https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast

Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the fire
means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be dismantled".

No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how long
the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>
>
>
> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
> fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
> dismantled".
>
> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
as a reference, about 15-18 months

On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
>> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>>
>>
>>
>> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
>> fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
>> dismantled".
>>
>> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
>
> As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
> as a reference, about 15-18 months

If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't
receive one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent
broadband speed yet?

Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
>>> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
>>> fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
>>> dismantled".
>>>
>>> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
>>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
>>
>> As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
>> as a reference, about 15-18 months
>
> If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
> one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
> speed yet?
>
> Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
> little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.

The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3 but
not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who previously
had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And because the
temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there will be a lot
more shadow areas that get no reception.

People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for it
to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some people will
be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a shame BT don't
offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not as fast as VDSL, but
will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet that is a few hundred
metres away than for copper that goes several miles back to the exchange.

Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good reception
of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite plus the kit
to receive/record it which they already have - but for terrestrial.

On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
>>>> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
>>>> fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
>>>> dismantled".
>>>>
>>>> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
>>>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
>>>
>>> As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
>>> as a reference, about 15-18 months
>>
>> If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't
>> receive one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent
>> broadband speed yet?
>>
>> Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
>> little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
>
> The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
> but not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who
> previously had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And
> because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there
> will be a lot more shadow areas that get no reception.
>
Fair enough. Though depending on the topography, there must be a lot of
shadow areas from Bilsdale as well, as the signal is pretty much
propagating horizontally at the edges of its range. Each local link
would be reasonably carefully sited to give the best coverage, I would
assume, not just dumped on a local small hill?

> People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for
> it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some
> people will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a
> shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not
> as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet
> that is a few hundred metres away than for copper that goes several
> miles back to the exchange.
>
That could be a good reason to force Beattie to upgrade the system.

> Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
> reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
> plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
> terrestrial.

Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder
(Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and
there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on
Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which
need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card
to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things
have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to
a USB stick quite happily.

(I used to live in a house which, despite being in a city, could not get
line of sight to any of the relatively close masts without a 15 metre
long pole, which would have needed guys, attached to the chimney, but
had a free line of sight to the sky in the South, and I got the same
channels as everyone else, plus quite a few non-local ones they couldn't
get.)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

NY wrote:

> It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL
> is not as fast as VDSL

But if BT were going to put any form of active kit into (or next to) why
would they use ADSL instead of VDSL at this late stage?

"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
>> reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
>> plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
>> terrestrial.
>
> Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
> mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder
> (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and
> there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on Freesat,
> from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which need a
> satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card to put
> in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things have
> changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to a USB
> stick quite happily.

Yes - *modern* TVs often include both satellite and terrestrial decoders. I
imagine the same is true for modern PVRs. But older ones (even as recent as
2010 when we bought a TV) only came with terrestrial decoders (analogue and
digital).

A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change channel
on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change channel on the
TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need to be physically
present to change channel if you want to record first from one channel and
then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now coming with built-in recording
and playback capabilities - it's ages since I've looked at the product
range. (*)

I'm amazed that throughout the years of analogue and then digital STBs and
VHS/DVD/HDD recorders, the industry never introduced a standard cable and
protocol for a recorder to instruct a decoder to turn on, change to a
certain channel, and then turn off afterwards - repeat for as many
programmes as you want to record. There were various botched attempts such
as using an IR emitter on the recorder to mimic the decoders IR handset, but
they relied on accurate placement of the two devices, and they usually only
supported a pre-defined set of decoders (and none of the ones I tried were
listed), instead of the user training the VCR (with the decoder remote) the
codes that were used by some obscure decoder's remote.

If you are starting with new kit nowadays, it is easy. But people bought new
equipment when digital first became available or else when analogue was
turned off, and don't want to have to buy new equipment which still works
(though can't receive a signal).

But your suggestion of a mesh of lower-powered transmitters *may* be useful,
though is it cheaper to install many lower-powered ones or one big 300 metre
mast like Bilsdale?

(*) My setup is non-standard: I used a Raspberry Pi with terrestrial and
satellite decoders to record to HDD and then edit out the
commercials/continuity and save the edited program for later watching. So I
don't know what dedicated Freeview and Freesat devices are capable of these
days.

