Author Topic: For the countries which need Radio and TV licenses. How TV Detector Vans work...  (Read 11202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Here in North America, I find this funny, but, here it is:


 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
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?
 

Online langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4883
  • Country: dk
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 
 

Offline Stray Electron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2263
  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.
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
  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.
They 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...
« Last Edit: January 07, 2025, 06:46:47 pm by BrianHG »
 
The following users thanked this post: pdenisowski

Online langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4883
  • Country: dk
  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.
They 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...

afaik Nielsen cable boxes was something you were offered (after random selecting) to do voluntarily and paid a small amount for

 

Offline Postal2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 826
  • Country: 00
Here in North America, I find this funny, but, here it is: .....
I 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.
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7298
  • Country: ca
I always found the concept of TV licensing bizarre. It is like you pay for your own brainwashing.
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 
The following users thanked this post: Zero999, nctnico, bookaboo, wraper, Circlotron, Yansi, 2N3055, BrianHG, audiotubes, Roehrenonkel, cte, Analog Kid

Offline NE666

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Country: gb
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?

I 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.
 

Online langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4883
  • Country: dk
I always found the concept of TV licensing bizarre. It is like you pay for your own brainwashing.

consider 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
 

Offline Postal2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 826
  • Country: 00
consider 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
Let them just encode them, and those who want to can buy the cards.
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7298
  • Country: ca
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.
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
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.

And how do you think the government pays for any of these things?
 
The following users thanked this post: janoc, langwadt

Offline KE5FX

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2113
  • Country: us
    • KE5FX.COM
I always found the concept of TV licensing bizarre. It is like you pay for your own brainwashing.

That'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!"
 
The following users thanked this post: Analog Kid

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
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.
not 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.
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7575
  • Country: va
Quote
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.
not 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.

Happened 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  :phew:
 
The following users thanked this post: BrianHG

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Quote
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.
not 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.

Happened 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  :phew:
So I can see this being an issue in the early days, or less forgiving circumstances...
 

Offline Haenk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1349
  • Country: de
consider 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

For 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).
 

Offline wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1415
  • Country: au
I always found the concept of TV licensing bizarre. It is like you pay for your own brainwashing.
Public 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.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
  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. 

Er, 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.)
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
  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.
.                     
I think they monitored leakage from the local oscillator, as the IF frequency is always the same, no matter what channel you are watching.
 
The following users thanked this post: pdenisowski

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
  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.
.                     
I think they monitored leakage from the local oscillator, as the IF frequency is always the same, no matter what channel you are watching.

Sorry, to me that sounds every bit as dicey as people who claim that "they" are monitoring their brain waves ...
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
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?

I 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.
It was hardly a high tech conversion to go to off air receiving.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
  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.
.                     
I think they monitored leakage from the local oscillator, as the IF frequency is always the same, no matter what channel you are watching.

Sorry, to me that sounds every bit as dicey as people who claim that "they" are monitoring their brain waves ...

Do you have  VHF brainwaves?
Early valve/tube converter stages used fairly high LO levels, &    were detectable, so it was a real thing.



 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
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.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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.
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn

Er, 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.

Oh 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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 01:31:54 am by BrianHG »
 

Offline Andy Chee

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1393
  • Country: au
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.
I 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.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
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.

Yes.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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:

Quote
In the 1960s, Nielsen primarily conducted TV surveys using "viewer diaries," where selected households would manually record what they watched on television by filling out a paper log, providing demographic information about the viewers, which was then compiled and analyzed to generate audience ratings; this method was later supplemented with the introduction of "audimeters," small devices attached to televisions that automatically recorded viewing data and transmitted it to Nielsen via phone lines, providing more detailed minute-by-minute viewing information.

So 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.
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
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.
I 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.
Yes, 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: pdenisowski

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11427
  • Country: us
  • $
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 antenna

plugging 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 batteries


I 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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 04:51:45 am by coppercone2 »
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7575
  • Country: va
Quote
So 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.

No 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.
 

Online JPortici

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3579
  • Country: it
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.

And how do you think the government pays for any of these things?

with ~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)
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
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? 
 
