains-powered tube radio cost 24/year.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 01:11:13 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 09, 2025, 08:22:28 pmThe potted history of UK television standards...1928 to 1936 several competing mechanical and electronic scanned systems were trialed.The first regular "EMI electronic" 405 line system BBC television transmissions (1936 onward), were all on channels within the low VHF band 1.What was common as the setmakers were exclusively domestic, was that the sets would be manufactured to cater for the individual channels, so sets were dispatched to dealers with the relevant tuning already carried out for the local reception, regardless of whether TRF or Superhet.With the start of commercial TV, (ITV) in 1955, that was transmitted all on band 3. Dual band antennas were works of art.Both used positive going video and AM sound, .With the advent of the 625 UHF BBC 2 television service in the early 1960s, the proneness of the VHF system to picture and sound disturbance by poorly suppressed interference was addressed by the use of negative going picture luminance modulation, (so interference spikes would not be displayed as peak white), and the sound was transmitted as FM. As a concequence, the production of dual standard television receivers was complex for manufacturers.Within a few years all channels were moved to the 625 UHF service and were transmitted with the compatible PAL Colour system.The VHF transmitters of the old two band VHF 405 system being finally shut down in 1984.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 02:14:49 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 10, 2025, 01:11:13 amThank you. I never considered that aspect of using a negative going picture modulation scheme.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 08:15:26 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on January 09, 2025, 09:51:02 pmThat reminds me...This report made it even into german tech media:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-54239180An old TV caused an ongoing internet outage in a village. A lot of stuff was done in vain before the TV was found out to be the culprit.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 08:19:46 am
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 10, 2025, 08:15:26 amSo they tell us that the old TV was the source of the RFI emission that caused the outage, but what internet device was knocked out by it? A broadband repeater? Sounds like it must not have been very well protected for that to have happened.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 05:17:58 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 09, 2025, 10:30:28 pmI had a 2m 11GHz satellite system with polar mount through the '90s and on, never upgraded it to 12GHz and digital though.It was very practical, raw feeds and stuff.Few transmitters were also dedicated to our local feeds, so cable was not needed, not available either, too far.Later came pay TV and sort of a mini disc receiver, for some time few aerial feeds through satellite continued to be free.Currently satellite TV is probably all gone, aerial digital feeds are still there and updating, DVB-T is changing to DVB-T2 in few months.Some may wonder why not directly to DVB-T2, it's only few years ago when the whole thing started.I guess old analog transmitters were not accurate enough.For spooks,spying secure fax using acoustic noise and skipping the whole encrypted part was pretty clever, and it actually worked.Early "RFID" by the Great Seal bug wasn't dumb either.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 06:57:50 pm
content: The "Great Seal Bug" in the US embassy in Moscow, was apparently designed by Lev Terman, the inventor of the theremin (from the French spelling of his name).It was very clever: a microwave cavity with one face forming an acoustic diaphragm, was excited from a narrow microwave beam from outside the building, and the reflected beam was modulated due to the resonant frequency changing with local sound pressure. It was totally passive, so not detected when external microwaves were not present.The US ambassador to the UN, Henry Cabot Lodge, showed this device to the General Assembly in 1960 when the US government was scrambling to account for their U2 espionage flights over the Soviet Union; it had been discovered earlier (1951). It was embedded in a carved wooden Great Seal of the United States, presented in 1945 when the US and USSR were still allies. I was only 10 at the time, but I remember TV news coverage of that UN meeting.The Wikipedia article has technical details: apparently the fundamental frequency was 330 MHz, but operated at overtones.I built a theremin for myself years ago, after reading a good biography of Terman. He spent a long time in the US, but returned to the USSR just in time to get in trouble with Stalin and sent to the Gulag. He was yanked back when the Soviet government needed his expertise during the war. He did make a short return to the US before his death in 1993.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 09:11:45 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 02:13:31 amThat is absolutely not true. There are still large parts of the rural US where cable TV (or cable internet) is not available and those people still rely entirely on over the air TV. Also there are huge numbers of consumers in the US that are "cutting the cable" due to the huge monthly costs of cable TV and they're going back to over the air TV. I just changed the connections of my TV literally two days ago so that I now receive all of the local stations over the air instead of via the cable and the reception is better and I don't get the lags due to cable companies crappy software AND I now receive99different local stations instead of just the FOUR that my cable company rebroadcast.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2025, 09:21:21 pm
content: Well, then I stand (sit, actually) corrected.I'd be curious to see what the actual figures are for different transmission methods in the US. Have to look that up, I guess.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 05:11:55 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 10, 2025, 02:14:49 amIt isn't the only reason, an equally important one is that as signal strengths fall, picture sync is the last thing to fail.In the early days of TV in Australia, when country transmitter sites were rare, it was not unusual to see a fully locked, but very noisy picture at places well outside even the "fringe area" of the city station.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 05:26:12 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 11, 2025, 05:11:55 amI guess I could imagine that with poorly designed sync separator circuitry with very wide PLL locking circuitry due to age/temperature drift in old tube TV circuit designs.Sync locking onto the snowiest most garbage source video signals appeared to not be a problem at all with TV receivers in the mid 70s here in North America. I guess a gated pll locking scheme sifted out the 15.7khz and 60hz syncs and just didn't care much about the noise. Just passing the source video from the tuner through a very low pass filter, like below ~500khz, left you with a clearly visible visible video sync even on the noisiest junk imaginable directly coming from the tuner unfiltered.

author: special_K
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 06:14:41 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 09, 2025, 10:18:32 pmTerrestrial UHF broadcast is very popular in the UK for a very simple reason: it is free, and everyone knows about it.Unlike in the USA, every TV Station serving a region will all share one transmission tower. These are extremely high power (In the analogue days, Winter Hill put out 2 megawatts across four channels), and serve about a 40 mile radius depending on geography. There is no tradition of indoor antennas, instead everyone has a rooftop yagi-uda, if not several - one for each room of the house!There was no commercial TV stations until the very late 1980s, at which time all-europe satellite stations began to exist on the C band with the giant dishes. So until that time, there was no point to having Cable TV unless there was a mountain between your house and the transmitter tower. For those unfortunate people there was "rediffusion", which was a service which used special stripped down TV sets with no tuner or IF section, and you changed channel by turning a control knob mounted near the window frame. The TV was of course rented from the rediffusion company. This system was just a bunch of distribution amplifiers and wires zigzagging from rooftop to rooftop, it had no provision for commercial TV features like pay-per-view or even to cut off service if you stop paying - because if you stopped paying they just came to your house and took the tv.In 1990 BSB and Sky, both satellite TV providers started their service. You got only 4 new stations, neither had anything good, mostly just old movies or cartoons, or news. But it had the advantage that you just had a man come and fit a dish to the wall of your house. A little later, "American style" cable TV services carrying commercial stations begin but took a very long time to roll out and only become significant in the 2000s, and are not nationwide.In the 2000s satellite dishes was everywhere, and there was much more stations. I think 100 or so? All the impressive American sounding ones like disney channel, MTV, Cartoon Network etc. Pay per view features like sky box office.Despite this, every house which has a satellite dish is also basically guaranteed to also be using terrestrial TV, because installing a satellite receiver box in each room is expensive. Satellite becomes less and less attractive as the attractive American style commercial stations are all closing down and replaced with streaming services. It's common for people in their 20s and early 30s to have a TV connected to the internet for netflix but not pay for satellite or cable.Terrestrial got a strong second wind as the digital transition allows 100ish stations to exist on it, all funded by advertising. These stations are mostly showing cheap low budget shows and 60s/70s/80s/90s reruns, which is very attractive and comforting to the remaining - frankly elderly - TV watching audience. So terrestrial is probably going to outlive the expensive subscription services.What I think is interesting, and a little backwards, is how uncommon Terrestrial is in the USA.A lot of peoplehave no idea that you can still pick up TV with an Antenna, and are paying for "basic cable", which is just the free channels but for money. This seems to be a failure to communicate the Digital transition, with people becoming misinformed into thinking that over-the-air just vanished.As far as TV Detector vans go, the principle of operation is very simple. They have a list of every residential address in the UK. They also have an address of every house which bought a TV License. subtract one from the other.There are no court records of any TV Detector equipment being used in prosecution. There are a few of the vans from different eras surviving into preservation, but all are entirely empty inside with no witness marks from equipment having been installed in the past. The stuff on the roof is faked, it's fibreglass and stuff from hardware stores glued together and painted. The only people claiming that they worked were the TV Licensing people themselves, who refused to demonstrate it. Make of that what you will.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 09:12:41 am
content: Quote from: special_K on January 11, 2025, 06:14:41 amThis is incorrect, commercial broadcasting started in 1955 in the UK

