ARGOS spying for tv licensing!!??

Nilrem

fox2319 wrote: »

There were in the past. They worked by tuning into the local oscillator which is used to downconvert the RF TV signal and measuring the offset off the sidebands to tell them which channel you were tuned into. By having a couple of highly directional antennas, you could pretty much pinpoint where the set actually was. It's not on player any more but the episode guide is http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kwf9y

However, the conclusion was that although the technology was there, it was more often a bunch of people with a clipboard. Not sure if the tech would work too well these days given the type of modulation that's used in digital boxes.

IIRC even modern digital receivers still use some of the same basic principles and still produce a signal that is able to be picked up with modern, more sensitive equipment (whatever happens they still need to receive the broadcast signal and start to convert it to a signal that the decoding equipment etc can use).

As you say most of the time it'd be much more sense to just send people out to houses without a licence and have them use their mark 1 eyes and ears.

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

Seen many TV detector vans with darkened windows. Look at them with the sun behind them. All I've ever seen is rows of seat backs (mini-bus style) no detector equipment no gubbins, nothing like Star -trek's bridge just seat backs!
Good for re-sale value perhaps.
Anyone here EVER been taken to court on the 'evidence' of a detector van? Please let me know. I DON'T HAVE A TV LICENCE (or TV receiving equipment).

IIRC the original detector vans used equipment that would have been extremely bulky (probably valve based), so they probably only ever had a small number in operation.
With newer versions of the equipment going from solid state with discrete components (large numbers of resistors/transistors etc), to later solid state (with most of the parts on a handful of chips) they have got smaller and smaller.
Apparently the latest versions are/were handheld and whilst they lose some of the precision a large directional aerial would give them, they gain accuracy from the fact you can easily walk around with it and point it in the direction (giving an ability to triangulate from very close range rather than the road).
Hence the vans are largely for show, as it's easy enough now for them to move the equipment from one van to another, or even just be carried by a guy in the car (in effect the Van might be more of a promotional tool, sort of a moving billboard, as there isn't really a practical reason for them to be as big as they are for the equipment, and probably hasn't been since the 70's).

I don't think they've ever prosecuted anyone on the evidence from a detector van, but the tech is certainly there*, and is based on some methods that I beleive were used in the Second World War certainly (to triangulate weak, often directional transmissions).



*Indeed it's even apparently possible in theory (using extremely complicated/expensive equipment), to recreate with reasonable accuracy what is actually being shown on CRT computer monitors from the changes in the EM emissions as the picture is scanned - I beleive it was something the US Government were looking at for the CIA etc.
It's also oddly enough possible to work out what has been typed from an audio recording - everyone's keyboard/typing habits make unique sounds as individual keys are pressed, so if you get a large enough sample you can run it through several programmes to first identify individual keystrokes, then work out what key each stroke represents.

Mapleleaf

I suppose the TV detector vans are there to catch people who get round the system by giving a false address.

When I lived in the UK I could have done this quite easily, as one of the streets I lived on had some houses missing (odd numbers between 97 and 131 did not exist). I could have used one of these numbers with a correct postal code to avoid my real address being passed to the tv license people.

Swan_2

DodgyLurgy wrote: »

I always thought that if you had anything capable if receiving a standard tv signal (I say standard in the loosest sense, able to receive bbc1,2 etc ) then you had to get a licence. So a computer monitor is exempt but as soon as you put a tv tuner card in your pc then you would need to get one. Is this correct?

fox2319 wrote: »

Essentially, yes. Unless you detune the card in which case no.

it's not strictly speaking necessary to detune a pc card or any other receiving equipment to stay within the law

you can have as many tellys, pc tuners & any other means of receiving broadcasts as you like & you won't need a licence, provided you're not using them to watch or record broadcasts as they're being shown, for instance you don't need a licence if all you use your telly for is DVDs & gaming ... see Marty J's post #55

the onus is on TVLA to prove you're breaking the law, so if you're not using the equipment to watch live broadcasting, and given that they have no right of entry to your home, what proof would they have if you didn't let them in?

but if you don't want the hassle of refusing entry to the inspectors, then de-tuning & unplugging aerials will make for a more peaceful life

adouglasmhor

rmg1 wrote: »

Sorry, Marty J, but you do (unless they've changed the rules again).
There was a documented case a few years ago where a guy only had a Sky setup and had an engineer disable hi TV from receiving a terrestrial signal. He still had to pay for a licence.