The following users thanked this post: Zero999

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
because every time you buy a new TV the retailer is required to notify your address to the authority. 
no longer the case,it was scrapped around  2013
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
Quote
because every time you buy a new TV the retailer is required to notify your address to the authority. 
no longer the case,it was scrapped around  2013

That 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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 12:36:14 pm by tom66 »
 

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
They just seem to paper-bomb any house without an address
how can you get post without an address  >:D

But 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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 12:38:03 pm by themadhippy »
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
Typo, corrected.
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7575
  • Country: va
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 don't think you really know what the license covers. From the TV Licensing website:

Quote
Home or away, you could still need a TV Licence to cover you. Whether you’re watching on a TV or a different device.

For instance, if you're catching up on BBC iPlayer on your phone as you commute to work, you need a licence. Streaming a live YouTube channel via your game console? You need a licence. Getting stuck into Sky Sports action live on your laptop or tablet? You need a licence for this, too.

This includes recording and downloading.

TL;DR: You need it for reception of live broadcasting, not just BBC output.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
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.
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28501
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
I always found the concept of TV licensing bizarre. It is like you pay for your own brainwashing.
Agreed. 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.  :palm: IMHO Netflix is a much better concept.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 02:02:55 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
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.

And how do you think the government pays for any of these things?

with ~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)

It's interesting how upset people get over the option not to pay for a service they don't use..
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
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.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
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.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
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

But 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.
 

Offline DavidAlfa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6433
  • Country: es
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.
Hantek DSO2x1x            Drive        FAQ          DON'T BUY HANTEK! (Aka HALF-MADE)
Stm32 Soldering FW      Forum      Github      Donate
 

Online Ranayna

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1015
  • Country: de
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?
In 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 :D
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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.
Its 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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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

But 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.
I 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.
 

Offline pdenisowski

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 941
  • Country: us
  • Product Management Engineer, Rohde & Schwarz
    • Test and Measurement Fundamentals Playlist on the R&S YouTube channel
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.

Oh, with the right equipment you 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? :)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 08:51:56 pm by pdenisowski »
Test and Measurement Fundamentals video series on the Rohde & Schwarz YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKxVoO5jUTlvsVtDcqrVn0ybqBVlLj2z8
 

Offline pdenisowski

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 941
  • Country: us
  • Product Management Engineer, Rohde & Schwarz
    • Test and Measurement Fundamentals Playlist on the R&S YouTube channel
To me, this falls in the same category as "yepper, them satellites can read your license plate from space!" misconceptions.

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. 

this is approaching tinfoil-hat territory.

I'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 receiver  :)



https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/us/products/test-and-measurement/tempest-tests/rs-fswt-test-receiver_63493-310144.html
Test and Measurement Fundamentals video series on the Rohde & Schwarz YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKxVoO5jUTlvsVtDcqrVn0ybqBVlLj2z8
 
The following users thanked this post: nctnico

Offline Postal2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 826
  • Country: 00
I'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 receiver  :)
I 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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 05:08:31 pm by Postal2 »
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 05:36:10 pm by TimFox »
 
The following users thanked this post: pdenisowski

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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.
That'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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
I'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 receiver  :)
Maybe they could start using it to detect people watching BBC TV from https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer

I 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?
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
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.
 

Offline Postal2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 826
  • Country: 00
I really doubt TEMPEST can work with modern LVDS signals ....
It can work. With a specially selected picture and a specially selected laptop, at a distance of about one meter.

...I first saw a demonstration of remote viewing of a raster scan image in the 1980s, ....
This was done by an optical sensor from a remote CRT, which has low afterglow.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 07:01:28 pm by Postal2 »
 
The following users thanked this post: pdenisowski

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
I really doubt TEMPEST can work with modern LVDS signals as used inside LCD/OLED TVs
TEMPEST 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.
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11427
  • Country: us
  • $
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) etc

BTW 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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 07:13:42 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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'
It 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.
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11427
  • Country: us
  • $
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 paint


and probably embassies, no one ever gives out info about those
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 07:19:29 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Sanitized CIA report:  https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000100310007-3.pdf
This 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
 

Online valcher

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 36
  • Country: ru
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.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Quote
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.
not 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.

Happened 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  :phew:
The 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.
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.
That'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.

Quote
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?
They should just make a subscription service, like any other.

