|
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mark Carver wrote: On 28/10/2015 00:43, Bill Wright wrote: Sometimes we have to switch a system from Belmont to an alternative transmitter because reception of channel 60 is impossible near a 4G mast. It's worth noting that Crystal Palace's highest allocated DTT Mux is Ch 35. You know where I'm coming from here....... ;-) Whereas ours is 60- ... IIRC clearing the 800MHz band was decided in 2003 when that nice Mr Brown oversaw just about all domestic policies across the UK! And while I know BBC Engineering was good, if they allocated UHF channels to Crystal Palace with a view to London not being bothered by 4G I'd like to know who now has their ouija board/crystal ball/magic mushrooms/... -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
On 28/10/2015 17:25, Robin wrote:
IIRC clearing the 800MHz band was decided in 2003 when that nice Mr Brown oversaw just about all domestic policies across the UK! And while I know BBC Engineering was good, if they allocated UHF channels to Crystal Palace with a view to London not being bothered by 4G I'd like to know who now has their ouija board/crystal ball/magic mushrooms/... Fair point. Though of course who decided it was the top end of the UHF band that had to be sold off, and not the bottom end ;-) -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:51:54 +0000
Peter Duncanson wrote: On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:01:06 +0000, Davey wrote: On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:36:20 +0000 (GMT) Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Tweed wrote: When the 4G 800 MHz allocations were made a while back, there was much prediction of doom for TV reception in certain areas. I recall there being much debate about how inadequate the filters might be and how it would all never work. Given the silence since, I presume the end of TV reception did not come to pass? Afraid I can't recall anyone saying that it would be a blanket "end of TV reception". However I certainly had to fit a very good filter to rid our reception of problems when the local 4G base station started up. I doubt I was the only person affected. What the telco's have done efficiently is "news managed" any problems by rolling out 4G gradually with minimal publicity telling people when their area might be affected. Thus keeping lazy and ignorant journalists from noticing. Jim Maybe Bill could enlighten them. Bill may have many abilities, but could even he enlighten ignorant journalists? He could tell them, but would they understand? You are correct. But one can hope! -- Davey. |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
On 28/10/2015 17:22, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Coming back to: The whole problem with 4G is that no-one really knew how many serious problems it would cause. So the telcos simply worked on that basis that they could leave journalists in the dark and roll it out area by area to minimise any fuss. As a result, almost impossible even now to tell how many people are affected. Chances are many will simply assume some other reason. I heard a local installer boasting that when he went to a 4G problem he used it to sell either a vast new aerial or a Freesat to all rooms job. "Never less that four 'undred quid mate." It was just the same with DSO. Bill |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
On 28/10/2015 17:36, Mark Carver wrote:
On 28/10/2015 17:25, Robin wrote: IIRC clearing the 800MHz band was decided in 2003 when that nice Mr Brown oversaw just about all domestic policies across the UK! And while I know BBC Engineering was good, if they allocated UHF channels to Crystal Palace with a view to London not being bothered by 4G I'd like to know who now has their ouija board/crystal ball/magic mushrooms/... Fair point. Though of course who decided it was the top end of the UHF band that had to be sold off, and not the bottom end ;-) They could have used three or four Gp A channels at Crystal Palace and put the rest further up the band as happened at virtually every other analogue Gp site. That would have allowed other txs to use lower channels. CP has hogged the Group A channels at the expense of other txs. Still, London isn't a part of the UK any more. It's a hellhole full of foreigners. The rest of us are ruled by a foreign power. No wonder we are called The Provinces. But the solution isn't the balkanisation of the UK because that would assist the BBC's master plan for a borderless Europe (as per Marx and other commies). Bill |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
On 28/10/2015 17:36, Mark Carver wrote:
On 28/10/2015 17:25, Robin wrote: IIRC clearing the 800MHz band was decided in 2003 when that nice Mr Brown oversaw just about all domestic policies across the UK! And while I know BBC Engineering was good, if they allocated UHF channels to Crystal Palace with a view to London not being bothered by 4G I'd like to know who now has their ouija board/crystal ball/magic mushrooms/... Fair point. Though of course who decided it was the top end of the UHF band that had to be sold off, and not the bottom end ;-) Perhaps they thought hard-working aerial-rigging families in the Northern Powerhouse would welcome the 4G filter fitting work? |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
On 28/10/2015 18:37, Chris wrote:
On 28/10/2015 17:36, Mark Carver wrote: On 28/10/2015 17:25, Robin wrote: IIRC clearing the 800MHz band was decided in 2003 when that nice Mr Brown oversaw just about all domestic policies across the UK! And while I know BBC Engineering was good, if they allocated UHF channels to Crystal Palace with a view to London not being bothered by 4G I'd like to know who now has their ouija board/crystal ball/magic mushrooms/... Fair point. Though of course who decided it was the top end of the UHF band that had to be sold off, and not the bottom end ;-) Perhaps they thought hard-working aerial-rigging families in the Northern Powerhouse would welcome the 4G filter fitting work? It is not just the north. I am receiving from Mendip, and they broadcast channels in the high 50s. I have had a thing through my door informing me that 4G *might* interfere, but they carefully avoided telling me if or when they might install 4G close enough to risk causing me a problem. I haven't had any problems so far, but I haven't got a 4G capable mobile, so I have no idea whether or not there is a 4G capability nearby. Jim |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
Mark Carver wrote:
Though of course who decided it was the top end of the UHF band that had to be sold off, and not the bottom end ;-) I thought that was something to do with the physics of 800MHz compared with the lower channels but as my physics was developed at the same time as the Lancia Beta and has lasted just as well ... :( -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
Chris wrote:
Perhaps they thought hard-working aerial-rigging families in the Northern Powerhouse would welcome the 4G filter fitting work? Don't forget there's another £600 million set aside for the effects of freeing up further channels by 2020 (little of which will go to London). -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
Whatever happened to 4G interference?
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:54:17 +0000
Indy Jess John wrote: I haven't had any problems so far, but I haven't got a 4G capable mobile, so I have no idea whether or not there is a 4G capability nearby. Jim As somebody said before, around here we're still waiting for reliable 1G, let alone 4G. -- Davey. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com