£180M for 4G Interference solution ...

On Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, at 03:27:15h +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

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

Who cares about the viewers -- it is the profit to be made by
private equity companies and stockholders that is the key issue here.

You cannot run a unrestrained free market capitalist economy
without breaking ordinary people's expectations.

J G Miller wrote:

You cannot run a unrestrained free market capitalist economy
without breaking ordinary people's expectations.

That's a saying.

Bill

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.


Money my boy money, spectrum is valuable. Look at what prices the 3 G
ones went for;!.

You could call it a tax by another means....


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
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.


Well you know what engineers are considered as worth these days?..

... sod all..

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

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

Slainte,



--
Tony Sayer

In article , Terry
Casey scribeth thus
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)?


Right..

The problem is that any transmission will radiate "noise" in the area
adjacent, some more so than others.

An instance. We on FM broadcast at the top end of the band have to fit
filters in order to protect the immediate frequencies above the fM band
in the aeronavigation part, there are strict limits on that dependant on
the ERP of the fm transmission.

We have done filters to permit FM RBR sites to operate at a few 100 kHz
spacing these weren't easy and the TX and receiver have to be filtered
and the receiver has to be a damm good one!. It also costs quite a few
quid..

DTV transmissions and DAB ones have spectrum mask filters in order to
mitigate this considering the closer channel spacing.

Now consider a transmission source near to your masthead pre-amp which
by its nature will be handling rather low levels. Now that gets a much
stronger signal that unless theres some good filtering will cause
overload and intermod as is known.

Course in the recent past thats mainly been from such as Airwave
transmissions and sometimes cellphone services at the top and bottom of
the band.

Now consider some 11,000 odd new base units is it?, nearby transmitters
operating much closer and yes, that will be a good recipe for problems.
Course you can filter the input of your pre-amp but if the problems
noise products in the area you intend to receive? then thats a problem.

So filter off the transmitter and receiver and that will go some way to
alleviating the problem, but in some instances that won't be good enough
then what do you do?. Cable or Satellite or fibre thats seem to be
what...

Some articles here on the subject .. happy reading...

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...949731/annexes
/DTTCo-existence.pdf


http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...49731/annexes/
Deloitte.PDF

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...49731/annexes/
DTTinterference.pdf

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...49731/summary/
condoc.pdf
--
Tony Sayer

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

Or are they relying on those costs
falling on the public?

Of course.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:49:43 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

J G Miller wrote:

You cannot run a unrestrained free market capitalist economy
without breaking ordinary people's expectations.

That's a saying.

We need a bit of "caring capitalism". But it's only rhetoric.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Friday, February 24th, 2012, at 11:47:39h +0000, Mark explained:

We need a bit of "caring capitalism". But it's only rhetoric.

Is that not what you got under Tory Bliar.

Much caring capitalism (corporate welfare) via PFI,
and now continuing with the Liberal Conservative administration.

A kinder, gentler, form of Thatcherism.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:02:37 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Friday, February 24th, 2012, at 11:47:39h +0000, Mark explained:

We need a bit of "caring capitalism". But it's only rhetoric.

Is that not what you got under Tory Bliar.

No.

Much caring capitalism (corporate welfare) via PFI,

Again, no.

and now continuing with the Liberal Conservative administration.

Again, no.

A kinder, gentler, form of Thatcherism.

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
;-)
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article , Mark [email protected]
lotsofspamanymore.invalid scribeth thus
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:39:40 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Or are they relying on those costs
falling on the public?

Of course.

IIRC the costs of that would fall on the licensee who took that spectrum
on...
--
Tony Sayer