I think it's important to have some form of public broadcaster, for news and current affairs documentaries and such. 
Why?

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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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.
I 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.
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
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.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 09:54:11 pm by BrianHG »
 
The following users thanked this post: pdenisowski

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
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.
I 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.
If they were a thing then why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 11:00:53 pm by Zero999 »
 

Offline SteveThackery

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 862
  • Country: gb
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.
 

Offline Postal2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 826
  • Country: 00
... why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?
The license violators were tortured and were unable to tell anything.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
... why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?
The license violators were tortured and were unable to tell anything.
Court records of course.
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.
Which 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."
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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?

I 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?
 

Online langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4883
  • Country: dk
... why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?
The license violators were tortured and were unable to tell anything.
Court records of course.
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.
Which 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."

if a TV means you require a license what microscopic fraction of households doesn't need one?
 

Online langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4883
  • Country: dk
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.

the 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
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
[quote author=Analog Kid link=topic=449663.msg5776183#msg5776183 date=1736378824

I 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?
[/quote]

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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 11:59:34 pm by TimFox »
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
You didn't address my question: in the UK is that content sent over the air or by cable?
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
You didn't address my question: in the UK is that content sent over the air or by cable?

Yes.

Okay, less snarky: We have terrestrial transmission, cable, satellite, and streaming services covering broadcast television.
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11427
  • Country: us
  • $
I wanna see this working on video, because people still have old tv's and also spectrum analyzers
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
You didn't address my question: in the UK is that content sent over the air or by cable?

Yes.

Okay, less snarky: We have terrestrial transmission, cable, satellite, and streaming services covering broadcast television.

So 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.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
You didn't address my question: in the UK is that content sent over the air or by cable?

Yes.

Okay, less snarky: We have terrestrial transmission, cable, satellite, and streaming services covering broadcast television.

So 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.

The 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.

Quote
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.

Everyone, more or less. We pay a licence, it pays for a transmission network.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
if a TV means you require a license what microscopic fraction of households doesn't need one?
Having 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.
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
I wanna see this working on video, because people still have old tv's and also spectrum analyzers

This should demonstrate the initial functional point...
(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.
As 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.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 01:36:17 am by BrianHG »
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
You didn't address my question: in the UK is that content sent over the air or by cable?
I 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.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
You didn't address my question: in the UK is that content sent over the air or by cable?
I 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.

I ask again: in the UK, do most people get their TV over the air or by cable?
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
You didn't address my question: in the UK is that content sent over the air or by cable?
I 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.

I ask again: in the UK, do most people get their TV over the air or by cable?

Why 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.
 

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
do most people get their TV over the air or by cable

I got my tv from a shop.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
Nearly everyone has access to terrestrial transmissions.

Yeah, 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.

Quote
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.

But 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".)
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
But 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".)

I answered it several posts ago, actually.

Would it help if I explain that around half the population doesn't even have access to cable?
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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 ...
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
OK; so around half of people (households) in the UK receive TV over the air. Gotcha.

No, 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%.

Quote
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 ...

Yes, we built a transmission infrastructure using the funding from the licence, because it was vastly more economic than running coax to every property.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 04:25:22 am by Monkeh »
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
I would put the number of TV watching households actively using terrestrial transmission far closer to 90% than 50%.

So you couldn't have just fucking said that, say, about 10 posts ago?

Sheesh. I'm done.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
I would put the number of TV watching households actively using terrestrial transmission far closer to 90% than 50%.

So you couldn't have just fucking said that, say, about 10 posts ago?

Sheesh. I'm done.

Quote
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.

Everyone, more or less.

First world problems..
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us
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.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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.

Alright; 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.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
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.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Online Ranayna

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1015
  • Country: de

Which 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."
Thats 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 :p
So essentially this boiled down to "everyone has to pay" anyway.

So to get rid of the buerocracy (yeah, yeah, unbelievable in germany :D) the government changed licensing to be household based.
Every household pays. Regardless of how many or if any devices are present.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
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.
That's true, but a TV licence is still required to receive commerical broadcasts, even though the broadcasters don't receive any money from it.

... why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?
The license violators were tortured and were unable to tell anything.
Court records of course.
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.
Which 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."

if a TV means you require a license what microscopic fraction of households doesn't need one?
What 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.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au

Which 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."
Thats 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 :p
So essentially this boiled down to "everyone has to pay" anyway.

