7 ms·

"Three countries—North Korea, Yemen and the UK—restrict transmissions from balloons in their airspace, so the community has integrated geofencing software into

"Three countries—North Korea, Yemen and the UK—restrict transmissions from balloons in their airspace, so the community has integrated geofencing software into the tracking devices. The balloons still overfly the countries, but do not transmit their positions over their airspace." That's an interesting collection of countries. Why I wonder the UK and not other Western countries?

t0mas88 4y ago
The UK has some strange leftover laws about radio communication. Recently there was a post here about their system of TV detector vans to collect license fees for public television (something most sensible countries have put into their normal taxes a long time ago). And the UK for example is also missing from Live ATC because listening to (open, unencrypted) ATC communications is illegal there.
- traceroute66 4y ago
  > UK for example is also missing from Live ATC because listening to (open, unencrypted) ATC communications is illegal there. Actually no. You CAN listen to it. Anyone is free to buy a scanner. You CANNOT record it or redistribute it.
  - pc86 4y ago
    > Anyone is free to buy a scanner. "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally permissible."
    - traceroute66 4y ago
      > "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally permissible." In the UK if a radio device is 'inherently incapable of transmission', you do not need a licence to install or use it. A scanner is very much that. It is legal to use a scanner in the UK as long as it is clear from the context that the message being listened to was intended for general reception. There are many circumstances in aviation where this could be the case.
      - cmsj 4y ago
        ATC is not meant for general reception. radio stations, weather/navigation broadcasts, amateur radio bands, etc. are intended for general reception. ATC is intended for airport staff and aircraft, so it is technically illegal to listen to it in the UK. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/radio-interception https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/r...
        wpietri 4y ago
        I love this "meant for". It seems very in line with British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you didn't get them.
        traceroute66 4y ago
        > It seems very in line with British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you didn't get them. That's basically how the actual law on this matter is worded, i.e. "don't listen, but if you did listen, don't tell anyone". Section 48, Wireless Telegraphy Act[1], notice the clever little "or" at the end of (1)(a). So 48(1) is telling you: "don't use it with intent"(1)(a), but if you do don't be that person who "discloses information"(1)(b). [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48
        traceroute66 4y ago
        > ATC is not meant for general reception Not quite so black and white. One easy example I can think of in the UK is uncontrolled/semi-controlled airspace (class E/G) and uncontrolled airfields. Parties transmitting on those frequencies are basically sending broadcast messages for the benefit of anyone listening in order to inform those unknown parties of their location and intentions. See also, for example, this reply to an FOI request[1], I quote: Whether or not an aeronautical transmission was intended for general reception would depend on all of the circumstances of the transmission. We cannot therefore say, generally, whether or not listening to these transmissions would be an offence. [1] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_listening_and_the_law https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_listening_an...
  - registeredcorn 4y ago
    I listen to a a few ATC YouTube channels like VASAviation[1], Mentour Pilot[2], 74 Gear[3]. Are you say that if VAS, etc. put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they could be punished for that? Are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an arrestable offense? My assumption is it falls under some vague "safety and security" measure in response to 9/11, but that would raise questions about just having it encrypted, instead. Honestly, the concept of this being illegal is shocking to me. I had assumed recording/playback of ATC comms was essentially a universal standard practice (minus Military, police ops, etc.) to help with education and training. It seems like a terrible shame that the UK would have such a strange rule barring it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation [2] https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot [3] https://www.youtube.com/@74gear https://www.youtube.com/@74gear
    - traceroute66 4y ago
      > put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they could be punished for that? Yes > are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an arrestable offense? In the UK criminal offences are generally dealt with reasonably softly, i.e. within the context of the criminal and the severity of the crime. With something like this, which would be a criminal offence similar to re-distributing paid TV services you would normally just go through various levels of fine depending on severity/scale. So a website explicitly setup to distribute recordings could expect quite a heavy fine because (a) they were knowingly doing it, and (b) they were distributing to a large global audience. Chances of being arrested on this sort of offence in the UK is highly unlikely. Maybe if you were a repeat offender you might leave them with little choice, but that's probably the only scenario.
