Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
> 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 now there must be a veritable junk yard of out of date, faulty or just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
>

All satellites are supposed to have a de orbit plan. Clearly, if they are
sufficiently faulty that can’t happen. But normally they are lowered in
orbit so that atmospheric drag slowly de orbits them and they burn up. Very
large orbiting objects are sometimes dropped into a certain point in the
Pacific.

In article <sfdhkc$o2o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, SH <i.love.spam@spam.com>
scribeth thus
>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.
>

Don't think provided the ERP remains about the same it will differ a
huge amount. One of the good things is the mast ground height AOD , even
if it is remote!...

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

No news on that as yet it seems..
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 22/08/2021 20:05, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 22/08/2021 18:45, Alexander wrote:
>> Do they keep spare kit purely for emergency use?
>>
> Of course they do !

I think it is part of the contract.

Quite different to the Emley Moor collapse when I remember people going
around Sutton Coldfield collecting together cable, leads, adaptors etc
etc. Anything that could be useful.

Some years later when Eitshal had its problem, there was a containerised
10 KW transmitter that was sent over (though pressure had to put on
Calmac to take it over and it only just got up the track. Various other
things were just collected together from various places.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:ioflehFhqgdU1@mid.individual.net...
> 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.

Is the Intelsat 901 feed intended solely as a backup?
Lyngsat doesn't list multiple BBC1 English regions so presumably it
will be carrying the London variant, unless they switch it
to 'NE & Cumbria' to match the "occasion".

I'd be interested to know what else the mast was carrying, besides TV
and radio (which ironically wont be that much of a loss to most
people in today's media landscape) and whether any of these
other signals are still being transmitted from the damaged mast.

On 23/08/2021 00:26, Alexander wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:ioflehFhqgdU1@mid.individual.net...
>> 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.
> Is the Intelsat 901 feed intended solely as a backup?

Yes, though I think there's a couple of very small and remote sites that
use it for PSB 1 and 3 because off air is not very reliable.
> Lyngsat doesn't list multiple BBC1 English regions so presumably it
> will be carrying the London variant, unless they switch it
> to 'NE & Cumbria' to match the "occasion".

They did that, last weekend
>
> I'd be interested to know what else the mast was carrying, besides TV
> and radio (which ironically wont be that much of a loss to most
> people in today's media landscape) and whether any of these
> other signals are still being transmitted from the damaged mast.

Mobile phone network distribution, as well as the local cell site for
all the networks, PMR radio systems for multiple users, emergency
services, utility companies etc.
It's the same for all sites such as that.
Nothing is being transmitted, the whole site is dead.

Have you  looked at the close up shots of the damage?
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=744&pageid=4078

Tweed wrote:

> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> All satellites are supposed to have a de orbit plan. Clearly, if they
> are sufficiently faulty that can’t happen. But normally they are
> lowered in orbit so that atmospheric drag slowly de orbits them and
> they burn up. Very large orbiting objects are sometimes dropped into
> a certain point in the Pacific.

Old geostationary satellites are put in a higher graveyard orbit.

--

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 23/08/2021 00:26, Alexander wrote:
> I'd be interested to know what else the mast was carrying, besides TV
> and radio (which ironically wont be that much of a loss to most
> people in today's media landscape) and whether any of these
> other signals are still being transmitted from the damaged mast.

What proportion of listening is off air and how much online? I would
think the majority is still off air despite what some might think - I
can remember that perhaps twenty years there were people claiming that
"no one" watched broadcast TV any more!

On Mon 23/08/2021 09:28, MB wrote:
> On 23/08/2021 00:26, Alexander wrote:
>> I'd be interested to know what else the mast was carrying, besides TV
>> and radio (which ironically wont be that much of a loss to most
>> people in today's media landscape) and whether any of these
>> other signals are still being transmitted from the damaged mast.
>
> What proportion of listening is off air and how much online?  I would
> think the majority is still off air despite what some might think - I
> can remember that perhaps twenty years there were people claiming that
> "no one" watched broadcast TV any more!