On 08/09/2021 20:37, NY wrote:
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
>>> reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
>>> plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
>>> terrestrial.
>>
>> Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
>> mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap
>> decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their
>> circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that
>> are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription
>> services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all
>> you need is a card to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the
>> dish, unless things have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap
>> decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.
>
> Yes - *modern* TVs often include both satellite and terrestrial
> decoders. I imagine the same is true for modern PVRs. But older ones
> (even as recent as 2010 when we bought a TV) only came with terrestrial
> decoders (analogue and digital).
>
> A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
> channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
> channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
> to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
> from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
> coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
> since I've looked at the product range. (*)
>
Leaving aside that I have never heard anyone else refer to them as
decoders, you are indeed behind the times.

As far as I recall the only reasonable price Freesat STB still available
is from Manhatten. Freesat themselves introduced one with and without a
PVR but they are expensive and get mixed reviews on forums.

In article <ips6ovF65huU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
>> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>>
>>
>>
>> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
>> fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
>> dismantled".
>>
>> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
>
>As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
>as a reference, about 15-18 months

I expect that they are taking the view that even "if" the mast is stable
enough, someone said it had bulged quite possible with the heat level
then that may well put it into an uncertain safety area. Of course you
cant chop out a bit and replace it with another with that sort of weight
being several hundred tons.

Then they'll have to climb the inside of the thing soot that may well be
carcinogenic as well as a very difficult to remove the shitty mess and
may well take a long time then once its all out of the way then new
feeders s and probably the aerial may well be OK.

So much easier a few carefully placed explosive charges and get it to
fall in the least damaging place, crested newts permitting of course!
then clear up the mess at ground level.

Could you imagine undoing the bolts or rivets on that structure starting
from the top be rusted more like and take ages when one good Bang will
see it sorted in seconds.

The base may well be good enough the stay blocks will have much the same
loads..

And then use the chopper, not the rig derrick like P'boro say if a
section was 10 feet long maybe use 2 choppers possible to do maybe 8 to
10 sections a day so 100 feet a day before the weather gets too cold and
days too dark?.

Rigging and cables for TV first then the FM and DAB lower down so they
can work on that after the TV is up and running?, And i suspect they
may not go for the full 1000 height modern DTV reception is that bit
more robust than analogue..

I bet thats the way the Arqiva thinking is going....
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:
> Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
> reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
> plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
> terrestrial.

As always they'll be rode roughshod over. Nobody in power gives a fuck
about ordinary people.

Bill

On 08/09/2021 20:37, NY wrote:
> A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
> channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
> channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
> to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
> from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
> coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
> since I've looked at the product range.

Freesat recorders operate just like Freeview recorders. Programme guide,
set your recordings, series links, etc.

Bill

On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:
>
> The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
> but not COM4,5,6,7.

Not so.

Eston Nab has all seven muxes now, plus the local TV mux.

Arncliffe has the main six muxes

On 09/09/2021 03:11, williamwright wrote:
> On 08/09/2021 20:37, NY wrote:
>> A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
>> channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
>> channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
>> to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
>> from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
>> coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
>> since I've looked at the product range.
>
> Freesat recorders operate just like Freeview recorders. Programme guide,
> set your recordings, series links, etc.
>
> Bill

They do, bur to do so they require two connections to the LNB.

Jim

Do you think it was insured against fire damage? Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ips6ovF65huU2@mid.individual.net...
> On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
>> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>>
>>
>> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the fire
>> means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be dismantled".
>>
>> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
>
> As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5 as
> a reference, about 15-18 months

The problem will be one of direction of aerial. Who is going to want to
resite or replace their aerial etc?
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
>>> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
>>> fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
>>> dismantled".
>>>
>>> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
>>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
>>
>> As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
>> as a reference, about 15-18 months
>
> If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
> one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
> speed yet?
>
> Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
> little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

