==========================

Documentary

Punt PI
Saturday 13 June
10:30am - 11:00am
BBC Radio 4

Steve Punt turns private investigator, examining little mysteries that
perplex, amuse and beguile. 2: Steve goes on the trail of TV detector
vans, investigating rumours that the vehicles are little more than a
myth. Some people are utterly convinced that the vans are empty and that
it is simply not possible to detect a television set. Faced with a wall
of official silence, Steve travels hundreds of miles to track down one
of the vehicles for himself. He searches out those who were once
involved in the TV licensing business and wades through the post office
archives to get the lowdown on the history of this very British
phenomenon.

============================

OT, but perhaps of interest to readers of this NG.

"198kHz" <198kHz> wrote in message
news:nz2d
[..]
> Some people are utterly convinced that the vans are empty and that it is
> simply not possible to detect a television set. Faced with a wall of
> official silence, Steve travels hundreds of miles to track down one of the
> vehicles for himself. He searches out those who were once involved in the
> TV licensing business and wades through the post office archives to get
> the lowdown on the history of this very British phenomenon.
>
> ============================
>
> OT, but perhaps of interest to readers of this NG.

Whether they work or not is a moot point these days as anyone without a
licence is considered guilty until proven innocent, and even then they will
still send you threatening letters asking for payment.

I doubt they could ever detect non CRT TVs anyway?

Z

In article <h0qek5$kg1$1>, Zimmy <x> wrote:

you threatening letters asking for payment.

> I doubt they could ever detect non CRT TVs anyway?

Local oscillators are needed on any set.

In message <5069a3c792charles>, charles
<charles> writes
>In article <h0qek5$kg1$1>, Zimmy <x> wrote:
>
> you threatening letters asking for payment.
>
>> I doubt they could ever detect non CRT TVs anyway?
>
>Local oscillators are needed on any set.
>
Agreed, that's all you need to look for.

"bin me" <binme2> wrote in message
news:fw09
> In message <5069a3c792charles>, charles
> <charles> writes
>>In article <h0qek5$kg1$1>, Zimmy <x> wrote:
>>
>> you threatening letters asking for payment.
>>
>>> I doubt they could ever detect non CRT TVs anyway?
>>
>>Local oscillators are needed on any set.
>>
> Agreed, that's all you need to look for.
> --
> Alan


Well go out looking for local oscillators then.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:20:48 +0100, charles wrote:
> In article <h0qek5$kg1$1>, Zimmy <x> wrote:
>
> you threatening letters asking for payment.
>
>> I doubt they could ever detect non CRT TVs anyway?
>
> Local oscillators are needed on any set.
>
So wrap your tv (of lcd) in foil

In message <slrnh31s94.2n6.no-one>, pete <no-one>
writes
>On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:20:48 +0100, charles wrote:
>> In article <h0qek5$kg1$1>, Zimmy <x> wrote:
>>
>> you threatening letters asking for payment.
>>
>>> I doubt they could ever detect non CRT TVs anyway?
>>
>> Local oscillators are needed on any set.
>>
>So wrap your tv (of lcd) in foil

The LO can still get out of the aerial socket, and be radiated by the
aerial.

However, how bad/good are modern TV sets and STBs in respect of LO
radiation/leakage? I suspect that they are a heck of a lot better than
they used to be. These days, such signals may be very difficult to
detect, especially with all the other electronic crud flying around.

> However, how bad/good are modern TV sets and STBs in respect of LO
> radiation/leakage? I suspect that they are a heck of a lot better than
> they used to be. These days, such signals may be very difficult to detect,
> especially with all the other electronic crud flying around.

Picking the screen off a computer is "big business" because of commercial
and military secret concerns. Even with modern PCs and monitors, it is
amazingly easy. Secure computers are place in faraday cages and often not
connected to anything other than a very carefully designed and screen power
supply. Even the leads from the keyboards are protected and even the
keyboards themselves pose a thread because of the scanning used to identify
the keys being pressed.

I would doubt whether a modern TV, never designed to be secure from the
standpoint of irradiated "image" would pose any problem at all.

Paul DS

On Jun 11, 1:14 pm, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjack> wrote:
> In message <slrnh31s942n6no-@corvlocal>,pete<no->
> writes
>>
>>
> The LO can still get out of the aerial socket, and be radiated by the
> aerial.
>
> However, how bad/good are modern TV sets and STBs in respect of LO
> radiation/leakage? I suspect that they are a heck of a lot better than
> they used to be. These days, such signals may be very difficult to
> detect, especially with all the other electronic crud flying around.
> --
> Ian
Don't modern TVs use direct conversion receivers though? - that is a
question not an accusation ;-)

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:14:41 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <slrnh31s94.2n6.no-one>, pete <no-one>
> writes
>
> The LO can still get out of the aerial socket, and be radiated by the
> aerial.