      - registeredcorn 4y ago
        Interesting! Thank you for the response. :)
  - larrywright 4y ago
    As I understand it, pager messages are the same way. At least in the US, they’re transmitted unencrypted, and anyone with a $25 SDR dongle and some free software can receive them. But it’s illegal to, say, put them up on a website.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      This is *exactly* what someone in Yorkshire found out a few years ago when he wrote a bot to post Fire and Rescue pager messages to Twitter. It's worth pointing out that it's almost impossible to get Ofcom to prosecute you for anything to do with receiving and recording radio traffic, or even transmitting illegally, as long as you're not making a nuisance of yourself. This is generally how laws work in the UK. You can do it right up to the point at which it pisses people off enough that the legal system has to act.
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        Funny.. In the Netherlands there's a website that's exactly this. https://monitor.p2000alarm.nl https://monitor.p2000alarm.nl Not only is it legal but many police forces around the country use this site to keep an eye on the traffic. At least they did more than a decade ago.
        jeroenhd 4y ago
        Note that there is also an encrypted version of this system that's not publicly accessible. I'm not sure about the quality of the encryption used, but I do know that police traffic and ambulance traffic often goes via encrypted channels. I'm also not sure if this is a system that's legally protected or that the government simply hasn't bothered trying to take these sites down.
        wkat4242 4y ago
        That's called C2000 yes but it's mainly for voice. It can handle text messages too. It's based on Tetra. And it's two-way. Indeed very well encrypted. P2000 is one way and based on FLEX, a paging protocol. It's indeed only used for fire and ambulance. The police data is too sensitive so they use C2000. Though you will see police traffic related to accidents etc. But no P2000 isn't protected and the government even used that website themselves :) Not officially though, I guess. I think this is also because most fire departments use a lot of volunteers which makes their activities a lot more public.
- secondcoming 4y ago
  Those detector vans were a hoax. I don’t have a TV licence because I don’t fit any of the criteria for requiring one. Screw taking it out of my tax instead.
  - ntauthority 4y ago
    Germany solved that issue by making owning any device capable of receiving internet broadcasts part of the eligibility criteria. By that point they could just as well make it part of general tax budgets...
    - culturestate 4y ago
      Germany just sends a bill to every registered resident, no matter what. The Rundfunkbeitrag is applied per household, not based on devices, and it's up to each person to either pay the tax or justify to the Beitragsservice that they don't need to.
      - ErikCorry 4y ago
        A super regressive tax for young people who live alone.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        account42 4y ago
        And of course young people are also less likely to watch TV in the first place. It's basically subsidized entertainment for the elderly, which would be fine if the funds were sourced equitably. I also don't buy that this weird totally-not-a-tax setup makes the news any more independent from the government - after all, it's still the government deciding to uphold or even increase the fees as well as allowing and supporting the enforcement. Yeah, it's a pretty shitty system and I wish we would get rid of it. Don't have high hopes of that happening anytime soon though.
        4y ago
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  >(something most sensible countries have put into their normal taxes a long time ago). Yeah, italy - putting the license fee in the electricity bills.
- retube 4y ago
  TV detector vans are a myth
  - jedberg 4y ago
    From what I've read, they do exist, but have never been successful in catching anyone.
    - TecoAndJix 4y ago
      I found this article from 2021 [1] “ Modern efforts to detect licence evasion are shrouded in mystery. Modern flatscreen displays receiving digital television signals do not emit as much radio frequency interference as older designs, and any such signals detected are less easily correlated with broadcast television. An LCD television in the home can just as easily be displaying output from a video game console or an online streaming service, with both being usage cases that do not require the owner to pay a licence fee. Based on an alleged BBC submission for a search warrant in recent years, there may be optical methods used in which reflected light from a television in a viewer’s home is compared to a live broadcast signal. The BBC declined to answer the Freedom of Information request with any details of their methods, other than to say they have employed vehicles and handheld devices in enforcement efforts.” https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-prowled-the-streets-of-england/ https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-prowle...
      - laurencerowe 4y ago
        There's no mystery. They have a list of every address without a TV license so simply go and ring the doorbell and ask you. You don't have to let them in.
        TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
        An ex-gf of mine was caught red-handed with the TV on and brazenly (and impressively) bluffed her way out of a conviction. She said it wasn't her flat and the real owner was out. The inspectors can't do much if you refuse to identify or incriminate yourself.
- baybal2 4y ago
  [dead]
- valdiorn 4y ago
  Fyi TV detector vans are essentially fearmongering by the government. A freedom of information request recently revealed not a single prosecution has been generated from the use of those vans since the project's alleged start in the early 50s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
  - phire 4y ago
    The freedom of information request revealed no evidence from tv detector vans was directly used in prosecution. But apparently tv detector van evidence was used for search warrants that then lead to further evidence that was used in prosecution. Yes. The primary purpose of the tv detector vans was fearmongering. But they did exist (in small numbers), and they were at least semi-functional.
jamescun 4y ago
I'm based in the UK and have a passive interest in amateur radio. If I had to guess, it isn't outright forbidden, just a licensed activity. Maybe the license isn't easy to get or widely granted?
- dylan604 4y ago
  you have to have a license to watch television for chris' sake, so it absolutely falls in line you'd need licensing to transmit. you probably have to have licenses in your kid's walkie-talkies. this is the same country that has the national power grid introduce "hum" (or whatever it is technically callled) in the signal so that a time reference can be decoded from it.
  - Twisol 4y ago
    > this is the same country that has the national power grid introduce "hum" (or whatever it is technically callled) in the signal so that a time reference can be decoded from it. I don't think that's intentionally introduced. My understanding was that mains hum in any grid is an artifact of a noisy signal that just happens to be useful as a forensics fingerprint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_hum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_hum
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Yes, it seems I crossed a few streams in my head. Here's an article[0] talking about how the forensics is done because someone is creating a database of all of the fluctuations that give it the forensic finger print rather than it being deliberately injected. [0]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20629671 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20629671
      - ErikCorry 4y ago
        Fascinating
      - roywiggins 4y ago
traceroute66 4y ago
> Why I wonder the UK and not other Western countries? Pretty much the missing word here is ... UNLICENSED.
kawfey 4y ago
UK has weird laws. Airborne operation of amateur radio is prohibited in the UK. Yemen and NK ban amateur radio outright, with very few exceptions for things like DXpeditions or royalty. No other countries specifically call out a prohibition of airborne amateur radio operation; either they explicitly allow it or they don't specify. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23803850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23803850 [PDF] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/82637/amateur_radio_licence_guidance_for_licensees.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/82637/a...
- CraigJPerry 4y ago
  I’ve tried twice to challenge the ofcom restriction, they opened a consultation but frustratingly the RSGB position is against this change.
  - alibarber 4y ago
    That's really interesting to hear - I'd like to read more about their stance on this.
    - CraigJPerry 4y ago
      One thing they’re pretty good at is documenting everything, i’d start here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-2/amateur-radio-licence https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/catego...
  - terinjokes 4y ago
    As a US ham currently studying to become a UK ham, that's very interesting to me. Did they say why they oppose something regularly allowed elsewhere?
    - CraigJPerry 4y ago
      Formally - no, i think the official stance last i saw was that you can submit a request for a “notice of variation” on your licence but i don’t know of anyone who’s done that and from my knowledge of other NoVs that have been granted i expect it could be hobbled in some way. E.g. in the uk a full licence holder may transmit at up to 400w on most bands but you can submit for a NoV to be able to transmit at 1kw like the US - except the NoV can carry constraints like you must not transmit your call sign. That’s not a typo, you must NOT transmit your callsign when using 1kw. It’ll depend on the reason for the NoV being issued though. Informally i’ve had nothing but condescending dismissal on airborne operation because i mentioned some experiments involving a drone (my other hobby).
anfractuosity 4y ago
You can from what I understand transmit RF from balloons - https://ukhas.org.uk/doku.php?id=start https://ukhas.org.uk/doku.php?id=start has lots of info. There are limitations on what frequencies and power you can transmit at, iirc the power is around 10mW.
dylan604 4y ago
>Why I wonder the UK and not other Western countries? probably because the gov't hates competition.
mhandley 4y ago
