On 15/08/2021 22:39, williamwright wrote:
>
> On 15/08/2021 18:02, MB wrote:
>>
>> On 15/08/2021 17:15, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> DAB is good when the transmitter network is properly engineered, as
>>> is the BBC MUX.
>>
>> I have no interest in any of the other MUXes!
>
> I don't listen to the BBC mux because of the leftwing bias. OK, R3 now
> and again when they aren't playing 'world music.'

Which is your own personal choice because your real right-wing bias
makes you perceive the rest of the world as having a left-wing bias.
Any normal person would simply apply that bias and shut the fuck up.
The fact that you feel a need to constantly preach to the rest of us
about it is in itself proof that it's you, not the BBC, with a serious
problem of bias.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/08/2021 10:53, williamwright wrote:
> Are we close enough to DTT switch-off for Bilsdale to never be restored
> to its previous state?
>
> --- Relays to be fed from 27.5W permanently, or switched off?
>
> --- Three muxes only (DTT lite) from a lowish powered low height new
> token Bilsdale?
>
> --- No coverage at all in the Emley Moor overlap area; no transmission
> to the south?
>
> --- Eston Nabb to be turned into a three mux 'main' tx permanently, but
> not with much power because it overlaps so much with Pontop Pike?
>
> --- Viewers in Swaledale etc, where Bilsdale is the only choice and is
> marginal, told 'hard luck', just the same as happened when the Whitby
> relay was moved to a stupid place?
>
> Is so, 'YAY!' will be the cry from the riggers of Sheffield, who are
> infuriated by CCI from Bilsdale wiping out Crosspool reception.
>
> Bill

The scammers are at it again!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/16/tv-out-for-two-more-weeks-in-north-yorkshire-after-mast-fire

I note the new temporary past is going to be 80 m (the original Tx was
100 m)

I wonder what the Tx power of the temporary mast is going to be?
(Bilsdale was at 100 kW apparently)

On 16/08/2021 11:48, SH wrote:
>
> I note the new temporary past is going to be 80 m (the original Tx was
> 100 m)

Original mast is 300 m (at time of posting !) not 100 m

On 16/08/2021 12:07, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 16/08/2021 11:48, SH wrote:
>>
>> I note the new temporary past is going to be 80 m (the original Tx was
>> 100 m)
>
> Original mast is 300 m (at time of posting !) not 100 m
>

yeah..... I spotted my mix up of ft and m.

So the temporary mast is at 80 m which is quite a significant reduction
from 300 m

But my query about power still stands... (bilsdale was using 100 kW for
the 3 PSB's and 50 kW for the COMs.

Obviously there will be a massive reduction in the service area between
the original Tx and the temporary mast.

I wonder how long it will take to replace/repair the original mast?

S.

On 16/08/2021 12:19, SH wrote:
> On 16/08/2021 12:07, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 16/08/2021 11:48, SH wrote:
>>>
>>> I note the new temporary past is going to be 80 m (the original Tx
>>> was 100 m)
>>
>> Original mast is 300 m (at time of posting !) not 100 m
>>
>
> yeah..... I spotted my mix up of ft and m.
>
>
> So the temporary mast is at 80 m which is quite a significant
> reduction from 300 m
>
> But my query about power still stands... (bilsdale was using 100 kW
> for the 3 PSB's and 50 kW for the COMs.
>
> Obviously there will be a massive reduction in the service area
> between the original Tx and the temporary mast.
>
> I wonder how long it will take to replace/repair the original mast?
>
Replace, 12-24 months  (going by what happened at Peterbourgh in 2004/5)

Repair, no one knows if it's even possible to, or even whether or not it
is  seriously damaged yet.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:inv0a1Fbb8cU1@mid.individual.net...
> Repair, no one knows if it's even possible to, or even whether or not it
> is seriously damaged yet.

I'm surprised that the Arqiva website which was mentioned up-thread still
didn't know (*) what the structural state of the mast was. Evidently it's
taking some time for the engineers to complete their safety assessment.