True - but AFAIR, the detector vans point their detectors (if they are actually
for real - not just props left over from a 1960's Dr. Who) at the rooms,
not the roof.
Plus, the TVDV would have to be "on beam" from the aerial, or very lucky
with a side lobe to detect a decent signal.

> However, how bad/good are modern TV sets and STBs in respect of LO
> radiation/leakage? I suspect that they are a heck of a lot better than
> they used to be. These days, such signals may be very difficult to
> detect, especially with all the other electronic crud flying around.

Indeed. In the days of valves, when the TVDV rumours were in their prime
you probably generated milliWatts of RF fom the LO. Theese days with
semiconductor mixer stages (and probably a preceding RF stage, too) I
doubt if there are more than a few uW floating about.
Nowadays with LCDs, they can't even try for the line output stage, either.

These days, it's probably easier just to look for the fluorescent flicker
through the curtains. :-)

"pete" <no-one> wrote in message
news:-one
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:14:41 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> True - but AFAIR, the detector vans point their detectors (if they are
> actually
> for real - not just props left over from a 1960's Dr. Who) at the rooms,
> not the roof.
> Plus, the TVDV would have to be "on beam" from the aerial, or very lucky
> with a side lobe to detect a decent signal.
>> Indeed. In the days of valves, when the TVDV rumours were in their prime
> you probably generated milliWatts of RF fom the LO. Theese days with
> semiconductor mixer stages (and probably a preceding RF stage, too) I
> doubt if there are more than a few uW floating about.
> Nowadays with LCDs, they can't even try for the line output stage, either.
>
> These days, it's probably easier just to look for the fluorescent flicker
> through the curtains. :-)



The BBC does not employ people with sufficient I.Q. to perform such tricks.

In order to collect a fee of about £140 via the use of their outsourced
contractors, you are not going to much of a profit after the cost of
deducting a suitably qualified radio and electronics engineering graduate
plus van, computer, network, and power supply.

BBC Licence enforcement is about returning to previously convicted members
of the under-class and tricking the mainly female, dim, and easily
intimidated into signing confessions and self-incriminations.

I have not had a BBC TV Licence since 2002.

They send round morons in woolly hats who knock on my door like someone from
the Nazi brown shirts, gurn into my CCTV cameras for 30 seconds, and then
clear off.

It would amuse me no end what sort of electronic noise-shit they can detect
amongst my array of laptops, servers, routers, WIFI bridges, webcams, CCTV
radio links, etc.

Perhaps they might even be able to screen grab a picture of themselves on my
CCTV system spying on me spying on them spying on me. Not.



BTW, a radical concept but if the BBC didn't broadcast crap, didn't tell
porkies, didn't stack itself full of lefties, didn't shout over music,
didn't smear DOG shit on my picture, we could arrange to pay them without
the need for "Benny" to come round.

In article <h0r2hg$319f$1>,
Light of Aria <lightofaria> wrote:
> I have not had a BBC TV Licence since 2002.


Why read this group if you don't watch TV?

....snip..

It will not surprise readers that a colleague of mine who truely does not
own a TV is regularly greeted on the doorstep by "the man from the beeb"
asking to see his TV licence.

This despite a number of concerted attempt to get across, in writing, that
he does not own a TV.

OTOH, another friend who does own a TV but only to watch DVDs (he keeps the
TV in a cupboard at other times - yes, he really is that honest!) wrote a
nice letter to the TV licencing people explaining this and they've never
called again.

Paul DS.

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave> wrote in message
news:dave
> In article <h0r2hg$319f$1>,
> Light of Aria <lightofaria> wrote:
>> I have not had a BBC TV Licence since 2002.
>> Why read this group if you don't watch TV?
>
> --
> *The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *
>
> Dave Plowman dave London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.



Perhaps one does watch TV or programmes or films or "content" of "media"?

In article <h0r8dh$9te$1>,
Light of Aria <lightofaria> wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave> wrote in message
> news:dave
> > In article <h0r2hg$319f$1>,
> > Light of Aria <lightofaria> wrote:
> >> I have not had a BBC TV Licence since 2002.


> Perhaps one does watch TV or programmes or films or "content" of "media"?

I hope you don't watch TV without a licence. In your own home. Because it
doesn't come from the planet Zog and paid for by those inhabitants.