£180M for 4G Interference solution ...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:05:16 +0000, lid wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:56:42 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

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...

That's the moral position and to some extent it has happened in the
past, but can you find any *legal* requirement?

I always felt it was an unfair burden to put on Channel 5, but 4G (and
Tetra) are a different matter because the interfering devices are
outside the users control.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

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.

Bill

But two days later than pancake day.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:37:49 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:

Passive filters won't do this job anyway if the top channels are in
use for TV.

But do 'active' filters exist at these frequencies?

Yes.


Active filters can themselves introduce problems if subjected to
overload.

And as discussed elsewhere the interference may already have be
translated into the TV channel before it reaches the receive aerial.
In which case *NO* filter can remove it.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:44:51 +0000, Graham. wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:05:16 +0000, lid wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:56:42 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

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...

That's the moral position and to some extent it has happened in the
past, but can you find any *legal* requirement?

I always felt it was an unfair burden to put on Channel 5, but 4G (and
Tetra) are a different matter because the interfering devices are
outside the users control.

Yes. I think it's more a question of perceived fairness rather than
prescriptive law. Ofcom are always concerned about being taken to
judicial review as in the very recent case with the mobile operators.
They don't like that at all.
In the C5 case there were other broadcasters who were determined not
to let them have an easy ride.
I don't think individual viewers are going to be able to haul Ofcom
into court over interference to their TV's, especially when there are
alternative ways of getting a clear signal.
And as more viewers are shunted off to satellite or cable, there will
be less justification for retaining any DTT spectrum. It all fits very
nicely...

lid wrote:

But do 'active' filters exist at these frequencies?
Yes.


Active filters can themselves introduce problems if subjected to
overload.
Of course, they aren't a perfect bomb-proof answer. But in the case of a
large communal system where their cost would be acceptable they would
often provide the best remedy, in conjunction with a careful aerial
installation.

And as discussed elsewhere the interference may already have be
translated into the TV channel before it reaches the receive aerial.
In which case *NO* filter can remove it.
Spurious emissions from the 4G site would have to be below a certain
defined level, as with every transmission.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes
wrote:

But do 'active' filters exist at these frequencies?
Yes.

Active filters can themselves introduce problems if subjected to
overload.
Of course, they aren't a perfect bomb-proof answer. But in the case of
a large communal system where their cost would be acceptable they would
often provide the best remedy, in conjunction with a careful aerial
installation.
And as discussed elsewhere the interference may already have be
translated into the TV channel before it reaches the receive aerial.
In which case *NO* filter can remove it.
Spurious emissions from the 4G site would have to be below a certain
defined level, as with every transmission.

I have to admit that I haven't come across active filters being used at
UHF. The only ones I've come across are those used in audio circuits.
Are there any example around?
--
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
lid wrote:

But do 'active' filters exist at these frequencies?
Yes.

Active filters can themselves introduce problems if subjected to
overload.
Of course, they aren't a perfect bomb-proof answer. But in the case of
a large communal system where their cost would be acceptable they
would often provide the best remedy, in conjunction with a careful
aerial installation.
And as discussed elsewhere the interference may already have be
translated into the TV channel before it reaches the receive aerial.
In which case *NO* filter can remove it.
Spurious emissions from the 4G site would have to be below a certain
defined level, as with every transmission.

I have to admit that I haven't come across active filters being used at
UHF. The only ones I've come across are those used in audio circuits.
Are there any example around?
A problem arises in that some manufacturers use the expression 'active
filter' to mean 'agile filter' -- one that can be retuned
electronically. Many of these have the same response characteristics as
ordinary three-stage passive filters, ie not good enough to pass channel
n and stop channel n+1.
But if you look at Alcad, Taylor, Televes, Spaun, Wisi, Hirschmann etc
there are lots of products.

Bill

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
The UK networks got into a bidding frenzy in the 3G spectrum auction,
this was declared a triumph for Gordon Brown's treasury, but the cost
crippled the networks profits for years, leading to reduced corporation
tax from them, also reduced income tax as they laid-off thousands of
staff ...

Is that the excuse Vodaphone have trotted out for dodging so much tax?

There isn't a Company named Vodaphone. If you mean Vodafone can you indicate
your source of the claim that they have dodged tax?

--
JohnT

In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
The UK networks got into a bidding frenzy in the 3G spectrum auction,
this was declared a triumph for Gordon Brown's treasury, but the cost
crippled the networks profits for years, leading to reduced
corporation tax from them, also reduced income tax as they laid-off
thousands of staff ...

Is that the excuse Vodaphone have trotted out for dodging so much tax?

There isn't a Company named Vodaphone. If you mean Vodafone can you
indicate your source of the claim that they have dodged tax?

Don't rely on my comments, go direct to the sources (plural). Read Private
Eye over recent years and/or check the records of the relevant Parliament
Committee more recently when they examined the behaviour of the company
and how HMRC has dealt with the issues. I long ago lost track of how often
this has been discussed in such places.

I must admit I'm surprised that there is anyone left in the UK who *hasn't*
heard of this matter. But read PE if you want to monitor developments and
find out the full details - or at least as full as currently disclosed.

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:

Don't rely on my comments, go direct to the sources (plural). Read Private
Eye over recent years

Ah, Private Eye! Totally reliable like the IPCC I presume.

Bill