Its this metrocentricity thing again. When asked how they listen to
music or watch TV many people within the M25 travelling by train will
answer 'on phone/tablet' - but do they represent the real populous?

The digital people will try to convince HMG that FM should be turned off
because more than 50% listen to digital sources - but that includes DAB,
on-line (BBC Sounds etc), Freeview, satellite, and anything else that is
carried on a digital bearer (our ears are still analogue I believe!)

If anyone has sense (some hope) FM at least will keep working another
few decades until everything is at least DAB+ <AND> coverage is at least
as good as FM so as not to prevent vehicle use.

On 23/08/2021 08:46, Ashley Booth wrote:
> Old geostationary satellites are put in a higher graveyard orbit.

As it would require them to carry too much propellant to be able to slow
them enough for them to hit the earth.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:16:43 +0100, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

>On 23/08/2021 08:46, Ashley Booth wrote:
>> Old geostationary satellites are put in a higher graveyard orbit.
>
>As it would require them to carry too much propellant to be able to slow
>them enough for them to hit the earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:sfvsm8$8c3$1@dont-email.me...
> On Mon 23/08/2021 09:28, MB wrote:
>> On 23/08/2021 00:26, Alexander wrote:
>>> I'd be interested to know what else the mast was carrying, besides TV
>>> and radio (which ironically wont be that much of a loss to most
>>> people in today's media landscape) and whether any of these
>>> other signals are still being transmitted from the damaged mast.
>>
>> What proportion of listening is off air and how much online? I would
>> think the majority is still off air despite what some might think - I
>> can remember that perhaps twenty years there were people claiming that
>> "no one" watched broadcast TV any more!

Maybe 10 years ago - not 20. I certainly don't watch Freeview or Sky
anymore; I monitor the propaganda "news" broadcasts for 10
minutes when I'm in the kitchen, and that's it.

Most Freeview viewers will have access to an alternative platform
on which to view the same programmes, was my point.

..
> The digital people will try to convince HMG that FM should be turned off
> because more than 50% listen to digital sources - but that includes DAB,
> on-line (BBC Sounds etc), Freeview, satellite, and anything else that is
> carried on a digital bearer (our ears are still analogue I believe!)

Our ears might be analogue, but unfortunately the feeds to the FM
transmitters aren't! (Don't get me started on lossy NICAM links
again...).

But yes I much prefer analogue audio, despite numerous attempts to
find high quaoity DACs etc. Shame there isn't a record label
dedicated to recording and releasing new music in true analogue
form.

>
> If anyone has sense (some hope) FM at least will keep working another
> few decades until everything is at least DAB+ <AND> coverage is at least
> as good as FM so as not to prevent vehicle use.

DAB is a dead end - broadcasters should admit their 26-year-old
mistake and quietly phase it out.

On 23/08/2021 12:56, Alexander wrote:
>
> Most Freeview viewers will have access to an alternative platform
> on which to view the same programmes, was my point.
>
>
Most, but not all

And my mother gets totally confused  by BBC iplayer's cluttered up and
fancy menu system, to such an extent she finds it impossible to use.

Chatting to her carers she is far from alone with that issue.

If you ever get to 90 I'm sure you'll be equally as intimidated by
whatever younger folk find 'so easy'.

It'll be that generation who will be struggling in Bilsdale-land

On 23/08/2021 07:31, Mark Carver wrote:
>
> Have you  looked at the close up shots of the damage?
> http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=744&pageid=4078

I reckon it's fucked.

Bill

On 23/08/2021 08:46, Ashley Booth wrote:
> Old geostationary satellites are put in a higher graveyard orbit.

Then what?

