menuMENU    UK Free TV logo Archive (2002-)

 

 

Click to see updates

All posts by Dave Lindsay

Below are all of Dave Lindsay's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.


Coverage maps are all well and good.

However, are people really going to fork out for another aerial where it's needed?

Take York as an example. It currently has York TV whose transmitter is on the Askham Bryan water tower. This is to the south west of the city and the general direction that aerials are pointing for Emley Moor (Yorkshire).

However, the Ofcom map shows the transmission site to be Bilsdale with the signal directed to the south only. This is the southern-most transmitter for Tyne Tees and as such many in Yorkshire want to watch Yorkshire TV (Emley Moor) where it is receivable, even where the Bilsdale signal might be stronger.

link to this comment
GB

This is surely a natural outcome of the privatised market that now exists.

The cost of serving a minority of people is much greater per head. As the primary objective is to generate profit rather than to provide service, there won't be universal service.

I am very interested to learn about how the transmitter network was built. The way in which it comprises of many smaller stations suggests that the objective was to provide a public service. This would seem to be very analogous with incumbant fixed telecommunications services which serve many rural areas.

The way things work today, it strikes me that these areas would have had to wait a very long time, if at all, to get service as there is no overall plan driving things forward.

If the TV transmitter network had been built from scratch by private operators (with today's mentality), would we really have such great coverage? If we wouldn't, then isn't there some value to consider how it was then, instead of simply regarding it as old hat?

link to this comment
GB

I have read this again. I have also read with interest that different parts of the transmitter network has always (until three years ago) been operated by two separate bodies. I now appreciate that that is what Brian has referred to as being the monopoly (which also owns two of the commercial multiplexes).

But choose how you look at it, even if all the commercial multiplexes were not owned by companies that own the transmitters, they are likely to still prefer to only broadcast from the fewest sites that cover the largest proportion of the population.

How did the smaller relays ever get built in the first place?

link to this comment
GB
Emley Moor (Kirklees, England) transmitter
Wednesday 7 September 2011 10:12AM
Doncaster

Mux A has now moved to Channel 52 (in place of the pre-DSO Mux 1).

link to this comment
GB
Emley Moor (Kirklees, England) transmitter
Wednesday 7 September 2011 11:12AM
Doncaster

I was echoing Peter Leadill's comment that the list at the top of this page showing the frequency of Mux A should now be C52 and not C43-.

link to this comment
GB
Emley Moor (Kirklees, England) transmitter
Wednesday 7 September 2011 12:11PM

James, the HD mux is still on C39 and according to the leaflet published by DigitalUK will not move until 21st:

http://www.digitaluk.co.u….pdf

(See page 2).

It can't occupy C41 now because it is currently being used for Channel 4 analogue. (DN31NJ)

link to this comment
GB
Emley Moor (Kirklees, England) transmitter
Wednesday 7 September 2011 12:24PM
Doncaster

rosie: ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are still available on analogue for two weeks.

From what you say, I think that you should probably get these other channels on digital (Freeview) in two weeks' time.

link to this comment
GB

Ian: Perhaps the pros can clarify whether I'm barking up the right tree here, but what about removing your booster and installing a splitter instead?

Probably best to split it five/six ways if possible and feed each receiver from a single output on the splitter.

Online TV Splitters, Amps & Diplexers sales


Is this a possibility?

link to this comment
GB

This is yet more politically-driven nonsense that sacrifices engineering principles and in so-doing provides second-rate coverage and cost viewers money in replacement or additional aerials (or go without).

The tests carried out by ATV Sheffield make for interesting reading:
TV Aerial Tests

In summary, their conclusion is that ?EURoethere is no such thing as a ?EURoeHigh Gain?EUR? wideband aerial for the A group frequencies?EUR?.

High-gain wideband aerials are not very sensitive to Group A channels, meaning that those in fringe areas may have to have two aerials; one for A channels and one for others.

link to this comment
GB

If one of the networks can operate as a SFN, then why can't more of them? Is there a disadvantage to utilising an SFN which is why others are multi-frequency networks?

link to this comment
GB