In article <gaa0ogdbk3qhd27ik4uuo6fbtcvhiqt4ef@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Could it be 5G interference? I believe you can now get filters.

Where? ... and with what specs?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 09:48:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <gaa0ogdbk3qhd27ik4uuo6fbtcvhiqt4ef@4ax.com>, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> Could it be 5G interference? I believe you can now get filters.
>
>Where? ... and with what specs?

Unfortunately, I cannot remember as I bought it at the start. I shall
see if I can find the receipt. I have not had to use it as yet. I
don't think I can at the moment without losing COM7.

On 02/11/2021 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <gaa0ogdbk3qhd27ik4uuo6fbtcvhiqt4ef@4ax.com>, Scott
> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> Could it be 5G interference? I believe you can now get filters.
> Where? ... and with what specs?
>
I suspect Bill sticks all his local muxes through channelised filters. I
do, (well, he set them up for me !)

So, in effect no chance for any 5G muck to get in.

On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 09:49:57 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> Can't stomach watching the BBC these days.
>
>Seems a shame to miss the Proms as fall-out from your political rigidity.

The BBC could quite easily become an online subscription service,
perhaps offering different subscription channels for different types
of programming, or individual programmes offered for one-off payments.
Other services that do these things already exist, and seem to be
managing just fine, so there's no technical reason why the BBC
couldn't start tomorrow. All the necessary technology is already in
place. They could continue for the time being with a traditional
broadcasting channel that was free to view, probably with adverts, no
doubt carrying mostly the material that was cheapest to produce and
taking every opportunity to advertise the "quality" subscription
material on its online channels.

ITV and Channel 4 already do something like this: free to view
broadcasts with adverts, free to view catchup online with adverts, and
free to view online without adverts for a small subscription (about a
third of the cost of the BBC licence). Some of their material is only
online. It's happening now and it works.

There would be no reason to miss the Proms, or anything else for which
there was a demand. You could just pay for the season, or for
individual concerts, and nobody would need to be legally compelled to
pay for anything they didn't want.

It's quite possible for the BBC to have a workable future despite
anyone's political views, provided it's willing to make some drastic
changes, as everyone else has had to do. I hope it does.

Rod.

In article <5985011674noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <gaa0ogdbk3qhd27ik4uuo6fbtcvhiqt4ef@4ax.com>, Scott
> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > Could it be 5G interference? I believe you can now get filters.

> Where? ... and with what specs?

> Jim

Much as I'm sure you'll not want a pointer from me.

Well over the top as just a 5G filter I agree but if you're
interested in DTTV reception as a thing (I think you are) then if you
haven't already I would advise you to look at this...

https://cpc.farnell.com/triax/360235/tmb2000-terrestrial-channel-processor/dp/AP03399?CMP=TREML007-005

Remarkable filter. You basically set which muxes you wish to receive
and what UHF channel you wish them to appear on so you can move
things around to suite you.

I've had one since June last year and it's marvellous, conventional
analogue filters don't get near it. You can kill adjacent channels
provided signal strength is normal and not blasting through.

Bob.

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> Could it be 5G interference? I believe you can now get filters.
>
> Where? ... and with what specs?

Isn't all UK 5G using 3.5GHz spectrum so far, not the ex-TV 700MHz yet?

On 03/11/2021 10:34, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Could it be 5G interference?  I believe you can now get filters.
>>
>> Where? ... and with what specs?
>
> Isn't all UK 5G using 3.5GHz spectrum so far, not the ex-TV 700MHz yet?
>
I've not seen anything near me yet below Ch 61 in old money

In article <5985013b3enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <59847d743dbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > Personally, the only one there I would miss is Quest HD.

> > Can't stomach watching the BBC these days.

> Seems a shame to miss the Proms as fall-out from your political
> rigidity.

It isn't me that changed Jim. I've told you before, not that many
years ago I had the highest respect for the BBC and would love to
have worked for them.