Bill

On 23/08/2021 13:19, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 23/08/2021 12:56, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> Most Freeview viewers will have access to an alternative platform
>> on which to view the same programmes, was my point.
>>
>>
> Most, but not all
>
> And my mother gets totally confused  by BBC iplayer's cluttered up and
> fancy menu system, to such an extent she finds it impossible to use.
>
> Chatting to her carers she is far from alone with that issue.
>
> If you ever get to 90 I'm sure you'll be equally as intimidated by
> whatever younger folk find 'so easy'.
>
> It'll be that generation who will be struggling in Bilsdale-land

I can sympathise with your mother. Whatever I find irritating at the
moment I feel sure will inevitably become defeating in later life. And
iPlayer is one of the worst.

You get a nice picture of Mr Attenborough looking all benign, but the
caption says if you want to use this service you have to prove who you
are, and we'll only do this once a year even though it was only two
months ago you did it last. So, here's an unmemorable code for you to
memorise. Now go and find a computer or someone with one, and log on to
an unmemorable web address. Now enter the unmemorable code. Now go
back to your TV and confirm that you're Crackpot98 or whatever you can't
remember you entered as your user name a long time ago. Now confirm you
have a TV licence. Now confirm you're over 18. Now confirm you really,
really want to watch a programme that may contain mild peril or the word
'damn'. Are you sure?

It's a seemingly endless process and hardly surprising the elderly can't
cope with it.

And that's before having to search for what you want to watch and select
the episode whose date of transmission you've forgotten, and having to
watch any annoying trailers for things you're just not interested in.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:iohi3cFst1uU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 23/08/2021 12:56, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> Most Freeview viewers will have access to an alternative platform
>> on which to view the same programmes, was my point.
>>
>>
> Most, but not all
>
> And my mother gets totally confused by BBC iplayer's cluttered up and
> fancy menu system, to such an extent she finds it impossible to use.
>
> Chatting to her carers she is far from alone with that issue.
>
> If you ever get to 90 I'm sure you'll be equally as intimidated by
> whatever younger folk find 'so easy'.
>
> It'll be that generation who will be struggling in Bilsdale-land

Unfortunately our government does not care about the elderly - they
are considered to be disposable. Many are quite literally murdered
by UK nurses and doctors, should they have the misfortune to end
up in a hospital or a care home. TV won't warn them about that.

On the one hand I can see your point, that the lonely and frail
rely on TV simply for some human contact and false sense of
"company".

But I do I think that many are better off without TV,
once they have got used to it - like giving up smoking or
alcohol, it's a sort of detox process.

"williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message news:iohkjcFt7aoU3@mid.individual.net...
> On 23/08/2021 07:31, Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>> Have you looked at the close up shots of the damage?
>> http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=744&pageid=4078
>
> I reckon it's fucked.

Presumably it's insured against fire damage?

I wonder if they'll be able to justify building a structure of equal
size to replace it. Digital TV may well permit the use of a number
of smaller towers to cover the same area, without causing
interference, if that proves to be more cost-effective.

On 23/08/2021 14:40, Alexander wrote:
>
> Unfortunately our government does not care about the elderly - they
> are considered to be disposable. Many are quite literally murdered
> by UK nurses and doctors, should they have the misfortune to end
> up in a hospital or a care home. TV won't warn them about that.

Fake news and false claims reported to:
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 23/08/2021 14:40, Alexander wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:iohi3cFst1uU1@mid.individual.net...

>> And my mother gets totally confused by BBC iplayer's cluttered up and
>> fancy menu system, to such an extent she finds it impossible to use.
>>
>> Chatting to her carers she is far from alone with that issue.
>>
>> If you ever get to 90 I'm sure you'll be equally as intimidated by
>> whatever younger folk find 'so easy'.
>>
>> It'll be that generation who will be struggling in Bilsdale-land
>
> Unfortunately our government does not care about the elderly - they
> are considered to be disposable. Many are quite literally murdered
> by UK nurses and doctors, should they have the misfortune to end
> up in a hospital or a care home. TV won't warn them about that.
>
> On the one hand I can see your point, that the lonely and frail
> rely on TV simply for some human contact and false sense of
> "company".
>
> But I do I think that many are better off without TV,
> once they have got used to it - like giving up smoking or
> alcohol, it's a sort of detox process.