I suppose work on diverting power and signal feeds to a new mast and
transmitter can't start until the engineers have said it's safe to enter the
exclusion zone. Is the signal feed to the transmitter site a fibre-optic
cable nowadays?

(*) When the announcement about the 80 metre temporary mast was mentioned.

On 16/08/2021 12:41, NY wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:inv0a1Fbb8cU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Repair, no one knows if it's even possible to, or even whether or not
>> it is  seriously damaged yet.
>
> I'm surprised that the Arqiva website which was mentioned up-thread
> still didn't know (*) what the structural state of the mast was.
> Evidently it's taking some time for the engineers to complete their
> safety assessment.
I gather no one has been permitted near the mast, and specialist drones
were being used

> I suppose work on diverting power and signal feeds to a new mast and
> transmitter can't start until the engineers have said it's safe to
> enter the exclusion zone. Is the signal feed to the transmitter site a
> fibre-optic cable nowadays?

It is. Though they will probably set up completely outside the exclusion
zone, use a mobile genny for power, and off air signals from Pontop Pike
to provide a feed

On 16/08/2021 08:02, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 15/08/2021 22:49, williamwright wrote:
>> On 15/08/2021 19:50, Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>>> You can't compare with ITA/IBA era ITV. ITV was set up in the 1950s
>>> and commercially financed Public Service Broadcasting.
>>> It had to match  the range, quality, and coverage of BBC TV.
>>>
>>> In terms of coverage it did.
>>
>> Well, nearly. Certainly got close in terms of population as opposed to
>> area. Compare VHF Holme Moss with VHF Winter Hill and Emley Moor,
>> especially on the east coast.
>>
> I was thinking more about UHF than VHF.

Ah! I was misled by your mention of the 1950s.

Bill

On 16/08/2021 09:22, Mark Carver wrote:
> For goodness sake, firstly the ITV companies had nothing to do with
> defining their coverage. That was the ITA's job. Do you understand the
> difference ?

I just used the generic term "ITV" for them all and did not mention any
individual companies. Was "ITV" even a company or formal organisation
at that time, I think that came later.

Wasn't it the famous "Licence to print money" period.

On 16/08/2021 08:54, MB wrote:
> On 15/08/2021 22:42, williamwright wrote:
>> Yes, don't forget that broadcasting isn't for your benefit; it's for the
>> benefit of the broadcasters. You are merely fodder.
>
> Or for the benefit of the advertisers if you are watching a commercial
> channel.

Yes, the advertisers pay the broadcaster.

Bill

On 15/08/2021 18:00, MB wrote:
> On 15/08/2021 17:17, Tweed wrote:

>> In what way? There are 5 physical buttons, and pressing the button
>> gets the
>> station. There’s umpteen more presets for position 6 onwards that needs a
>> twiddle of the selector knob.
>
> The five physical will just about handle the main stations.
>
> If I want to "tune" from Preset 28 to Preset 31, I have to go back to
> the menu and scroll through from Preset 1 to Preset 31.
>
> There should be an option to have Preset 1 on a VHF FM station perhaps,
>  Preset 2 on a DAB one and perhaps Preset 3 on an Internet radio station.
>
> Memory is cheap now so easy to lots of Presets / Memories but they need
> to be easily accessible without too many keypresses.

My Roberts Rambler BT is particularly hard to use the presets. It has 10
on FM and 10 on DAB: to select you press one button, turn a knob until
the station shows on the display, then press another button. I would
expect it to be a bit tricky to set up the presets, even requiring the
manual, but selecting a station already preset should be easy.

My Roberts Play is a lot better as it has five buttons for the 5 on FM
and 5 on DAB.

If a radio doesn't have separate buttons for the presets, up and down
buttons are a reasonable compromise.

--
Max Demian

On 15/08/2021 22:40, williamwright wrote:
> On 15/08/2021 18:17, Tweed wrote:

>> Neither did I until Times Radio came along. It’s a useful alternative to
>> Radio4, which for me has large unlistenable periods in its schedule - The
>> Archers, part 5 of a serial that you’ve not heard the other 4 parts to
>> and
>> an increasingly unfunny series of comedy programmes.
>
> Be fair, it's not possible to make funny programmes when you're totally
> woke.