So to get rid of the buerocracy (yeah, yeah, unbelievable in germany :D) the government changed licensing to be household based.
Every household pays. Regardless of how many or if any devices are present.

Back 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.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
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.

Importantly, 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.
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7575
  • Country: va
Quote
Back in the 1970s, the Australian government decided that the cost of administering Radio & TV Receiving licenses was greater than the revenue received & abolished them.

That is so sensible I can't believe any government could accept it, never mind actually implement it  :-//
 

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
I would have thought that the country (countries) would be as well-wired as the US is. There must be reasons
The 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: special_K

Offline SteveThackery

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 862
  • Country: gb
... why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?
The license violators were tortured and were unable to tell anything.
Court records of course.
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.
Which 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."

Of 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 you might be 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.
 

Offline SteveThackery

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 862
  • Country: gb
... why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?
The license violators were tortured and were unable to tell anything.
Court records of course.
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.
Which 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."

if a TV means you require a license what microscopic fraction of households doesn't need one?

A 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 they might be.
 

Offline SteveThackery

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 862
  • Country: gb

Having 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.

To 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.
 

Offline SteveThackery

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 862
  • Country: gb
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 ...

It'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.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
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 ...

It'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.
Some 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.

... why can't I find any cases when evidence from TV detector vans have been used?
The license violators were tortured and were unable to tell anything.
Court records of course.
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.
Which 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."

Of 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 you might be 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.
Perhaps 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: SteveThackery

Online Ranayna

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1015
  • Country: de

Which 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."
Thats 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 :p
So essentially this boiled down to "everyone has to pay" anyway.

So to get rid of the buerocracy (yeah, yeah, unbelievable in germany :D) the government changed licensing to be household based.
Every household pays. Regardless of how many or if any devices are present.

Back 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.
Revenue 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.
 

Offline pdenisowski

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 941
  • Country: us
  • Product Management Engineer, Rohde & Schwarz
    • Test and Measurement Fundamentals Playlist on the R&S YouTube channel
I wanna see this working on video, because people still have old tv's and also spectrum analyzers

I 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. 
Test and Measurement Fundamentals video series on the Rohde & Schwarz YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKxVoO5jUTlvsVtDcqrVn0ybqBVlLj2z8
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8321
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Revenue for german TV licensing was a whopping 9.02 billion Euro in 2023.

And despite that much money and the official task to inform and educate we get mostly just (poor) entertainment. It's a disgrace!

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.

In 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.

 
The following users thanked this post: wraper

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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 ...
The 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.
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
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.

Importantly, 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.
Yup, 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.
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7575
  • Country: va
I'll see if I can set up and record a similar test using a modern TV.

That 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: BrianHG, pdenisowski

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
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
A distant part of my memory is saying the original bsb,complete with squaerial,  didn't require a tv license,am i remembering that correct?
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
Alright; 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.

Why 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?
 

Offline Postal2

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 826
  • Country: 00
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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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?
The 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.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
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?
The 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.

Included 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.
 

Offline pdenisowski

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 941
  • Country: us
  • Product Management Engineer, Rohde & Schwarz
    • Test and Measurement Fundamentals Playlist on the R&S YouTube channel

Given the number of people from the UK on this thread, I'm very surprised no one has mentioned the cat detector van yet

https://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."

 :-DD
Test and Measurement Fundamentals video series on the Rohde & Schwarz YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKxVoO5jUTlvsVtDcqrVn0ybqBVlLj2z8
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
Does it have to be the German girl to address the title of this thread directly

Just 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
 
The following users thanked this post: PlainName

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
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.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
The early detection system in the UK utilising the radiation from the horizontal deflection system was because that very early receivers were often Tuned 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
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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.
Yes. The UK had only one BBC channel until 1955. Then regional commercial channels began, one in each region, referred to as ITV.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
Alright; 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.

Why would you think of it as technologically backward?

What, are you baiting me? Please reread my comment: I said I don't think of the UK as being technologically backward.
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11427
  • Country: us
  • $
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.

Importantly, 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.

Still, 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 lol

Apparently 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 shoddy

and crappy insulating arcing.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 09:58:50 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
Alright; 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.

