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
Old November 28th 16, 08:55 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
Posts: 1,307
Default Digital reception

On 27/11/2016 23:22, Robin wrote:
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.

I meant the original one. It is a pity it (like all good ideas) got
watered down.


Old November 28th 16, 09:07 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
Posts: 1,307
Default Digital reception

On 28/11/2016 09:46, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 22:52:51 +0000, Indy Jess John

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

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

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. .

I didn't mean to imply that, and certainly not to you personally, merely
express a concern that those who are insulated from the realities of
life by position or wealth might influence future policy without
considering the overall impact. :-(

The trouble with typed communication is that it doesn't convey tone of

Old November 28th 16, 05:49 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
Posts: 1,774
Default Digital reception

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

those in rural areas
would not have the bandwidth to watch TV if all their neighbours were
doing the same.

Doesn't follow. Low bandwidth in rural areas is mostly due to the
length of copper giving very low download speeds, and therefore
affects each individual line individually. If, as is common, each
individual line can't handle more than 1Mbps or so, the entirety of
them acting as a group is unlikely to overload the backhaul or a
server in the path. There are places with backhaul problems, for
example ...
.... but, IME, it's usually the lines themselves that are the major
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
Old December 3rd 16, 02:05 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
tony sayer
external usenet poster
Posts: 5,001
Default Digital reception

In article , Woody
scribeth thus
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:-


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

If he is Horiz and the TX is Vert then thats good for around 20 odd dB
loss alone!

Let alone a **** poor aerial amp thats likely to be overloaded by
anything else around..

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?

Tony Sayer


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 12:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.