They're funny if you *are* woke, as all the comedian has to do is say
something woke, and the audience laughs: presumably at all the people
who disagree with the sentiment.

--
Max Demian

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 22:39:49 +0100, williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com>
wrote:

> I don't listen to the BBC mux because of the leftwing bias.

Connect your speakers the other way round, or adjust the balance control.

In article <sfdlgh$isk$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 16/08/2021 09:22, Mark Carver wrote:
> > For goodness sake, firstly the ITV companies had nothing to do with
> > defining their coverage. That was the ITA's job. Do you understand the
> > difference ?

> I just used the generic term "ITV" for them all and did not mention any
> individual companies. Was "ITV" even a company or formal organisation
> at that time, I think that came later.

> Wasn't it the famous "Licence to print money" period.

That was Roy Thompson and Scottish Television

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:19:39 +0100, SH <i.love.spam@spam.com> wrote:

>>> I note the new temporary past is going to be 80 m (the original Tx was
>>> 100 m)
>>
>> Original mast is 300 m (at time of posting !) not 100 m
>>
>
> yeah..... I spotted my mix up of ft and m.

That job at NASA awaits...

In article <sfbej6$ek8$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
scribeth thus
>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 15/08/2021 16:15, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> At the moment, reception via the mobile phone system is obviously not as
>>> good or convenient as from 'traditional' broadcast sites, but it
>>> probably could be made to be. In-car entertainment equipment could
>>> retain the same sort of user controls - ie they are actually phones, but
>>> look and feel like radios. [Maybe some already are.]
>>
>> Why bother, at the moment we have a system designed for mobile reception
>> that combine two (or more?) base stations to improve reception so there
>> is often better reception that VHF FM in low signal areas. Perhaps
>> mobile phone reception might improve one day.
>>
>>
>DAB is good when the transmitter network is properly engineered, as is the
>BBC MUX. However Times Radio disappears in much of Northumberland as the
>commercial MUX hasn’t bothered with a transmitter between Newcastle and
>Edinburgh. Vodafone’s mobile reception is much better. The mobile not spots
>seem to be slowly vanishing.

Theres quite a few down here in flat "ish" old East Anglia that need
some better coverage!...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <int14iFtis3U1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 15/08/2021 17:15, Tweed wrote:
>> DAB is good when the transmitter network is properly engineered, as is the
>> BBC MUX. However Times Radio disappears in much of Northumberland as the
>> commercial MUX hasn’t bothered with a transmitter between Newcastle and
>> Edinburgh.
>
>That's got nothing to do with poor engineering. It's to do cost/benefit
>
>The SDL mux actually does very well, I don't get many dead spots here in
>Hampshire.
>
>There are about 12 BBC DAB sites that are in or serve Hampshire. SDL
>only use three of them, yet car radio coverage is very similar.
>
>SDL nationally it only has a about 50 sites. The BBC have over 400.

Nice to have the licence payer to hand eh;?....

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <sfbm1h$s00$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
scribeth thus
>Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 15/08/2021 18:43, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> Properly engineered is different to poorly engineered. Lots of not properly
>>> engineered things in this country are due to the finance people having the
>>> last word. Finance folk get things wrong more often than the engineers do.
>>> Years ago we had things like the ITA, set up precisely to stop the
>>> commercial operators from cutting corners.
>> But isn't engineering is about finding a solution within the constraints
>> that are presented, and the budget available ?
>>
>> You can cut corners to save money, and that's NOT good engineering though !
>>
>Well let’s take DAB coverage (I’m not going down the rabbit hole of bit
>rates….). For years I never understood why people moaned about poor in car
>reception, as mine was fine as I drove up and down the country. Then Times
>Radio came along and it became clear. If you listened to a commercial mux
>you got a second rate service. So that tainted the DAB brand in the minds
>of many. That may actually have financial consequences in the long term for
>the commercial operators, but they were more fixated on short term goals.
>So yes, the commercial dab muxes are not properly engineered and corners
>have been cut.

