4G moves - who decides?

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:05:24 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Andy
Champ
wrote:
On 24/04/2013 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Why on Earth didn't they*also* move the mux away from ch60 down to
ch50?

Well, if the TV transmissions aren't using the band from 51-60 we could
auction it for 4G...

Doesn't answer. Given what I suggest, up to 59 would still be in use.

And I still don't know who, specifically, made the decison.

I can understand the general principle that some channels have to be unused
in some areas because others nearby are using them. But I see no sign of
that being a reason here for *not* moving from ch60 and using ch50 instead.

I'll have a look at the channels used by the fillers around here. But as
yet it looks like a lost opportunity.

If the top TV channel was vacated, that would simply have freed up a
further 8MHz to be sold off for 4G.
ditto the next channel down
and the next channel down.

The present arrangement is only temporary until 2018 anyway, and then
we'll all be here going through the same process again.

On 24/04/2013 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I've just done the 'after' scan of what we get from the Angus TX to be able
to compare the 'cleared for 4G' situation with before the move made last
week. Some of the results are at

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/AngusMove.png

Looking at this, one question immediately came to my mind?

Why on Earth didn't they *also* move the mux away from ch60 down to ch50?

I can't decide if the 'clearance' is being made on the simple-minded "we
only have to clear above ch60" basis or those in charge take for granted
that magic filters will protect ch60.

The above also leads me to ask:

Who is responsible for deciding which muxes were to move, and to what new
channels? I'd like to ask them about this.

Slainte,

Jim


Was there a slight shift from 60 to "60-"? That was
reported on one web-site. Not sure if it would be
detectable. Would it make any practical difference?

My Humax PVR was unable to tune anything on that mux
after the "change", so something must have happened.

Ch 50 is listed in use for one Angus relay - Blair
Atholl - which might be safe from the main Tx. It's
also used by Brechin, a relay of Durris, and I would
expect that area to be more vulnerable. Still, you'd
think it would be easier to change a relay frequency.
Maybe that's "Plan B".

In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
I've just done the 'after' scan of what we get from the Angus TX to be able
to compare the 'cleared for 4G' situation with before the move made last
week. Some of the results are at

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/AngusMove.png

Looking at this, one question immediately came to my mind?

Why on Earth didn't they *also* move the mux away from ch60 down to ch50?

I can't decide if the 'clearance' is being made on the simple-minded "we
only have to clear above ch60" basis or those in charge take for granted
that magic filters will protect ch60.

The above also leads me to ask:

Who is responsible for deciding which muxes were to move, and to what new
channels? I'd like to ask them about this.


Ofcom, who else?..

OK they do work closely with Arqiva but they are the regulatory
authority..


Slainte,

Jim


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Jim
wrote:
On 24/04/2013 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I've just done the 'after' scan of what we get from the Angus TX to be
able to compare the 'cleared for 4G' situation with before the move
made last week. Some of the results are at

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/AngusMove.png



Was there a slight shift from 60 to "60-"? That was reported on one
web-site. Not sure if it would be detectable. Would it make any
practical difference?

I've been trying to decide. The scans I did have a resolution of 0.2 MHz.
So the 'nudge down' is a bit small to detect. I may try using an FFT
approach. From previous tests against a calibrated HPO sig gen those
results for a carrier may be off by about 30 kHz in the UHF. So may be good
enough. Not sure the edges of the muxes are sufficiently well defined,
though, or if I can resolve carriers without further processing.

However if I zoom in I can get something like

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/AngusZoom.png

which does look like a slight nudge down. On the edge of being clear,
though.

My Humax PVR was unable to tune anything on that mux after the
"change", so something must have happened.

My ancient Nokia 221T seems OK with it. The only real problem I've had with
the changes over the years is that it gets some 'channel numbers' wrong.
e.g. the "Yesterday" channel has a number that differs from listings and
from my (newer) recorders. Don't know if this is a flaw, or the relevant
mux not following the strict standards.


Ch 50 is listed in use for one Angus relay - Blair Atholl - which might
be safe from the main Tx. It's also used by Brechin, a relay of Durris,
and I would expect that area to be more vulnerable. Still, you'd think
it would be easier to change a relay frequency. Maybe that's "Plan B".

I don't think they *have* a 'Plan B'. The approach seems to be "If you get
problems that can't be fixed cheaply you can wave bye-bye to DTTV, pal!"

So "Plan B" is "go and play in the next street".

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 25/04/2013 09:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In ,
wrote:
On 24/04/2013 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I've just done the 'after' scan of what we get from the Angus TX to be
able to compare the 'cleared for 4G' situation with before the move
made last week. Some of the results are at

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/AngusMove.png



Was there a slight shift from 60 to "60-"? That was reported on one
web-site. Not sure if it would be detectable. Would it make any
practical difference?

I've been trying to decide. The scans I did have a resolution of 0.2 MHz.
So the 'nudge down' is a bit small to detect. I may try using an FFT
approach. From previous tests against a calibrated HPO sig gen those
results for a carrier may be off by about 30 kHz in the UHF. So may be good
enough. Not sure the edges of the muxes are sufficiently well defined,
though, or if I can resolve carriers without further processing.

