As far as I know, they work initially from a list of people who have got a licence. Then, they use a detector to look around the street to see if there's a TV being used at adresses that don't have a licence. However, they don't seem to be terribly adept - I once worked with a guy who'd never had a TV in his life, yet they insisted that they'd detected a set on his premises .
The actual detecton isn't too hard to do. Basically, the TV is a form of superheterodyne receiver (look it up on google if you're interested ). So you can tell what channel is being watched by looking for the emissions from the local oscillator (the LO), and doing a simple addition or subtraction to see what that LO frequency translates to in RF terms.
As for making the set work, it shouldn't be too difficult, as the frequencies involved are fairly high, so the detector set can be made very directional.
However, if you can all wait until early next year, I should be able to get a definitive answer, as the outfit I work for (the Radiocommunications Ageny) will be joining up with a number of other regulators, and I guess that sort of thing will be covered somewhere .
Detecting whether you have a running TV or not should be trivially easy, considering how much more than that heavy-duty spy tech can do.
This is not James Bond fiction: With the right equipment, not only can someone tell if you've got a TV running, they can see what you're watching. The RF emissions from a CRT on a computer are sufficient for someone to see what you've got up on your computer as well. Not only that, but at close range there's enough RF leakage from your keyboard to figure out what you're typing as well -- including stealing passwords that way.
TEMPEST is an unclassified short name referring to investigations and studies of compromising emanations. TEMPEST stands for Transient Electromagnetic Pulse Surveillance Technology. Compromising emanations are unintentional intelligence-bearing signals that, if intercepted and analyzed, will disclose classified information when it is transmitted, received, handled, or otherwise processed by any information processing equipment...
TEMPEST equipment can essentially remotely mirror what is being done on a remote device. TEMPEST monitoring technology has gotten to the point that it is possible for an intruder to park in a van on the street and observe on their receiver exactly what a user is doing on an unprotected personal computer. Emissions from a video monitor normally exist at around 55-245 Mhz, and can be picked up as far as one kilometer away. The cost of Tempest eavesdropping equipment can vary from $5000 to $250,000, and the costs of protection against these devices varies according to the sophistication of the eavesdropper.
This is the most insane thing I've ever heard about TV. Lemmesee if I got this straight? They tax the sets themselves? And radios?
OMG!
So if you own a TV, that's one, an AM/FM reciever, that's two? And to make this properly European (I know British, same diff, whether you admit it or not) I suppose you pay more fees if you own more sets?
Assuming taxes pay for something, what exactly do they pay for? Why not have a one time point of sale tax? How high is the tax, BTW?
I assume that this tax allows for the "legal" reception of air signals. Which raises another question? People still have to buy cable, correct? If people own cable, but aren't paying (this ridiculous TV tax) then shouldn't the tax man look there first? Nobody buys cable without a set? Or wouldn't just automatically have to pay the tax with the purchase of a cable package?
Thank goodness I live in Canada where antennea's are free from taxation and we can steal cable and satellite with aplomb. Oddly enough, I steal neither, though it seems every other person in my neighborhood does.
Man, that's the weirdest thing I've ever heard about TV's.
The licence fee is a bit mad and antiquated, but you only pay once per household (as far as I know - that's all I've ever paid ). As far as I know, the fee dates back to the old days when there was only one TV provider, Auntie Beeb (the BBC). This was in the days before anyone had thought of using advertising to generate income, so they needed to get their money from somewhere.
I have cable, but yes, I still have to pay a licence fee. IIRC, the fee is to cover the *potential* to receive the channels covered by the licence fee, so even if you have cable (or satellite), you still pay . Sad, but true!
I agree with many that say it's an outdayed idea. However, I personally like the fact that I can watch a program (or film) on the BBC channels, and not have any adverts at crucial moments! Mind you, adverts are a small inconvenience compared to the recent UK trend (particualrly ITV, the original commercial channel) of splitting a film up in to two parts, JUST TO HAVE THE NEWS!!!! Man, I hate that!
We pay per household. Own one two or ten radios you pay for one radio. Have 30 radios and 198 b/w tv sets you pay for one b/w tv. 1932 radios, 1 dog, 2 cats, 1 guppy and three colour tv sets you pay for one colour tv.