Ten years ago others had but I hadn't noticed the preaching of an
agenda. Unfortunately, the cancer grew and now the BBC output is like
being in a constant lecture about how I should think. I reject their
left, PC, woke, pro-europe, anti britain, CC obsessed vision of
reality as absurd. The problem is, I'm forced to pay for the nonsense.

The BBC allowed the proms to become political and even tried to make
it woke themselves.

Bob.

On 03/11/2021 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> The BBC could quite easily become an online subscription service,

I know of two families who have no internet access and are happy with
Freeview broadcasts. At their age they don't need any of the "new
fangled stuff".

One size doesn't fit all.

Jim

Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> The BBC could quite easily become an online subscription service,
>
> I know of two families who have no internet access and are happy with
> Freeview broadcasts. At their age they don't need any of the "new
> fangled stuff".
>
> One size doesn't fit all.
>
> Jim
>
>

The politicians aren’t going to give up on the licence fee. They know they
need a mass audience route to the voters with no subscription provider
acting as gatekeeper.

On 03/11/2021 10:56, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5985013b3enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <59847d743dbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can't stomach watching the BBC these days.
>>
>> Seems a shame to miss the Proms as fall-out from your political
>> rigidity.
>
> It isn't me that changed Jim.

Over the past few years, it is definitely you that have changed the
most, not so much the BBC; over that time, your posts noticeably
degenerated into ever more unrealistic and radicalised paranoia, and
though recently there seems to have been something of an improvement,
I've been wondering whether that's merely because you can no longer hide
behind Virgin Media's failure to administer their news server
responsibly, after they axed them - I would like to think better of
the recent improvement, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 03/11/2021 12:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
> I know of two families who have no internet access and are happy with
> Freeview broadcasts. At their age they don't need any of the "new
> fangled stuff".
>
> One size doesn't fit all.

I only have Freeview Lite but plenty to watch. I rarely watch ITV or
CH4, nothing worth watching. I have looked at the US owned stream
services and don't see anything to interest me, never watch American
soap operas.

On 03/11/2021 13:55, MB wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 12:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> I know of two families who have no internet access and are happy with
>> Freeview broadcasts.  At their age they don't need any of the "new
>> fangled stuff".
>>
>> One size doesn't fit all.
>
>
> I only have Freeview Lite but plenty to watch.  I rarely watch ITV or
> CH4, nothing worth watching. I have looked at the US owned stream
> services and don't see anything to interest me, never watch American
> soap operas.

There's some real 'top drawer' American drama series on Netflix and
Amazon, way better and way 'deeper' than anything we can produce in this
country. None of it has been made for, or is shown on regular US TV

Goliath
Bosch
Breaking Bad
Ozark
Better Call Saul
The Sinner (been shown on BBC 4)
House of Cards (forget the last series, that was made without Spacey for
obvious reasons)

On 03/11/2021 15:14, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 13:55, MB wrote:
>> On 03/11/2021 12:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> I know of two families who have no internet access and are happy with
>>> Freeview broadcasts.  At their age they don't need any of the "new
>>> fangled stuff".
>>>
>>> One size doesn't fit all.
>>
>>
>> I only have Freeview Lite but plenty to watch.  I rarely watch ITV or
>> CH4, nothing worth watching. I have looked at the US owned stream
>> services and don't see anything to interest me, never watch American
>> soap operas.
>
> There's some real 'top drawer' American drama series on Netflix and
> Amazon, way better and way 'deeper' than anything we can produce in this
> country. None of it has been made for, or is shown on regular US TV
>
> Goliath
> Bosch
> Breaking Bad
> Ozark
> Better Call Saul
> The Sinner (been shown on BBC 4)
> House of Cards (forget the last series, that was made without Spacey for
> obvious reasons)

It's strange, isn't it, how people suddenly become bad actors, even in
previously lauded roles, when they get accused of doing something #metoo
that upsets the snowflakes.

Convictions not required.

