Goodbye 700MHz (aka UHF Ch 48-60)

On 20/11/2014 21:07, Woody wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote in message

They wouldn't be able to use their usual off air feed
(that all but
80 of the 1000 or so relays use) so they'd need to be
either fibre or microwave fed (very expensive, if not
impossible for some) And then
they'd effectively operate in an SFN, which, well, see my
previous comments about that.

Er, what about satellite feeds - as already used?

Very few are fed by satellite. Care to name them ?

The satellite (27.5 W) is only there to back up the main stations for
PSB 1 and 3 (NOT PSB 2), and only carries BBC Nations SD (NOT regions)
and 'London' BBC, ITV and C4 HD

http://www.lyngsat.com/Intelsat-907.html

Don't get confused by the V-SAT dishes many small relays
have, they're purely for telemetry.



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 21/11/2014 06:28, Bill Wright wrote:
Woody wrote:

Er, what about satellite feeds - as already used?


Would synchronisation be a problem?

Yes, that would need to be sorted. It's all a non starter, because you'd
require significantly more kit to be installed at each relay,
starting with a 1 metre downlink dish. Huge cost, and PP issues

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 20/11/2014 16:45, Steve Thackery wrote:
Robin wrote:

Eg a gradual rundown of Freeview and switch to conditional access by
satellite+smart card or internet? (I've no idea how many Freesat
receivers provide for conditional access.)

Maybe you are right, but I think it's outrageous. Why did they
introduce Freeview, only to ditch it a couple of decades later? We
could have gone straight to satellite.


I agree, but that was never going to happen. Socially the UK has a real
chip on its shoulder regarding dishes on houses. No other country
seems to worry.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:36:11 +0100, Martin wrote:

The recaps are for those with low intelligence.

I refer to them (and the frequent "still to come" etc. as regurgitation and
pregurgitation. Very annoying in shows with a certain inevitability, such as
Strictly, where the ones left are those that haven't yet been on.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:04:31 -0000, "Brian Gaff" wrote:

There are lots of programmes like that. They make the end bits into one
extra episode for the interna tional market of course.
Most shows of the reality kind tend to be made with recaps every few
minutes now with one eye on the international market. I feel cheated also by
the recent CSIs, which all contain more adverts and hence the story telling
gets really clobbered..


Brian


--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"PeterC" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:36:11 +0100, Martin wrote:

The recaps are for those with low intelligence.

I refer to them (and the frequent "still to come" etc. as regurgitation
and
pregurgitation. Very annoying in shows with a certain inevitability, such
as
Strictly, where the ones left are those that haven't yet been on.

I have heard of students playing "recap bingo" when they are watching such
programmes: looking for the scenes in the main programme which were shown as
brief clips in the "Coming Up" pregurgitation at the beginning, and having a
drink each time they spot one. Little things for little minds...

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:45:24 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Robin wrote:

Eg a gradual rundown of Freeview and switch to conditional access by
satellite+smart card or internet? (I've no idea how many Freesat
receivers provide for conditional access.)

Maybe you are right, but I think it's outrageous. Why did they
introduce Freeview, only to ditch it a couple of decades later? We
could have gone straight to satellite.

Except that the Ofcom report says the benefits of DTT will not be
compromised and there will be no significant disruption to viewers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2014 16:45, Steve Thackery wrote:
Robin wrote:

Eg a gradual rundown of Freeview and switch to conditional access by
satellite+smart card or internet? (I've no idea how many Freesat
receivers provide for conditional access.)

Maybe you are right, but I think it's outrageous. Why did they
introduce Freeview, only to ditch it a couple of decades later? We
could have gone straight to satellite.

I agree, but that was never going to happen. Socially the UK has a real
chip on its shoulder regarding dishes on houses. No other country
seems to worry.

It's because the lower orders got Sky dishes first. The middle classes
installed the more stylish squarials, but they were canned.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Mark Carver" wrote in
message ...
On 20/11/2014 16:45, Steve Thackery wrote:
Robin wrote:

Eg a gradual rundown of Freeview and switch to
conditional access by
satellite+smart card or internet? (I've no idea how
many Freesat
receivers provide for conditional access.)

Maybe you are right, but I think it's outrageous. Why
did they
introduce Freeview, only to ditch it a couple of decades
later? We
could have gone straight to satellite.

I agree, but that was never going to happen. Socially the
UK has a real
chip on its shoulder regarding dishes on houses. No other
country
seems to worry.

It's because the lower orders got Sky dishes first. The
middle classes installed the more stylish squarials, but
they were canned.




As they used to say..........

Q: What do you find on the back of every satellite dish?

A: A council house.



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , James Heaton
writes

"Stephen" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2014 09:18, Mark Carver wrote:
On 20/11/2014 09:10, Brian Gaff wrote:
One thing that puzzles me is that there seem to be huge areas of vhf
not
being used much nowadays, and although I realise the longer wavelength
might
be a problem for the aerials, why don't mobile systems use those.

How efficient would a VHF aerial inside a mobile phone be ?


it would be impractical, as lower frequency means longer wavelength and
hence a bigger aerial.

I think there is a lower limit to a usuable frequency given a phone's
physical size.... After all who wants a FM aerial in their pocket?

Years ago my partner had a Motorola phone with an FM radio.

Worked pretty well. Not sure what the aerial arrangement was, tend not to
worry to much about stuff if it works!

The headphones double as an aerial.

Depends on the phone. Some will work the same through the internal speaker.

--
Max Demian

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:15:54 +0000, Johny B Good
wrote:


My first two mobiles both had pull-up aerials. Then, as phones became
fashion accessories, aerials became unpopular. They must have taken a
performance hit, especially at 900Mhz.

I rather doubt that was the case (1/4 wavelength at 900 MHz is about
8cm). Motorola probably thought it best to create a cardiod pattern
antenna array using the body of the phone to place the null right
where the users' heads would be (no point in wasting a good third of
all that hard won RF power microwaving the customers's heads).


The novel aspect of cellular phones was the duplex operation.
A major design problem of the early models was to keep the transmitted
RF out of the receiver section and processors.

There were many modules and discrete components that had to be well
screened. The external aerial plus the body components had to be
considered as an integrated package to get low field strength at
critical points.

This was far more important than attempting a particular external
radiation pattern.

Also the safety issue was less of a problem with phones having such a
short talk time. I remember my first brick ran down after 20 minutes'
talk time from a fully charged battery. I carried around two spares
and had to charge them all overnight.