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 12:41:01 pm
content: The big issue with terrestial is it uses a lot of bandwidth for relatively little content. RF bandwidth is precious. Freeview DVB-T2 only supports at most 13 FHD channels in 1080i60 with the current multiplex arrangement. Forget about 4K, HDR or anything like that. Very easy to do that over the internet, and then the terrestrial bands can be freed up for future phone connectivity or long range wireless applications (there's a shortage of bandwidth in the sub-800MHz band that Freeview uses.) Bring on the death of terrestrial television, I welcome it.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 02:08:34 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 11, 2025, 05:26:12 amThe only TV systems which used positive modulation were the UK 405 line system & the old French 819 line system.Both the North American 525 line & the European originated 625 line systems used negative modulation from the start.Anything you saw in NA would benefit from the advantages of that modulation system, just as the Australian ones around 20 years earlier did, as I pointed out.Another advantage of negative modulation was that the horizontal sync pulses & their associated black/ blanking level signals offered a standard DC level in the video waveform, which allowed automatic level control of the transmitted RF signal.In 1971, on a visit to the UK, I had the opportunity to watch a dual standard BW TV.Conveniently, there was a Commercial (ITV) station with a both a 405 & 625 line outlet, so I could switch back & forth.I expected to see a noticeable difference in resolution between the two systems, but that was barely discernible.What I did notice was that on some ads, the screen suddenly went from a relatively normal grey to bright white with text upon it.With those, the 625 line system had no problems, but with the 405 line positive modulation system, the TV would momentarily lose vertical sync.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 10:29:58 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on January 11, 2025, 09:12:41 amI think special_k post looks like it was AI generated, it is mostly bollocks.The commercial TV companies were started in 1955 as you said, the first commercial radio station in late 1973.There were no 2MW UHF television transmitters operating within the UK, the most powerful were Sutton Coldfield, Crystal Palace and Sandy Heath all at 1MW.And... functioning detector vans did exist! At least during the days of analogue television, there were however very few of them. They were operated by the GPO but their main mode of operation was to be sent to areas where there was a high proportion of households that had sales of receivers credited to them, but who didnothave licences, the vans were more of an encouragement for people to go get the licence than be an effective tool in catching unlicenced viewing.The vans were effective in pinpointing when the unlicenced housholds were viewing their sets so that the agent could call and catch the owner in the act. Very few "prosecution cases" were successful but it was not down to the vans equipment being fake or not working... it was a tool in the investigation but AFAIK was in itself inadmissible as evidence in court as the unlicenced set had to be positively identified as installed and being used.https://www.britishtelephones.com/vehicles/lightvans/023.htm

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 10:33:48 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 11, 2025, 10:29:58 pmThe entire radio and TV transmission infrastructure, its operation and maintenance was run by the GPO, and paid for by the radio and TV channel operators, until the GPO's telecommunications services were dissolved, and the GPO was left as just the mail operator.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 10:47:33 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 11, 2025, 02:08:34 pmA friend who collects vintage televisions runs them on signal converters, I first thought that it was a fault of the conversion process as I'm not old enough to have seen the 405 line sets operating off air, but was told what you state as being exactly what happens, with some sets more prone to it than others, where a scene change, or the picture going to peak white would allow the frame lock to roll one frame!The actual definition of the pictures appeared very good, and the systems drawbacks could be forgiven it considering it had it's roots in the mid 1930's.X

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 10:59:01 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 11, 2025, 10:47:33 pmAfter 1963, when BBC2 was broadcasting at 625 lines and BBC1 and ITV were broadcasting at 405 lines, the difference was very obvious. However, it wasn't always clear where the difference came from. The converters to be able to show 625 lines material from BBC2 on BBC1, and the other way around, were large expensive racks of equipment with a lot of compromises in the conversion process. It was only in the mid 70s when the converters for 405, 525 and 625 lines started to a migrate to fully digital designs that the performance really improved. By then, 405 line material was almost irrelevant, and the main concern was having the cleanest possible conversion between 525 and 625 line material.In 1971 watching the 405 line channels you were looking mostly at 625 line colour material converted down to 405 line monochrome. The largest screens in common use in 1963, when 625 line transmission started, were 23". On one of those 405 and 625 line images looked markedly different. On a smaller screen the difference wasn't so obvious.

author: special_K
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 11:18:52 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 11, 2025, 10:29:58 pmNo, not bollocks.What started in 1955 was Independent Television, which was a collection of public service broadcasters. As PSBs they are required by law to operate with public interest, not commercial interest, as their main priority. Their obligation was to produce telly that was of special interest and perceived benefit to people living in the regions where they operated, and commercial activity (putting adverts on) was allowed only so far as it was needed to fund that obligation.Getting an ITV Broadcasting license was a world of pain. Any company attempting it faced stiff competition from all the other potentials, all bending over backwards to prove they could serve the public good better than anyone else. The license only lasted a few years and then the process started all over again, and inadequate stations could and *did* wind up losing their place on air to an upstart.Even today the "channel 3" franchises are licensed this way, but deregulation has meant that Carlton and Granada merged and bought up almost all the other license holders. It's turned the process into a formality, where ITV PLC put an uncontested bid in and it gets rubber stamped.This is a world of difference to pure commercial television, where your reason for broadcasting can be as simple as "I think it would make me loads of money". We didn't get that until Satellite.Quote from: Xena E on January 11, 2025, 10:29:58 pmI said "2 megawatts across four stations".UHF 55 - 500kW - BBC1UHF 62 - 500kW - BBC2UHF 59 - 500kW - GranadaUHF 65 - 500kW - Channel 4In traditional human maths, 500,000 x 4 = 2,000,000Quote from: Xena E on January 11, 2025, 10:29:58 pmThat is the official story but, as always, without evidence. The simplest explanation that fits with surviving evidence (prosecution records, vans you can see in museums) is that they just lied.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 11:24:17 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 11, 2025, 10:29:58 pmIzzat right? I was all ready to thank them for their post.Sitting here on the other side of the pond, it all seemed quite credible to me. But how would I know?

author: special_K
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 11:37:18 pm
content: Consider that he's upset I think ITV is a PSB rather than a commercial broadcaster in the american or modern sense (Because they are, you can check), and that I know that five times four is twenty.Quote from: tom66 on January 11, 2025, 12:41:01 pmThe problem would be solved if all the SD Channels could be moved to a more modern codec and not be stuck on MPEG-2. Moving them to 1080i would be a bit pointless, since it's overwhelmingly just repeats of old 1970s ITV shows on there...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2025, 11:44:20 pm
content: Quote from: special_K on January 11, 2025, 11:18:52 pmThey were required to broadcast a certain amount of news, schools programs, and children's programmes as a condition of their licence. They were also limited to 9 minutes an hour of advertising. However, if, as very occasionally occurred, a transmitter tripped out, and it took an hour to get it transmitting again, the station log logged 9 minutes of downtime. Only the advertising time they lost was worthy of logging. They were aggressively commercial, constantly pushing what the regulators would let them get away with in terms of brand placement, and so on.

author: special_K
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2025, 12:02:39 am
content: That's more about what theywanted to beversus what they werelegally obligated to be.I'm under no illusions that they sincerely wanted their PSB obligations, given the terrible state of modern day ITV1.Deregulation has been a cultural disaster.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2025, 12:08:51 am
content: Quote from: special_K on January 11, 2025, 11:18:52 pm"Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck"The non-BBC channels I watched in the UK in 1971 had exactly the same style & quantity of ads as the pure Commercial stations I was used to watching in Australia.QuoteThe power of each discrete TV Channel did not add up to advantage any one of them.To UHF 55, the presence of UHF 59, UHF 62 & UHF 65 was quite incidental, as the transmitted power of that station was 500kW EIRP, & would still be that if all the stations were turned off.The same thing applies to any of the channels.By the way, you will note I quoted EIRP, which is the power which would have been needed with a ( mythical) Isotropic radiator to obtain the same signal strength in the designated service area.A common antenna gain figure is 10dB, which means that "sync tip power" measurement of each transmitter would have been 50kW.Quote

