Molded plug to normal one

[bernardgreen]

i actually have a coloured tv thats so old it doesn't have a scart socket

I had a coloured TV that was black and white.

Then I replaced it with a colour TV

 

[securespark]

Like NTSC?

Never Twice The Same Colo(u)r?

 

[Echo the husky]

If you remove the shell from a normal plastic scart plug you can fit it through a 22mm hole, then fit the shell back on again. I did that some years ago for the kitchen TV, it's still like it now. Scart through first, then power and coax, there is also a cable that extends the remote control signal to the freeview box in the cupboard below.

 

[ericmark]

I was working at Sizewell living in a caravan and I wanted to use an Amiga Computer so looked in to what was required to be able to use a colour TV as a monitor. Law has now changed but at the time it stated "device for receiving broad cast TV transmissions" when I went to school that was called an aerial! So reading the licence if I paint the aerial black and white I would be OK! I even talked to a JP would told me how one poor lady in Norfolk was fined £5 for using a VCR which received colour with a black and white licence because her TV was black and white she thought it was OK. Judge also thought it was OK but did not want it to become case law.

Since that time we have gone digital and every digital box receives colour so the law had to be changed. So it would seem there is no black and white answer! Even with the camera club we have had problems. For some reason it has been called monochrome which means any colour you like as long as the picture is displayed in a single colour just varying the intensity of that colour. However white is not monochrome it is a mixture of all colours so a black and white picture is not monochrome.

I ended up converting a colour BBC monitor ex-schools as it seemed unless I removed the RF receiver it was still a colour TV. I had thought screwing a plate over the aerial connection would have done using the RCA from computer into a RCA to SCART converter, but at that time it would not have complied.

 

[Iggifer]

Since that time we have gone digital and every digital box receives colour so the law had to be changed. So it would seem there is no black and white answer!

According to the TV licensing website, you can still get a B+W licence for £49, but you can't do it online.

 

[ericmark]

Since that time we have gone digital and every digital box receives colour so the law had to be changed. So it would seem there is no black and white answer!

According to the TV licensing website, you can still get a B+W licence for £49, but you can't do it online.

As I said the rules have changed. You simply can't receive just the black and white signal, you have to receive the colour signal but only display in monochrome or black and white. How a detector van could ever work out if you were viewing in Black and White or colour I don't know. My mother and Father-in-law both have macular degeneration which means they can't see colour any more. So getting a black and white set for them would make sense, however since one is 89 and other 91 they don't pay for licence anyway so why worry?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

AFAIK they no longer have detector vans, on account of non-CRT TVs being undetectable.

 

[bernardgreen]

AFAIK they no longer have detector vans, on account of non-CRT TVs being undetectable.

The main method of detection was to detect the Intermediate Frequency ( IF ) in the receiver as this was easer to detect and de-modulate to discover which program was being watched. Almost all TV sets had IF between 30 and 60 Meg Hz ( in fact a set had 2 IFs, one for video and one for audio ).

Reception of the line and frame ( vertical ) scans of a CRT is possible along with the intensity of the current ( brightness ) and from this the data on the screen can be decoded. This was seen as a security hazard for CRT monitors used on computors. Project Tempest was a project to develop CRT monitors that could not be electronically read from across the room ( or road )

 

[PBC_1966]

Like NTSC?

Never Twice The Same Colo(u)r?

Yep, those phase-shift problems in the early days led to that! Then there's SECAM: System Essentially Contrary to American Method.

 

[PBC_1966]

I even talked to a JP would told me how one poor lady in Norfolk was fined £5 for using a VCR which received colour with a black and white licence because her TV was black and white she thought it was OK.

The problem there - legally - was that the domestic VCR was recording in color, and therefore was receiving and making use of the color portion of the signal. The fact that when playing back the tape she was viewing it only in monochrome was irrelevant (since the license is for receiving broadcast television, and no license is needed to play back tapes, regardless of where the original program material came from).