The money is used for DR (our BBC): two tv stations, 4 radio stations and 6-7 internet radio stations, all commercial free and avaliable by earth stations everywhere (no, not the internet radio).
TYhey have what is known as Public service duties. Like supporting the arts, give room for different voices (politically and social) and serve different groups of the population (like news in minority group languages). Even if they were allowed to air commercials they could not make the money needed to keep up the buisness.
About the license: Some argue against it because it a tax that hit the low income families hardest. But on the other hand it has always been importent not to finance it over the ordinary tax. It is feared that if the political system was to give the money to DR politcal demands was made as well. As it is now DR is probably one of the hardest critics of those in power at the moment.
Dinnae underestimate their power! The tinfoil and lead shielding cannae be relied upon. No matter what ye dae thay can still put those voices intae yer mind wi' their television waves. KILL, STEAL, PLUNDER, PAY YOUR COUNCIL TAX. It used tae be easier on The Isles before they built that bridge and ye could roll their van off the jetty intae the sea under cover o' darkness.
Never mind - I hae grown rich and dripping wi' opulence by no' paying my licence fee; I even bought this 7200 wi' the fruits o' 8 years' evasion. If I can avoid getting caught I'll hae a G4 by 2020.
Mr Drewprops... Taggart isnae really very different frae Starsky & Hutch except it dosnae have car chases and excitement. Incidentally my (dear) wife once spent the night in the cells at Partick Marine (polis station) on a minor charge years before it became Taggart's headquarters. Alas, poor Taggart (Mark McManus), like his glam rock brother - Brian Connelly o' The Sweet - is nae mare though the series continues. I may say that Taggart would make the licence fee worth paying in itself, except that it's no' a BBC programme, being produced by Scottish Television; the finest televisual enterprise on the entire planet.
The licence fee also supports all of the BBC local radio stations and BBC Online. I don't mind paying to support BBC Online and BBC News as they are a great, commerical free, resource and should remain so.
WIRED magazine had a story this time last year about a Computing Museum in California receiving what appeared to be a Tempest-Proof Mac SE 30 (with photos)
but if you're not paranoid enough with news about TEMPEST, visit Echelon Watch and read how CARNIVORE can intercept and scan everything from Cell Phone to Microwave to Fiber-Optic communication
question: if you only use your TV for watching DVDs, do you still pay a tax meant to support a broadcaster?
its very easy actually. Its the reciever that costs you. So even though I watch the news and other programs streamed over the net I don´t have to pay (since I haven´t got a TV set).
So a video with a monitor would cost the fee. But I guess a DVD player and monitor wouldn´t.
Dinnae underestimate their power! The tinfoil and lead shielding cannae be relied upon. No matter what ye dae thay can still put those voices intae yer mind wi' their television waves. KILL, STEAL, PLUNDER, PAY YOUR COUNCIL TAX. It used tae be easier on The Isles before they built that bridge and ye could roll their van off the jetty intae the sea under cover o' darkness.
Never mind - I hae grown rich and dripping wi' opulence by no' paying my licence fee; I even bought this 7200 wi' the fruits o' 8 years' evasion. If I can avoid getting caught I'll hae a G4 by 2020.
Mr Drewprops... Taggart isnae really very different frae Starsky & Hutch except it dosnae have car chases and excitement. Incidentally my (dear) wife once spent the night in the cells at Partick Marine (polis station) on a minor charge years before it became Taggart's headquarters. Alas, poor Taggart (Mark McManus), like his glam rock brother - Brian Connelly o' The Sweet - is nae mare though the series continues. I may say that Taggart would make the licence fee worth paying in itself, except that it's no' a BBC programme, being produced by Scottish Television; the finest televisual enterprise on the entire planet.
I still don't have a clue what this brave knight says whenever he speaks, but somehow I like it.
In Germany, we pay for each and every tv and radio we have, including in your car. Freaked me out when they told me that. How un-American.
