michael@fe2o3.UUCP (Michael Katzmann) (01/30/90)
In article <1273@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes: >in article <2981@servax0.essex.ac.uk>, zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) says: >> In UK they use a system (detector, presumably a sort of receiver) to detect >> a non-licence TV household. > >Is this true???? I can't believe that you still need a licence in the UK to >own a TV set (or perhaps use one?). TV licences were scrapped in Australia >in the late '60s, and from what we hear in Oz about Maggie's right wing Free >Market society I would have thought such an antiquated and absurd impost >would have gone long ago. >-- Actually Australia got rid of the Licence fee in 1973 because it was a regressive tax. i.e. the fee as a percentage of your income was higher for a low income earner than for the more affluent. The government of the day was concerned for the ordinary citizen (A rare thing). Somehow I don't think those sort of inequalities matter very much to the Thatchers of this world. --------------------------------------------------------------------- email to UUCP: uunet!mimsy!{arinc,fe203}!vk2bea!michael _ _ _ _ Amateur | VK2BEA (Australia) ' ) ) ) / // Radio | G4NYV (United Kingdom) / / / o _. /_ __. _ // Stations| NV3Z (United States) / ' (_<_(__/ /_(_/|_</_</_ Michael Katzmann Broadcast Sports Technology. 2135 Espey Ct. #4 Crofton Md. 21114 USA Ph: +1 301 721 5151
brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) (01/30/90)
in article <8ZkkfpG00Uh780mlR=@andrew.cmu.edu>, bb1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Barry Lowell Brumitt) says: > The reason is quite simple, BBC I and BBC 2 have no commercials. Their > funding comes entirely from the licensing fee. I am sure I would pay $80 > a year here for good channels with no commercials. In Australia the funding for the two public stations (neither of which shows commercials, although they have a lot of 'in house' promotion) comes directly from Government general taxation revenue. Both stations (ABC and SBS) are excellent and have nationwide coverage. Australia also has three major national commercial networks plus a myraid of regional ones. I would have thought the bureaucracy required to administer a licencing body plus equipment and people to detect 'unauthorised' use of TVs would be a very inefficient way of funding a public TV station. -- Brendan Jones || ACSnet: brendan@otc.otca.oz R&D Contractor || UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz!brendan Services R&D || Phone: (02)2874676 Fax: (02)2874990 |||| OTC || || Snail: GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA
ngc@chanel.UUCP (Chris Ng) (01/31/90)
In article <428@ssc.UUCP>, markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes: > In article <2981@servax0.essex.ac.uk>, zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) writes: > > In UK they use a system (detector, presumably a sort of receiver) to detect > > a non-licence TV household. > > > > Does any out there has any idea of how this is done? > > What exactly they detect ? > > An article (lost in the mists of time ) make me think they use leakage out > of the IF, since they were listening for the sound. > > Another system picks up the horizontal sweep, and compares the phase to > determine which station is being received. > > markz@ssc.uucp How do they know the TV household is a non-licenced one? -- Chris Ng UUCP: {asuvax | hrc}!gtephx!ngc
zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) (01/31/90)
Well, it is true that in England they detect non licence households with two ways. One is with a van with lots of antennas at the top and the other with some sort of portable detector which is used to places where the van can't go. Is any one out there,who knows how it is done? Thenks.