It's not that you cannot transmit from a high altitude balloon over the UK, but you are very restricted in transmit power and frequencies. My son and a friend of his built a Muon detector and sent it up under a high altitude balloon as a school science project. We tracked and chased it for 200 miles across England and recovered it eventually, a little the worse for wear. His was set up to transmit location, altitude, and muon flux in case we didn't recover it. It had three radios - two low bitrate RTTY transmitters at very low power (10mW?) and GPRS which was set up to only switch on after landing to help recovery (it's not legal to transmit GPRS while airborne). The RTTY turned out to be very reliable, even at 50 mile range, and especially with other HAB hobbists kindly relaying data back via the Internet. This was especially useful to locate the landing site when the balloon outran us and dropped below our radio horizon. The GPRS never worked, but that may have been because it landed in a pigsty and was attacked by the pig. Anyway, there's quite an active UK high altitude balloon community. Edit: I uploaded video from the flight here: https://youtu.be/4jCU6kVOmc4 https://youtu.be/4jCU6kVOmc4
- BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  This is impressive. When you say "school project", what kind of school was that? Since you mention muons and their detection, I would expect some university (I used to be a physicist)
  - mhandley 4y ago
    The school was one of the better state schools in West London - the kids were 17 at the time. At the end of the school year they give them a couple of weeks to do a project of their own making. This particular project was the kids initiative. They got their first Muon detector working in these two week, and flew it to Germany and back on a cheap flight. The ballon was then an extra addition a few months later. The Muon detector design was based on one from MIT http://cosmicwatch.lns.mit.edu/detector http://cosmicwatch.lns.mit.edu/detector but they redesigned the circuit boards themselves because they weren't confident about making surface mount boards, and they wanted to separate the scintillator board from the rest, to give them a chance to change things later. The kids did all the circuit board design themselves, and assembled everything themselves. I put them in touch with the right people to get circuit boards etched. They built two Muon detectors - one nicely cased with a display, and one lightweight one for the balloon flight. The head of physics at the school lent them a beta source to test with (his main instructions were "don't lick it!"). I helped with some of the comms software, but they did most of the other software themselves too. As for the balloon, again, they did that themselves - they rented the helium cylinder, researched the regulations, how to get a NOTAM issued, arranged the use of a disused airfied as a launch site, phoned air traffic control to get final permission to launch, etc. Beforehand, they did all the testing they could manage without being airborne, and got the hang of driving the sdr dongles they used to receive the two RTTY streams. They also discovered GPRS transmissions really interfered with the Muon amplifier, but that wasn't a big issue if it was only turned on for landing. On the day, the main thing the two parents did was drive the two chase cars, as the kids hadn't got a driving license. Most things went right first time. They had two redundant GPS receivers and two RTTY transmitters, running completely separate software, one on a raspberry pi zero, and one on a teensy. The GPS chipsets need configuring into high altitude mode, or they stop working above 10,000 meters. But this is impossible to test in advance. The RTTY transmitter that was relaying the Muon results gave a much higher bit error rate than the second one, but the second one's GPS chipset turned out to not be in high altitude mode. The balloon sprang a leak at 16,000 m, and descended gently afterwards. We had been aiming for the expected landing site, and as it dropped back into the jetstream, it started to get away from us, despite us driving as fast as we dared with a large antenna on the car roof. Fortunately two other HAB guys were receiving too, and relaying position information back as we started to hit the limits of what we could receive from the working GPS. As the balloon descended the second GPS came back to life, and we were able to track again until it dropped too low. In the end we got to within a kilometer of where it landed, but the reason we recovered it quickly in the end was because the lovely lady whose pigsty it landed in phoned the number on the payload.
wkat4242 4y ago
If you send a balloon around the world, would you really care if the North Koreans get their knickers in a knot over some telemetry? What are they going to do, ask for extradition? They might shoot it down but I'd personally consider that a badge of honor. Pissing off the worst dictatorship in the world and getting them to waste at least 50k$ on a jet sortie for a few hundred bucks worth of hobby balloon sounds like money well spent. I'm not into ballooning but I'm surprised they actually obey this. The UK is another matter of course.
- jacobjjacob 4y ago
  At some point you have to realize that you might not be safe just because you aren’t in that country. I don’t think North Korea is going to kidnap you or something, but intentionally antagonizing foreign governments that aren’t amicable to your own government just seems like it could have unintended consequences down the road.
  - zhte415 4y ago
    We should not allow that to dictate our actions.