There's also the oddity (although rare now) where if you have (had) a VCR with a B&W TV, you had to buy a colour licence.

Untrue . It may be true about the Sky signal, but it's not true about the TV. You need a licence to watch live TV transmitions - not own a TV.

Greatgimp

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

I know that it might be difficult to understand but
I DON'T WATCH TV. I look at the internet (NOT TV) I listen to the radio (Not TV - better pictures anyway), read newspapers (not TV) on the web, read books, look at playboy, but I don't watch TV. Not Coronation street, not Eastenders, I don't like sport I don't watch TV. I don't have a TV tuner or TV and don't need a TV licence.

Yes but do you watch TV?

ABH_3

A recent BBC Radio 4 documentary a couple of weeks ago went in 'search of the tv detector vans', infact there were around 4 of them in existence. One even had some form of 'equipment' inside, though it wasn't as far as they could ascertain ever connected, as it would require a power supply to be dragged behind it to power the thing. Then someone else came on and said that he had seen inside the van and the only thing he saw was 1 sleeping bag, 1 lunch box and 1 flask, nothing more.

It was a ruse people believed if they saw such a thing that they would own up, as lets face it you can't lie if a machine has you bang to rights.

The documentary also concluded that they may have also been between 4 and 26 of the vans and that they covered the whole country. There was some discussion as to what or who they were infact searching for, as the Government was looking for Russian Spies who may have been broadcasting stuff from their home locations, such was the paranoia at the time.

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/media/index.php makes a convincing case for their existence today! They even have plans to build a 'TV Signal Blocker'.

The guy who owns this van: http://www.commervanfan.co.uk/martin_maltas.htm was the one on the BBC documentary who said there was equipment inside but he wasn't sure what it did IIRC as it wasn't connected to anything and was just lying inside.

HTH

Still my own experience with TV Licensing is that they LIE their 'inspectors' are nothing more than licensed thugs, what's more they don't tell the truth. I wrote out my experience but it took almost a A4 page up here, so I had 2nd thoughts about posting it

Marty_J

Mapleleaf wrote: »

I suppose the TV detector vans are there to catch people who get round the system by giving a false address.

When I lived in the UK I could have done this quite easily, as one of the streets I lived on had some houses missing (odd numbers between 97 and 131 did not exist). I could have used one of these numbers with a correct postal code to avoid my real address being passed to the tv license people.

Giving a false address to whom?

If your real address isn't covered by a TV licence, then someone will turn up to ask why.

Your plan would only work if you actually lived in one of the untraceable imaginary houses.

rmg1

Marty_J wrote: »

Hi Marty J

Looks like they've changed the rules again, so I stand corrected.

fox2319

Nilrem wrote: »

IIRC even modern digital receivers still use some of the same basic principles and still produce a signal that is able to be picked up with modern, more sensitive equipment (whatever happens they still need to receive the broadcast signal and start to convert it to a signal that the decoding equipment etc can use).

True but although they would have a local oscillator to downconvert the received signal, I believe the channels are multiplexed together (Possibly TDM but I wouldn't swear to it) It's not possible to 'see' which channel people are watching in the same way. They could just have a TV connected to a PC / PS3 which will still have the LO working. Besides which, the lack of a big RF source in the electron gun and the amount of general RF noise out there would make this a tricky & expensive (if highly interesting) project.