However, I personally like the fact that I can watch a program (or film) on the BBC channels, and not have any adverts at crucial moments! Mind you, adverts are a small inconvenience compared to the recent UK trend (particualrly ITV, the original commercial channel) of splitting a film up in to two parts, JUST TO HAVE THE NEWS!!!! Man, I hate that!
Cheers,
Dave.
I agree, adverts annoy the heck out me. But have you noticed how the BBC seem to be doing an awful lot of between-programme self-advertising just lately? Even cross-advertising, radio to TV and vice-versa.
Dinnae underestimate their power! The tinfoil and lead shielding cannae be relied upon. No matter what ye dae thay can still put those voices intae yer mind wi' their television waves. KILL, STEAL, PLUNDER, PAY YOUR COUNCIL TAX. It used tae be easier on The Isles before they built that bridge and ye could roll their van off the jetty intae the sea under cover o' darkness.
Never mind - I hae grown rich and dripping wi' opulence by no' paying my licence fee; I even bought this 7200 wi' the fruits o' 8 years' evasion. If I can avoid getting caught I'll hae a G4 by 2020.
Mr Drewprops... Taggart isnae really very different frae Starsky & Hutch except it dosnae have car chases and excitement. Incidentally my (dear) wife once spent the night in the cells at Partick Marine (polis station) on a minor charge years before it became Taggart's headquarters. Alas, poor Taggart (Mark McManus), like his glam rock brother - Brian Connelly o' The Sweet - is nae mare though the series continues. I may say that Taggart would make the licence fee worth paying in itself, except that it's no' a BBC programme, being produced by Scottish Television; the finest televisual enterprise on the entire planet.
Scotty,
I don't know how ye do it, but I can hear yer Canny Broug over te computer...Brilliant Maan !
I have cable, but yes, I still have to pay a licence fee. IIRC, the fee is to cover the *potential* to receive the channels covered by the licence fee, so even if you have cable (or satellite), you still pay . Sad, but true!
It wasn't always like this. It was changed in the mid 80's because of the growing popularity of SKY (UK murdoc satellite) TV. Lots of people where buying 'presentation' CRT's (it's like a TV but without a tuner) and using them with a SKY decoder box, and so when the Licensing people came they claimed that they had no way of receiving BBC TV. There mistake was that when the BBC decided to take them to court, it was descoverd that they all had VCR's and portable TV's So thay did have a method of watching the BBC.
Without the BBC UK TV would all head for the lowest common denominator to get the max ratings (we would probbaly end up with 5 versions of Channal 5). As it is at the moment all the other's have to compete with the BBC.
Comments
As far as I know, they work initially from a list of people who have got a licence. Then, they use a detector to look around the street to see if there's a TV being used at adresses that don't have a licence. However, they don't seem to be terribly adept - I once worked with a guy who'd never had a TV in his life, yet they insisted that they'd detected a set on his premises
The actual detecton isn't too hard to do. Basically, the TV is a form of superheterodyne receiver (look it up on google if you're interested
As for making the set work, it shouldn't be too difficult, as the frequencies involved are fairly high, so the detector set can be made very directional.
However, if you can all wait until early next year, I should be able to get a definitive answer, as the outfit I work for (the Radiocommunications Ageny) will be joining up with a number of other regulators, and I guess that sort of thing will be covered somewhere
Cheers,
Dave.
This is not James Bond fiction: With the right equipment, not only can someone tell if you've got a TV running, they can see what you're watching. The RF emissions from a CRT on a computer are sufficient for someone to see what you've got up on your computer as well. Not only that, but at close range there's enough RF leakage from your keyboard to figure out what you're typing as well -- including stealing passwords that way.
From http://www.fas.org/irp/program/security/tempest.htm:
TEMPEST is an unclassified short name referring to investigations and studies of compromising emanations. TEMPEST stands for Transient Electromagnetic Pulse Surveillance Technology. Compromising emanations are unintentional intelligence-bearing signals that, if intercepted and analyzed, will disclose classified information when it is transmitted, received, handled, or otherwise processed by any information processing equipment...