t0mas88 4y ago

The UK has some strange leftover laws about radio communication. Recently there was a post here about their system of TV detector vans to collect license fees for public television (something most sensible countries have put into their normal taxes a long time ago). And the UK for example is also missing from Live ATC because listening to (open, unencrypted) ATC communications is illegal there.

traceroute66 4y ago
> UK for example is also missing from Live ATC because listening to (open, unencrypted) ATC communications is illegal there. Actually no. You CAN listen to it. Anyone is free to buy a scanner. You CANNOT record it or redistribute it.
- pc86 4y ago
  > Anyone is free to buy a scanner. "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally permissible."
  - traceroute66 4y ago
    > "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally permissible." In the UK if a radio device is 'inherently incapable of transmission', you do not need a licence to install or use it. A scanner is very much that. It is legal to use a scanner in the UK as long as it is clear from the context that the message being listened to was intended for general reception. There are many circumstances in aviation where this could be the case.
    - cmsj 4y ago
      ATC is not meant for general reception. radio stations, weather/navigation broadcasts, amateur radio bands, etc. are intended for general reception. ATC is intended for airport staff and aircraft, so it is technically illegal to listen to it in the UK. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/radio-interception https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/r...
      - wpietri 4y ago
        I love this "meant for". It seems very in line with British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you didn't get them.
        traceroute66 4y ago
        > It seems very in line with British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you didn't get them. That's basically how the actual law on this matter is worded, i.e. "don't listen, but if you did listen, don't tell anyone". Section 48, Wireless Telegraphy Act[1], notice the clever little "or" at the end of (1)(a). So 48(1) is telling you: "don't use it with intent"(1)(a), but if you do don't be that person who "discloses information"(1)(b). [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48
      - traceroute66 4y ago
        > ATC is not meant for general reception Not quite so black and white. One easy example I can think of in the UK is uncontrolled/semi-controlled airspace (class E/G) and uncontrolled airfields. Parties transmitting on those frequencies are basically sending broadcast messages for the benefit of anyone listening in order to inform those unknown parties of their location and intentions. See also, for example, this reply to an FOI request[1], I quote: Whether or not an aeronautical transmission was intended for general reception would depend on all of the circumstances of the transmission. We cannot therefore say, generally, whether or not listening to these transmissions would be an offence. [1] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_listening_and_the_law https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_listening_an...
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  I listen to a a few ATC YouTube channels like VASAviation[1], Mentour Pilot[2], 74 Gear[3]. Are you say that if VAS, etc. put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they could be punished for that? Are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an arrestable offense? My assumption is it falls under some vague "safety and security" measure in response to 9/11, but that would raise questions about just having it encrypted, instead. Honestly, the concept of this being illegal is shocking to me. I had assumed recording/playback of ATC comms was essentially a universal standard practice (minus Military, police ops, etc.) to help with education and training. It seems like a terrible shame that the UK would have such a strange rule barring it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation [2] https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot [3] https://www.youtube.com/@74gear https://www.youtube.com/@74gear
  - traceroute66 4y ago
    > put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they could be punished for that? Yes > are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an arrestable offense? In the UK criminal offences are generally dealt with reasonably softly, i.e. within the context of the criminal and the severity of the crime. With something like this, which would be a criminal offence similar to re-distributing paid TV services you would normally just go through various levels of fine depending on severity/scale. So a website explicitly setup to distribute recordings could expect quite a heavy fine because (a) they were knowingly doing it, and (b) they were distributing to a large global audience. Chances of being arrested on this sort of offence in the UK is highly unlikely. Maybe if you were a repeat offender you might leave them with little choice, but that's probably the only scenario.
    - registeredcorn 4y ago
      Interesting! Thank you for the response. :)
- larrywright 4y ago
