Loss of Freeview Channels with 4G Mobile

Is this really an issue - that many (all?) Freeview Channels will
suffer from severe interference with the new frequencies allocated to
4G mobile services?

I hear that millions of Londoners will be especially affected if
receiving Freeview from Crystal Palace transmitters / masts.

This is crazy. I thought that analogue t.v. was switched off to
provide frequencies for 4G, but it seems that Freeview frequencies are
to be allocated to 4G as well!!

I also heard that compensation will be made of £10K per household
affected. But isn't it illegal to deliberately affect t.v. / radio
reception, which apparently the 4G telcos will be doing.

CJB.

I'm not sure they really know how bad it will get. all the testing is as
always going to be done by the good old customers I fancy.

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"CJB" wrote in message
...
Is this really an issue - that many (all?) Freeview Channels will
suffer from severe interference with the new frequencies allocated to
4G mobile services?

I hear that millions of Londoners will be especially affected if
receiving Freeview from Crystal Palace transmitters / masts.

This is crazy. I thought that analogue t.v. was switched off to
provide frequencies for 4G, but it seems that Freeview frequencies are
to be allocated to 4G as well!!

I also heard that compensation will be made of £10K per household
affected. But isn't it illegal to deliberately affect t.v. / radio
reception, which apparently the 4G telcos will be doing.

CJB.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:56:46 -0800 (PST), CJB
wrote:

Is this really an issue - that many (all?) Freeview Channels will
suffer from severe interference with the new frequencies allocated to
4G mobile services?

I hear that millions of Londoners will be especially affected if
receiving Freeview from Crystal Palace transmitters / masts.

This is crazy. I thought that analogue t.v. was switched off to
provide frequencies for 4G, but it seems that Freeview frequencies are
to be allocated to 4G as well!!

I also heard that compensation will be made of £10K per household
affected. But isn't it illegal to deliberately affect t.v. / radio
reception, which apparently the 4G telcos will be doing.

CJB.


The UHF band was shared between DTT and analogue services, a channel
in a given area could be allocated to a DTT multiplex or a single
analogue service each slotted into the 8 MHz space.

Now that analogue has gone the remaining digital MUX's can be moved
within the band so as to provide contiguous spare spectrum that is to
be sold off for LTE.

I suppose you could look at that as "Free view frequencies being sold
off", but it's petty much a moveable feast.

Many people would say it was "criminal" to put the LTE allocation so
close to the top end of the (curtailed) UHF TV band, but each is a
licenced service so no real illegality. Just to be clear, there is no
actual overlap, it's just that the nature of phone masts is that they
are often sited near dwellings, and domestic receivers and amplifiers
might get swamped.

I thought Crystal palace used the LF end of the band, the problem is
more likley to affect the top of the band.



Where do I apply for my ten grand?




--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

CJB wrote:
Is this really an issue - that many (all?) Freeview Channels will
suffer from severe interference with the new frequencies allocated to
4G mobile services?

I hear that millions of Londoners will be especially affected if
receiving Freeview from Crystal Palace transmitters / masts.

This is crazy. I thought that analogue t.v. was switched off to
provide frequencies for 4G, but it seems that Freeview frequencies are
to be allocated to 4G as well!!

I also heard that compensation will be made of £10K per household
affected. But isn't it illegal to deliberately affect t.v. / radio
reception, which apparently the 4G telcos will be doing.
CJB.

Crazy is right, all existing and near future TVs have front ends that
receive UHF ch21 to 68, the 4G plans are to extend down to maybe
as low as ch50, so without extensive extra filtering all those 4G
transmitters will swamp TV tuners, even with filters they probably still
will.

IMHO It would have been fairer to have shut down UHF terrestrial
TV and supply all with Astra 2 dishes. Of course not all have a clear path
to the south east. ;-(

Seriously i can't suggest that UHF Terrestrial TV is viable anymore.
Get a Dish if you can see 28e, and tell all you can to do the same.

