Half choice Freeview transmitters

On Sunday, June 17th, 2012, at 21:18:34h +0100, Yellow explained:

The help I would like to see is that situation resolved so that everyone
who can receive their TV from a transmitter would be able to receive a
full service except in the most exceptional of circumstances.

But they do receive a full public service service including Rabbit.

Film 4 is not a public service service.

Yes, people avail themselves of alternatives, some which cost them extra
cash, but that does not excuse the situation from existing in the first
place.

The situation exists because people have consistently elected governments
since 1980 of following a policy of free market economics and applied
this also to broadcasting.

Therefore whether or not Film 4 is broadcast from smaller relay sites
was a decision made by the commercial operators who on consultation
with their accounting and sales departments, calculated that more profit
would be made from putting the repeat Channel 4 +1 on the public
multiplex PSB-2.

To require them to have done otherwise would have been

"nanny state interference"

in the words of economic liberals, libertarians, and stockholders of
the commercial tv stations and multiplex operators.

So just rejoice and be thankful that the ecomomic-political policies
of Milton Friedman, Reagan, and Thatcher have triumphed and Film 4
is not transmitted from every transmitter site, because it would not
make lots of profits for Channel 4 corporation, as compared to
over-regualted socialist paradises like Germany ruled by the neo-communist
CDU under the red iron fist of Kanzler Angela Merkel [shome mishtake shurely?]
where the regulatory authorities (MABB) would have required them to do so.

I did raise it with my MP

I am most suitably impressed then. Your MP probably ignored
your comments and just sent you a form letter parrotting the
mantra "this is a commercial decision by the commercial companies".

And unfortunately, by definition, women are not usually members of
gentlemen's clubs so I think that suggestion is probably going to be a
non starter.

Now you can appreciate the difficulty the blessed Margaret (still
no sign of a sainthood?) had in becoming leader of the Conservative
and Unionist Party and the miracles she then went on to perform
despite all of her "yes" men.

Phil Cook wrote:
On 17/06/2012 16:03, Scott wrote:

To bring the thread back on topic, AIUI because digital signals are
more robust than analogue, some people who could not get acceptable
service from the main transmitter before can now. Maybe some of these
relays are no longer required?

It might be more accurate to say that for /some/ of the area served by
relays they are no longer required. They will however still be required
for those parts of their coverage area where the main transmitter still
doesn't reach.
That varies from 100% of the the relay's area to 0%.

Bill

Tim Streater wrote:

In Switzerland if you work in a different Canton (or is it *move* to
another Canton? Hmm, can't remember), you need to get a work permit.
Also if you sleep in another residence overnight than that at which you
are registered, you are supposed to let the police know.

I can see all sorts of problems with that...

Bill

J G Miller wrote:

that you may not install an antenna of length greater than 600 mm
on a residential chimney (both buildings less than or greather than
15 m in height)

That's a bungle caused by the imbeciles who make the laws using antenna
when the mean dish.

Bill

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:18:34 +0100, Yellow wrote:

In article , says...

On Sunday, June 17th, 2012, at 15:36:04h +0100, Yellow wrote:

That does not help people who have aerial based Digital TV equipment,
not satellite.

So what help do you want?

It is an unfair situation, that everyone pays the same price but some
people get a "lite" service while everyone else gets the full banana.

What 'price' are you thinking of? If you are thinking of the TV
licence fee, I think you will find that all the licence fee funded
services are available from all the transmitters.

I picked that word carefully. We all pay, be it through the licence or
advertising or just general taxation and those who only receive the lite
service pay just the same as everyone else.

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 17th, 2012, at 21:18:34h +0100, Yellow explained:

The help I would like to see is that situation resolved so that everyone
who can receive their TV from a transmitter would be able to receive a
full service except in the most exceptional of circumstances.

But they do receive a full public service service including Rabbit.

Film 4 is not a public service service.

Never said it was - does chance the basic fact some people can receive it,
others cannot.


Yes, people avail themselves of alternatives, some which cost them extra
cash, but that does not excuse the situation from existing in the first
place.

The situation exists because people have consistently elected governments
since 1980 of following a policy of free market economics and applied
this also to broadcasting.

You are blaming the "victims"? Not cool.


Therefore whether or not Film 4 is broadcast from smaller relay sites
was a decision made by the commercial operators who on consultation
with their accounting and sales departments, calculated that more profit
would be made from putting the repeat Channel 4 +1 on the public
multiplex PSB-2.

To require them to have done otherwise would have been

"nanny state interference"

in the words of economic liberals, libertarians, and stockholders of
the commercial tv stations and multiplex operators.

It could quite simply have been a term of the agreements made when the
frequences were sold.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:52:25 +0100, "Yellow" wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:18:34 +0100, Yellow wrote:

In article , says...

On Sunday, June 17th, 2012, at 15:36:04h +0100, Yellow wrote:

That does not help people who have aerial based Digital TV equipment,
not satellite.

So what help do you want?

It is an unfair situation, that everyone pays the same price but some
people get a "lite" service while everyone else gets the full banana.

What 'price' are you thinking of? If you are thinking of the TV
licence fee, I think you will find that all the licence fee funded
services are available from all the transmitters.

I picked that word carefully. We all pay, be it through the licence or
advertising or just general taxation and those who only receive the lite
service pay just the same as everyone else.

Who pays by general taxation?

If those who receive the lite service buy the same goods (which may be
a questionable assumption) the cost on a per viewer basis for the
advertisers must be much higher to include relays than by sticking to
the main transmitters (which apparently reach 90% of the population)
so those in 'lite' areas would need to spend a lot more to justify
extending the service.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:25:13 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

J G Miller wrote:

that you may not install an antenna of length greater than 600 mm
on a residential chimney (both buildings less than or greather than
15 m in height)

That's a bungle caused by the imbeciles who make the laws using antenna
when the mean dish.

The imbeciles who make the laws had to use a word that would include
non-dishy antennas, such as the squarial or (if someone ever builds one)
an antenna using a fresnel reflector.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Monday, June 18th, 2012, at 00:25:13h +0100, Bill Wright explained:

J G Miller wrote:

that you may not install an antenna of length greater than 600 mm
on a residential chimney (both buildings less than or greather than
15 m in height)

That's a bungle caused by the imbeciles who make the laws using antenna
when the mean dish.

It may be a bungle but is it the law?

So what is the legal maximum length of an antenna which
may be chimney mounted without requiting planning permission?

I was taking antenna to mean parabole and any other type of antenna
be it Yagi-Uda, log periodic, discone etc.

If you can point me to the correct non-bungled official interpretation
of the regulations I would be most grateful.

On Monday, June 18th, 2012, at 13:56:53h +0100, Yellow explained:

Never said it was - does chance the basic fact some people can receive it,
others cannot.

No it does not change the fact. It has always been the case that some
people can receive some TV stations and not others.

Did you complain that people in Ynys Mon or vaste swathes of
Kent and Hampshire, or the Orkney, Shetland, or Channel Islands
could not receive analog Channel 5?

See all the white bits on the map at

http://about.channel5.COM/files/images/template9/master_0000_analogue_midres.jpg

You are blaming the "victims"? Not cool.

I am basically pointing out that in many cases people brought it
upon themselves, if you accept that Westminster Parliamentary
elections of government are liberal-bourgeois democratic.

It could quite simply have been a term of the agreements made when the
frequences were sold.

The tv broadcast frequencies were not sold, but licensed.

The government is still "considering" (but perhaps not actively)
whether or not to sell off the tv broadcast frequencies as a one
off deal (ie a broadcast licence without termination date)
(and I do not mean those that have been re-allocated for other
transmission purpoises.)