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2025, 03:06:14 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 11, 2025, 02:08:34 pmYup, in North America, the lowest point in the video, IE: sync and black, were transmitted with the highest AM amplitude while the 100% white portion of the picture had nearly no signal strength at all, only enough to maintain the embedded 4.5mhz FM audio signal.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2025, 05:46:18 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 12, 2025, 03:06:14 amThe FM Sound system was a separate carrier transmitted at a full amplitude of, I seem to remember for NTSC, one fifth of the Vision Carrier level It was not "imbedded".The BW Australian 625 line system was originally the same as NTSC, but just previous to the advent of PAL colour was reduced to one tenth of the Vision carrier level.The original CH2 transmitters at ABW2 transmitting site, where I worked for many years, had completely separate transmitters for Vision & Sound.Many later transmitters were really separate units in one box, but some had wideband PAs which amplified both RF signals.

author: special_K
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2025, 06:20:35 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 12, 2025, 12:08:51 amPerhaps. But we don't determine if a tv station is a public service broadcaster or not by measuring number of ads. What determines that is the law.Quote from: vk6zgo on January 12, 2025, 12:08:51 amI've never said otherwise?If I split a cake across a group of four people, I'm not giving them a cake each. I'm giving each one a slice of cake that's 1/4th of the whole. The group, collectively, would have one cake's worth of cake.Seems that some people are keen to "creatively interpret" other people in order to have something to argue about.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2025, 03:02:57 pm
content: Sometimes nitpicking is a virtue here.Somewhere is also a thread for importance of accurate descriptions.But it was sloppy reading from Xena E and only sort of nitpicking from vk6zgo.AVGresponding then was deliberately, right or wrong, joining all parts to broadcast.Next can be lexicon backed arguments.And of course a point of a point of relevant wattage measurement point.My take is that putting out is different than overall use.For transmitter it means that putting out is an energy broadcasted.(include deliberately selected words)For other things my take is who owns it.So the argument is more or less a nuance.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 01:36:49 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 11, 2025, 11:24:17 pmAs its you that asks sweety 😁Well, the claim was that there were nocommercialtelevision stations within the UK, before the late 1980s.Verbatim:QuoteA commercial TV station to my obviously limited understanding is one that was financed independently from government funding, and this is done the same way as it is in America with adverts and later with sponsored programmes.There were several separate companies who ran different areas, but only one was originally allowed in each area.These commercial stations didnothave to adhere to the mandate that the BBC did.Edit: the only difference between the USA pattern where some individual programs were solely made for the purposes of advertising a single organisations product, and the UK pattern in, is that in the UK explicit advertising was to be confined to advertising breaks in programs, though product placement was allowed, so "Soap operas" would have perhaps had several products being placed in one show, although no reference or introduction would be made; an example of this in the UK was the crime drama "The Sweeney" where the show placed and promoted products from the Ford Motor Company.Why special K then brings in "public service" description is just to bluff the original point,As for the transmitter powers... There's Google if you want the boring facts... but those little things don't seem to matter to some... I'm going to make an assertion here that the nearest transmitter of any kind to the UK that had an input power of 2MW during the time when the analog TV transmitters under discussion were operational was the one used to broadcast Radio Luxembourg on the medium wave broadcast band... check if you like... currently the transmitter site at Solt in Hungary is the only one that can boast that power I believe.Detector vans...As others have said the process of detecting a crt superhet television receiver is rather trivial, why there are those that don't accept it being possible IDK?QuoteThats just an opinion... I posted the GPO journal of the era that details the design of the equipment, and the article with the pictures of one of the original vans.So we have to accept that this was all fake?My reason for being interested...I was born in Germany and lived there for the first ten years of my life, and so really don't remember much of the era of analog television transmissions in the UK. However, my mother is Welsh and Grandpops was an engineer for the GPO... he serviced the equipment used in these vans... he told me that the uhf equipment was so good that from 50metres it could pinpoint a televisions position in a dwellingif it was switched on of course, and also which channel was being watched.He said that there weren't many units in service, less than ten in the country at any one time, and the sight of them periodically patrolling the streets was generally enough to send the licence dodgers scuttling to the post office to buy their licences... it's possible there were also 'dummy' vehicles, because of this.The big drawback with the equipment was that it couldn't discern a monochrome TV from colour, and so if you could buy your TV and give a false address then you could just buy the licence at the lower fee...As I said in a previous post, the detectors were a tool that was used in the identification of licence evaders, and could not be used as evidence if in the rare cases it was taken to courtGenerally people were pursuaded to just buy the licence.But hey! People should believe what makes them happy, this doesnt matter, it's all history.Quote from: m k on January 12, 2025, 03:02:57 pmWhat did I miss?X

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 09:59:10 am
content: Nothing really.My understanding was that station is more like a physical place with transmitting gear.And since special_K disagreed with you, sort of, we the opponents won (2-1) the vote of real meaning behind the word.

author: Sorama
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 10:10:07 am
content: Although I used to repair televisions for years, I have no clue how one can determine if and on which channel a TV is on.So allow me to find this a really intriguing story, if true at all.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 11:36:08 am
content: I used to have a Panasonic plasma TV that had the interesting feature of being able to receive firmware updates for the whole TV over the terrestrial connection. It was not a smart TV so no internet connection. Panasonic would place a firmware update on a hidden channel (one in the Freeview multiplex was reserved for this) and, provided the TV was in standby for that half-hour slot (usually early in the morning, 3-4am kind of time) it would power up the receiver and download the update. Manufacturers would share this channel for updates, IIRC it was reserved by the Freeview people for this purpose, so all sorts of updates would go out over this channel.I had always assumed that this would be exempt from the TV licence requirements, but it would be technically receiving and recording data from an over-the-air broadcast.

author: dave j
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 11:57:24 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 13, 2025, 01:36:49 am'Public service requirements imposed by the government' and 'funded by commerce' are not mutually exclusive as special K is implying.ITV Schoolsis a notable example of public service broadcasting on UK commercial channels.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 01:23:43 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 13, 2025, 09:59:10 amThank you for your reply, it seems that the meaning of the word yet again is the contention.A Commercial broadcaster was always in my experience a term that was widely used to describe an independently run company that was funded by adveritising, these were profit making organisations, so to diferentiate between commercial and somthing else is just fallacious...Quote from: dave j on January 13, 2025, 11:57:24 amTrue, but the terms imposed on the independent companies were to ensure a basic quality of service, they were not the same rules as applied to the BBC and the example you gave was no doubt driven not only by mandate but also popular demand.If the term "Commercial broadcasting"now exclusively refers soley to what? "Independently financed crap programming" thenI apologise unreservedly.Quote from: Sorama on January 13, 2025, 10:10:07 amYes, the one technique that allows this is purely the re radiation of the local oscillator signal. Even in a set with a well screened tuner, where the reradiated signal is in the μW range, it can be picked up with sensitive equipment.There were other methods used as well, horizontal scan frequency for instance, though in the case of the 405 line system often the TV line output transformer was audible...Quote from: tom66 on January 13, 2025, 11:36:08 amProbably! The loopholes are being closed.I watch TV infrequently, the rules are so ambiguous, I have been told that they translate to not even being able to watch creator content on you tube now.I know somone that has a process control PC that is used to run automation in his factory, that has an internet connection so that the software designer (who is in a remote location) has access to provide updates, they have been told that a licence is needed for that too.It's just a Tax.Regards,X

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 01:56:51 pm
content: Quotecrapita conveniently forgot to add tv in the scare letter that said you need a licence to watch live streams,from the tv license own web siteQuoteQuoteId tell em to offski ,meet ya in court. See the above,especially the bit in bold

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 02:39:59 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on January 13, 2025, 01:56:51 pmSo... Fraud by ommission then!QuoteQuoteQuote from: themadhippy on January 13, 2025, 01:56:51 pmThanks, I'll pass that on.X