  As I understand it, pager messages are the same way. At least in the US, they’re transmitted unencrypted, and anyone with a $25 SDR dongle and some free software can receive them. But it’s illegal to, say, put them up on a website.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    This is *exactly* what someone in Yorkshire found out a few years ago when he wrote a bot to post Fire and Rescue pager messages to Twitter. It's worth pointing out that it's almost impossible to get Ofcom to prosecute you for anything to do with receiving and recording radio traffic, or even transmitting illegally, as long as you're not making a nuisance of yourself. This is generally how laws work in the UK. You can do it right up to the point at which it pisses people off enough that the legal system has to act.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      Funny.. In the Netherlands there's a website that's exactly this. https://monitor.p2000alarm.nl https://monitor.p2000alarm.nl Not only is it legal but many police forces around the country use this site to keep an eye on the traffic. At least they did more than a decade ago.
      - jeroenhd 4y ago
        Note that there is also an encrypted version of this system that's not publicly accessible. I'm not sure about the quality of the encryption used, but I do know that police traffic and ambulance traffic often goes via encrypted channels. I'm also not sure if this is a system that's legally protected or that the government simply hasn't bothered trying to take these sites down.
        wkat4242 4y ago
        That's called C2000 yes but it's mainly for voice. It can handle text messages too. It's based on Tetra. And it's two-way. Indeed very well encrypted. P2000 is one way and based on FLEX, a paging protocol. It's indeed only used for fire and ambulance. The police data is too sensitive so they use C2000. Though you will see police traffic related to accidents etc. But no P2000 isn't protected and the government even used that website themselves :) Not officially though, I guess. I think this is also because most fire departments use a lot of volunteers which makes their activities a lot more public.
secondcoming 4y ago
Those detector vans were a hoax. I don’t have a TV licence because I don’t fit any of the criteria for requiring one. Screw taking it out of my tax instead.
- ntauthority 4y ago
  Germany solved that issue by making owning any device capable of receiving internet broadcasts part of the eligibility criteria. By that point they could just as well make it part of general tax budgets...
  - culturestate 4y ago
    Germany just sends a bill to every registered resident, no matter what. The Rundfunkbeitrag is applied per household, not based on devices, and it's up to each person to either pay the tax or justify to the Beitragsservice that they don't need to.
    - ErikCorry 4y ago
      A super regressive tax for young people who live alone.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - account42 4y ago
        And of course young people are also less likely to watch TV in the first place. It's basically subsidized entertainment for the elderly, which would be fine if the funds were sourced equitably. I also don't buy that this weird totally-not-a-tax setup makes the news any more independent from the government - after all, it's still the government deciding to uphold or even increase the fees as well as allowing and supporting the enforcement. Yeah, it's a pretty shitty system and I wish we would get rid of it. Don't have high hopes of that happening anytime soon though.
      - 4y ago
InCityDreams 4y ago
>(something most sensible countries have put into their normal taxes a long time ago). Yeah, italy - putting the license fee in the electricity bills.
retube 4y ago
TV detector vans are a myth
- jedberg 4y ago
  From what I've read, they do exist, but have never been successful in catching anyone.
  - TecoAndJix 4y ago
    I found this article from 2021 [1] “ Modern efforts to detect licence evasion are shrouded in mystery. Modern flatscreen displays receiving digital television signals do not emit as much radio frequency interference as older designs, and any such signals detected are less easily correlated with broadcast television. An LCD television in the home can just as easily be displaying output from a video game console or an online streaming service, with both being usage cases that do not require the owner to pay a licence fee. Based on an alleged BBC submission for a search warrant in recent years, there may be optical methods used in which reflected light from a television in a viewer’s home is compared to a live broadcast signal. The BBC declined to answer the Freedom of Information request with any details of their methods, other than to say they have employed vehicles and handheld devices in enforcement efforts.” https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-prowled-the-streets-of-england/ https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-prowle...
    - laurencerowe 4y ago
      There's no mystery. They have a list of every address without a TV license so simply go and ring the doorbell and ask you. You don't have to let them in.
      - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
        An ex-gf of mine was caught red-handed with the TV on and brazenly (and impressively) bluffed her way out of a conviction. She said it wasn't her flat and the real owner was out. The inspectors can't do much if you refuse to identify or incriminate yourself.
baybal2 4y ago
[dead]
valdiorn 4y ago
Fyi TV detector vans are essentially fearmongering by the government. A freedom of information request recently revealed not a single prosecution has been generated from the use of those vans since the project's alleged start in the early 50s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
- phire 4y ago
  The freedom of information request revealed no evidence from tv detector vans was directly used in prosecution. But apparently tv detector van evidence was used for search warrants that then lead to further evidence that was used in prosecution. Yes. The primary purpose of the tv detector vans was fearmongering. But they did exist (in small numbers), and they were at least semi-functional.