This will depend on time scale. After all, you might expect to have to
change as in digital switchovver after many years, but not just because of
an accident.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:shb0cm$2n9$1@dont-email.me...
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
>>>> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
>>>> fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
>>>> dismantled".
>>>>
>>>> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
>>>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
>>>
>>> As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
>>> as a reference, about 15-18 months
>>
>> If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
>> one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
>> speed yet?
>>
>> Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
>> little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
>
> The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3 but
> not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who previously
> had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And because the
> temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there will be a lot
> more shadow areas that get no reception.
>
> People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for
> it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some people
> will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a shame BT
> don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not as fast as
> VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet that is a few
> hundred metres away than for copper that goes several miles back to the
> exchange.
>
> Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
> reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
> plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
> terrestrial.

There is also the fact of course that having a punt around freeview last
night a good half of the channels could vanish tomorrow and the content
would not suffer, as they are nearly all running repeats of stuff which have
been on elsewhere many many times, crappy old movies or American el cheapo
fly on the walls or various police and border forces around the world, not
to mention jus thinly disguised clones of otherwise successful programs.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:
>> "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
>>>>> https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
>>>>> fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
>>>>> dismantled".
>>>>>
>>>>> No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
>>>>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
>>>>
>>>> As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
>>>> as a reference, about 15-18 months
>>>
>>> If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't
>>> receive one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent
>>> broadband speed yet?
>>>
>>> Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
>>> little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
>>
>> The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
>> but not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who
>> previously had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And
>> because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there
>> will be a lot more shadow areas that get no reception.
>>
> Fair enough. Though depending on the topography, there must be a lot of
> shadow areas from Bilsdale as well, as the signal is pretty much
> propagating horizontally at the edges of its range. Each local link would
> be reasonably carefully sited to give the best coverage, I would assume,
> not just dumped on a local small hill?
>
>> People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for
>> it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some
>> people will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a
>> shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not
>> as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet
>> that is a few hundred metres away than for copper that goes several
>> miles back to the exchange.
>>
> That could be a good reason to force Beattie to upgrade the system.
>
>> Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
>> reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
>> plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
>> terrestrial.
>
> Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
> mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder
> (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and
> there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on Freesat,
> from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which need a
> satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card to put
> in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things have
> changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to a USB
> stick quite happily.
>
> (I used to live in a house which, despite being in a city, could not get
> line of sight to any of the relatively close masts without a 15 metre long
> pole, which would have needed guys, attached to the chimney, but had a
> free line of sight to the sky in the South, and I got the same channels as
> everyone else, plus quite a few non-local ones they couldn't get.)
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:ipsharF839uU2@mid.individual.net...
> NY wrote:
>
>> It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is
>> not as fast as VDSL
>
> But if BT were going to put any form of active kit into (or next to) why
> would they use ADSL instead of VDSL at this late stage?

Because ADSL works over a longer distance albeit at a lower speed. Combined
with FTTC it would still give the advantage of fibre to keep the distance
shorter than all-the-way-back-to-the-exchange, but could be used at
distances beyond which VDSL would give up and a router would fail to sync at
all.

Where we used to live, we got about 1 Mbps down and 0.2 Mbps up over ADSL,
because our cable went all the way back to the exchange, 7 km away. The
wires passed right over the top of a green cabinet which was plastered with
adverts exhorting people to upgrade to FTTC, but BT would not re-route the
cables into the cabinet to offer xDSL from there to the premises, which
would have reduced the distance to about 2 km.

NY wrote:

> Because ADSL works over a longer distance albeit at a lower speed.
> Combined with FTTC it would still give the advantage of fibre to keep
> the distance shorter than all-the-way-back-to-the-exchange, but could be
> used at distances beyond which VDSL would give up and a router would
> fail to sync at all.

You'd think VDSL could drop to the same number of bins and bits per bin
that ADSL uses, i.e. be no worse?

"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:ipu26lFgv5qU1@mid.individual.net...
> NY wrote:
>
>> Because ADSL works over a longer distance albeit at a lower speed.
>> Combined with FTTC it would still give the advantage of fibre to keep the
>> distance shorter than all-the-way-back-to-the-exchange, but could be used
>> at distances beyond which VDSL would give up and a router would fail to
>> sync at all.
>
> You'd think VDSL could drop to the same number of bins and bits per bin
> that ADSL uses, i.e. be no worse?

