Review what I said. I didn't say it was an accurate answer. Not being skilled in this field (which is the reason to seek an answer anyway) I can only review what has been said and weigh its plausibility. The reason I said it was the first real answer is because, well, it's the first real answer. No other responses actually answered the question. This morning a couple of more responders have.
As for getting the answer I want, yes, I would hope my original conjecture, that it's either impossible or far too much trouble, to get a reading out of the underlying mechanism was correct. Everyone desires to be correct. There was always a small chance that someone who knows these things would say that underneath the remote sender head there is something that is easily read. That may be wrong but it's not totally implausible to someone unfamiliar with what's inside.