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.

Local low-power transmitters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 23rd 16, 01:14 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,494
Default Local low-power transmitters

On 23/12/2016 11:06, charles wrote:

When the original requirement for the relay was analogue ghosting on the
main station, then a useable digital signal might be possible from the
relay. No attempt was made to re-assess the need for the relay after DSO.

I thought they'd take the chance to shut a lot of them, but they didn't.
There's relays now that no new aerials point at. Such as Blackburn
Rotherham.

Bill
  #22  
Old December 23rd 16, 01:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,494
Default Local low-power transmitters

On 23/12/2016 12:47, Woody wrote:


Add to this that DTTV receivers are
typically as much as 20dB more sensitive than analogue types it does
follow the suggestion that some relays could be removed as a usable
signal should be available from another site or even a main station.


Yes. In practice we can now user loft aerials where we couldn't before,
split the aerial signals four or eight ways without an amplifier, etc.

A practical example. In the days before digital was in use I had to get
a good signal for a communal system in Sheffield. Emley was impossible
due to poor field strength and ghosting. Ditto Belmont. Crosspool was
the best but very weak and ghosty. It needed two log periodics phased
together on a 27ft mast with an amp to get a reasonable signal. A few
weeks ago the smoke from the district heating system put paid to that
installation. Paul replaced it was a single 18 element on a 10ft mast,
with an amp, on Emley Moor. Results were good.

In other words, the job's ****ed, get into CCTV quick lads.

Bill

  #23  
Old December 23rd 16, 01:36 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,524
Default Local low-power transmitters

On 23/12/2016 13:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mark Carver
wrote:

There is not enough spectrum (without resorting to SFNs, and that's
anther story) to carry six muxes on all 1154 transmitters, and remember
since DSO, nothing above UHF ch 61 is available to be used, and after
2020 nothing above Ch 49. The fun starts in nine months from now in N
Scotland.


Um. So Scotland is being thrust "first into the field" when it comes to the
squeeze down to below Ch50?


Yep, you're the pioneers :-)

Some of Knock More and Rumster Forest's relays are first to move, Oct-
Dec 2017

They've already started swapping out some of Tx aerials (nationwide),
that currently can't operate at lower frequencies

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallery...27&pageid=2804

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=127

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #24  
Old December 23rd 16, 02:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default Local low-power transmitters

On 23/12/2016 14:36, Mark Carver wrote:

Um. So Scotland is being thrust "first into the field" when it comes
to the
squeeze down to below Ch50?


Yep, you're the pioneers :-)


Please tell me the Scottish Government were consulted and carried with
this. (I thought Ofcom was meant to be apolitical, not politically
moronic. And also not bomb makers for the SNP!)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #25  
Old December 23rd 16, 03:31 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 490
Default Local low-power transmitters

In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 23/12/2016 14:36, Mark Carver wrote:


Um. So Scotland is being thrust "first into the field" when it comes
to the
squeeze down to below Ch50?


Yep, you're the pioneers :-)


Please tell me the Scottish Government were consulted and carried with
this. (I thought Ofcom was meant to be apolitical, not politically
moronic. And also not bomb makers for the SNP!)


It's using areas with a small number of viewers so that if problems occur
they can be dealt with more easily. Imagine trying it on Winter Hill first.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #26  
Old December 23rd 16, 04:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,126
Default Local low-power transmitters

In article , charles
wrote:

Please tell me the Scottish Government were consulted and carried with
this. (I thought Ofcom was meant to be apolitical, not politically
moronic. And also not bomb makers for the SNP!)


It's using areas with a small number of viewers so that if problems
occur they can be dealt with more easily. Imagine trying it on Winter
Hill first.


That doesn't answer Robin's actual question, I'm afraid.

What you say may make sense in engineering terms. But in political terms it
may not.

WRT OfCom being "apolitical" I'd suggest people consult recent issues of
'Private Eye' which report some of the goings-on related to who has been
appointed there recently. And at least one person who was appointed and
then dumped. May not be very "apolitical" given the changes to the BBC
Charter, etc.

So I do hope they *have* agreed this with the Scottish Government in
advance.

