All posts by RK Shead
Below are all of RK Shead's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Tim:
Like Mark Fletcher, I'd suspect single channel interference. Some further thoughts/questions which might shed some light...
Does your digital recorder also exhibit the same problem (fine on all channels except those from ArqB - C47)?
Have you tried turning off every other electrical appliance in your house including portable/mobile phones (but not the TV !) to see if the problem disappears?
Google's satellite picture of your postcode suggests that many of your neighbours are also using Freeview from Hannington with similar aerials, do they have the same problem?
What sort of signal strength/quality are you getting on each of the other multiplexes, and on C47 when it's working OK?
| link to this comment |
Tim,
Very curious. I'm not convinced of your diagnosis: "simply in an area where ArqB is at its limit of cover" - I cannot see anything in the geography for you location which would make ArqB substantially worse than ArqA (Unless you're using a Group A aerial - in which case I'd expect BBCA to be pretty ropey; most Group A aerials have zero gain at C45 and above.)
When your TV is receiving ArqB channels successfully, what values do you get for signal strength/quality? How do these compare with the values for ArqA channels?
| link to this comment |
F.Miners
The problem is probably caused by changing atmospheric conditions during the day - particularly over Winchester. You've only just got line-of-sight to Hannington and you might do better to get your signal from the vertically polarised transmitter at Rowbridge.
| link to this comment |
Sean
In addition to Jamie Stevens questions:
Is the problem on all channels or just some?
| link to this comment |
The scoring scheme has a number of serious flaws, hence the ridiculous result. The most obvious flaw is "How many people pay for something?". The only way in which the scoring for this could be increased would be as a Poll Tax or an Oxygen Tax - and I doubt that anyone would think that that was a good idea.
The criteria should be "How many people who want to watch BBC programmes pay something towards them?". The scores for subscription services would then increase and scores for schemes based on taxing mobile phones, electrical goods or broadband (which are as daft as taxing sales of cream cakes or lawn mowers) would fall.
| link to this comment |
Briantist:
I don't think a comparison with Freeview implementation rate is valid. The engineering task of changing, modifying and adding transmitters, while maintaining the existing analogue system, was a complicated one, and the speed with which it was performed was (partially) controlled by cost and availability of suitable engineers to carry out the work. The long drawn-out period over which Freeview was implemented across the country obviously affected the Freeview take-up rate.
By comparison, the engineering task of modifying and adding encryption equipment, while maintaining the existing system is trivial - the encryption could be operated in clear on the existing channels until BE-Day (Beeb Encryption Day). So the transmitter engineering would, probably, not be a limiting factor in the Beebbox take-up rate.
| link to this comment |
Briantist
Your own comment on the result was that you thought it was "odd". I suggest that calling it "ridiculous" is only a matter of degree.
The maximum score for the category "How many people pay for something" is only 6. My point is that the only way that this can be increased to a 9 is by charging everybody and I suspect that this will not be popular. (Personally, I thought the Poll Tax of 1990-3 was a good idea, but that's irrelevant.)
Assuming that the BBC is meant to be a Public Service, like Health, Education, Defence, Law Enforcement etc, (if it isn't, then that's a different argument) then the only sensible way to fund it is out of general taxation - which is supposed to be the fairest, most cost effective way to fund such activities. It probably isn't "fair", but at least there are, in theory, methods in place for correcting the unfairness - the Budget and the Ballot Box.
Inventing a tax on one commodity to pay for the provision of another unrelated activity is never a good idea. It can claim fairness only by proxy, it distorts the market for the taxed commodity and its overheads exceed those of collection by general taxation. (I admit that the last point depends on the efficiency of the HMRC.)
It's also not clear (to me) about the meaning of the category "Can people opt out?". Obviously it doesn't just mean "Can people choose not to pay and hence not receive the service." That would either be true or false and score 9 or 1. You appear to be assessing the impact of the consequential effects opting out.. Thus, opting out by not having a mobile phone with a monthly contract has less impact (and hence a higher score) than the current method for opting out (not possessing a TV), and opting out by reducing one's income below the PAYE thresholds is very inconvenient (and hence has a lower score).
But if this is what the category is trying to assess, does not having broadband really equate to not having an electricity supply? And I can see no justification whatever for claiming that opting out by not buying any electrical goods at all is really better (less inconvenient) than opting out by not possessing a TV?
And finally, for the moment, I can make no sense at all of the category "How easy is it [to] understand?" Are you really saying that "I want to buy a fridge so I have pay extra in order to fund the BBC" is more understandable than paying for the current licence? Or that the concept of funding the BBC out of general taxation is so complicated that it more difficult to understand than the current licence?
| link to this comment |
Page 2
Wednesday 25 July 2012 10:44PM
Beryl Foote
My reply above (4:17pm)was addressed to D Ferguson (24th July 08:50), not to you. In your case it's certainly NOT the TV. To have two TV sets fail in the same way at the same time is very, very improbable. Also, at your location, I wouldn't suggest any transmitter other than Hannington.
I thought from your second post (25th July 09:19)that the problem had resolved itself? Are you still losing reception on all channels?