jamescun 4y ago

I'm based in the UK and have a passive interest in amateur radio. If I had to guess, it isn't outright forbidden, just a licensed activity. Maybe the license isn't easy to get or widely granted?

dylan604 4y ago
you have to have a license to watch television for chris' sake, so it absolutely falls in line you'd need licensing to transmit. you probably have to have licenses in your kid's walkie-talkies. this is the same country that has the national power grid introduce "hum" (or whatever it is technically callled) in the signal so that a time reference can be decoded from it.
- Twisol 4y ago
  > this is the same country that has the national power grid introduce "hum" (or whatever it is technically callled) in the signal so that a time reference can be decoded from it. I don't think that's intentionally introduced. My understanding was that mains hum in any grid is an artifact of a noisy signal that just happens to be useful as a forensics fingerprint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_hum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_hum
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Yes, it seems I crossed a few streams in my head. Here's an article[0] talking about how the forensics is done because someone is creating a database of all of the fluctuations that give it the forensic finger print rather than it being deliberately injected. [0]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20629671 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20629671
    - ErikCorry 4y ago
      Fascinating
    - roywiggins 4y ago

traceroute66 4y ago

> Why I wonder the UK and not other Western countries? Pretty much the missing word here is ... UNLICENSED.

kawfey 4y ago

UK has weird laws. Airborne operation of amateur radio is prohibited in the UK. Yemen and NK ban amateur radio outright, with very few exceptions for things like DXpeditions or royalty. No other countries specifically call out a prohibition of airborne amateur radio operation; either they explicitly allow it or they don't specify. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23803850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23803850 [PDF] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/82637/amateur_radio_licence_guidance_for_licensees.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/82637/a...

CraigJPerry 4y ago
I’ve tried twice to challenge the ofcom restriction, they opened a consultation but frustratingly the RSGB position is against this change.
- alibarber 4y ago
  That's really interesting to hear - I'd like to read more about their stance on this.
  - CraigJPerry 4y ago
    One thing they’re pretty good at is documenting everything, i’d start here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-2/amateur-radio-licence https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/catego...
- terinjokes 4y ago
  As a US ham currently studying to become a UK ham, that's very interesting to me. Did they say why they oppose something regularly allowed elsewhere?
  - CraigJPerry 4y ago
    Formally - no, i think the official stance last i saw was that you can submit a request for a “notice of variation” on your licence but i don’t know of anyone who’s done that and from my knowledge of other NoVs that have been granted i expect it could be hobbled in some way. E.g. in the uk a full licence holder may transmit at up to 400w on most bands but you can submit for a NoV to be able to transmit at 1kw like the US - except the NoV can carry constraints like you must not transmit your call sign. That’s not a typo, you must NOT transmit your callsign when using 1kw. It’ll depend on the reason for the NoV being issued though. Informally i’ve had nothing but condescending dismissal on airborne operation because i mentioned some experiments involving a drone (my other hobby).

anfractuosity 4y ago

You can from what I understand transmit RF from balloons - https://ukhas.org.uk/doku.php?id=start https://ukhas.org.uk/doku.php?id=start has lots of info. There are limitations on what frequencies and power you can transmit at, iirc the power is around 10mW.

dylan604 4y ago

>Why I wonder the UK and not other Western countries? probably because the gov't hates competition.

mhandley 4y ago

It's not that you cannot transmit from a high altitude balloon over the UK, but you are very restricted in transmit power and frequencies. My son and a friend of his built a Muon detector and sent it up under a high altitude balloon as a school science project. We tracked and chased it for 200 miles across England and recovered it eventually, a little the worse for wear. His was set up to transmit location, altitude, and muon flux in case we didn't recover it. It had three radios - two low bitrate RTTY transmitters at very low power (10mW?) and GPRS which was set up to only switch on after landing to help recovery (it's not legal to transmit GPRS while airborne). The RTTY turned out to be very reliable, even at 50 mile range, and especially with other HAB hobbists kindly relaying data back via the Internet. This was especially useful to locate the landing site when the balloon outran us and dropped below our radio horizon. The GPRS never worked, but that may have been because it landed in a pigsty and was attacked by the pig. Anyway, there's quite an active UK high altitude balloon community. Edit: I uploaded video from the flight here: https://youtu.be/4jCU6kVOmc4 https://youtu.be/4jCU6kVOmc4

