A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Digital reception



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 27th 16, 12:32 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,182
Default Digital reception

In article m, F
Murtz
wrote:
This setup was here when I moved here I am well out of the city and the
aerial is fairly high,there is no reception in this area without
masthead amplifier The tvs in aus have mainly changed to digital near
here and the aerial was probably before the change,it may have added
elements to accommodate digital or both when both systems were running


Have you changed to a system like the UK multiplexes. or a USA-like system?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #12  
Old November 27th 16, 01:06 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default Digital reception

On 26/11/2016 10:11, F Murtz wrote:

Don't know if UK has similar systems to us in Australia
My digital tv reception is shot to hell,
They have put an NBN fixed cellular broadband tower a few hundred metres
from my house in Couridjah,I do not know if it is up and running yet(the
FTTN is not ready yet although it seems to be all in)
I wonder if they are testing the tower and 4G is causing my tv reception
problem


Do you have neighbours who are near enough to make it worth asking if
they have similar problems?


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #13  
Old November 27th 16, 02:57 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Woody[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,761
Default Digital reception

A quick bit of checking suggest there are two TV transmitters that
could be serving your location:

Vault Hill near Picton roughly NE of you which is vertically polarised
and omni-directional, about 9Km away but only transmits 25W;

Mount Gibralter near Mittagong, roughly SW, and transmits 1KW
horizontally polarised but is directional and there is no indication
of what that directionality is.

Since your picture of the aerial - what is often known over here as a
'flying bedstead' - is vertical it suggests you are using Picton, but
if you have a good enough signal for that type of aerial then you
should not need an aerial amp. If you do then you need an aerial with
much more gain - one that looks like a more conventional aerial
like the picture on this site:-

http://www.aerialsandtv.com/highgain...alreports.html

The elements ('prongs') for Picton would need to be vertical which is
an effect of the pole mount.

The good bit is that Picton transmits in the mid 500MHz band so if
your were to fit a 4G filter on the aerial cable, there would be
almost no insertion loss.

It looks as though the original aerial is for analogue so if you are
using the same downlead it will probably be the 'wrong' type. You need
to get what we know as CT100 or PF100 or similar, preferably the type
with copper foil under the braid and not aluminium foil which degrades
more quickly, especially if it gets wet!

Is satellite an option?


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





  #14  
Old November 27th 16, 03:27 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default Digital reception

On 27/11/2016 12:26, Scott wrote:

I assume the argument is that all television is sent to static devices
that could use satellite or broadband,


And the associated snag is that most households have an aerial, rather
less have a satellite dish. Most aerials will function inside an attic
in those areas where external appearances matter, and a satellite dish
won't.

Also, if everybody had TV via broadband, then the cheaper capped
broadband arrangements would not be viable and those in rural areas
would not have the bandwidth to watch TV if all their neighbours were
doing the same.

This smacks of an assumption made by a city dweller with fibre to the house.

Jim
  #15  
Old November 27th 16, 03:41 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Woody[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,761
Default Digital reception


"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 27/11/2016 12:26, Scott wrote:

I assume the argument is that all television is sent to static
devices
that could use satellite or broadband,


And the associated snag is that most households have an aerial,
rather less have a satellite dish. Most aerials will function
inside an attic in those areas where external appearances matter,
and a satellite dish won't.

Also, if everybody had TV via broadband, then the cheaper capped
broadband arrangements would not be viable and those in rural areas
would not have the bandwidth to watch TV if all their neighbours
were doing the same.

This smacks of an assumption made by a city dweller with fibre to
the house.



Jim, I suggest you Google NBN Australia and you will then see what it
is all about. Not as clear as you might at first think!


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com


  #16  
Old November 27th 16, 05:09 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Digital reception

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:27:32 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/11/2016 12:26, Scott wrote:

I assume the argument is that all television is sent to static devices
that could use satellite or broadband,


And the associated snag is that most households have an aerial, rather
less have a satellite dish. Most aerials will function inside an attic
in those areas where external appearances matter, and a satellite dish
won't.

Also, if everybody had TV via broadband, then the cheaper capped
broadband arrangements would not be viable and those in rural areas
would not have the bandwidth to watch TV if all their neighbours were
doing the same.

This smacks of an assumption made by a city dweller with fibre to the house.

I think you refer to the argument, not the assumption. See first
line, which you have selectively removed.
  #17  
Old November 27th 16, 09:44 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default Digital reception

On 27/11/2016 16:41, Woody wrote:


Jim, I suggest you Google NBN Australia and you will then see what it
is all about. Not as clear as you might at first think!


It is a good scheme. However, can you imagine the UK putting in that
much investment in the current financial situation?

Jim

  #18  
Old November 27th 16, 09:52 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default Digital reception

On 27/11/2016 18:09, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:27:32 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/11/2016 12:26, Scott wrote:

I assume the argument is that all television is sent to static devices
that could use satellite or broadband,


And the associated snag is that most households have an aerial, rather
less have a satellite dish. Most aerials will function inside an attic
in those areas where external appearances matter, and a satellite dish
won't.

Also, if everybody had TV via broadband, then the cheaper capped
broadband arrangements would not be viable and those in rural areas
would not have the bandwidth to watch TV if all their neighbours were
doing the same.

This smacks of an assumption made by a city dweller with fibre to the house.

I think you refer to the argument, not the assumption. See first
line, which you have selectively removed.


I see it as a bit of a conflict between logic and practicality.
Yes, TV is not the ideal use of a valuable spectrum, but the people who
view TVs do need to be served with transmissions they can receive. Bear
in mind that the poorest households will be the ones that are likely to
watch it the most.

Jim

  #19  
Old November 27th 16, 10:22 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default Digital reception

On 27/11/2016 22:44, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 27/11/2016 16:41, Woody wrote:


Jim, I suggest you Google NBN Australia and you will then see what it
is all about. Not as clear as you might at first think!


It is a good scheme. However, can you imagine the UK putting in that
much investment in the current financial situation?


Can you please clarify if the "good scheme" you have in mind is the
original one (overwhelmingly FTTP) or the current one (as the OP stated,
a revised one with a lot of copper and broadcast)? The latter has been
much-criticised in Aus. Some there have even pointed to the Autumn
Statement as showing a better way to go.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #20  
Old November 28th 16, 08:46 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Digital reception

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 22:52:51 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/11/2016 18:09, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:27:32 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/11/2016 12:26, Scott wrote:

I assume the argument is that all television is sent to static devices
that could use satellite or broadband,

And the associated snag is that most households have an aerial, rather
less have a satellite dish. Most aerials will function inside an attic
in those areas where external appearances matter, and a satellite dish
won't.

Also, if everybody had TV via broadband, then the cheaper capped
broadband arrangements would not be viable and those in rural areas
would not have the bandwidth to watch TV if all their neighbours were
doing the same.

This smacks of an assumption made by a city dweller with fibre to the house.

I think you refer to the argument, not the assumption. See first
line, which you have selectively removed.


I see it as a bit of a conflict between logic and practicality.
Yes, TV is not the ideal use of a valuable spectrum, but the people who
view TVs do need to be served with transmissions they can receive. Bear
in mind that the poorest households will be the ones that are likely to
watch it the most.

My point was that I started my post with 'I agree entirely' followed
by 'Unfortunately ... ' so I was not arguing in favour of ending
terrestrial TV. You edited my post to imply I was suggesting the
opposite. .
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.