TEMPEST equipment can essentially remotely mirror what is being done on a remote device. TEMPEST monitoring technology has gotten to the point that it is possible for an intruder to park in a van on the street and observe on their receiver exactly what a user is doing on an unprotected personal computer. Emissions from a video monitor normally exist at around 55-245 Mhz, and can be picked up as far as one kilometer away. The cost of Tempest eavesdropping equipment can vary from $5000 to $250,000, and the costs of protection against these devices varies according to the sophistication of the eavesdropper.
OMG!
So if you own a TV, that's one, an AM/FM reciever, that's two? And to make this properly European (I know British, same diff, whether you admit it or not) I suppose you pay more fees if you own more sets?
Assuming taxes pay for something, what exactly do they pay for? Why not have a one time point of sale tax? How high is the tax, BTW?
I assume that this tax allows for the "legal" reception of air signals. Which raises another question? People still have to buy cable, correct? If people own cable, but aren't paying (this ridiculous TV tax) then shouldn't the tax man look there first? Nobody buys cable without a set? Or wouldn't just automatically have to pay the tax with the purchase of a cable package?
Thank goodness I live in Canada where antennea's are free from taxation and we can steal cable and satellite with aplomb. Oddly enough, I steal neither, though it seems every other person in my neighborhood does.
Man, that's the weirdest thing I've ever heard about TV's.
The licence fee is a bit mad and antiquated, but you only pay once per household (as far as I know - that's all I've ever paid
I have cable, but yes, I still have to pay a licence fee. IIRC, the fee is to cover the *potential* to receive the channels covered by the licence fee, so even if you have cable (or satellite), you still pay
I agree with many that say it's an outdayed idea. However, I personally like the fact that I can watch a program (or film) on the BBC channels, and not have any adverts at crucial moments! Mind you, adverts are a small inconvenience compared to the recent UK trend (particualrly ITV, the original commercial channel) of splitting a film up in to two parts, JUST TO HAVE THE NEWS!!!! Man, I hate that!
Cheers,
Dave.
The money is used for DR (our BBC): two tv stations, 4 radio stations and 6-7 internet radio stations, all commercial free and avaliable by earth stations everywhere (no, not the internet radio).
TYhey have what is known as Public service duties. Like supporting the arts, give room for different voices (politically and social) and serve different groups of the population (like news in minority group languages). Even if they were allowed to air commercials they could not make the money needed to keep up the buisness.
About the license: Some argue against it because it a tax that hit the low income families hardest. But on the other hand it has always been importent not to finance it over the ordinary tax. It is feared that if the political system was to give the money to DR politcal demands was made as well. As it is now DR is probably one of the hardest critics of those in power at the moment.
Never mind - I hae grown rich and dripping wi' opulence by no' paying my licence fee; I even bought this 7200 wi' the fruits o' 8 years' evasion. If I can avoid getting caught I'll hae a G4 by 2020.
Mr Drewprops... Taggart isnae really very different frae Starsky & Hutch except it dosnae have car chases and excitement. Incidentally my (dear) wife once spent the night in the cells at Partick Marine (polis station) on a minor charge years before it became Taggart's headquarters. Alas, poor Taggart (Mark McManus), like his glam rock brother - Brian Connelly o' The Sweet - is nae mare though the series continues. I may say that Taggart would make the licence fee worth paying in itself, except that it's no' a BBC programme, being produced by Scottish Television; the finest televisual enterprise on the entire planet.
I was waiting for that!
read some scary stories here
WIRED magazine had a story this time last year about a Computing Museum in California receiving what appeared to be a Tempest-Proof Mac SE 30 (with photos)
but if you're not paranoid enough with news about TEMPEST, visit Echelon Watch and read how CARNIVORE can intercept and scan everything from Cell Phone to Microwave to Fiber-Optic communication
question: if you only use your TV for watching DVDs, do you still pay a tax meant to support a broadcaster?
So a video with a monitor would cost the fee. But I guess a DVD player and monitor wouldn´t.
Originally posted by Sir Mac o' the Isles
Dinnae underestimate their power! The tinfoil and lead shielding cannae be relied upon. No matter what ye dae thay can still put those voices intae yer mind wi' their television waves. KILL, STEAL, PLUNDER, PAY YOUR COUNCIL TAX. It used tae be easier on The Isles before they built that bridge and ye could roll their van off the jetty intae the sea under cover o' darkness.