Why would you think of it as technologically backward?

What, are you baiting me? Please reread my comment: I said I don't think of the UK as being technologically backward.

*sigh*

Why do you equate terrestrial broadcast with being technologically backwards?
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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.
The 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.
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11427
  • Country: us
  • $
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
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
For some reason that looks so veddy veddy British to me:

 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11427
  • Country: us
  • $
lmfao the driver of that thing has nerves of steel

also where is the video footage of them chasing it down the street in the wind
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
This whole thread puts me in mind of a song from long ago:
Quote
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk) I'll tax your feet
(Taxman)

'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Don't ask me what I want it for
(Taxman Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more
(Taxman Mr. Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Now my advice for those who die (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes (taxman)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me (taxman)
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 11:12:59 pm by Analog Kid »
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
This whole thread puts me in mind of a song from long ago:
A Laffer minute.
 

Offline Canis Dirus Leidy

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 222
  • Country: ru
What amazing stories I learned from you, in the Soviet Union there were never any licenses for radio and television.
Not quite. Since the mid-twenties, a subscription fee[1] 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.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
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.
Yes. The UK had only one BBC channel until 1955. Then regional commercial channels began, one in each region, referred to as ITV.

The 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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2025, 01:16:24 am by Xena E »
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
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.
Thank you.  I never considered that aspect of using a negative going picture modulation scheme.
 

Online Ranayna

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1015
  • Country: de
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.

Importantly, 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.

Still, 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 lol

Apparently 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 shoddy

and crappy insulating arcing.
That reminds me...
This report made it even into german tech media:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-54239180

An 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.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
This report made it even into german tech media:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-54239180

An 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.

So 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.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
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.
The 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.

I 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.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9089
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2025, 07:40:14 pm by TimFox »
 
The following users thanked this post: Analog Kid

Offline Stray Electron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2263
Nearly everyone has access to terrestrial transmissions.

Yeah, 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.



     That 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 receive 99 different local stations instead of just the FOUR that my cable company rebroadcast. 
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
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.
Thank you.  I never considered that aspect of using a negative going picture modulation scheme.

It 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.
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
It 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.
I 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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2025, 05:28:04 am by BrianHG »
 

Offline special_K

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: gb
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.

Terrestrial 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 people have 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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2025, 06:21:37 am by special_K »
 
The following users thanked this post: Analog Kid

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4958
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
There was no commercial TV stations [in the UK] until the very late 1980s

This is incorrect, commercial broadcasting started in 1955 in the UK
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
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.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
It 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.
I 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.

The 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.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
There was no commercial TV stations [in the UK] until the very late 1980s

This is incorrect, commercial broadcasting started in 1955 in the UK

I 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 did not have 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


« Last Edit: January 11, 2025, 10:52:43 pm by Xena E »
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
And... functioning detector vans did exist! At least during the days of analogue television, there were however very few of them. The were operated by the GPO but their main mode of operation was to be sent to areas where the proportion of households that had sales of receivers credited to them who did not have 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 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.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb

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.

A 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
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb

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.

A 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
After 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.

 

Offline special_K

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: gb
There was no commercial TV stations [in the UK] until the very late 1980s

This is incorrect, commercial broadcasting started in 1955 in the UK

I 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.

No, 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.

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.

I said "2 megawatts across four stations".

UHF 55 - 500kW - BBC1
UHF 62 - 500kW - BBC2
UHF 59 - 500kW - Granada
UHF 65 - 500kW - Channel 4

In traditional human maths, 500,000 x 4 = 2,000,000




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 did not have licences, the vans were more of an encouragement for people to go get the licence than be an effective tool in catching unlicenced viewing.
(Attachment Link)
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

That 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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2025, 11:25:27 pm by special_K »
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
I think special_k post looks like it was AI generated, it is mostly bollocks.

Izzat 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?
 

Offline special_K

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: gb
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.


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.

The 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...

« Last Edit: January 11, 2025, 11:42:43 pm by special_K »
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
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.
They 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.
 

Offline special_K

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: gb
That's more about what they wanted to be versus what they were legally 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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2025, 12:04:39 am by special_K »
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
There was no commercial TV stations [in the UK] until the very late 1980s

This is incorrect, commercial broadcasting started in 1955 in the UK

I 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.