Interference free UHF TV is dead.

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:22:48 -0000, "Steve Terry"
wrote:


Seriously i can't suggest that UHF Terrestrial TV is viable anymore.
Get a Dish if you can see 28e, and tell all you can to do the same.


Which is *precisely* what you are intended to conclude, in order to
clear the way for eventual closure.

On 17/11/12 03:22, Steve Terry wrote:
CJB wrote:
Is this really an issue - that many (all?) Freeview Channels will
suffer from severe interference with the new frequencies allocated to
4G mobile services?

I hear that millions of Londoners will be especially affected if
receiving Freeview from Crystal Palace transmitters / masts.

This is crazy. I thought that analogue t.v. was switched off to
provide frequencies for 4G, but it seems that Freeview frequencies are
to be allocated to 4G as well!!

I also heard that compensation will be made of £10K per household
affected. But isn't it illegal to deliberately affect t.v. / radio
reception, which apparently the 4G telcos will be doing.
CJB.

Crazy is right, all existing and near future TVs have front ends that
receive UHF ch21 to 68, the 4G plans are to extend down to maybe
as low as ch50, so without extensive extra filtering all those 4G
transmitters will swamp TV tuners, even with filters they probably still
will.

IMHO It would have been fairer to have shut down UHF terrestrial
TV and supply all with Astra 2 dishes. Of course not all have a clear path
to the south east. ;-(

Seriously i can't suggest that UHF Terrestrial TV is viable anymore.
Get a Dish if you can see 28e, and tell all you can to do the same.

Interference free UHF TV is dead.
Not true.
Unless there is a 4g mast directly between you and the TV transmitter
its unlikely you will be affected and the TVs are transmitting at 100kW
or so, The 4G at a few watts only.

There is no point in making the phone transmitters much more powerful
since they are 2 way stations and your 4G phone wont do more than a watt
if that.

And your TV aerial wont recieve much off the main beam either.


No point being able to receive 4G if you cant send..

Old Orange on 900 Mhz is also close..it doesn't represent a problem.





Steve Terry



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article
,
CJB
wrote:
Is this really an issue - that many (all?) Freeview Channels will suffer
from severe interference with the new frequencies allocated to 4G mobile
services?

Hard to predict the scope. But even OfCom keep coming up with estimates of
the order of a million households being seriously affected. And there do
seem grounds to suspect this under-estimates.

I hear that millions of Londoners will be especially affected if
receiving Freeview from Crystal Palace transmitters / masts.

There are, broadly speaking, two aspects to the problem:

1) That the new 4G transmissions will be so powerful that they simply swamp
or overload 'Freeview' receivers. So a user gets no 'Freeview' TV at all,
regardless of the actual frequencies of the TV broadcasts in their area.

2) That in some areas the 'reshuffled' TV transmission frequencies will
still be *very* close to the 4G transmission frequencies. So may require
essentially military grade protection filtering in many homes. The effects
here will vary from home to home.

CP reception may well be hit by (1) even if the TV transmissions from it
are well away from 4G in frequency terms. However the wide frequency
spacing improves the chance that an added filter will be a fix. In other
areas it is questionable if any filter would be a practical solution at any
sensible price.

This is crazy.

ahem It is official policy. I'd agree that it was a Courageous Decision.

I thought that analogue t.v. was switched off to provide frequencies for
4G, but it seems that Freeview frequencies are to be allocated to 4G as
well!!

That decision has been made. Indeed, internationally agreed as a
'co-ordination' to help manufacturers sell their kit across the world.

The idea is that they "will no longer *be* 'Freeview' frequencies". :-)

You may have noticed that the concern of Government and OfCom does seem
to be to aid big companies. Quite understandable if The Chancellor looks
forward eagerly, hoping for a few billion quid from the mobile companies
buying 4G bandspace. And he may even hope they will pay more tax in the UK
as a result. He does seem an optimistic chap... ;-

Do they teach any engineering at Eton, I wonder...