What are they supposed to do instead? Joint the local Darby and Joan club?

--
Max Demian

On 23/08/2021 14:53, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/08/2021 14:40, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately our government does not care about the elderly - they
>> are considered to be disposable. Many are quite literally murdered
>> by UK nurses and doctors, should they have the misfortune to end
>> up in a hospital or a care home. TV won't warn them about that.
>
> Fake news and false claims reported to:
>     a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g
>

Why are you wasting Ray Banana's time with such nonsense? I see nothing
in the post that contravenes the Terms of Use of eternal-september.

(I won't ask why you "munge" an email address that is included in plain
text in millions of Usenet posts. It's a free Usenet.)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon 23/08/2021 14:15, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 23/08/2021 13:19, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 23/08/2021 12:56, Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> Most Freeview viewers will have access to an alternative platform
>>> on which to view the same programmes, was my point.
>>>
>>>
>> Most, but not all
>>
>> And my mother gets totally confused  by BBC iplayer's cluttered up and
>> fancy menu system, to such an extent she finds it impossible to use.
>>
>> Chatting to her carers she is far from alone with that issue.
>>
>> If you ever get to 90 I'm sure you'll be equally as intimidated by
>> whatever younger folk find 'so easy'.
>>
>> It'll be that generation who will be struggling in Bilsdale-land
>
> I can sympathise with your mother.  Whatever I find irritating at the
> moment I feel sure will inevitably become defeating in later life.  And
> iPlayer is one of the worst.
>
> You get a nice picture of Mr Attenborough looking all benign, but the
> caption says if you want to use this service you have to prove who you
> are, and we'll only do this once a year even though it was only two
> months ago you did it last.  So, here's an unmemorable code for you to
> memorise.  Now go and find a computer or someone with one, and log on to
> an unmemorable web address.  Now enter the unmemorable code.  Now go
> back to your TV and confirm that you're Crackpot98 or whatever you can't
> remember you entered as your user name a long time ago.  Now confirm you
> have a TV licence.  Now confirm you're over 18.  Now confirm you really,
> really want to watch a programme that may contain mild peril or the word
> 'damn'.  Are you sure?
>
> It's a seemingly endless process and hardly surprising the elderly can't
> cope with it.
>
> And that's before having to search for what you want to watch and select
> the episode whose date of transmission you've forgotten, and having to
> watch any annoying trailers for things you're just not interested in.
>

Finding summat on iPlayer is a bit of a mess agreed - it puzzles me
sometimes and I'm only 70 and thoroughly technical - but registering is
relatively easy.
Conversely the ITV Hub is (from memory) what is described above and its
a pain!

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:47:47 +0100
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Mon 23/08/2021 14:15, Norman Wells wrote:
>> And that's before having to search for what you want to watch and select
>> the episode whose date of transmission you've forgotten, and having to
>> watch any annoying trailers for things you're just not interested in.
>>
>
>Finding summat on iPlayer is a bit of a mess agreed - it puzzles me
>sometimes and I'm only 70 and thoroughly technical - but registering is
>relatively easy.
>Conversely the ITV Hub is (from memory) what is described above and its
>a pain!

Last time I used the ITV hub on my tablet it wouldn't remember where I
stopped watching something and forced me to watch the same bloody ads all over
again before it would restart where I wanted it which meant if it was near the
end it could be 10-15 mins worth of ads first! In the end I gave up and
deleted the damn thing, wasn't worth the aggro.

Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 23/08/2021 14:40, Alexander wrote:
>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:iohi3cFst1uU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> And my mother gets totally confused by BBC iplayer's cluttered up and
>>> fancy menu system, to such an extent she finds it impossible to use.
>>>
>>> Chatting to her carers she is far from alone with that issue.
>>>
>>> If you ever get to 90 I'm sure you'll be equally as intimidated by
>>> whatever younger folk find 'so easy'.
>>>
>>> It'll be that generation who will be struggling in Bilsdale-land
>>
>> Unfortunately our government does not care about the elderly - they
>> are considered to be disposable. Many are quite literally murdered
>> by UK nurses and doctors, should they have the misfortune to end
>> up in a hospital or a care home. TV won't warn them about that.
>>
>> On the one hand I can see your point, that the lonely and frail
>> rely on TV simply for some human contact and false sense of
>> "company".
>>
>> But I do I think that many are better off without TV,
>> once they have got used to it - like giving up smoking or
>> alcohol, it's a sort of detox process.
>
> What are they supposed to do instead? Joint the local Darby and Joan club?
>

I don’t think Alexander has the slightest concept of what it’s like to get
to your 90s, friends dying off, spouse dead, eyesight going so you can’t
easily read, unable to drive, limited mobility so it’s hard to get around.
TV is often the only thing that makes life bearable for much of the time.
And I take deep exception to the idea that medics are murdering their
patients. If anything they often try too hard to keep people going.

On Mon 23/08/2021 17:47, Tweed wrote:
> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 23/08/2021 14:40, Alexander wrote:
>>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:iohi3cFst1uU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>> And my mother gets totally confused by BBC iplayer's cluttered up and
>>>> fancy menu system, to such an extent she finds it impossible to use.
>>>>
>>>> Chatting to her carers she is far from alone with that issue.
>>>>
>>>> If you ever get to 90 I'm sure you'll be equally as intimidated by
>>>> whatever younger folk find 'so easy'.
>>>>
>>>> It'll be that generation who will be struggling in Bilsdale-land
>>>
>>> Unfortunately our government does not care about the elderly - they
>>> are considered to be disposable. Many are quite literally murdered
>>> by UK nurses and doctors, should they have the misfortune to end
>>> up in a hospital or a care home. TV won't warn them about that.
>>>
>>> On the one hand I can see your point, that the lonely and frail
>>> rely on TV simply for some human contact and false sense of
>>> "company".
>>>
>>> But I do I think that many are better off without TV,
>>> once they have got used to it - like giving up smoking or
>>> alcohol, it's a sort of detox process.
>>
>> What are they supposed to do instead? Joint the local Darby and Joan club?
>>
>
> I don’t think Alexander has the slightest concept of what it’s like to get
> to your 90s, friends dying off, spouse dead, eyesight going so you can’t
> easily read, unable to drive, limited mobility so it’s hard to get around.
> TV is often the only thing that makes life bearable for much of the time.
> And I take deep exception to the idea that medics are murdering their
> patients. If anything they often try too hard to keep people going.
>

+1 - and I'm only 70!!!

You should talk to my wife..................

On 23/08/2021 16:28, Robin wrote:
> On 23/08/2021 14:53, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 23/08/2021 14:40, Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately our government does not care about the elderly - they
>>> are considered to be disposable. Many are quite literally murdered
>>> by UK nurses and doctors, should they have the misfortune to end
>>> up in a hospital or a care home. TV won't warn them about that.
>>
>> Fake news and false claims reported to:
>>      a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g
>
> Why are you wasting Ray Banana's time with such nonsense?  I see nothing
> in the post that contravenes the Terms of Use of eternal-september.

It makes false allegations that can't be substantiated, in other words
it's a lie. I'm not particularly interested in ES's actual T&C, I'm
just trying to prevent the further propagation of any lies that I happen
to see.

> (I won't ask why you "munge" an email address that is included in plain
> text in millions of Usenet posts.  It's a free Usenet.)

So that the address isn't harvested by spammers if they haven't already
got it.

--

Fake news kills!

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