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 02:44:22 pm
content: If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 02:48:39 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 13, 2025, 02:44:22 pmThe UK TV licence is per household. An obviously historic artefact, from a time when TVs had the disposition of a piece of furniture.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 02:49:38 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 13, 2025, 02:44:22 pmBecause politically it's a toxic football no one wants to touch.If BBC funding goes down (e.g. cutting/eliminating the licence fee), the left/centre gets upset.If taxes go up, the right/centre get upset.We get 'fiscal drag' which is where the fee is not increased by inflation, which effectively results in reduced real terms funding of the BBC. That is one way doing nothing can result in a change, since the BBC will be able to afford less content.Issues like these get put off until doing nothing becomes untenable. That'll probably happen sometime in 2035 at this rate.I would be fine with just rolling it into annual taxation and removing the licence fee goons altogether.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 02:52:29 pm
content: It's a tax and one which affects the poor more, especially single women, who are disproportionately more likely to be prosecuted. The Left should be against it and want it abolished, but they won't do it, because the BBC are biased in favour of them.The TV licence virtually unenforcable. Your TV will still work without one and you have no legal obligation to allow an inspector on to your property, which is the only way they can catch you. If they knock on your door, just tell them to bugger off. You can also make it illegal for them to visit by putting a sign on your door stating that "You've withdrawn the implied right of access to all Capita employees.". They only time you have to allow them in, if they have a warrant, but they won't be able to get one of those, without any evidence, which they won't get, if they're not allowed on to your property.Note to the moderators: I'm not advocating anyone should break the law, but given the law is ambigious as well as immoral, I wouldn't blame anyone for breaking it.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 02:52:42 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 13, 2025, 02:49:38 pmPolls of the UK public show a massive dislike of the TV licence becoming a part of taxation, usually showing just 10% to 15% in favour. I haven't seen one that tried to breakdown just why it is incredibly unpopular, which would be interesting for such an extreme view. Getting more than about 2/3rds in favour of anything is usually quite hard in polls.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 03:08:00 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 13, 2025, 02:52:42 pmI would definitely protest if our government tried that, which wouldn't surprise me with the current traitors in power. The most common suggestions are council tax and electricity bill. I'm sure there are many people who would refuse to pay it.I prefer the current situation, as I can just not pay and it's legal, since the rules are fairly easy to abide by.If they're going to get the money from general taxation, then they need to cut back the BBC to just news, local radio and perhaps some documentaries. All the other stuff such as Doctor Who and game shows can go commericial. It still isn't something I would support, the whole of the BBC should just go subscription, but I wouldn't start to protest by refusing to pay for things.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 03:11:50 pm
content: Well quite, we don't always see eye to eye Zero, but the TV licence is stupid in a world where Netflix cannot prosecute you for illegally accessing their content, but the BBC can. It's nonsense. The BBC needs an alternative funding model. Not clear what that will be.A subscription BBC for entertainment and an ad-free, tax funded BBC for news, current affairs, etc. could be a good compromise.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 03:22:34 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 13, 2025, 02:44:22 pmIf I am correct that is the way that germany does it now as a media licence?Still unwelcome, but a more honest approach.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 03:27:18 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on January 13, 2025, 01:56:51 pmYou don't need an actual legacy TV to need a license. Watching live programming (as per the quote - even on Youtube) on a PC, laptop, phone, tablet all count as 'watching' and hence require a license.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 03:39:45 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 13, 2025, 03:22:34 pmYes, as i mentioned earlier in the thread.Every household has to pay, regardless of the number if the devices you own. There are a couple of cases where you can be freed from the obligation to pay, for example a very low income.This change was inevitable after the decision that you have to pay for a computer. After that change, there was virtually no one left in germany who would not have been obliged to pay. So it was the only sensible thing to abolish the GEZ.The stories i read here (and i told about my own fauxpas as a child) are really reminiscent of the "goons" that were patrolling the neighbourhoods here in germany. Including the "Detector Vans".Addendum: I have to admit that i am ambivalent about the german public broadcasters. There is way too much money going to sports rights. And there is a boatload of TV productions, especially murder mysteries.But i would not want to miss them. They are amongst the more trustworthy, in my opinion, news sources here.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 03:44:58 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on January 13, 2025, 03:27:18 pmThis point is contentious. It is believed it would only apply to live TV that is also streamed on the internet. For instance, watching Sky News Live on YouTube would require a licence. Watching someone's live Twitch gaming stream would not be covered, since the law only covers "television programmes" (whatever those are, the Communications Act 2003 does not define them.)Hypothetically, if Sky created a channel only available over the internet, that would only be covered if they broadcast "television" over it (so if you selected what you wanted to watch it would be legal to access without a licence, I guess?) Given Sky are eliminating the satellite dish at some point in the future (all of their customers will be served over the internet) it does beg the question whether you could argue that you do not need a TV licence if you do not access BBC or other terrestrially-broadcasted content through their platform. After all, the question is not whether your equipment is capable of receiving this content, but whether you actually access it. My TV is not connected to an antenna, but it has internet TV functions built into it, which lets me access all sorts of channels, including channels in the UK. Presumably, accessing those legally would require me to ascertain whether they also broadcast them terrestrially (or via satellite or cable), and whether they are broadcast from the UK.It's all an utter mess, ultimately unenforceable and stupidly designed, but what more do you expect from a government run by people who don't understand technology?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 07:02:16 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 13, 2025, 03:39:45 pmYou're entitled your opinion. I wouldn't say the same about the BBC. They're no longer the most trustworthy news source and their entertainment programmes aren't worth watching. Of course, others are entitled to disagree which is why paying for the subscription should be optional.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 07:23:43 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 13, 2025, 07:02:16 pmI tend to agree the abbreviation BBC now stands for biased broadcast corporation as far as their news and current affairs programmes are concerned. Sometimes it's like listening to official propaganda.German broadcasters still maintain areasonablyimpartial outlook IMHO.X

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 08:07:55 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 13, 2025, 02:52:29 pmHeh; that sounds about the same as the authority, or lack thereof, that US Census enumerators have to compel people to answer their questions when they knock at their door. (There is no such authority, even though the Census Bureau states that people are "required" to respond.)I know this well, since I worked on both the 2010 and 2020 censuses here. Someone doesn't want to talk to you, you just go to the next house on your list.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 08:48:32 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 13, 2025, 03:11:50 pmI just want to point out that it isn't personal.I am capable of having different views to someone and not have a personal problem with them. I admit, it's easier with you, because I shared lots of your opinions many years ago, but changed my mind since. Public service broadcasting is one of them. Heck I used to support the licence fee, but now think the whole concept is strange.I'm open to change my mind, in light of new evidence. I occasionally see the odd old post of mine making the polar opposite argument to my current opinion and I consider editing or removing it, but I don't because I think being honest about my previous views is a good.

author: special_K
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 09:23:20 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 13, 2025, 01:36:49 amThe GPO Journal, i.e the publication of the organization who enforced TV Licensing for a living.Did you know there is a Chinese man called Li Hongzhi who learned to fly using Falun Gong spiritual practice? We know it is true because Li Hongzhi, leader of Falun Gong says so. Nobody ever tells fibs!What we have in the GPO Journal is a general description of a system that detects signals (a technology that did and does exist), followed by a lot of unsubstantiated claims about how it's super effective and in common use.Then we have some pictures of a Commer Spacevan minibus with some doctor who props glued to the roof. One of which is a photo of someone sat at a desk with some knobs and switches. No instruments actually visible. No equipment, as such.You know the Mr Sulu's knobs and switches did not actually fly a spaceship...You can see the commer spacevan in the london science museum. I've seen it, it's a dud, just like the Austin Westminster somebody stuck some metal pipes on the roof of...The funny thing is that the GPO actually did have some cars for sniffing out errant (pirate) radio emissions. They did not have stupid ghostbusters junk glued to the roof, nor did they write "PIRATE RADIO DETECTOR" on the side, because if you want to catch people in the act then you don't give them advance warning to hide. The "TV Detector van" was conspicuous for the opposite reason: it made nervous people go "OH SHIT! DERRICK TURN THE TELLY OFF!" and then go to the post office to buy a license the very next day.And that's an effect you get with an empty van just as well as one full of expensive equipment and trained engineers.Particularly as you acknowledge, the vans could not produce admissible evidence even if they all had real working equipment in them - any indication of a TV would still require that a GPO man knock on the door and gather that evidence.There's an equally effective way for them to get that exact kind of indication - They are the GPO, the only legal mail carrier, which means they literally know every address in the entire country. They also sell the TV Licence, which means they know every address with a Licence.Why would they need a fleet of magic science vans slowly and expensively combing the country to produce data they already have?

