£180M for 4G Interference solution ...

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Terry Casey wrote:
See link:
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/...to-fund-4g-tv-
interference-solutions/
or http://tinyurl.com/86erlnp

See also

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/Sep...rum%20sale.jpg

Bill

I think that says it all.
--
Ian

In article ,
says...

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...

See link:

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/...to-fund-4g-tv-
interference-solutions/

or

http://tinyurl.com/86erlnp

--

Terry

This sounds like a load of nonsense, working out at over £100 per affected
household.

We have all occasionally heard 3G breaking over into PC's and [landline]
phones when they are close - I can't see why a 4G base station should cause
widespread interference like this.

Even if it is true - a band pass filter costs how much? £7.36p, although
you will need to throw in a couple of coax plugs...

Plus the cost of installation on the input of the masthead amplifier ...

Is the £7.36 filter weatherproof, BTW?

And how good would one of these cheap filters be if the wanted broadcast
signal is on Channel 60 and the high power interfering signal is just a
few hundred kHz away (in what is currently Channel 61)?

--

Terry

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Terry Casey wrote:
See link:
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/...to-fund-4g-tv-
interference-solutions/
or http://tinyurl.com/86erlnp

See also

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/Sep...rum%20sale.jpg

Bill

I think that says it all.
Thank you. Since I was limited to 800 words I had to remove every such a
lot of swearing.

Bill

In article , Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message , Robin

"4.7 Our technical modelling indicates that, even if new licensees
adhered to the TLCs in the Decision, interference to DTT receivers
could still result such that, absent any mitigation, up to 760,000
households might lose the ability to receive some or all DTT services." -
What amazes me is the lack of anticipation (and appreciation) that
re-allocating other services in the UHF TV bands might cause
interference to TV reception.

I can't say I am "amazed" that Ofcom, etc, seem to have forgotten what was
once one of the primary requirements of spectrum allocation.That
allocations for new users and purposes had to be on the basis that this did
*not* cause significant interference or loss of service for other
legitimate users of bandspace.

So in a country long ago and far away...

1) 'Ofcom' would not accept plans that would cause problems for many
existing users.

2) If they made a new allocation they might expect those being given the
allocation to take responsibility for actively dealing with the problems.

That then avoids existing users finding they have a problem, but have no
clear idea of the cause, or how to get those responsible to correct it
without further loss to the inconvenienced.

To me it seems more "par for the course" than a cause for amazement. Note
also the way they have allowed the use of home systems to squirt wideband
RF into domestic mains cabling that wasn't designed for the task. From the
people who bring us "light touch regulation", etc.
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

In message , Jim Lesurf
writes




So in a country long ago and far away...

1) 'Ofcom' would not accept plans that would cause problems for many
existing users.

2) If they made a new allocation they might expect those being given the
allocation to take responsibility for actively dealing with the problems.

That then avoids existing users finding they have a problem, but have no
clear idea of the cause, or how to get those responsible to correct it
without further loss to the inconvenienced.

To me it seems more "par for the course" than a cause for amazement. Note
also the way they have allowed the use of home systems to squirt wideband
RF into domestic mains cabling that wasn't designed for the task.

But, of course, OFCOM's attitude is/was that as PLT isn't intended to
radiate in the RF spectrum, it doesn't really come under their
jurisdiction.

From the
people who bring us "light touch regulation", etc.

"Light touch"? I'd say "laid back".

Slainte,


--
Ian

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:02:32 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Terry Casey wrote:
See link:
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/...to-fund-4g-tv-
interference-solutions/
or http://tinyurl.com/86erlnp

See also

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/Sep...rum%20sale.jpg

Bill

I think that says it all.
Thank you. Since I was limited to 800 words I had to remove every such a
lot of swearing.


Bill, I trust that if/when you have more words available you will
mention that the the problem is even more complex than you have stated
so far, since you have only considered a *single* interfering signal.

A mobile base station will in fact have a number of transmissions
several MHz apart. In the presence of any non-linear object - either
active, or passive like the proverbial rusty bolt, intermod products
will be generate *within* the upper TV channels that no filter can
remove.

Actually I don't think that Ofcom is quite as stupid as generally
assumed. The economists who now control it are content to make the
remaining part of the TV broadcast band difficult to use and unpopular
with viewers. This is just another step on the path towards closing it
down and passing it over to profitable mobile services.