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (02/01/90)
ngc@chanel.UUCP (Chris Ng) wrote: > zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) writes: >> In UK they use a system (detector, presumably a sort of receiver) to detect >> a non-licence TV household. [ electronic details omitted ] > How do they know the TV household is a non-licenced one? The TV licencing authority has a database listing everyone who's paid their licence fee. They match this against whatever records they can find about people. If they discover you exist and don't have a licence, they will send you warning letters, or even send an inspector round, on the presumption that you have a TV unless you can prove otherwise. Electronic detection doesn't play a major role; most of it's bluff and intimidation. I suspect most of the names come from the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Centre in Swansea, the biggest database of personal information in the UK (much used by the police for purposes having nothing to do with motor vehicles). As I've never had a car or driving licence in the UK, I was ignored by the TV licence inspectorate until last year. After getting registered for the poll tax, I got two threatening letters from them within weeks (no, I've never had a TV). Other circumstantial evidence makes it virtually certain that's where they found out about me. The poll tax registrar presumably passed on that information as part of a swap with either the licence inspectorate or the DVLC. To get people registered for the poll tax, every imaginable source was used - employers' personnel records, health board files, student rolls at colleges, the lot. I doubt if it was coincidence that the introduction of the poll tax coincided with the biggest swoop on licence-dodgers for years. For more information about government databanks in the UK, see Duncan Campbell and Steve Connor: "On the Record: surveillance, computers and privacy - the inside story", Michael Joseph, London, 1986, ISBN 0 7181 2576 2. It predates the poll tax; an update is badly needed. -- Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6044 wk 041 556 1878 ho INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
BCOLLINS@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (Bill Collins) (02/01/90)
From article <48591bd2.1fbc0@chanel.UUCP>, by ngc@chanel.UUCP (Chris Ng): > In article <428@ssc.UUCP>, markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes: >> In article <2981@servax0.essex.ac.uk>, zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) writes: >> > In UK they use a system (detector, presumably a sort of receiver) to detect >> > a non-licence TV household. >> > >> > Does any out there has any idea of how this is done? >> > What exactly they detect ? >> >> An article (lost in the mists of time ) make me think they use leakage out >> of the IF, since they were listening for the sound. > > How do they know the TV household is a non-licenced one? > > [bits deleted] In the UK, everyone who uses a TV (B&W or Colour) needs a licence. [Note: this causes some anomalies, such as the use of a TV as a monitor for a computer, which is deemed as being a TV even if you never use it as such] [We also used to have to buy licences for radio receivers, but that was scrapped way back in my youth! ... note though, that in the UK we can only legally listen to "broadcast" and amateur stations, but that's another topic] In general, you need one licence per household (which covers any number of sets in it); although there are some complications about hotels and other "sub-let" properties: I do not know all the details. To "assist" in people obtaining a licence, I believe that it is a requirement of shops selling a TV that they notify the authorities every time someone buys one. Thus a database can be built up of households in the country which are known to have a TV, and similarly from the records of licences issued, a cross-check as to whether they hold a TV licence. The task of "policing" the TV licences is given to the Post Office, who also sell the licences (and who, usefully, have lists of all properties in the country!). However, instead of checking every house in the kingdom and asking ... a) Do you have a TV, and if yes: b) Do you have a licence ... they have actually used a bit of lateral thinking, and instead they operate on a list of households which do NOT hold a current TV licence. Thus, they have a much shorter list of properties (most people are honest). In general, "they" announce in advance which part of the country they will be sweeping next, in order to give recalcitrant users the chance to buy a licence before the detectors move in (ask about the silly TV "commercials" they produce). They may also go around independently of the detectors, knocking on doors and politely asking to see your (non-existent) licence ... can anyone confirm this? The detectors are in fact vans equipped with radio receivers and directional aerials, which are driven past peoples houses; although I believe that hand-held receivers and aerials are now used for checking awkward places (eg. blocks of flats) on foot. If I remember rightly, the detectors pick up the local oscillator signal which leaks from the case of poorly shielded TV's (ie. all of them). The receiver is usually a panoramic type, and so it is easy to see the signals as the aerial sweeps past a house. By knowing which channels the local transmitter is on, it is easy to see which station is being received by the occupants ... hence, when they knock on the door, they know exactly what you have been watching! Unfortunately, this method of checking only unlicenced properties means that people who do NOT own a TV (yes, there are some strong-willed people around!), are more likely to get reminders through the post and persistent visits than people who do. Now ... you WILL buy a licence without being asked, WON'T you ?!? Regards, Bill Collins. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Phone : UK: 0473 642760 International: + 44 473 642760 | | E-mail (UUCP): bcollins@axion.co.uk (...ukc!axion!bcollins) | | Snail Mail : British Telecom Research Labs, Dept. RT3123, Room 311, SSTF, | | : Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH, Suffolk IP5 7RE | | Disclaimer : Any views/opinions expressed/implied must be my mistake. | | Thought : "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, | | : but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not | | : what I meant." | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
hanavin@udel.edu (Chuck Hanavin) (02/01/90)
In article <3027@servax0.essex.ac.uk> zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) writes: >Well, it is true that in England they detect non licence households with two ways. >One is with a van with lots of antennas at the top and the other with some sort of portable detector which is used to places where the van can't go. > >Is any one out there,who knows how it is done? > >Thenks. Although not a two-way scheme, They could sit out in front of your house with highly directional loop antenna and a reciever tuned to the tv's mixer oscilator frequency. If they pick up a signal, most likely you have a TV. Chuck(WB3FJJ)
sutherla@hwee.UUCP (I. Sutherland) (02/02/90)
In article <1273@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes: >in article <2981@servax0.essex.ac.uk>, zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) says: >> In UK they use a system (detector, presumably a sort of receiver) to detect >> a non-licence TV household. > >Is this true???? I can't believe that you still need a licence in the UK to >own a TV set (or perhaps use one?). TV licences were scrapped in Australia After some court case the judge in question ruled that a license was required for owning a device capable of TV reception, whether you actually watch it or not is immaterial. As for being done for it - it does happen an the minimum fine is 200 pounds sterling. -- Iain A. Sutherland JANET:sutherla@uk.ac.hw.ee B.Eng. Elec.Eng. IV ARPA:sutherla@ee.hw.ac.uk ...!mcvax!hwcs!hwee!sutherla
s872607@chudich.co.rmit.oz (George Tzanatos) (02/03/90)
zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) writes: >Well, it is true that in England they detect non licence households with two ways. >One is with a van with lots of antennas at the top and the other with some sort of portable detector which is used to places where the van can't go. >Is any one out there,who knows how it is done? They probably use the hf radiation generated by the sweep circuitry (etc) in the set, as previously mentioned in several articles. If this is true, then why not just shield the set using a faraday cage, and orient it such that the tube points towards a neighbour's house...? George Tzanatos.
dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU (Dave Horsfall) (02/05/90)
In article <3027@servax0.essex.ac.uk>, zotog@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Zotos G) writes: | One is with a van with lots of antennas at the top and the other with some | sort of portable detector which is used to places where the van can't go. | | Is any one out there,who knows how it is done? Well, as the man in the cat-detector van said, their equipment can pinpoint a purr at 100 paces, and Eric, being such a 'appy cat, was a piece of cake! Oops sorry - wrong newsgrope... -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave
greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) (02/07/90)
Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author. In article <1990Jan31.182757.6731@axion.bt.co.uk> BCOLLINS@.axion.bt.co.uk writes: > >In the UK, everyone who uses a TV (B&W or Colour) needs a licence. >[Note: this causes some anomalies, such as the use of a TV as a monitor >for a computer, which is deemed as being a TV even if you never use it >as such] > >The detectors are in fact vans equipped with radio receivers and directional >aerials, which are driven past peoples houses; although I believe that >hand-held receivers and aerials are now used for checking awkward places >(eg. blocks of flats) on foot. Which Monty Python satirized wonderfully in their "Fish License" sketch. You know, the one that starts out with John Cleese saying "I would like a license for my pet fish, Eric." . . . "The man from the cat detector van." "What cat detector van?" "From the Ministry of 'ousinge." "'ousinge?" "It was spelled that way on the van. I'm very observant. He said their equipment could pinpoint a purr at 50 yards, and Eric being such a happy cat, was a piece of cake." Copyright 1990 Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg San Jose, CA 95110-1397 BIX: gwage CIS: 74016,352 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN Permission is granted for reproduction provided this notice is maintained.