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 11:52:04 pm
content: Quote from: special_K on January 13, 2025, 09:23:20 pmWhile it is wise to view all sources of information with a bit of skepticism, it is unwise to assume that since all data needed could be obtained through normal commercial/government channels there would be no need or motive for further investigation.I am unfamiliar with how licensing and TV sales worked in Great Britain. But for your theory that the GPO had all the data that could be obtained from a signals van to work several things would need to be true. For example when old televisions are removed from service is the license formally deregistered and the old TV destroyed, or formally transferred to a new address? Was sale of a license required at the point of TV sale? Seems unlikely due to the references for scaring people into going down to the PO to buy a license. And remembering that all of this started before the internet was the data transfer from point of sale error free and speedy? Was integration of the sales data into a database with addresses easy and inexpensive? Does no smuggling exist from TV sources outside of GB?Things that are trivial in today's information age were often either impossible or economically impractical prior to the 1980s/1990s.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2025, 11:52:46 pm
content: what we need is a defectorwhat the hell is with these guys, are they sworn to secrecy by MI6? or are they all in protective custody because they would get torn up in the streets?There is more information about the Stasi then these people. Nuclear weapons, practically in a text book. ww3 invasion plans, public record. tv detector.. above top secret.Men in Black 6 can be about TV detector vansMiB uses alien receiver technology for funding extraterrestrial investigations via TV licensing starting 1920. Now the grid is so noisy and the air so polluted that even receivers that came from beyond the local group have trouble getting a bead. So its up to agent H to replenish the slush funds via so called 'congestion taxes'

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2025, 12:23:16 am
content: Quoteno,but you were required to give your name and address when you purchases a tv

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2025, 08:30:57 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 13, 2025, 02:49:38 pmLike Australia did in the 1970s.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2025, 08:39:53 pm
content: Quote from: special_K on January 13, 2025, 09:23:20 pmAn interesting and enjoyable, well constructed red herring fallacy, congratulations.All hinged around the fact that ultimately the technology proved to be of little real value, and under your argument therefore didn't exist because of some mocked up museum exhibits.I don't suppose it matters to any company or organisation that they are given a contract to develop a system that then proves more use as a deterent.Something that was expensive to develop that is of very limited use ... that never happens in world of public funded projects does it?Anyway, as I said, we choose to what we want to believe.I am looking forward to the explaination of how a 500kW transmitter that broadcasts 4 channels is equal to 2MW because 4 × 500kW is 2MW, of course it is! But a 500kW transmitter is a 500kW transmitter how ever many channels it supports.Best regards.Xena.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2025, 09:16:24 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 13, 2025, 11:52:04 pmJust a few of your points:A TV Licence is required at each pivate address, it entitles that property to run as many sets for private veiwing as the housholder cared to buy.The problem for licencing were those that bought televisions secondhand often often from previous owners, or those that just did not bother to get the licence.The Television dealers were obliged to fill in a slip from an official pad that was then sent of to the licencing authority for them to update their records, normally if the address was not licenced, or in the case of a colour TV being purchased, and only a black and white licence being held at the address, they would then receive a reminder to buy the relevant licence.Private purchasing of TVs wasn't covered by this, and the biggest thing in the 1970s was first generation colour TVs finding their way, by private sale, into the hands of those who only previously owned B&W sets... it is unlikely anyone was "prosecuted" because all a householder had to do when the agent called was to tell them the set was on loaned on approval and if they decided to keep it they would buy the licence.Detection, then/or investigation, (whatever method you believe was used)...was only ever caried out on addresses that were not in possession of a licence or, the correct licence.TV smuggling was perhaps unlikely due to the disparities on transmission standards, later 625 uhf sets could have been obtained from Germany perhaps, but unlikely individuals would bother.Regards,Xena

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2025, 09:36:45 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on January 13, 2025, 11:52:46 pmhttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/POEEJ/60s/Post-Office-Electrical-Engineers-Journal-1963-01.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijsrO1n-mKAxXeZ0EAHV0DGKYQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0EMyXjQF1V_WAIRPXXktVsMost of those guys are dead! At least the ones that developed the technology. Grandpops would have been 97 now!You are aware that it was a GPO engineer, (by the name of Tommy Flowers) that designed the very first electronic computer during WW2. After the war, the British government (read Winston Churchill), was so frightened of the technology falling into enemy hands that he thought that the only suitable course of action was to have the machines and their plans destroyed,..what a.Fucking hero! man was an idiot ...If Adolf wasn't so arrogant you'd all be speaking German now, (or perhaps Japanese) 🤣Quote from: coppercone2 on January 13, 2025, 11:52:46 pmwell any technology would seem alien to a culture that still connects it's house wiring up with wire nuts!Hey! I'm only kidding ... actually great idea for a film plot, sell it to tinsel town, it's far better than the shit they've been turning out lately...X

author: aeberbach
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2025, 10:42:56 pm
content: National Archives (https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-amazing-story-behind-the-duke/) says that Kempton Bunton served a day in jail for refusing to pay a fine issues for not having a TV license. So that probably counts as at least one prosecution. (He was more famous for stealing a painting by Goya, recent film "The Duke" is about him).Quote from: NE666 on January 07, 2025, 08:31:30 pm

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2025, 11:20:09 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 14, 2025, 09:36:45 pmSo what's wrong with using wire nuts?I use 'em all the time. They're safe and legal (at least everywhere here in the US).BTW, it's "its" for a possessive, not "it's". Very common mistake.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2025, 11:46:54 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 14, 2025, 09:16:24 pmYou have confirmed my assertion, that a database approach would not be effective. While there are doubters about the technical feasibility of detection vans, it is clear that they were not terribly difficult. I seem to recall articles on the subject in ham and electronics enthusiast magazines of the 70s or thereabouts, but can't name a publication or article.So the only questions are whether someone thought such vans were a useful tool in either enforcement or market survey and if so, how widely was it used. These aren't questions which can be answered by technical means. Finances and emotion are heavily involved.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2025, 02:19:11 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 14, 2025, 08:39:53 pmAnalog TV was not as energy or spectrum efficient as Digital TV, so it was not possible to produce a single transmitter which could be used for four or more program channels.Each TV channel required a bandwidth of around 7-8 MHz to accommodate both the single TV programme channel & its associated sound.If there were four channels being transmitted, each required a discrete transmitter dedicated to that channel & that alone, so if there were four programme channels there had to be four TV Transmitters.As far as both the providers and viewers of such channels were concerned, the transmitters might just as well be at completely different sites.This was, in fact, how things were done in Australia for many years---In my home City of Perth, Western Australia, there were no fewer than four TV sites scattered over several km up on the escarpment to the East of the city, definitely separate, but close enough to each other to be received OK by a normal rooftop antenna.With the development of wide band TV transmitting antennas for high band VHF & UHF channels, co-siting became economically advantageous, hence multiple discrete transmitters could be installed in one site, & the antenna fed with "combining units".But wait! there's more!Energy being transmitted at high angles is wasted as is that hitting the ground a short distance from the antenna, so antennas were designed to concentrate radiation to where the viewers were, so could be said to exhibit "antenna gain";The reference for antenna gain is the (imaginary) "Isotropic Radiator", so it is specified as "Effective Isotropically Radiated Power" (EIRP).A common antenna gain figure is 10dB, which conveniently translates to a gain of 10 times.A discrete transmission using such a gain antenna which was quoted as 500kW would, in terms of real "P=VI" power which could be measured at the transmitter output be 50kW.I tried to explain this to some of the other posters, but to no avail.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2025, 02:38:17 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 13, 2025, 02:52:42 pmWhen Australia ditched TV & Radio receiving licences they were gone, & the services previously "paid for" by them had to compete with everything else for money from general revenue.As the cost of keeping them was more than getting rid of them, there was no discernible increase in tax.Keeping them as a "quarantined" extra tax payment would have been disliked by the voter.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2025, 04:15:29 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 14, 2025, 11:20:09 pmAnd if its good enough for the USA its good enough for the rest of the world... and if you use them they must be fucking awesome 😁👍I am ambivalent toward them actually, but theres zero need fordomesticwiring to have random connections and splices, it is just bodgery. (Unless the US wiring materials fixtures have no or inadequate facilities for making propper internal connections in fittings?)Most of the problems caused with domestic wiring is perpetrated by unqualified and ignorant homeowner fixes that go wrong.Quote from: Analog Kid on January 14, 2025, 11:20:09 pmI know... I just don't really care enough to turn off the forklift useless predictive text, or correct it, it's what appears not an ignorant intention.If you would really like to troll my posts, please feel free to take the piss out of the fact that I struggled with dyslexia and I can rightfully claim English is my second language.🖕🙂