Never mind - I hae grown rich and dripping wi' opulence by no' paying my licence fee; I even bought this 7200 wi' the fruits o' 8 years' evasion. If I can avoid getting caught I'll hae a G4 by 2020.
Mr Drewprops... Taggart isnae really very different frae Starsky & Hutch except it dosnae have car chases and excitement. Incidentally my (dear) wife once spent the night in the cells at Partick Marine (polis station) on a minor charge years before it became Taggart's headquarters. Alas, poor Taggart (Mark McManus), like his glam rock brother - Brian Connelly o' The Sweet - is nae mare though the series continues. I may say that Taggart would make the licence fee worth paying in itself, except that it's no' a BBC programme, being produced by Scottish Television; the finest televisual enterprise on the entire planet.
I still don't have a clue what this brave knight says whenever he speaks, but somehow I like it.
In Germany, we pay for each and every tv and radio we have, including in your car. Freaked me out when they told me that. How un-American.
Originally posted by Dave Abrey
Matsu,
However, I personally like the fact that I can watch a program (or film) on the BBC channels, and not have any adverts at crucial moments! Mind you, adverts are a small inconvenience compared to the recent UK trend (particualrly ITV, the original commercial channel) of splitting a film up in to two parts, JUST TO HAVE THE NEWS!!!! Man, I hate that!
Cheers,
Dave.
I agree, adverts annoy the heck out me. But have you noticed how the BBC seem to be doing an awful lot of between-programme self-advertising just lately? Even cross-advertising, radio to TV and vice-versa.
Originally posted by Sir Mac o' the Isles
Dinnae underestimate their power! The tinfoil and lead shielding cannae be relied upon. No matter what ye dae thay can still put those voices intae yer mind wi' their television waves. KILL, STEAL, PLUNDER, PAY YOUR COUNCIL TAX. It used tae be easier on The Isles before they built that bridge and ye could roll their van off the jetty intae the sea under cover o' darkness.
Never mind - I hae grown rich and dripping wi' opulence by no' paying my licence fee; I even bought this 7200 wi' the fruits o' 8 years' evasion. If I can avoid getting caught I'll hae a G4 by 2020.
Mr Drewprops... Taggart isnae really very different frae Starsky & Hutch except it dosnae have car chases and excitement. Incidentally my (dear) wife once spent the night in the cells at Partick Marine (polis station) on a minor charge years before it became Taggart's headquarters. Alas, poor Taggart (Mark McManus), like his glam rock brother - Brian Connelly o' The Sweet - is nae mare though the series continues. I may say that Taggart would make the licence fee worth paying in itself, except that it's no' a BBC programme, being produced by Scottish Television; the finest televisual enterprise on the entire planet.
Scotty,
I don't know how ye do it, but I can hear yer Canny Broug over te computer...Brilliant Maan !
Originally posted by alcimedes
this of course will give rise to the TV detector detectors.
alcimedes wins a pastry
the link is at times informative, at times devilish...
AI-like
Originally posted by Dave Abrey
Matsu,
I have cable, but yes, I still have to pay a licence fee. IIRC, the fee is to cover the *potential* to receive the channels covered by the licence fee, so even if you have cable (or satellite), you still pay
It wasn't always like this. It was changed in the mid 80's because of the growing popularity of SKY (UK murdoc satellite) TV. Lots of people where buying 'presentation' CRT's (it's like a TV but without a tuner) and using them with a SKY decoder box, and so when the Licensing people came they claimed that they had no way of receiving BBC TV. There mistake was that when the BBC decided to take them to court, it was descoverd that they all had VCR's and portable TV's So thay did have a method of watching the BBC.
Without the BBC UK TV would all head for the lowest common denominator to get the max ratings (we would probbaly end up with 5 versions of Channal 5). As it is at the moment all the other's have to compete with the BBC.
we would probbaly end up with 5 versions of Channal 5
For those of you not acquainted with UK telly, this would be really bad.