Outstanding cases not required.

Judgement by accusation meaning he'll never work again. Is that really
what we've come to?

On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 12:18:39 +0000, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 03/11/2021 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> The BBC could quite easily become an online subscription service,
>
>I know of two families who have no internet access and are happy with
>Freeview broadcasts. At their age they don't need any of the "new
>fangled stuff".
>
>One size doesn't fit all.
>
>Jim

I realise this, which is why I suggested that the BBC could continue
conventional broadcasts for those who wanted them, while
simultaneously operating a subscription service online. The online
service could be supported by adverts (perhaps the broadcasts as well)
and for subscribers it might offer some extra services, or just
freedom from the adverts, as some online services already do. Anyone
who is happy with the Freeview broadcasts, or is unable to receive
anything else, need not have their lives disrupted at all.* There
would be no need to introduce any new service in the form of an
overnight switchover, as both systems could exist side by side for
many years. That's how major changes in broadcasting have
traditionally been done, and I wouldn't suggest anything else.

This arrangement need not continue forever, any more than some seem to
think that the present one should. If it were properly organised there
would be room for adjustment to suit changing conditions. High speed
internet will gradually become available to more people, so that
eventually (whenever that is) the conventional broadcasts could be
discontinued, just as 405 line television was when an insignificant
number of people were still watching it.

*Before anybody suggests that adverts would be a disruption, it would
of course be balanced by not having to buy a licence to watch them.

Rod.

On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 12:28:41 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>The politicians aren’t going to give up on the licence fee. They know they
>need a mass audience route to the voters with no subscription provider
>acting as gatekeeper.

If they've got any sense they'll realise they'll have to do something
about the licence before they lose all the old people who are still
paying it, perhaps many just out of habit. Changing it for a fairer
payment method would be a sensible and popular choice.

Many young people don't watch much broadcast television, and certainly
don't see why they should pay for a licence to do so. They're young
enough never to have known a time when there weren't hundreds of
alternatives to the BBC, and they're not scared of the technology that
enables them to watch them anywhere. They live in the modern world,
not the 1950s.

Whatever you think of this, it's the reality of the way things are
changing. Who knows how much further it will have changed by the time
the charter comes up for renewal, but doing nothing is not an option
because the money from the licence will eventually dry up.

Rod.

On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 10:56:53 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>The BBC allowed the proms to become political and even tried to make
>it woke themselves.

Quite. I bet most people could hum a tune from something by Beethoven
or Mozart or any of the other well known composers, but probably
couldn't previously even have named many of the ones introduced to us
in some recent Proms, and perhaps couldn't remember their names now,
after having heard them.

Dare I suggest it's possible there's a reason why some composers
become well known and some don't, and it has nothing to do with what
colour they are or which sex they are? Personally I've always judged
music by listening to it.

Rod.

In article <rpi5ogtm7et337fsecqgvf14v1bkrkvfav@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 10:56:53 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> >The BBC allowed the proms to become political and even tried to make
> >it woke themselves.

> Quite. I bet most people could hum a tune from something by Beethoven
> or Mozart or any of the other well known composers, but probably
> couldn't previously even have named many of the ones introduced to us
> in some recent Proms, and perhaps couldn't remember their names now,
> after having heard them.

Why blame the Proms for that? I can remember being taken to a concert in
the Usher Hall by my father when I was in my teens (1950s) where this
happened.

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

On 03/11/2021 15:14, Mark Carver wrote:
> There's some real 'top drawer' American drama series on Netflix and
> Amazon, way better and way 'deeper' than anything we can produce in this
> country. None of it has been made for, or is shown on regular US TV

All a matter of opinion, they are not for me.

On 02/11/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Seems a shame to miss the Proms as fall-out from your political rigidity.

Rigidity? Is that the woke term for 'principled'?