I ended up converting a colour BBC monitor ex-schools as it seemed unless I removed the RF receiver it was still a colour TV. I had thought screwing a plate over the aerial connection would have done using the RCA from computer into a RCA to SCART converter, but at that time it would not have complied.

Yes it would. TV Licensing has frequently misrepresented the situation in the hope of getting people to purchase licenses when they're not needed. The law in the U.K. has never required a license merely to be in possession of something which is capable of receiving TV broadcasts, only to "install and use" equipment for such. (The Republic of Ireland has a rather different law which is based upon possession of a TV which is capable of reception, regardless of whether it's installed and used or not.)

How a detector van could ever work out if you were viewing in Black and White or colour I don't know.

In the "old days" they could look for the 4.43MHz color sub-carrier being generated in the receiver.

 

[Adam_151]

AFAIK they no longer have detector vans, on account of non-CRT TVs being undetectable.

In addition to what bernard says about the fact that it was leakage from the tuner circuits that was detected, not that from the CRT driver (as in van eck phreaking). And therefore...I guess they'd be able to do similar these days, but becuase its all gone digital, They'd be able to pick up what frequency was being received, but that would only tell them what digital multiplex was being received, the actual channel from that which is then displayed on screen could not be discovered

Anyway.... What I was going to say was they never really had detector vans in the first place... well they had one or two and the concept was sound, however the evidence wasn't legally admissable (very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt where the signal had been picked up from etc) so all they could do was send angry letters, etc. It didn't really matter though, as if it drove down a street where a lot of homes did not have TV licenses on a saturday lunchtime... there would be a queue at the post office on Monday, so in the end they just put the sign writing on empty vans and drove around!

 

[stillp]

In the "old days" they could look for the 4.43MHz color sub-carrier being generated in the receiver.

In my student days, I was studying for the first C & G colour TV exam. One of the lecturers told us we were bound to be asked in the exam the colour sub-carrier frequency - 4.43361875 MHz. Of course, we weren't asked, but I'll never forget it now!

 

[bernardgreen]

as if it drove down a street where a lot of homes did not have TV licenses on a saturday lunchtime

The dummy vans were a very effective method of getting people to buy licences. And even more so if there was a "leak" about them coming to survey the area. The leaks happen a few days before the van arrved in the area.

That said there were a few real ones and there were also some "hand helds" for seeking out TVs in tower blocks and congested areas where the van's aerial could not get a precise bearing. The antenna was hand held but there was also a back pack of equipment.

 

[PBC_1966]

well they had one or two and the concept was sound,

But very expensive to equip and operate. Somewhere in one of my old Post Office journals I think I have an article on the fitting out of them circa late 1970's - I can't recall the overall cost, but even then it was a lot. Plus paying for suitably trained people to use the equipment, of course.

There's always been an element of suggesting that "they're on to you" rather more than is actually the case, but as time has gone on they've just found it more and more cost effective to step up the cleverly worded and very intimidating letter and ad campaigns, and - since the creation of TVL operated by Capita - to employ what amount to little-trained goons with almost no technical knowledge but an ability to theaten and make people believe that they have more powers than is actually the case.

however the evidence wasn't legally admissable (very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt where the signal had been picked up from etc) so all they could do was send angry letters, etc.

There has never been a conviction on detector evidence alone, because, as you say, it's not conclusive. At best it might be used as grounds to obtain a search warrant.

But the intimidation tactic today is so effective that they probably need little more. Except in cases of a TVL employee actually seeing/hearing something, just about every successful conviction is obtained by obtaining a signed confesssion from somebody, and they'll use every trick they can think of to get that, since they work on commission.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I sometimes wonder if it would be worth getting rid of my TVs, just for the fun I would have in totally ignoring all the letters demanding to know why I didn't have a licence (I am assuming that I would not be under any legal obligation to reply to them), and then hopefully seeing what a court would make of a prosecution based on no evidence whatsoever.