"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sg0je3$ci6$1@dont-email.me...
> 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.

Actually I looked after two grandparents into their 90s (both
of whom were lucky to escape the NHS kill squad,
and instead die naturally when it was really their time).

Contrary to the OAP stereotype (the one which the BBC loves to
propagate in order to justify its own very lucrative existence),
many old people do still have a mind of their own, and don't
wish to just stare at rubbish on the telly all day!

As stated previously (in the part of my post which you chose to
ignore) there are exceptions to this - some do benefit from
a continuous stream of programming that will run by itself
without them having to do anything.

If we weren't such a selfish nation they'd have real people to
spend time with, instead of just being left alone to
watch TV.

> 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.

Whatever myths get you through mate - but don't say I didn't
warn you.

"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message news:30b017c1-f109-77d6-0bff-2cffb7627445@outlook.com...
> 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.)

The 'JJ' character is in my ignore list and will stay there.

Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>
> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sg0je3$ci6$1@dont-email.me...
>> 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.
>
> Actually I looked after two grandparents into their 90s (both
> of whom were lucky to escape the NHS kill squad,
> and instead die naturally when it was really their time).
>
> Contrary to the OAP stereotype (the one which the BBC loves to
> propagate in order to justify its own very lucrative existence),
> many old people do still have a mind of their own, and don't
> wish to just stare at rubbish on the telly all day!
>
> As stated previously (in the part of my post which you chose to
> ignore) there are exceptions to this - some do benefit from
> a continuous stream of programming that will run by itself
> without them having to do anything.
>
> If we weren't such a selfish nation they'd have real people to
> spend time with, instead of just being left alone to
> watch TV.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Whatever myths get you through mate - but don't say I didn't
> warn you.
>
>

I have direct experience of both my mother and an aunt, both in their 90s,
dying in the last 12 months, neither from covid. Neither were helped on
their way by the medical profession, and both received excellent care. I
know in detail how they were treated and what killed them. In neither case
did the medics do anything inappropriate.

On 23/08/2021 11:18, Woody wrote:
> 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.

Would it be cheaper to put in a relatively small number of DAB sites to
fill in gaps or re-engineer the rather antiquated present VHF FM sites?

On 23/08/2021 12:56, Alexander wrote:
> DAB is a dead end - broadcasters should admit their 26-year-old
> mistake and quietly phase it out.

For a system over eighty years old with many failings and limitations?

On 23/08/2021 14:46, Alexander wrote:
>
> "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.
>
>
No, the 80m tower will be it. People with reception problems will be
advised to get Freesat or use the internet. They'll fudge it until 2024
with planning issues then as soon as there isn't an election coming up
there's be a three line announcement at the bottom of p27 of the
Richmond Observer that they aren't going to replace the big mast. It's a
common practice. It's called 'Fuck the punter.'

Bill

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.

Does anyone, whenever I stay with friends who have SKY I find the the
Sky controller useless and switch to Freeview on their TV.

I don't think the govewrnment control Sky?

"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sg0oki$ihh$1@dont-email.me...
>
> I have direct experience of both my mother and an aunt, both in their 90s,
> dying in the last 12 months, neither from covid. Neither were helped on
> their way by the medical profession, and both received excellent care. I
> know in detail how they were treated and what killed them. In neither case
> did the medics do anything inappropriate.

Yes there are exceptions - two of my grandparents also, as mentioned.
Unfortunately, every year, thousands of patients aren't so lucky.

"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:sg0q18$shp$1@dont-email.me...
>
> I don't think the govewrnment control Sky?

All UK broadcasters are regulated by Ofcom, so are restricted in what
views and/or information they are allowed to broadcast.

In article <sfvsm8$8c3$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
scribeth thus
>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.

I've got a good vibe that it will Woody;)....

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <sg0je3$ci6$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
scribeth thus
>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.
>

Yes its just Alex out of it again;(....
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <ioi895F2lepU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>On 23/08/2021 14:46, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> "williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message news:iohkjcFt7aoU3@m
>id.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.
>>
>>
>No, the 80m tower will be it. People with reception problems will be
>advised to get Freesat or use the internet. They'll fudge it until 2024
>with planning issues then as soon as there isn't an election coming up
>there's be a three line announcement at the bottom of p27 of the
>Richmond Observer that they aren't going to replace the big mast. It's a
>common practice. It's called 'Fuck the punter.'
>
>Bill

Which Richmond Observer might that be Bill?, the only one i can find
online is Richmond over the pond in the US of A!..

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 23/08/2021 19:38, williamwright wrote:
> On 23/08/2021 14:46, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> "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.
>>
> No, the 80m tower will be it. People with reception problems will be
> advised to get Freesat or use the internet. They'll fudge it until
> 2024 with planning issues then as soon as there isn't an election
> coming up there's be a three line announcement at the bottom of p27 of
> the Richmond Observer that they aren't going to replace the big mast.
> It's a common practice. It's called 'Fuck the punter.'
Maybe, but they (Arqiva) also have a contractual obligation to all the
third parties that share the Bilsdale mast. All those services need to
be restored too,
Peterborough was replaced in 2005 by a 'new for old' mast. No TV
involved there,  but even if FM radio had been moved permanently
elsewhere, they still needed the mast  for all the other non broadcast
stuff.

williamwright wrote:

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

They stay there for thousand of years. There's very little drag to
change the orbit.

According to my copy of Earth Satellites 57-68, published by the RAE,
Intelsat 1 (Early Bird) has an orbital life of greater than a million
years.