What you really mean is that you haven't got bottomless pits of loot to
pay for the number required...
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 16/08/2021 21:07, tony sayer wrote:
> What you really mean is that you haven't got bottomless pits of loot to
> pay for the number required...

Or they prefer to spend it on bonuses for management and "celebrity"
presenters rather than improving coverage?

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:inuv6oFb3nbU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 16/08/2021 11:48, SH wrote:
>>
>> I note the new temporary past is going to be 80 m (the original Tx was
>> 100 m)
>
> Original mast is 300 m (at time of posting !) not 100 m
>

Interesting that they were able to install temporary masts and
temporary DVB/DAB//FM tx's at adjacent sites (such as
Eston Nab) within a couple of days.
Do they keep spare kit purely for emergency use?
I wonder how the relevant network feeds were provided.

On 14/08/2021 12:43, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> So if the current bird used for freesat, or a lot of it, were to die, do
> those running it have a replacement in mothballs to launch in its place? BY
> now there must be a veritable junk yard of out of date, faulty or just
> unused satellites up in that orbital neighbourhood. If they are out of fuel
> and something were to hit them hard enough to break one up, then the debris
> could very easily trash others on an increasingly regular basis, yet the
> junk clearance technology being developed progress is at slug speed. I'd
> predict a failure quite soon before they are ready, say within 5 years or
> so.

I think there are three active satellites and a spare lurking somewhere
nearby.
I could be wrong about the spare.

Surely satellites that need to be retired can usually be repositioned so
they are out of the way or steered to crash in to the sea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_28.2%C2%B0E

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 22/08/2021 18:45, Alexander wrote:
> Interesting that they were able to install temporary masts and
> temporary DVB/DAB//FM tx's at adjacent sites (such as
> Eston Nab) within a couple of days.
> Do they keep spare kit purely for emergency use?
> I wonder how the relevant network feeds were provided.

DAB is fed by satellite, at least for the national multiplexes.
With FM you can just relay a nearby transmitter or if that's not
possible almost anything will work and be better than nothing.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Sun 22/08/2021 18:45, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:inuv6oFb3nbU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 16/08/2021 11:48, SH wrote:
>>>
>>> I note the new temporary past is going to be 80 m (the original Tx was
>>> 100 m)
>>
>> Original mast is 300 m (at time of posting !) not 100 m
>>
>
> Interesting that they were able to install temporary masts and
> temporary DVB/DAB//FM tx's at adjacent sites (such as
> Eston Nab) within a couple of days.
> Do they keep spare kit purely for emergency use?
> I wonder how the relevant network feeds were provided.
>

Arqiva hold loads of spare kit. The low power TV transmitters (20W and
50W max out of the tray) are just transposers that receive one mux on
one channel and rebroadcast it on another. Tray is 1U (1¾in high) and
fits a 19" rack. Lovely piece of kit to work on and in the way of things
relatively cheap.

The feeds for sites are either off-air from Pontop (for Eston Nab and
Arncliffe Wood) whilst other relays that cannot reach another source are
being fed from a private area of the Astra satellite cluster.

FM radio will be off-air repeating which the whole national
infrastructure is designed to be able to do if central feeds are lost.
Pontop, Belmont, Scarborough, and Holme Moss are all within reception
range of Bilsdale or sites around it.

Not sure quite how they are providing DAB for some of the holes that
Bilsdale specifically covered, but there will doubtless be a simple
solution even if it only means using the Interweb as a carrier, or
satellite.

On 22/08/2021 19:44, Woody wrote:
>
>
> The feeds for sites are either off-air from Pontop (for Eston Nab and
> Arncliffe Wood) whilst other relays that cannot reach another source
> are being fed from a private area of the Astra satellite cluster.
>
Have a look at the mb21 shots of Arncliffe. They seem to be using
Intelsat 27.5W for PSB 1/3 (which is the BBC's RBS satellite feed that's
been running since about 2009) and Astra 28.2E for PSB 2.

The FM stations at Eston were initially being sourced from off air DAB I
think

On 22/08/2021 18:45, Alexander wrote:
>
> Do they keep spare kit purely for emergency use?
>
Of course they do !