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2025, 04:22:58 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 15, 2025, 04:15:29 amAgree that "random connections and splices" are questionable at best, dangerous at worst.But you have to admit that there are times when extra connections are needed, as when a bunch of hots/neutrals/grounds have to be tied together, and inside a tight junction box, wire nuts are appropriate for this.QuoteTell me about it. Used to work as a handyman, and I saw lots of nearly unbelievable stuff.But some of it was done bylicensed electricians, which is even worse.Quote from: Analog Kid on January 14, 2025, 11:20:09 pmQuoteOK, exemption happily granted.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2025, 04:26:05 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 15, 2025, 02:19:11 amThank you, effort appreciated.I am aware of all of that, though simply put I was pointing out the power claim for the transmitter site can not be multiplied by the number of channels. It seems an odd thing to want to do... it's not as if anyone is trying to sell something such as the HiFi industry trying to flog amplifiers by claiming inflated power output figures.X

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2025, 04:45:59 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 15, 2025, 04:22:58 amI can't really comment on the materials available in the US, but my home was rewired to then current regulations there are no splices... power sockets were radials, spurs were included, lighting in a couple of rooms have multiple luminaries... no added connections made in junction boxes or otherwise... have to? No I don't agree, but thats my experience with locally available materials, and mandated methods.YMMV as they say.X

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2025, 05:34:05 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 14, 2025, 11:46:54 pmI think the case is that it was known evasion of the licence fee was rife, and the technical detection method was developed on beurocratic mandate.What transpired was the fact that most effective enforcement is by a visible presence and making an example of a few cases, so just a method similar to policing criminal activity.So the MO would be a visit by the "detector van" (real or bogus as you prefer to believe, they were highly visible) later the area would be swept again, usually during the evening when people would be watching their sets, (Not much TV was transmitted day times in the UK anyway until the 1980s), and dwellings selected from a list of those with no licence would be "investigated", if in a community, there were say 2,000 homes and one household was "prosecuted", the effect was that sales of licences to most of the other evaders would normally follow.As for the equipped vehicles, there were as I'd said previously, very few, from what I understand ten at most in the whole of the UK, most of the street patrols were just vehicles for the transportation of the enforcement officers.I think market research was carried out by companies who did representative polls, and was mostly of interest to the independent commercial providers to claim population coverage to advertisers.X

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2025, 09:16:13 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 15, 2025, 04:26:05 amThey should never quote the total power put out by all the discrete transmitters as it is a meaningless statistic for analog TV.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 06:18:18 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 15, 2025, 04:22:58 amNever, everBloody Septics and their wirenuts... those things are a dangerous abomination, use a sodding Wago type ffs!

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 12:45:50 pm
content: Quotewot about that must have fitting from john lewis,that only has a piddle bit of 2 way terminal block and no room to hide the 3 x 1.5mm2t+e's that lived a comfortable life in the existing ceiling rose

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 05:51:05 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on January 16, 2025, 12:45:50 pmI know what you mean, but... if it can't be accessed then, no way.With all due respect to someone who would make a safe connection... just no buried boxes with connections... personally I'd be asking...has that JL must have crap even made to any real recognised standards? If it could be mounted on a flush pattress or conduit box, I'dperhapsbe fine with that.I'm paranoid, and even pendant luminaries I use at home are in Clix... (and it's on 1mm²).I know there's a lot of shite prior art out there and private customers wanting XYZ that contractors have to deal with, but do it for me personally or in my professional capacity and I'm having their balls on my mantle as a trophy...X

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 06:03:57 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 16, 2025, 05:51:05 pmIf you really have to, then you should fit the JB directly above the luminaire, or as close as possible. Wago type connectors also must be in an enclosure, Wiska boxes even come with them already in (single insulated wires must never be used outside of containment).Some "architectural lighting" has stupidly tiny cable entry/termination methodology, and I have no problem telling our designers when I think the ones they have specced are shit. They don't alwayslisten, of course...

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 07:19:12 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 16, 2025, 05:51:05 pmDunno about the UK, but here in the US "buried" junction boxes are strictly forbidden. All junction boxes must be accessible with a removable cover plate.BTW, I will continue to use wire nuts when extra connections are needed within a box, as I know how to use them correctly and safely (make sure all wires are correctly stripped, make sure the connection is tightly-enough twisted and contained within the nut).I've read about some shortcomings with Wago connections having to do with the spring connectors in them.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 08:12:38 pm
content: Three possibilities, twist, screw and spring.Twist is clearly best for connection but possibly worst for insulation, and clearly worst for stability of operation accuracy.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 08:29:48 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 16, 2025, 08:12:38 pmHow so?Not contradicting you, just curious to know more.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 09:26:52 pm
content: It's how the system can stand aging.Like when you screw multicore under a screw, first it's just fine.Same with hood, it's worse later, but not necessary the connection.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 09:58:19 pm
content: Hood???

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 10:52:08 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 16, 2025, 07:19:12 pmAt no point did you read thatIwas promoting Wago.I don't like added connectors, full stop. However if I had to specify that a connection was used, it would have to be something that is to a relevant local standard.Whenever a Septic, hears someone critical of the wire nut connector, they start to attack Wago? I'm always puzzled why.Wago have ratings that shouldn't be exceeded, and can be a failure point but where applicable are an OK option, they don't fracture the wire if removed, and don't leave damaged ends on the conductors.Were you aware that the ability to periodic electrial testing is sometimes required on the mains wiring of UK residential property?Wire nuts are not "to code" as you would say, and if you were renting a property to someone, it would fail the instalation testing if any were found in use, basically at a minimum, the installation has to be subjected to the test at each change of tenancy.Buried and inaccessible connections in domestic property is forbidden, but so is a lot of things people still do, the point is mute becauseit isn't necessary, and shouldn't and doesn't have to be be done. Many of the problems associated with UK private properties electrical systems are caused where unskilled owner occupiers have modified their own installation, (also illegal unless a qualified test and inspection has been carried out afterwards), or where old systems have fallen into disrepair, and power carryingjointshave become loose and overheated.The employment of a general factotum/handyman to do electrical wiring without proper qualifications is to share responsibility for any problems that arise, and people who work on electrical, gas, or class 1 combustion heating systems without suitable up to date qualifications,regardless of blame, are risking imprisonment.X

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 11:00:37 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 16, 2025, 09:26:52 pmIt's down to the cold flow of the conductor and whether the connector can maintain grip.It is about the only criteria that wire nuts are actually adequate, the worst are poorly made off plain screw terminals. They need particular care, and re-tightening after a period to guarantee security...X

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 11:16:42 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 16, 2025, 10:52:08 pmNot quite true. It is forbidden to bury unencapsulated Wagos, but you can bury Wagos in a Wagobox under your floor. They are classified as maintenance free connections when installed correctly. What you can't do is just bury them in plaster in the wall, they need to be in a Wagobox, and most sparks would recommend putting those behind the socket or a blanking plate for inspection purposes, but that's not a strict requirement since around 2012 I believe.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 11:44:36 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 16, 2025, 11:16:42 pmI assume you're writing about the UK?So far as I know, it's not allowed here in the US.However, Wagos are new to me, so maybe what you describe is permitted here as well.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 11:50:07 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 16, 2025, 10:52:08 pmThe situation is much the same here in the US.I know because I worked for several years as a handyman who did electrical work without a license, but with a code book and knowledge thereof.I informed all my clients beforehand of this. And my work was limited to residential wiring.There are sanctions against working without a license in the case of problems or injury here as well, though imprisonment wouldn't be in the cards. However, you could get a pretty nasty slap on the wrist, as well as a fine.