My previous statement about a closedown date being announced within 10
years remains valid.

In article , Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message , Jim Lesurf
writes




So in a country long ago and far away...

1) 'Ofcom' would not accept plans that would cause problems for many
existing users.

2) If they made a new allocation they might expect those being given
the allocation to take responsibility for actively dealing with the
problems.

That then avoids existing users finding they have a problem, but have
no clear idea of the cause, or how to get those responsible to correct
it without further loss to the inconvenienced.

To me it seems more "par for the course" than a cause for amazement.
Note also the way they have allowed the use of home systems to squirt
wideband RF into domestic mains cabling that wasn't designed for the
task.

But, of course, OFCOM's attitude is/was that as PLT isn't intended to
radiate in the RF spectrum, it doesn't really come under their
jurisdiction.

s/attitude/witless excuse.

Only in a situation where engineers have been dumped or sidelined and we
are left with dim suits would such an "attitude" be treated as sufficient.

From the people who bring us "light touch regulation", etc.

"Light touch"? I'd say "laid back".

Slainte,


--
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

lid wrote:

Thank you. Since I was limited to 800 words I had to remove ever such a
lot of swearing.


Bill, I trust that if/when you have more words available you will
mention that the the problem is even more complex than you have stated
so far, since you have only considered a *single* interfering signal.

A mobile base station will in fact have a number of transmissions
several MHz apart.
Yes of course! And even worse, perhaps:
Examination of the spectrum surrounding a single TV mux that has passed
though an amp driven to non-linear distraction suggests to me that the
individual carriers together produce intermodulation effects. Certainly
the profile of the hash at each side of the mux suggests it. A similar
effect could presumably occur if the 4G system uses a large number of
narrowband carriers. This is only speculation.

In the presence of any non-linear object - either
active, or passive like the proverbial rusty bolt, intermod products
will be generate *within* the upper TV channels that no filter can
remove.
I think the risk of such products will mainly be from overloaded
masthead and distribution amps. And how can we prevent such overloading,
without spending a fortune?

Are they really going to do this? If they restricted it to transmissions
co-sited with TV tx sites where Gp CD channels are in use it would solve
the problem. Surely that would be cheaper than all the amelioration
costs they will have otherwise? Or are they relying on those costs
falling on the public?

Bill

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:39:40 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

wrote:

Thank you. Since I was limited to 800 words I had to remove ever such a
lot of swearing.


Bill, I trust that if/when you have more words available you will
mention that the the problem is even more complex than you have stated
so far, since you have only considered a *single* interfering signal.

A mobile base station will in fact have a number of transmissions
several MHz apart.
Yes of course! And even worse, perhaps:
Examination of the spectrum surrounding a single TV mux that has passed
though an amp driven to non-linear distraction suggests to me that the
individual carriers together produce intermodulation effects. Certainly
the profile of the hash at each side of the mux suggests it. A similar
effect could presumably occur if the 4G system uses a large number of
narrowband carriers. This is only speculation.

4G/LTE will use fewer, wideband carriers in order to support wide
bandwidth downloads. But there will still be multiple carriers at a
busy site.

In the presence of any non-linear object - either
active, or passive like the proverbial rusty bolt, intermod products
will be generate *within* the upper TV channels that no filter can
remove.
I think the risk of such products will mainly be from overloaded
masthead and distribution amps. And how can we prevent such overloading,
without spending a fortune?

The mobile operators will do as little as possible to protect TV. Not
just to save costs but to persuade TV out of the remaining spectrum
that they now see as their own further preserve.

Are they really going to do this? If they restricted it to transmissions
co-sited with TV tx sites where Gp CD channels are in use it would solve
the problem. Surely that would be cheaper than all the amelioration
costs they will have otherwise? Or are they relying on those costs
falling on the public?

Just as Sky have gained business by persuading punters to sign up with
them instead of going DSO, so they will use their advertising budget
to push again for viewers suffering interference from 4G to move to
Sky as a quick solution rather than mess around with filters.

4G/LTE will use fewer, wideband carriers in order to support wide
bandwidth downloads. But there will still be multiple carriers at a
busy site.

Sloppy language. By carriers I meant channels, which of course contain
many subcarriers.