I also heard that compensation will be made of £10K per household
affected. But isn't it illegal to deliberately affect t.v. / radio
reception, which apparently the 4G telcos will be doing.

AIUI It will be 'legal' if the transmission parameters meet the specs
agreed with OfCom. Those specs may be thought insane by some mere
engineers. But legal, so far as suits are concerned. By default it then
becomes your problem as the TV viewer. The telcos will have government
permission to do as they are doing. That makes it legal.

Although there are plans for a 'MitCo' to hand out free sweeties... erm
filters, etc, in a Lady Bountyful act in the hope it will calm any public
anger and avoid a fuss... erm solve (some of) the problems. Or at least
some of the initial problems.

BTW A letter from OfCom to the minister states that filters are nominally
available "now". So I have started asking around for one or two of these
"available" filters to test. As yet, I'm happy that I decided not to hold
my breath whilst awaiting one arriving. :-) And the ones I've seen test
results for didn't seem a panacea to me.

If that doesn't satisfy, you'd have to direct complaints to your
politicians for sleeping though allowing this to happen. Then see if they
do anything useful. Bear in mind that they are clueless about any
engineering or technical topic, though.

FWIW I have no idea how bad this will be. I doubt anyone really does
(including OfCom). But I've read enough to think it likely that there will
be widespread problems. A million homes *is* a minority. But it is still a
lot of annoyed people. And it could be much worse.

Slainte,

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, "Steve Terry" writ:

CJB wrote:
Is this really an issue - that many (all?) Freeview Channels will
suffer from severe interference with the new frequencies allocated to
4G mobile services?

I hear that millions of Londoners will be especially affected if
receiving Freeview from Crystal Palace transmitters / masts.

This is crazy. I thought that analogue t.v. was switched off to
provide frequencies for 4G, but it seems that Freeview frequencies are
to be allocated to 4G as well!!

I also heard that compensation will be made of £10K per household
affected. But isn't it illegal to deliberately affect t.v. / radio
reception, which apparently the 4G telcos will be doing.
CJB.

Crazy is right, all existing and near future TVs have front ends that
receive UHF ch21 to 68, the 4G plans are to extend down to maybe
as low as ch50, so without extensive extra filtering all those 4G
transmitters will swamp TV tuners, even with filters they probably still
will.

IMHO It would have been fairer to have shut down UHF terrestrial
TV and supply all with Astra 2 dishes. Of course not all have a clear path
to the south east. ;-(

What happens when a huge meteor shower or solar flare wipes out the
Astra satellites?

You'll be glad of a UHF service to fall back on.
--
P

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/11/12 03:22, Steve Terry wrote:
CJB wrote:


Seriously i can't suggest that UHF Terrestrial TV is viable anymore.
Get a Dish if you can see 28e, and tell all you can to do the same.

Interference free UHF TV is dead.
Not true.

I'm sure you are correct in thinking that many people will soldier on using
DTTV. But for others it will likely prove impractical. How large that
minority may be, time will tell...


Unless there is a 4g mast directly between you and the TV
transmitter its unlikely you will be affected and the TVs are
transmitting at 100kW or so,

Sweeping assertion. Not true for all TXs.


The 4G at a few watts only.

Not sure where you are getting that figure from. Maybe you are assuming
4G is like earlier generations. However on OfCom's own figures...

The proposed 4G base stations are 61dBm per 5Mhz block, and there are
six of them per base. So more like over 6kW EIRP per fully used base
station. Not what I'd dismiss as "a few watts". The real challenge is these
base stations, not the mobiles.

BTW if you check out the measurements done by BBC R&D the 4G signals can
work as very power-efficient jammers when *not* fully used. So low 4G use
factors in a cell may not help.

Many DTTV TXs are in the 10 - 20 kW range. Particularly, as it happens in
areas of the UK where OfCom expect ch59/60 to go on being used. i.e. up to
about 1 MHz away from the 4G.