author: special_K
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2025, 11:51:48 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 14, 2025, 08:39:53 pmFor example, here you choose to believe I wrote something I didn't. In fact I wrote the opposite - I acknowledged that there is technology that can detect radio recievers in a general sense.What I said was that there is zero proof that there was actually a fleet of vans driving around using it regularly.I further pointed out that the vans GPO donated to museums have never actually had any such technology in them. They were not vans "mocked up" to give to museums, they are vans which were really used by the GPO to drive around and pester people who hadn't a TV license.It's just that they did not need any tech in the van to do that job. And when they did need a van full of tech (to catch radio pirates, for example), they did not glue ghostbusters stuff on their roofs.Quote from: Xena E on January 14, 2025, 08:39:53 pmAh, I see the problem now, you think there was just one transmitter and all four UHF channels were going through it, sharing 500kW.Your mistake.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 01:01:34 am
content: Quote from: special_K on January 16, 2025, 11:51:48 pmIf there are four discrete transmitters the transmitters are always discrete, so you can say "That installation has four 500kW transmitters", which is not the same thing as "A 2MW installation", which infers that there is one transmitter capable of 2MW.It is a terminology thing. People involved in Broadcasting will always "pick you up" on it.If you further read my answer to Xena, you will learn that a "500kW" transmission is most often with TV & FM Broadcasting, a 50kW transmitter feeding a "gain antenna" with an effective Isotropic gain of 10 times (10dB), so to the receivers it looks like 500kW being transmitted through an (imaginary) "Isotropic antenna".Googling will probably find a lot of information about EIRP.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 01:57:43 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 14, 2025, 08:39:53 pmQuote from: special_K on January 16, 2025, 11:51:48 pmWe've been over this and I had said we should believe what we like, all I maintain is that the GPO was contracted to produce the technology and were no doubt paid to do so, it's a thing that happens, a need is perceived for a system or product, then if it fails to prove useful in the intended way it doesn’t negate its existence, the vans were mostly just transport for the agents who knocked on the doors and snooped through windows. I didn't disagree that the high profile effect of the vans, whether as I stated the very few equiped ones or not, had the most effect in frightening licence dodgers into buying one. Just the same effect as you seeing a marked police car will make you slow down when you're speeding past the local school, no?Quote from: Xena E on January 14, 2025, 08:39:53 pmQuote from: special_K on January 16, 2025, 11:51:48 pmThat is NOT what I said. The transmitter site that you referenced in the days of four channel TV was 500kW, the PA for each of those channels was less, I did not claim that the transmitter site used 1 PA to transmit all analog channels, however it is possible to do that with digital transmissions and your example site now supports 600kW of television output, split into a number of individual multiplex PA stages, BUT NOT ONE FOR EACH CHANNEL.Not my mistake, yours... 1000kW up the mast was the single highest transmitter power on any site in the UK.Now fcuk off and make up a Wikipedia entry to prove me wrong.X

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 01:42:27 pm
content: CWACS (Car-based Warning and Control System)?

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 02:40:45 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 16, 2025, 09:58:19 pmHood connector.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 05:57:05 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 16, 2025, 11:44:36 pmYes, I only know about UK electrical code.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 07:30:57 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 17, 2025, 02:40:45 pmAnd what is that? Google brings up pages and pages of duct connectors.Please don't assume that everyone here knows terms that you use.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 08:54:03 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 17, 2025, 07:30:57 pmDo you?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 08:55:21 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 17, 2025, 08:54:03 pmNo I don't, hence my question.Sheesh.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 09:12:59 pm
content: So the thing is settled, within few replies and even almost less words.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2025, 09:48:45 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 17, 2025, 09:12:59 pmNo it isn't:What the actual fuck is a "hood connector"?

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 12:08:58 am
content: If anyone has objective evidence that wire nuts are terrible, dangerous, junk I would certainly be interested.I am willing to stipulate that some wire nuts are terrible. I will also agree that it may be easier to improperly install them than Wago style connectors in some applications. But condemning all wire nut applications as dangerous garbage is wrong as far as I can tell. There are bad knockoffs of Wago's, and lever and spring contact connectors that aren't even as good as the bad Wago knockoffs. But I would never generalize and say that Wago style connectors are terrible based on that.In a properly installed (and properly built) wire nut there is a spring which can adapt if there is cold flow, though I was unaware that cold flow is a serious issue for copper wires. I haven't seen it in very old screw terminals. And there is some measured data suggesting that the resistance of a wire nut joint is lower than a Wago joint, meaning there is less heating in sustained overcurrent situations. Now in a proper installation there should never be sustained overcurrent because of circuit breakers and other protective devices, but since safety is all about protection on top of protection for any conceivable corner case this actually should matter. And in a similar vein, the conical spring inside a wire nut will maintain contact up to temperatures far higher than the failure temperature of a Wago body. You can argue both sides of the coin as to whether that is a safety benefit or drawback.Wagos are more forgiving of bad technique in installation, but there is no connector so easy that some idiots won't foul it up.I personally think that either type is suitable if local code allows it and if used properly. And even very good wire nuts are less expensive than Wagos.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 12:21:09 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 18, 2025, 12:08:58 amThe 'body' of a Wago plays no part at all in the connection. The spring does all the work.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 10:19:20 am
content: QuoteWouldn't it make sense to have connectors that idiots find hard to get wrong rather than connectors that the skilled can get very right? Particularly those that an idiot might think is easy to use.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 12:15:16 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 17, 2025, 09:48:45 pmSorry, I thought it's obvious.It's 'huppuliitin' 'huppu'=hood 'liitin'=connector.On the other hand,https://verkkokauppa.turunkonekeskus.fi/tyokalut-ja-tarvikkeet/sahkotarvikkeet-ja-valaisimet/johtokelat-jatkojohdot/119258-huppuliitin-wago-012-40mm2-5-os-5kpl

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 03:34:04 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on January 18, 2025, 10:19:20 amI don't disagree with this. I only disagree with saying that any other connector approach is useless, junk trash. I like Wago. But use both types and find that each has places where they work better.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 03:40:39 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 18, 2025, 12:15:16 pmTo you, perhaps.QuoteGreat; Finnish terms and a web page in Finnish.Looks like a plastic dealy-bobber that one shoves wires into. This is better than wire nuts?Reminds me of backstabbed outlets, which I avoid like the plague.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 04:48:13 pm
content: QuoteNope,those orange thingys are levers ya lift up to insert the wire,push down to lock

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 06:36:24 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 18, 2025, 03:40:39 pmI thought it's also obvious that you'll put it through a translator.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 08:26:08 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on January 18, 2025, 10:19:20 amUnfortunately idiots dont realise their limitations.They certainly shouldn't be messing with electrical work.X

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 10:06:40 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 18, 2025, 06:36:24 pmThey're "American", and therefore expect the rest of the world to speaktheirversion of English.WRC pace notes in Finnish, have moments of genuine hilarity for English speakers.Nevertheless, The Hydraulic Press Channel, Beyond The Press, and Pommijätkät are three of my favourite YT channels.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 10:07:37 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on January 18, 2025, 08:26:08 pmTheyshouldn't, but...