Bill

On 03/11/2021 10:11, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 02/11/2021 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <gaa0ogdbk3qhd27ik4uuo6fbtcvhiqt4ef@4ax.com>, Scott
>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Could it be 5G interference?  I believe you can now get filters.
>> Where? ... and with what specs?
>>
> I suspect Bill sticks all his local muxes through channelised filters. I
> do, (well, he set them up for me !)
>
> So, in effect no chance for any 5G muck to get in.

I've got fed up of trying to explain this, so I don't usually bother
now. Even blocks of simple passive single channel filters will sort
these problems. If it's really close, frequency-wise, use active
filters. If it's on the same channel, get Freesat.

Bill

On 03/11/2021 10:38, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 10:34, Andy Burns wrote:

>> Isn't all UK 5G using 3.5GHz spectrum so far, not the ex-TV 700MHz yet?
>>
> I've not seen anything near me yet below Ch 61 in old money

Nor me. I monitor Bilsdale every day and the aerial is looking almost at
the local telecoms mast. Above 61 there's oodles of stuff, but nothing
lower down.

Bill

On 03/11/2021 18:35, charles wrote:
> In article<rpi5ogtm7et337fsecqgvf14v1bkrkvfav@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> I bet most people could hum a tune from something by Beethoven
>> or Mozart or any of the other well known composers, but probably
>> couldn't previously even have named many of the ones introduced to us
>> in some recent Proms, and perhaps couldn't remember their names now,
>> after having heard them.
>
> Why blame the Proms for that? I can remember being taken to a concert in
> the Usher Hall by my father when I was in my teens (1950s) where this
> happened.
>
Near where I live there used to be an annual event of lunchtime
concerts. It was originally organised so that there was an opera day, a
baroque day, a Mozart day etc. Usually there was a day now and again
which would suit each person's taste.

The organisers changed early in the 1980s. The new lot decided that
there should be a traditional piece and a modern piece in each
performance, "to introduce more modern composers to the audience"
according to an interview in the local paper. I looked at the programme
and found that there would be three days where I was faced with a day
with one piece I would really enjoy and another where I would have to
listen with gritted teeth. I decided not to go to any of them.

That year was the first year ever where the event lost money. It was
then discontinued.

Jim

On 03/11/2021 10:56, Bob Latham wrote:

>> Seems a shame to miss the Proms as fall-out from your political
>> rigidity.
>
> It isn't me that changed Jim. I've told you before, not that many
> years ago I had the highest respect for the BBC and would love to
> have worked for them.
>
> Ten years ago others had but I hadn't noticed the preaching of an
> agenda. Unfortunately, the cancer grew and now the BBC output is like
> being in a constant lecture about how I should think. I reject their
> left, PC, woke, pro-europe, anti britain, CC obsessed vision of
> reality as absurd. The problem is, I'm forced to pay for the nonsense.
>
> The BBC allowed the proms to become political and even tried to make
> it woke themselves.
>
> Bob.
>

Well said. It's a crying shame how the BBC has been ruined. It'll go
eventually, because it's shit in its own nest, and that will be a
terrible loss, compared to what it was twenty or more years ago.

Bill

On 03/11/2021 16:32, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 15:14, Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>> House of Cards (forget the last series, that was made without Spacey
>> for obvious reasons)
>
> It's strange, isn't it, how people suddenly become bad actors, even in
> previously lauded roles, when they get accused of doing something #metoo
> that upsets the snowflakes.
>
> Convictions not required.

See below ...

> Outstanding cases not required.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/movies/kevin-spacey-anthony-rapp-lawsuit.html

I don't know if the above case was continued, and if so is still
ongoing, or what the final outcome was, but the article mentions a
couple of other cases that rather mysteriously ended. Perhaps they were
fraudulent accusations, or perhaps the claimants were bribed off or
leaned on, one at least was withdrawn after threats from Spacey's lawyers.

> Judgement by accusation meaning he'll never work again.  Is that really
> what we've come to?

I think we have to wait to find out what the courts decide.

--

Fake news kills!

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