Yes you would. But I've heard of cases where BTOR will not upgrade a line to
FTTC because the line length to the cabinet will be too long to support
VDSL, whereas the much longer line to the exchange will support ADSL (at
some stupidly low rate).

On 09/09/2021 08:13, Indy Jess John wrote:

>>
>> Freesat recorders operate just like Freeview recorders. Programme guide,
>> set your recordings, series links, etc.
>>
>> Bill
>
> They do, bur to do so they require two connections to the LNB.
>
> Jim
>

Which is trivial, and standard practice. And if the telly has a sat
tuner three LNB feeds are needed.

Bill

In article <ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson says...

> there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on
> Freesat, from what I remember.
>
The only notable absences for me are Channel 4 HD and Freesports.
Channel 4 HD is available FTA, as is Freesports HD.

On Freesat but not Freeview: SportyStufftv HD, Smithsonian HD.
plus 20 News national Propaganda channels; 12 in HD.
and BBC Scotland HD, BBC Alba and S4C HD plus all the BBC regions.

--
Ken

On 09/09/2021 13:51, Unsteadyken wrote:
> In article <ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net>,
>
> John Williamson says...
>
>> there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on
>> Freesat, from what I remember.
>>
> The only notable absences for me are Channel 4 HD and Freesports.
> Channel 4 HD is available FTA, as is Freesports HD.
>
> On Freesat but not Freeview: SportyStufftv HD, Smithsonian HD.
> plus 20 News national Propaganda channels; 12 in HD.
> and BBC Scotland HD, BBC Alba and S4C HD plus all the BBC regions.
>
>
>

On Freeview, I get:

BBC One South
BBC One East
BBC One West Midlands
BBC One East Midlands

ITV Anglia West
ITV Central West
ITV Central East
ITV Meridian Thames Valley

as well as all the BBC 1 and ITV regions on Freesat.

"SH" <i.love.spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:shd2ck$pc6$2@gioia.aioe.org...
> On Freeview, I get:
>
> BBC One South
> BBC One East
> BBC One West Midlands
> BBC One East Midlands
>
> ITV Anglia West
> ITV Central West
> ITV Central East
> ITV Meridian Thames Valley
>
> as well as all the BBC 1 and ITV regions on Freesat.

On Freesat, BBC One are fine: all the regional variations have different
names. But all the ITV regions have the same name "ITV". I spent ages
sorting out and renaming the regions on our TV, and did the same thing on
TVHeadend (PVR). Then the TV went and updated itself, and the buggers had
removed the ability to nominate "Favourite" channels (so you could group all
the ones you commonly watched, and leave out the religious and shopping
crap), and had reset all the channel names. This was a policy decision: they
had been "ordered" by Freeview/Freesat to prevent people being able to edit
or re-order channels. After a lot of googling I found a workaround: specify
the country as something other than UK, and the Favourites feature returns.
You lose the ability to specify the transmitter by name/region, so it takes
longer to do a full VHF and UHF scan on Freeview, rather than it knowing the
seven multiplex frequencies for your region and ignoring the rest, but it's
a small price to pay.

I was very annoyed at Philips for force-feeding an update that removes
important and (IMHO) essential functionality. But they were probably caught
in the middle: they could have risked not being able to use the branding
Freeview/Sat if they had sided with their customers and told FV/FS to go
take a long walk off a short pier.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 at 08:17:03, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points
raised):
>Do you think it was insured against fire damage? Brian
>
Big enough companies don't insure, if they can persuade whatever
authorities regulate that risk that they have enough assets to cover the
liability insured against; all insurance is a bet, and overall, the only
winner is the bookie (the insurance company) - it's cheaper to cover it
yourself if your company is broad enough, unless forced by legislation
(as we are for car etc. insurance). I have no idea whether Arqiva are
big enough to think that way. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they
weren't insured against the replacement costs, only third-party
injury-type liabilities, and quite possibly not even those, if they were
able to persuade the relevant authorities they could cover the
liability.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.