BrandoElFollito 4y ago
This is impressive. When you say "school project", what kind of school was that? Since you mention muons and their detection, I would expect some university (I used to be a physicist)
- mhandley 4y ago
  The school was one of the better state schools in West London - the kids were 17 at the time. At the end of the school year they give them a couple of weeks to do a project of their own making. This particular project was the kids initiative. They got their first Muon detector working in these two week, and flew it to Germany and back on a cheap flight. The ballon was then an extra addition a few months later. The Muon detector design was based on one from MIT http://cosmicwatch.lns.mit.edu/detector http://cosmicwatch.lns.mit.edu/detector but they redesigned the circuit boards themselves because they weren't confident about making surface mount boards, and they wanted to separate the scintillator board from the rest, to give them a chance to change things later. The kids did all the circuit board design themselves, and assembled everything themselves. I put them in touch with the right people to get circuit boards etched. They built two Muon detectors - one nicely cased with a display, and one lightweight one for the balloon flight. The head of physics at the school lent them a beta source to test with (his main instructions were "don't lick it!"). I helped with some of the comms software, but they did most of the other software themselves too. As for the balloon, again, they did that themselves - they rented the helium cylinder, researched the regulations, how to get a NOTAM issued, arranged the use of a disused airfied as a launch site, phoned air traffic control to get final permission to launch, etc. Beforehand, they did all the testing they could manage without being airborne, and got the hang of driving the sdr dongles they used to receive the two RTTY streams. They also discovered GPRS transmissions really interfered with the Muon amplifier, but that wasn't a big issue if it was only turned on for landing. On the day, the main thing the two parents did was drive the two chase cars, as the kids hadn't got a driving license. Most things went right first time. They had two redundant GPS receivers and two RTTY transmitters, running completely separate software, one on a raspberry pi zero, and one on a teensy. The GPS chipsets need configuring into high altitude mode, or they stop working above 10,000 meters. But this is impossible to test in advance. The RTTY transmitter that was relaying the Muon results gave a much higher bit error rate than the second one, but the second one's GPS chipset turned out to not be in high altitude mode. The balloon sprang a leak at 16,000 m, and descended gently afterwards. We had been aiming for the expected landing site, and as it dropped back into the jetstream, it started to get away from us, despite us driving as fast as we dared with a large antenna on the car roof. Fortunately two other HAB guys were receiving too, and relaying position information back as we started to hit the limits of what we could receive from the working GPS. As the balloon descended the second GPS came back to life, and we were able to track again until it dropped too low. In the end we got to within a kilometer of where it landed, but the reason we recovered it quickly in the end was because the lovely lady whose pigsty it landed in phoned the number on the payload.

wkat4242 4y ago

If you send a balloon around the world, would you really care if the North Koreans get their knickers in a knot over some telemetry? What are they going to do, ask for extradition? They might shoot it down but I'd personally consider that a badge of honor. Pissing off the worst dictatorship in the world and getting them to waste at least 50k$ on a jet sortie for a few hundred bucks worth of hobby balloon sounds like money well spent. I'm not into ballooning but I'm surprised they actually obey this. The UK is another matter of course.

jacobjjacob 4y ago
At some point you have to realize that you might not be safe just because you aren’t in that country. I don’t think North Korea is going to kidnap you or something, but intentionally antagonizing foreign governments that aren’t amicable to your own government just seems like it could have unintended consequences down the road.
- zhte415 4y ago
  We should not allow that to dictate our actions.

"Three countries—North Korea, Yemen and the UK­—restrict transmissions from balloons in their airspace, so the community has integrated geofencing software into

"Three countries—North Korea, Yemen and the UK­—restrict transmissions from balloons in their airspace, so the community has integrated geofencing software into

"Three countries—North Korea, Yemen and the UK—restrict transmissions from balloons in their airspace, so the community has integrated geofencing software into

"Three countries—North Korea, Yemen and the UK—restrict transmissions from balloons in their airspace, so the community has integrated geofencing software into