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

  #27  
Old December 23rd 16, 05:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default Local low-power transmitters

On 23/12/2016 16:31, charles wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 23/12/2016 14:36, Mark Carver wrote:


Um. So Scotland is being thrust "first into the field" when it comes
to the
squeeze down to below Ch50?

Yep, you're the pioneers :-)


Please tell me the Scottish Government were consulted and carried with
this. (I thought Ofcom was meant to be apolitical, not politically
moronic. And also not bomb makers for the SNP!)


It's using areas with a small number of viewers so that if problems occur
they can be dealt with more easily. Imagine trying it on Winter Hill first.


There was similarly "good reason" for introducing the Community Charge
("poll tax") in Scotland before E&W[1] and we know how that ended up
being perceived

[1] I saw perceived because it was spun as using Scotland as a test-bed.
It was actually because the rating revaluation was due in Scotland
(before the revaluation in England) so bringing in the Community Charge
earlier avoided the need for the revaluation (which itself would have
led to winners and losers). And the pressure to do so came from
Scotland where the rates were especially hated after the revaluation in
1985.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #28  
Old December 23rd 16, 05:13 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Crosland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 511
Default Local low-power transmitters

On 23/12/2016 14:36, Mark Carver wrote:
On 23/12/2016 13:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mark Carver
wrote:

There is not enough spectrum (without resorting to SFNs, and that's
anther story) to carry six muxes on all 1154 transmitters, and remember
since DSO, nothing above UHF ch 61 is available to be used, and after
2020 nothing above Ch 49. The fun starts in nine months from now in N
Scotland.


Um. So Scotland is being thrust "first into the field" when it comes
to the
squeeze down to below Ch50?


Yep, you're the pioneers :-)

Some of Knock More and Rumster Forest's relays are first to move, Oct-
Dec 2017

They've already started swapping out some of Tx aerials (nationwide),
that currently can't operate at lower frequencies

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallery...27&pageid=2804


http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=127


Impressive pics. Thanks.

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid
  #29  
Old December 23rd 16, 07:00 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 490
Default Local low-power transmitters

In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 23/12/2016 16:31, charles wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 23/12/2016 14:36, Mark Carver wrote:


Um. So Scotland is being thrust "first into the field" when it comes
to the
squeeze down to below Ch50?

Yep, you're the pioneers :-)


Please tell me the Scottish Government were consulted and carried with
this. (I thought Ofcom was meant to be apolitical, not politically
moronic. And also not bomb makers for the SNP!)


It's using areas with a small number of viewers so that if problems
occur they can be dealt with more easily. Imagine trying it on Winter
Hill first.


There was similarly "good reason" for introducing the Community Charge
("poll tax") in Scotland before E&W[1] and we know how that ended up
being perceived


[1] I saw perceived because it was spun as using Scotland as a test-bed.
It was actually because the rating revaluation was due in Scotland
(before the revaluation in England) so bringing in the Community Charge
earlier avoided the need for the revaluation (which itself would have
led to winners and losers). And the pressure to do so came from
Scotland where the rates were especially hated after the revaluation in
1985.


and the "super-counties" (Regions) scheme was tried out in Scotland & Wales
and then never done in England

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #30  
Old December 24th 16, 09:18 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,370
Default Local low-power transmitters

Back many years ago in the days of big chunky Philips VCRs, I recorded a
program made by the IBA about the then great idea of briefcase sized
transmitters housed in what looked like garden sheds on the top of a local
hill, one aerial pointed toward the main station the other into the valley
beyond.

Of course even then it seemed to me that one would need at least five
transmit receive systems in the shed and suitable combiners and diplexers
to make it work. It gave the impression it could be just taken there a
prefab mast put up and it all plugged in.
I somehow suspect even then it was not that simple!

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
I've been having some fun perusing the very informative Wolfbane web
site (
http://www.wolfbane.com/) and a question comes to mind. I see
that a lot of low power local transmitters transmit only three of the
muxes.

For instance, near me I have Ambergate, Bolehill, Belper, Derby plus
others, and they only transmit muxes 1, 2 and B.

Does that mean that people using those transmitters are missing out
on all the channels that are broadcast on muxes A, C and D?

--
Steve Thackery, Nottingham, UK



 




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 10:07 AM.


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.