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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.