No, 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.

"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.
Quote

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.

I said "2 megawatts across four stations".

UHF 55 - 500kW - BBC1
UHF 62 - 500kW - BBC2
UHF 59 - 500kW - Granada
UHF 65 - 500kW - Channel 4

In traditional human maths, 500,000 x 4 = 2,000,000

The 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




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 did not have licences, the vans were more of an encouragement for people to go get the licence than be an effective tool in catching unlicenced viewing.
(Attachment Link)
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

That 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.
 

Offline BrianHGTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
It 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.
I 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.

The 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.
Yup, 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.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
It 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.
I 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.

The 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.
Yup, 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.

The 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.
 

Offline special_K

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: gb
"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.

Perhaps. 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.


The 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.


I'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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2025, 06:26:30 am by special_K »
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
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.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
I think special_k post looks like it was AI generated, it is mostly bollocks.

Izzat 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?

As its you that asks sweety 😁

Well, the claim was that there were no commercial television stations within the UK, before the late 1980s.

Verbatim:
Quote
There was no commercial TV stations [in the UK] until the very late 1980s

A 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 did not have 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?

Quote
That 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.

Thats 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 dwelling  if 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 court

Generally people were pursuaded to just buy the licence.

But hey! People should believe what makes them happy, this doesnt matter, it's all history.


But it was sloppy reading from Xena E

What did I miss?
X
« Last Edit: January 13, 2025, 08:57:25 am by Xena E »
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
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.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Online Sorama

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 228
  • Country: be
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.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
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.
 

Offline dave j

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Country: gb
Well, the claim was that there were no commercial television stations within the UK, before the late 1980s.

Verbatim:
Quote
There was no commercial TV stations [in the UK] until the very late 1980s

A 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 did not have to adhere to the mandate that the BBC did.

...

Why special K then brings in "public service" description is just to bluff the original point,

'Public service requirements imposed by the government' and 'funded by commerce' are not mutually exclusive as special K is implying. ITV Schools is a notable example of public service broadcasting on UK commercial channels.
I'm not David L Jones. Apparently I actually do have to point this out.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
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.

Thank 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...

Well, the claim was that there were no commercial television stations within the UK, before the late 1980s.

Verbatim:
Quote
There was no commercial TV stations [in the UK] until the very late 1980s

A 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 did not have to adhere to the mandate that the BBC did.

...

Why special K then brings in "public service" description is just to bluff the original point,

'Public service requirements imposed by the government' and 'funded by commerce' are not mutually exclusive as special K is implying. ITV Schools is a notable example of public service broadcasting on UK commercial channels.

True, 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" then I apologise unreservedly.

 :-//

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.

Yes, 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...

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.

Probably! 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
 

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
I have been told that they translate to not even being able to watch creator content on you tube now.
crapita 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 site
Quote
Watching YouTube
 You don’t need a TV Licence to watch videos or clips on demand on YouTube.
But you DO need a TV Licence if you watch TV live on YouTube. An example of this would be watching Sky News live. But it isn’t just live news or sport which needs a licence – it’s any programme which is part of a TV channel, shown or transmitted for everyone to watch at the same time.


Quote
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.
Id tell em to offski ,meet   ya in court. See the above,especially the bit in bold


 
The following users thanked this post: Xena E

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
Quote
I have been told that they translate to not even being able to watch creator content on you tube now.
crapita 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 site
So... Fraud by ommission then!
Quote
Watching YouTube
 You don’t need a TV Licence to watch videos or clips on demand on YouTube.
But you DO need a TV Licence if you watch TV live on YouTube. An example of this would be watching Sky News live. But it isn’t just live news or sport which needs a licence – it’s any programme which is part of a TV channel, shown or transmitted for everyone to watch at the same time.


Quote
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.
Id tell em to offski ,meet   ya in court. See the above,especially the bit in bold

Thanks, I'll pass that on.

X
 

Online Ranayna

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1015
  • Country: de
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.
The UK TV licence is per household. An obviously historic artefact, from a time when TVs had the disposition of a piece of furniture.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.

Because 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.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10151
  • Country: gb
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.

Because politically it's a toxic football no one wants to touch.