The base stations are also often rather closer than the TV TXs. In the town
where I live the TV TXs are roughly 25 and 75 km away. Whereas the sites
for existing base stations mean they are within 500 meters of most houses.
I'd suspect from previous work on mobile that this sort of situation is
fairly common.

And your TV aerial wont recieve much off the main beam either.

Interesting example of an absolute and sweeping assertion based on using a
vague term. :-)

I can't recall you visiting me and checking the antennas I use, though. Did
you check everyone else in the UK whilst I was out? :-) Nor have I seen you
assessing how much may be scattered into the main lobes by surroundings. I'll
look forwards to you publishing your measured results.

Which of the OfCom documents on this had you read *before* making your
posting? If you think the signals are "a few watts" I'm wondering where
your sweeping conclusions are coming from. Had you also read the BBC
reports on their measurements on how 4G affects a range of examples of
existing DTTV RXs?

To me, the 4G situation looks a tad different to previous mobile
generations in a number of ways. I'm sure many people won't get a problem.
But I also think we have grounds to suspect many others *will* get a problem.
Alas, I don't think even OfCom really know how many. Their estimates have
varied quite a lot.

Slainte,

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

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher

wrote:

On 17/11/12 03:22, Steve Terry wrote:

CJB wrote:





Seriously i can't suggest that UHF Terrestrial TV is viable anymore.

Get a Dish if you can see 28e, and tell all you can to do the same.



Interference free UHF TV is dead.

Not true.



I'm sure you are correct in thinking that many people will soldier on using

DTTV. But for others it will likely prove impractical. How large that

minority may be, time will tell...





Unless there is a 4g mast directly between you and the TV

transmitter its unlikely you will be affected and the TVs are

transmitting at 100kW or so,



Sweeping assertion. Not true for all TXs.





The 4G at a few watts only.



Not sure where you are getting that figure from. Maybe you are assuming

4G is like earlier generations. However on OfCom's own figures...



The proposed 4G base stations are 61dBm per 5Mhz block, and there are

six of them per base. So more like over 6kW EIRP per fully used base

station. Not what I'd dismiss as "a few watts". The real challenge is these

base stations, not the mobiles.



BTW if you check out the measurements done by BBC R&D the 4G signals can

work as very power-efficient jammers when *not* fully used. So low 4G use

factors in a cell may not help.



Many DTTV TXs are in the 10 - 20 kW range. Particularly, as it happens in

areas of the UK where OfCom expect ch59/60 to go on being used. i.e. up to

about 1 MHz away from the 4G.



The base stations are also often rather closer than the TV TXs. In the town

where I live the TV TXs are roughly 25 and 75 km away. Whereas the sites

for existing base stations mean they are within 500 meters of most houses..

I'd suspect from previous work on mobile that this sort of situation is

fairly common.



And your TV aerial wont recieve much off the main beam either.



Interesting example of an absolute and sweeping assertion based on using a

vague term. :-)



I can't recall you visiting me and checking the antennas I use, though. Did

you check everyone else in the UK whilst I was out? :-) Nor have I seen you

assessing how much may be scattered into the main lobes by surroundings. I'll

look forwards to you publishing your measured results.



Which of the OfCom documents on this had you read *before* making your

posting? If you think the signals are "a few watts" I'm wondering where

your sweeping conclusions are coming from. Had you also read the BBC

reports on their measurements on how 4G affects a range of examples of

existing DTTV RXs?



To me, the 4G situation looks a tad different to previous mobile

generations in a number of ways. I'm sure many people won't get a problem..


Isn't the main problem that this is the first time that "relatively" powerful and widespread signals are being infiltrated into the "given" UHF Broadcast Band. The impact being that consumer electronics devices, that tend to now have trivial front-ends are being put in the front line. Worse, distribution systems in flats tend to use wide-band amplification.

Isn't the reason that OfCom's figures fluctuated because they originally underestimated the communal amplifier aspect in Greater London?

/rgds