--

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

On 24 Aug 2021 08:55:06 GMT
"Ashley Booth" <removetab@snglinks.com> wrote:
>williamwright wrote:
>
>> On 23/08/2021 08:46, Ashley Booth wrote:
>> > Old geostationary satellites are put in a higher graveyard orbit.
>>
>> Then what?
>>
>> Bill
>
>They stay there for thousand of years. There's very little drag to
>change the orbit.

Gravitational effects from the moon OTOH can very easily change the orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

>According to my copy of Earth Satellites 57-68, published by the RAE,
>Intelsat 1 (Early Bird) has an orbital life of greater than a million
>years.

Unlikely. It'll almost certainly be nudged into crashing into the earth long
before them.

donkey.derby@sandybeach.uk wrote:

> On 24 Aug 2021 08:55:06 GMT
> "Ashley Booth" <removetab@snglinks.com> wrote:
> > williamwright wrote:
> >
> >> On 23/08/2021 08:46, Ashley Booth wrote:
> >> > Old geostationary satellites are put in a higher graveyard orbit.
> >>
> >> Then what?
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > They stay there for thousand of years. There's very little drag to
> > change the orbit.
>
> Gravitational effects from the moon OTOH can very easily change the
> orbit.
>

By orbit I meant the average height. The inclination etc will change.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
>
> > According to my copy of Earth Satellites 57-68, published by the
> > RAE, Intelsat 1 (Early Bird) has an orbital life of greater than a
> > million years.
>
> Unlikely. It'll almost certainly be nudged into crashing into the
> earth long before them.

--

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

donkey.derby@sandybeach.uk wrote:

> On 24 Aug 2021 08:55:06 GMT
> "Ashley Booth" <removetab@snglinks.com> wrote:
> > williamwright wrote:
> >
> >> On 23/08/2021 08:46, Ashley Booth wrote:
> >> > Old geostationary satellites are put in a higher graveyard orbit.
> >>
> >> Then what?
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > They stay there for thousand of years. There's very little drag to
> > change the orbit.
>
> Gravitational effects from the moon OTOH can very easily change the
> orbit.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
>
> > According to my copy of Earth Satellites 57-68, published by the
> > RAE, Intelsat 1 (Early Bird) has an orbital life of greater than a
> > million years.
>
> Unlikely. It'll almost certainly be nudged into crashing into the
> earth long before them.

That was an estimate of its natural life. Even RAE couldn't foresee
anything hitting it.

--

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

On 24/08/2021 09:55, Ashley Booth wrote:
> williamwright wrote:
>
>> On 23/08/2021 08:46, Ashley Booth wrote:
>>> Old geostationary satellites are put in a higher graveyard orbit.
>>
>> Then what?
>>
>> Bill
>
> They stay there for thousand of years. There's very little drag to
> change the orbit.
>
> According to my copy of Earth Satellites 57-68, published by the RAE,
> Intelsat 1 (Early Bird) has an orbital life of greater than a million
> years.
>

The dolphins are going be be surprised.

Bill

Java Jive wrote:

> 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

What do you expect Ray to do?

On 24/08/2021 17:53, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> What do you expect Ray to do?

Send the fool a warning not to abuse his server(s) by using them to post
disinformation, if that fails, bar him.

--

Fake news kills!

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

>"Alexander" wrote in message news:sg08qs$svt$1@dont-email.me...

>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.

Does DTV have as good a service area as analogue did ?
I had a watchable signal from Bilsdale for many years, until DTV.
DTV muxes barely visible on an analyser compared to analogue
signals.

Regards
Colin

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

cmwb <cmwb@atc24.net> wrote:
>> "Alexander" wrote in message news:sg08qs$svt$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> 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.
>
> Does DTV have as good a service area as analogue did ?
> I had a watchable signal from Bilsdale for many years, until DTV.
> DTV muxes barely visible on an analyser compared to analogue
> signals.
>
> Regards
> Colin
>
>

Round here it was always a struggle to get a decent signal off Waltham.
Needed a properly installed high gain external antenna. Now a piece of coax
stripped into a dipole sticky taped to the window works just fine.

"cmwb" <cmwb@atc24.net> wrote in message
news:-eCdnQEZCI4Eobr8nZ2dnUU78QvNnZ2d@brightview.com...
>>"Alexander" wrote in message news:sg08qs$svt$1@dont-email.me...
>
>>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.
>
> Does DTV have as good a service area as analogue did ?
> I had a watchable signal from Bilsdale for many years, until DTV.
> DTV muxes barely visible on an analyser compared to analogue
> signals.

In my experience, DTV is *better* than analogue because it allows a level of
background co-channel interference that would cause horrendous ghost images
on analogue. Also channels can be close together because a) modern tuners
are more selective and b) rejection of weaker adjance-channel signals is a
lot better.

The difference is that analogue allowed poor-quality reception in situations
where digital gives no reception - the dreaded digital cliff.

NY wrote:

> In my experience, DTV is *better* than analogue

I'd say the same as you and Tweed really, but I don't live anywhere very
hilly.

On 26/08/2021 08:02, cmwb wrote:
>> "Alexander"  wrote in message news:sg08qs$svt$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> 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.
>
> Does DTV have as good a service area as analogue did ?

The parameters (coding, ERP, using the same Tx antenna height, and
assuming the Rx height was still 10m agl and outside ) for post DSO DTT
were selected to match analogue 'receivability'.  A snowy barely locked
analogue signal, didn't count as 'receivable' .