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.

Retune for Ch. 10



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 9th 18, 09:17 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,329
Default Retune for Ch. 10

"Martin Barclay" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 17:22:33 +0100, Max Demian wrote:

On 08/04/2018 17:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Martin Barclay wrote:

WHY the blue f**king blazes do they have to keep playing about changing
things?

Well in this case, it was related to a *good* thing ... upgrading ITV3
from low-res SD 544x576 to standard-res SD 720x576.


So they should do the changes all at once, not more than once a year.


Absolutely. IMO it's about time they got their act together.


I agree. Plan ahead so they don't need to make a change and then a year or
so later make a change that contradicts the first one.

The clearance of the 800 MHz and now the 700 MHz parts of the UHF spectrum
is a difficult one. Hopefully when everywhere has gone through the 700 MHz
clearance, that will be the end of *major* changes, but we'll still see the
emergence and subsequent demise of the various fly-by-night "filler"
channels, though presumably you'll only need to retune for those if you
actually want those channels.

Ads
  #32  
Old April 9th 18, 10:35 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 573
Default Retune for Ch. 10

Robin wrote:

charles wrote:

"They" had their act going well and the government decided to sell off some
of the TV frequencies for mobile phone use - again.


Did the UK government have much choice in practice?


And yet, whenever I hear musings on what frequencies small-scale 5G
tests are being using, it's at 24GHz and above, is that for short range
dense population areas? Will it also use 700MHz out in the sticks?

  #33  
Old April 9th 18, 11:52 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default Retune for Ch. 10

On 09/04/2018 11:35, Andy Burns wrote:

And yet, whenever I hear musings on what frequencies small-scale 5G
tests are being using, it's at 24GHz and above, is that for short range
dense population areas? Will it also use 700MHz out in the sticks?


I think that's the plan. A lot of tiny cells in cities and big ones in
the country.

Bill
  #34  
Old April 9th 18, 12:48 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 506
Default Retune for Ch. 10

On 09/04/2018 11:35, Andy Burns wrote:
Robin wrote:

charles wrote:

"They" had their act going well and the government decided to sell
off some
of the TV frequencies for mobile phone use - again.


Did the UK government have much choice in practice?


And yet, whenever I hear musings on what frequencies small-scale 5G
tests are being using, it's at 24GHz and above, is that for short range
dense population areas? Will it also use 700MHz out in the sticks?


I thought it wasn't *all* about speed. As Ofcom note in their con. doc.
on obligations to be imposed as part of the auction next year

"In the second half of 2019 we plan to auction spectrum in the 700 MHz
band for mobile use. These airwaves pass through walls and other
obstructions more easily than signals transmitted at higher frequencies.
They are therefore well suited for improving mobile coverage. In our
2015 Strategic Review of Digital Communications we said we would impose
coverage obligations in some of the licences we award in the 700 MHz
auction. This document sets out our initial proposals for these coverage
obligations."

and a proposal

"An operator acquiring the licence carrying this obligation must provide
new indoor coverage to 60% of those premises in rural areas that are
unserved by any operator at the time of the award. As part of this
obligation, we propose that at least 60% of premises without service in
each Nation must receive a service."

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #35  
Old April 9th 18, 01:00 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 573
Default Retune for Ch. 10

Bill Wright wrote:

A lot of tiny cells in cities and big ones in
the country.


Maybe they'll get 5G working with voice this time, rather than bungling
it out the door with impressive data speeds and thinking they can bolt
voice on later like they did with 4G?


  #36  
Old April 9th 18, 02:04 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,329
Default Retune for Ch. 10

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:

A lot of tiny cells in cities and big ones in
the country.


Maybe they'll get 5G working with voice this time, rather than bungling it
out the door with impressive data speeds and thinking they can bolt voice
on later like they did with 4G?


When they have 100% voice and 3G coverage (to be able to make/receive calls
and to communicate at a few Mbps), THEN, and only then, should mobile phone
companies devote their energies to expanding the coverage of 4G and 5G.

Sadly they seem to be spending all their money giving an even faster service
to those people in densely-populated areas who already have good mobile
reception, while those who have very poor service never seen any
improvement - and in some cases the reception has actually got worse.

If mobile companies won't improve the coverage to some minimum standard
(voice, text and under-5 Mbps internet) of their own accord, legislation
should be passed to force them to make this the highest priority.

  #37  
Old April 9th 18, 04:26 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default Retune for Ch. 10

On 09/04/2018 15:04, NY wrote:

When they have 100% voice and 3G coverage (to be able to make/receive
calls and to communicate at a few Mbps), THEN, and only then, should
mobile phone companies devote their energies to expanding the coverage
of 4G and 5G.

Sadly they seem to be spending all their money giving an even faster
service to those people in densely-populated areas who already have good
mobile reception, while those who have very poor service never seen any
improvement - and in some cases the reception has actually got worse.

If mobile companies won't improve the coverage to some minimum standard
(voice, text and under-5 Mbps internet) of their own accord, legislation
should be passed to force them to make this the highest priority.


No chance. In most constituencies rural voters are outnumbered by urban
voters. So there's no representation. This is why rural areas get such
poor bus services, internet, cellphone, roads, etc. Until we have
proportional representation this will not change.

Bill
  #38  
Old April 9th 18, 07:48 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 506
Default Retune for Ch. 10

On 09/04/2018 17:26, Bill Wright wrote:
On 09/04/2018 15:04, NY wrote:

When they have 100% voice and 3G coverage (to be able to make/receive
calls and to communicate at a few Mbps), THEN, and only then, should
mobile phone companies devote their energies to expanding the coverage
of 4G and 5G.

Sadly they seem to be spending all their money giving an even faster
service to those people in densely-populated areas who already have
good mobile reception, while those who have very poor service never
seen any improvement - and in some cases the reception has actually
got worse.

If mobile companies won't improve the coverage to some minimum
standard (voice, text and under-5 Mbps internet) of their own accord,
legislation should be passed to force them to make this the highest
priority.


No chance. In most constituencies rural voters are outnumbered by urban
voters. So there's no representation. This is why rural areas get such
poor bus services, internet, cellphone, roads, etc. Until we have
proportional representation this will not change.


You forgot to ask also for equality on house prices, lack of privacy,
air pollution, crime, congestion, price for services such as carers and
stress.


--
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 03:35 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.