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.

OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 22nd 18, 09:43 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
stephen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 19:01:49 +0000, Graham.
wrote:

There is much talk about the shuffling of muxes and fitting of filters to
allow use of some current TV frequencies for mobile phones.

This led me to wonder:

If the signals are being picked up by TV aerials can you use a TV aerial
to boost your mobile phone signal?

If you have to fit a filter to keep mobile signals away from the TV, could
you fit a splitter to pick up the mobile phone signals?

This does, of course, require a mobile phone which will take an external
aerial and I haven't seen one of those for a while. Back in the day a car
kit for a mobile phone included an aerial on the car which connected into
the phone. However that was {cough} years ago.

Cheers



Dave R


The answer is an emphatic "yes" provided you can address the lack of
connector of course.
For data there are 3G routers with SMA connectors, I have used them at
work and where the signal is not strong enough, an external aerial can
be connected.
I have no doubt at all that 4G routers that can use the 800Mhz band
are also available.

They have been around for a while
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/produc...78-732744.html

Incidentally, I wouldn't want to try sharing the same UHF aerial with
TV reception, I would want a separate VP yagi pointing at an 800Mhz
equipped BTS carrying my network.


--
Stephen
Ads
  #22  
Old January 23rd 18, 01:02 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

On 21 Jan 2018 23:08:05 GMT, David wrote:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse...254/Repeaters-

Statement-2017.pdf

Thanks - interesting reading.

"Mobile phone repeaters amplify signals between a mobile phone and a
network operatorís base station and can enhance coverage in situations
where the signal is weak. Their use by consumers is currently unlawful, as
the types of wideband repeaters that we come across today can cause undue
interference or other adverse effects to mobile services for other
consumers. The only exception is if the repeaters are supplied and
operated under the control of a mobile network operator. "


I wonder how long it will take to get approved systems to market?


Probably forever, the same as it was with video senders and foreign
dial-up modems. Similarly, there will be no reports of any harm
resulting from their use, or anybody being prosecuted for using one.

Presumably the vendors of the current illegal systems will have an
incentive.


None at all, unless they can be prosecuted for selling the systems,
which as things stand is unlikely. As far as I know, it's only illegal
to *use* an unauthorised transmitter, not to sell, make or own one.
Creating even more possession laws, as for things like hard drugs,
firearms, stolen property etc, would open another can of worms that I
doubt the government would want to bother with, even if they
understood it properly. The number of these repeater systems in use
must be quite small, and until some identifiable harm results from one
of them I don't think anybody will care.

Rod.


Mere ownership of a Band IV/V videosender was made a spacific offence
in 1998, as I pointed out recently on this group.

Quote

Yes, it's covered by specific legislation
forbidding "having in oneís custody or control"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/722/made
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
  #23  
Old January 23rd 18, 08:53 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:02:51 +0000, Graham.
wrote:

As far as I know, it's only illegal
to *use* an unauthorised transmitter, not to sell, make or own one.[...]


Mere ownership of a Band IV/V videosender was made a spacific offence
in 1998, as I pointed out recently on this group.


Oh dear! I know I had some in my junk room. Perhaps I'd better check.

Do you know if the illegality is retrospective? In other words, if
I've owned them since before 1998 (which I think would be the case),
will their status, and mine, have changed automatically that year
without any action from me?

Rod.
  #24  
Old January 23rd 18, 09:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:02:51 +0000, Graham.
wrote:

As far as I know, it's only illegal
to *use* an unauthorised transmitter, not to sell, make or own one.[...]


Mere ownership of a Band IV/V videosender was made a spacific offence
in 1998, as I pointed out recently on this group.


Oh dear! I know I had some in my junk room. Perhaps I'd better check.

Do you know if the illegality is retrospective? In other words, if
I've owned them since before 1998 (which I think would be the case),
will their status, and mine, have changed automatically that year
without any action from me?

Rod.

I don't know, but two things come to mind, firstly at what point does
a videosender become a video modulator? As Bill acknowledged in the
other thread, he has kit that is probably more potent than a typical
"sender", the only difference is that there is an expectation that it
will feed a distribution system rather than an aerial.

The other thing is just surprise, that apparently, TV reception should
enjoy more protection, and Draconian force of law, than cellular
telephony.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
  #25  
Old January 24th 18, 06:47 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 439
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

On 22/01/2018 20:06, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

I bought my mother a Doro last year, that's only 2G.


A very dumb phone. OTOH if it has Wi-Fi, there is no reason why it could not do Wi-Fi calling.


If it had WiFi it wouldn't be a bog standard calls and SMS only phone
(like for instance a Doro), and not all WiFi equipped phones support
WiFi calling (which requires VoIP style protocols to be embedded)

BTW it won't work on Three, or rather they will soon cut it off.


Because Three have no 2G network, yes I know that thanks, you've lost me
completely now, cut what off ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #26  
Old January 24th 18, 07:11 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:53:23 +0000, Graham.
wrote:

As far as I know, it's only illegal
to *use* an unauthorised transmitter, not to sell, make or own one.[...]