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2025, 10:28:48 pm
content: Quote from: m k on January 18, 2025, 06:36:24 pmI put it through Google Translate and got... "hood connector".So I did a search on it and got lots of electrical connector cases, none of which looked even remotely like a Wago - had you not given a URL to a page with a photo I'd still be none the wiser.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2025, 12:22:29 am
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on January 18, 2025, 10:07:37 pmI find humor in the fact that wire nuts are a thing in North America where for the most part anyone can legally do their own electrical work ( not for hire), while tha strongest advocates for Wago live in areas where you must be a licensed electrician to do any electrical work. Apparently there isn't much belief that licensing screens out the idiots.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2025, 01:31:04 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 19, 2025, 12:22:29 amIdiots are a worldwide phenomenon, and do not consider themselves subject to legislation.There are also cultural perceptions of danger.X

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2025, 04:25:33 am
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on January 18, 2025, 10:06:40 pmWhat the fuck are you talking about? They posted stuffin Finnish, which, if I remember corrrectly, is not a version of English.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2025, 07:06:33 am
content: Sorry, my bad, it's too complicated.Search engine has correct answers, simply because its a marketed product.But from translator I got a 'bonnet connector', I didn't understand first what hood connector as a result meant.For "bonnet" I got a correct translation, but search engines had something else.For correct translation of "hood connector" you must do both words separately.For "hood" the translation is general and correct, bonnet is the second alternative.Nowadays engine cover is also something else.For "connector" the translation is correct without alternatives.Then searching those two translated words together you get 'wire nuts.'The link, second result from earlier search, is named as 'wire nut' but the actual product is Wago.So Wago is not a 'wire nut' here, the link has a wrong name, hence the "on the other hand" before the earlier link.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2025, 10:04:10 am
content: QuoteThis reminds me of the thread about Chinese manuals and their strange sayings.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2025, 10:52:49 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 19, 2025, 04:25:33 amThey (m k) normally translate, forourconvenience, from their own language. On thisoneoccasion they did not, because they were uncertain of the results, and left the original text, foryouto translate. The fact that you apparently regarded this as an onerous task should be a surprise to no-one; it's a common attitude of English speakers, including the US branch.I included the italicised emphasis in the original quote to highlight the tendency of US English speakers to regard themselves as "true English" speakers, despite facts being to the contrary.I'd appreciate it if you could show a bit more respect in your dialogue; swearing has its place and its uses, but that isn't one of them.

author: watchmaker
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2025, 12:40:19 pm
content: Many people from the USA have not travelled out of country and have a restricted world view. When many DO travel they take a bubble with them that enables them to believe USA "rules" apply.When I was in Switz for a year of watch training, my wife and I did visit Paris. We were appalled and embarrassed by the behavior of a class trip from the USA on the Eiffle Tower elevator. So much so I scolded them (to no effect of course).Personally, I really liked knowing what was expected of me and what I could expect from others (LOVED getting educated at the Swiss Post office).While I understand some of the many causes why people lash out, (from dehydration to medications and such), I do think it is important that norm violations be called out or this forum can devolve into "just another troll habitat"

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2025, 01:05:59 pm
content: When my wife and I first travelled to Europe, we were embarrassed by hearing loud Americans saying foolish things.Then, we noticed other nationalities speaking loudly, as well.Finally, we realized that there were also civil Americans who were not loud (similar to the two of us), but they were not so noticeable as the loud visitors.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 10:38:28 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on January 19, 2025, 01:05:59 pmYeah the behaviour isn't unique, but my observation is that the (general) demographic it applies to varies a bit from nationality to nationality.I've no doubt you have differences from state to state; we have our own regional variations

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 11:38:43 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on January 19, 2025, 01:05:59 pmObnoxiousness is a lot more obvious when you can understand the language being spoken. So, loud Americans roaming the parts of the world where English speaking is commonplace appear extra obnoxious. However, I have noticed an odd thing which seems to be specific to US citizens. The US more than any other country is a country of immigrants. A huge part of the population still have family in other parts of the world they have contact with. Yet, huge numbers of Americans seem to think the whole world should work the way their own town does, and are affronted when it don't.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 11:44:42 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 20, 2025, 11:38:43 amI have found that stereotypes of Americans are very popular.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 11:48:39 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on January 20, 2025, 11:44:42 amThat's paranoia. Stereotypes of every group are very popular. Have you seen some of the studies about whether stereotypes tend to be accurate, or just a prejudice? A huge number of stereotypes turn out to be very supportable from real world evidence.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 12:21:10 pm
content: No, it was a statement of fact. Paranoia would be if I contended that the rest of you were conspiring against us.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 12:32:25 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 18, 2025, 03:40:39 pmDon't worry - I usually also struggle to understand what m k is sayingWire nuts were never very popular in Finland so we don't have any established colloquial name for them. Most people would callanythingwith wires entering from one side a "huppuliitin" which m k then directly translated into English so it makes very little sense especially in this context because it could have meant Wago or a screw terminal connector as well. If you do a simple Google image search for "huppuliitin" you will notice all three connectors discussed recently in this thread.And clearly, if wire nuts were so disastrously bad as some people here make them sound like, simple market evolution would have eradicated them a long time ago. Clearly they do their job safely 99.99% of the time. There have been worse things, like aluminum wiring in domestic use.The best thing in Wago is ease of use and compact size.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 02:37:30 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on January 20, 2025, 12:32:25 pmI've had doubts, but then the actual manufacturer has also been in doubt.E,next translation experiment:"jarrusukka"

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 05:00:59 pm
content: Quote from: SiwastajaThe best thing in Wago is ease of use and compact size.[/quote

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 06:55:45 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 20, 2025, 05:00:59 pmLet me then add one advantage: simplicity of adding more wires later on. As long as you choose wide enough Wago early on (4- or 5-position even if you initially think 3 is probably enough). No need to remove and re-strip wires, just plug the new one in.But sure, clearly wire nuts work just fine, and where they are used, sparkies are used to them and are probably pretty efficient working with them.It sometimes amazes me how many connections can be stuffed in a relative small junction box; wire nuts or Wagos.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 06:57:56 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on January 20, 2025, 06:55:45 pmOr just change the Wago, which takes seconds and does no harm to the conductors.If Americans had requirements for testing things, they'd soon realise why people stopped using wire nuts everywhere else.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 07:07:41 pm
content: One adavantage of wagos is the purpose built enclosures for them, cable grip built in, a cunning fixing system, and small enough to stuff into most downlight holes

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 07:41:56 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 20, 2025, 11:48:39 amUmmmm, maybe not.The "ugly American" is still the template for the boorish, insensitive, provincial world traveler who expects everything abroad to be just like it is "at home"."Where the hell is the McDonald's?"

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 09:25:38 pm
content: the other benefit is that if you use wire nuts, in addition to anything with cold welding on edges, is that it has a substantial oxide defeating capability, meaning it might still work if you fail to catch corrosion, always a benefit when you have substandard workmen doing under the bare minimum in terms of inventory inspection. And it can get through grime too.I have seen it work when the parts had gnarly corrosion.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2025, 10:43:45 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on January 20, 2025, 12:21:10 pmIf you did, you might have a future in politics!

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2025, 02:49:17 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 20, 2025, 07:41:56 pmIn the original novel, the “ugly American” is actually a sympathetic character, well-liked by the locals, who got that nickname because of his physical appearance (uglier than a Hollywood actor).

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2025, 03:38:10 pm
content: Ok, the thread is faaaaar offtopic anyway, so i won't hesitate to ask for clarification.What novel do you mean? Maybe i missed something, but no one mentioned a novel?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2025, 03:43:58 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 21, 2025, 03:38:10 pmGoogle "The Ugly American".

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2025, 03:51:44 pm
content: A famous 1958 political novel about American diplomacy by Lederer and Burdick.The book’s title became an epithet in common usage.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2025, 04:33:44 pm
content: There is much truth about the ugly American epithet. We have in many ways taken over the role played by the English in the days of empire. But cultural myopia and loud, obnoxious tourists are not an American monopoly.I am a native of the American southwest and grew up in blue jeans, straw hats, pearl snap button shirts and on formal occasions string ties. On a recent trip through the monument valley my wife and I stayed in the same hotel as a German tour group. Noisy, complaining about the services and all that. And I understand German imperfectly, but it was clear that they were sure I understood none. I must be clear that not all members of the group shared this behavior, but it was a very large minority.On a business visit to Europe I spent some time in Vienna. There the Italians tourists stood out with the boorish behavior.Americans may have more than it's share of travel boors (or may just have the normal complement) but it shares with Empire Era England the power and wealth that makes it more disagreeable.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2025, 07:02:59 pm
content: We have seen similar things, traveling in either the US or Europe, but it took me a while to realize that only the noisy and boorish fraction of the different groups made itself obvious.There are many stories of people complaining in their native language who were unaware that others around them understood some of their impolite speaking, only to be embarrassed when someone replied in their language.An English speaker would have to be really dim to think that no one around him in a foreign country understood any English, as opposed to a Basque speaker.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2025, 07:20:03 pm
content: ... or a Navajo (Dine) speaker, like the WWII "code talkers".