If BBC funding goes down, the left/centre gets upset.
If taxes go up, the right/centre get upset.

Issues like these get put off until doing nothing becomes untenable.  That'll probably happen sometime in 2035 at this rate.
Polls 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.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.

Because politically it's a toxic football no one wants to touch.

If BBC funding goes down, the left/centre gets upset.
If taxes go up, the right/centre get upset.

Issues like these get put off until doing nothing becomes untenable.  That'll probably happen sometime in 2035 at this rate.
Polls 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.
I 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.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
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. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Zero999

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.

If I am correct that is the way that germany does it now as a media licence?

Still unwelcome, but a more honest approach.
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7575
  • Country: va
Quote
I have been told that they translate to not even being able to watch creator content on you tube now.
crapita 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 site
Quote
Watching YouTube
 You don’t need a TV Licence to watch videos or clips on demand on YouTube.
But you DO need a TV Licence if you watch TV live on YouTube. An example of this would be watching Sky News live. But it isn’t just live news or sport which needs a licence – it’s any programme which is part of a TV channel, shown or transmitted for everyone to watch at the same time.

You 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.
 

Online Ranayna

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1015
  • Country: de
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.

If I am correct that is the way that germany does it now as a media licence?

Still unwelcome, but a more honest approach.
Yes, 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.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2025, 03:43:30 pm by Ranayna »
 
The following users thanked this post: Xena E

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
You 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.

This 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?
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
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.
You'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.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
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.
You'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.

I 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 a reasonably impartial outlook IMHO.

X
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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.

Heh; 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.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20498
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Well quite, we don't always see eye to eye Zero
I 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, Analog Kid

Offline special_K

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: gb

Quote
That 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.

Thats 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?

The 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?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2025, 09:31:06 pm by special_K »
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us

Quote
That 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.

Thats 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?

The 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?

While 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.
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11427
  • Country: us
  • $
what we need is a defector

what 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 vans

MiB 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'
« Last Edit: January 14, 2025, 12:02:20 am by coppercone2 »
 

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
Was sale of a license required at the point of TV sale?

no,but you were required to give your name and address when you purchases a tv
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.

Because 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.

Like Australia did in the 1970s.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb

Quote
That 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.

Thats 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?

The 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?

An 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.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb


While 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.

Just 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
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
what we need is a defector

what 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.

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

Most 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) 🤣

Men in Black 6 can be about TV detector vans

MiB 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'
well 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

« Last Edit: January 14, 2025, 09:55:05 pm by Xena E »
 

Offline aeberbach

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 238
  • Country: au
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).

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?

I 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.
Software guy studying B.Eng.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
well any technology would seem alien to a culture that still connects it's house wiring up with wire nuts!

So 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.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us


While 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.

Just 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

You 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.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au

Quote
That 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.

Thats 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?

The 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?

An 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.

Analog 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.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
If that's their reasoning, i am curious why the UK has not yet switched to a fee per household.

Because politically it's a toxic football no one wants to touch.

If BBC funding goes down, the left/centre gets upset.
If taxes go up, the right/centre get upset.

Issues like these get put off until doing nothing becomes untenable.  That'll probably happen sometime in 2035 at this rate.
Polls 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.

When 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.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
well any technology would seem alien to a culture that still connects it's house wiring up with wire nuts!

So 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).
And 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 for domestic wiring 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.


BTW, it's "its" for a possessive, not "it's". Very common mistake.

I 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.

🖕🙂
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
well any technology would seem alien to a culture that still connects it's house wiring up with wire nuts!

So 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).
I am ambivalent toward them actually, but theres zero need for domestic wiring 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?)

Agree 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.

Quote
Most of the problems caused with domestic wiring is perpetrated by unqualified and ignorant homeowner fixes that go wrong.

Tell me about it. Used to work as a handyman, and I saw lots of nearly unbelievable stuff.
But some of it was done by licensed electricians, which is even worse.


BTW, it's "its" for a possessive, not "it's". Very common mistake.

Quote
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.

OK, exemption happily granted.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
I tried to explain this to some of the other posters, but to no avail.

Thank 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
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb

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.


I 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
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb

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.

I 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

 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au
I tried to explain this to some of the other posters, but to no avail.