Mere ownership of a Band IV/V videosender was made a spacific offence
in 1998, as I pointed out recently on this group.


Oh dear! I know I had some in my junk room. Perhaps I'd better check.

Do you know if the illegality is retrospective? In other words, if
I've owned them since before 1998 (which I think would be the case),
will their status, and mine, have changed automatically that year
without any action from me?

Rod.

I don't know, but two things come to mind, firstly at what point does
a videosender become a video modulator? As Bill acknowledged in the
other thread, he has kit that is probably more potent than a typical
"sender", the only difference is that there is an expectation that it
will feed a distribution system rather than an aerial.

The other thing is just surprise, that apparently, TV reception should
enjoy more protection, and Draconian force of law, than cellular
telephony.


I've always been surprised that the unauthorised practice of something
as innocuous as the watching of television programmes is a *criminal*
offence. This puts it into the same category as murder, rape,
kidnapping, arson, drug smuggling, and a load of nasty stuff that
you'd naturally expect to be criminal - but watching telly?! Really?

Rod.
  #27  
Old January 25th 18, 01:29 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:53:23 +0000, Graham.
wrote:

As far as I know, it's only illegal
to *use* an unauthorised transmitter, not to sell, make or own one.[...]

Mere ownership of a Band IV/V videosender was made a spacific offence
in 1998, as I pointed out recently on this group.

Oh dear! I know I had some in my junk room. Perhaps I'd better check.

Do you know if the illegality is retrospective? In other words, if
I've owned them since before 1998 (which I think would be the case),
will their status, and mine, have changed automatically that year
without any action from me?

Rod.

I don't know, but two things come to mind, firstly at what point does
a videosender become a video modulator? As Bill acknowledged in the
other thread, he has kit that is probably more potent than a typical
"sender", the only difference is that there is an expectation that it
will feed a distribution system rather than an aerial.

The other thing is just surprise, that apparently, TV reception should
enjoy more protection, and Draconian force of law, than cellular
telephony.


I've always been surprised that the unauthorised practice of something
as innocuous as the watching of television programmes is a *criminal*
offence. This puts it into the same category as murder, rape,
kidnapping, arson, drug smuggling, and a load of nasty stuff that
you'd naturally expect to be criminal - but watching telly?! Really?

Rod.

+1
I can't imagine what visitors from abroad think.

I would have laid money that by now, with the Internet acting as
another TV platform, that the legeislation would start to be relaxed,
but no, with the new rules regarding BBC catchup services the
stranglehold has tightened.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
  #28  
Old January 26th 18, 08:54 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,326
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
I've always been surprised that the unauthorised practice of something
as innocuous as the watching of television programmes is a *criminal*
offence. This puts it into the same category as murder, rape,
kidnapping, arson, drug smuggling, and a load of nasty stuff that you'd
naturally expect to be criminal - but watching telly?! Really?


I suspect the legal genesis of the argument is that the 'state' 'owns' the
rights to broadcast using the electromagnetic spectrum. Hence permission to
make or receiver such is determined by the state, under agreement woth
other states via the relevant international agreements between states. So
any offence against the laws by default will be a 'criminal' one.

Hence also the way the 'state' can sell/rent 'rights' to parts of the
spectrum for specified purposes.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #29  
Old January 26th 18, 01:09 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 506
Default OT(ish) - mobile taking over TV frequencies

On 26/01/2018 09:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
I've always been surprised that the unauthorised practice of something
as innocuous as the watching of television programmes is a *criminal*
offence. This puts it into the same category as murder, rape,
kidnapping, arson, drug smuggling, and a load of nasty stuff that you'd
naturally expect to be criminal - but watching telly?! Really?


I thought the offence was not "the watching of television programmes"
but the unauthorised use of a transmitter.

I suspect the legal genesis of the argument is that the 'state' 'owns' the
rights to broadcast using the electromagnetic spectrum. Hence permission to
make or receiver such is determined by the state, under agreement woth
other states via the relevant international agreements between states. So
any offence against the laws by default will be a 'criminal' one.

Hence also the way the 'state' can sell/rent 'rights' to parts of the
spectrum for specified purposes.


In addition to that there is the way use (or misuse) of a transmitter
has the capacity to bugger up a lot of other people's watching of
programmes. When that happens it seems to me as worthy of criminal
sanctions as some other forms of anti-social behaviour: eg really loud
music night after night or someone starting a traditional tannery next
door. (And looked at that way, it has a built-in "de minimis non curat
lex" exemption[1]: if no one is affected by the unlawful use of a
transmitter, what are the chances of being caught doing it, let alone
prosecuted?)

And there's also a pragmatic argument for a backstop of criminal
penalties when people do things which may affect a lot other people
adversely. It is that civil penalties aren't much of a deterrent for
people who have no assets worth ceasing and no income other than
benefits: you can sue them all you want but they just don't pay. (There
are injunctions which carry the risk of prison for contempt of court but
they're expensive.)


[1] "The law does not concern itself with trifles" - the doctrine by
which a court declines to bother with trifling matters.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
 




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 06:53 AM.


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.