However if I zoom in I can get something like

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/AngusZoom.png

which does look like a slight nudge down. On the edge of being clear,
though.

The change is only 133kHz, so it looks about right.


My Humax PVR was unable to tune anything on that mux after the
"change", so something must have happened.

My ancient Nokia 221T seems OK with it. The only real problem I've had with
the changes over the years is that it gets some 'channel numbers' wrong.
e.g. the "Yesterday" channel has a number that differs from listings and
from my (newer) recorders. Don't know if this is a flaw, or the relevant
mux not following the strict standards.


Ch 50 is listed in use for one Angus relay - Blair Atholl - which might
be safe from the main Tx. It's also used by Brechin, a relay of Durris,
and I would expect that area to be more vulnerable. Still, you'd think
it would be easier to change a relay frequency. Maybe that's "Plan B".

I don't think they *have* a 'Plan B'. The approach seems to be "If you get
problems that can't be fixed cheaply you can wave bye-bye to DTTV, pal!"

So "Plan B" is "go and play in the next street".


More likely to be "wait and see" before making any
more changes.

Passing through Brechin recently, the place did seem
fairly infested with dishes already, so many users
there have already waved good-bye to Freeview(-lite).

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

I don't think they *have* a 'Plan B'. The approach seems to be "If you get
problems that can't be fixed cheaply you can wave bye-bye to DTTV, pal!"

So "Plan B" is "go and play in the next street".


Jim: Don't worry. All bets will be off when you get Independence!
--
JohnT

In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

I don't think they *have* a 'Plan B'. The approach seems to be "If you
get problems that can't be fixed cheaply you can wave bye-bye to DTTV,
pal!"

So "Plan B" is "go and play in the next street".


Jim: Don't worry. All bets will be off when you get Independence!


I imagine all prior agreements will be mandated onto an independent
Scotland if things went that way... And it wouldn't help people south of
the line with the same problems.

So for me, the main concern wrt 'independence' would be the ability to get
BBC output. Which for mean includes iPlayer, not just DTTV.

Many decades ago I was offerred a couple of good jobs in the USA to work on
some very interesting projects. My reasons for deciding not to go were
essentially 'social' ones, not money or material 'standard of living'. One
significant factor was, quite frankly, the BBC's output. I know people moan
a lot about the BBC. But having spent some time in the USA I came to regard
their TV and Radio (and much of their printed media) as utter rubbish.

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:


I've been looking at the TX lists I have. The only obvious clash I can find
here for having Angus use ch50 instead of ch60 is that Blair Atholl has a
10 W filler on ch50. If so, I'd have thought it would cause fewer
hard-to-fix-with-a-filter problems overall for Angus to use ch50 instead.

Durris does have some relays that use Ch 50, so that might have been a
consideration, frequency planning is a bit 'Rubik's Cube' in nature. You
move one thing in one place, and that can have an impact miles away.

But I suspect all that passed though the minds was "clear above ch60". The
plans seem to do no more than accept two kinds of 'magic filter' to deal
with the issue of ch60. Oofle dust springs to mind... ;-

I'm sure I read something somewhere, quite a while ago, that in Ch 60
DTT areas, 4G allocations will be kept away from Ch 61/62 ish ?

BTW, Oxford serving David Cameron's constituency, is using Ch 60 for
the ITV/4 mux, COM 4 on Ch 62 is being moved to Ch 50 in May though (at
present at least) :-)

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:17:50 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:


I've been looking at the TX lists I have. The only obvious clash I can find
here for having Angus use ch50 instead of ch60 is that Blair Atholl has a
10 W filler on ch50. If so, I'd have thought it would cause fewer
hard-to-fix-with-a-filter problems overall for Angus to use ch50 instead.

Durris does have some relays that use Ch 50, so that might have been a
consideration, frequency planning is a bit 'Rubik's Cube' in nature. You
move one thing in one place, and that can have an impact miles away.

But I suspect all that passed though the minds was "clear above ch60". The
plans seem to do no more than accept two kinds of 'magic filter' to deal
with the issue of ch60. Oofle dust springs to mind... ;-

I'm sure I read something somewhere, quite a while ago, that in Ch 60
DTT areas, 4G allocations will be kept away from Ch 61/62 ish ?

No. The 4G channels are fixed nationally.

BTW, Oxford serving David Cameron's constituency, is using Ch 60 for
the ITV/4 mux, COM 4 on Ch 62 is being moved to Ch 50 in May though (at
present at least) :-)

Mark Carver wrote:

I'm sure I read something somewhere, quite a while ago, that in Ch 60
DTT areas, 4G allocations will be kept away from Ch 61/62 ish ?

Since that precaution would be crucial, central, vital, pivotal, and
decisive to the whole issue, controversy, and concern regarding
potential 4G interference I think you'd better rummage through that
enormous brain of yours Mr C and find the reference.

Bill