Thank 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

They should never quote the total power put out by all the discrete transmitters as it is a meaningless statistic for analog TV.
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4958
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
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.

Never, ever   :palm:

Bloody Septics and their wirenuts... those things are a dangerous abomination, use a sodding Wago type ffs!
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, Xena E

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
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
wot 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  1.5mm2 t+e's that lived a comfortable life in the existing ceiling rose
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
Quote
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
wot 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  1.5mm2 t+e's that lived a comfortable life in the existing ceiling rose

I 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'd perhaps be 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
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4958
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Quote
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
wot 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  1.5mm2 t+e's that lived a comfortable life in the existing ceiling rose

I 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'd perhaps be 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

If 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 always listen, of course...
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
With all due respect to someone who would make a safe connection... just no buried  boxes with connections...

Dunno 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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2025, 07:21:23 pm by Analog Kid »
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
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.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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.

How so?
Not contradicting you, just curious to know more.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
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.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
Hood???
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
With all due respect to someone who would make a safe connection... just no buried  boxes with connections...

I've read about some shortcomings with Wago connections having to do with the spring connectors in them.

At no point did you read that I was 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 because it 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 carrying joints have 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
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
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.

It'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
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
Buried and inaccessible connections in domestic property is forbidden [...]

Not 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.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
Buried and inaccessible connections in domestic property is forbidden [...]

Not 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.

I 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.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
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.

The 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.
 

Offline special_K

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: gb

An 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.


For 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.

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.


Ah, 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.
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7871
  • Country: au

An 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.


For 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.

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.


Ah, 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.

If 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Xena E

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb

An 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.

For 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.

We'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?

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.

Ah, 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.

That 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
« Last Edit: January 17, 2025, 01:59:31 am by Xena E »
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8321
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
CWACS (Car-based Warning and Control System)? ;D
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7387
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
Buried and inaccessible connections in domestic property is forbidden [...]

Not 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.

I 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.

Yes, I only know about UK electrical code. 
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
Hood???

Hood connector.

And what is that? Google brings up pages and pages of duct connectors.
Please don't assume that everyone here knows terms that you use.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
Please don't assume that everyone here knows terms that you use.

Do you?
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
Please don't assume that everyone here knows terms that you use.

Do you?

No I don't, hence my question.
Sheesh.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
So the thing is settled, within few replies and even almost less words.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
So the thing is settled, within few replies and even almost less words.

No it isn't:
What the actual fuck is a "hood connector"?
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Analog Kid

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8154
  • Country: gb
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.

The 'body' of a Wago plays no part at all in the connection. The spring does all the work.
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7575
  • Country: va
Quote
I will also agree that it may be easier to improperly install them than Wago style connectors in some applications.

Wouldn'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.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
So the thing is settled, within few replies and even almost less words.

No it isn't:
What the actual fuck is a "hood connector"?

Sorry, 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
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us
Quote
I will also agree that it may be easier to improperly install them than Wago style connectors in some applications.

Wouldn'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.

I 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.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2025, 03:36:14 pm by CatalinaWOW »
 
The following users thanked this post: helius

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1311
  • Country: us
So the thing is settled, within few replies and even almost less words.

No it isn't:
What the actual fuck is a "hood connector"?

Sorry, I thought it's obvious.
To you, perhaps.

Quote
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

Great; 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.
 

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3309
  • Country: gb
Quote
Reminds me of backstabbed outlets
Nope,those orange thingys are levers ya lift up to insert the wire,push down to lock
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: fi
So the thing is settled, within few replies and even almost less words.

No it isn't:
What the actual fuck is a "hood connector"?

Sorry, I thought it's obvious.
To you, perhaps.


I thought it's also obvious that you'll put it through a translator.

Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: gb
Quote
I will also agree that it may be easier to improperly install them than Wago style connectors in some applications.

Wouldn'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.

Unfortunately idiots dont realise their limitations.

They certainly shouldn't be messing with electrical work.

X
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4958
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
So the thing is settled, within few replies and even almost less words.

No it isn't:
What the actual fuck is a "hood connector"?

Sorry, I thought it's obvious.
To you, perhaps.


I thought it's also obvious that you'll put it through a translator.

They're "American", and therefore expect the rest of the world to speak their version 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.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4958
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s