As per header.....

Still find the level of comms not as good as it used to be for previous
significant Freeview events......

S.

"SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote in message news:t9kui3$20irh$1@dont-email.me...
> As per header.....
>
> Still find the level of comms not as good as it used to be for previous
> significant Freeview events......

Hasn't COM7 already stopped broadcasting? Or is the carrier still present
even if it has no programme streams?

BBC Four HD and CBeebies HD still haven't appeared on PSB3. The channels are
listed in the table of channels, but there are no video/audio/subtitle
streams - as shown by TSReader. Looks as if some last minute hitch may have
prevented the normal seamless handover of a channel from one mux to another.
I gather (from thread on DigitalSpy) that the multiplexing servers for each
transmitter's regional version (*) of PSB3 are being changed at the same
time, so it's a bigger change than normal.

(*) To include regional ITV HD - and presumably regional BBC One HD in the
future.

On 30/06/2022 20:46, SH wrote:
> As per header.....
>
> Still find the level of comms not as good as it used to be for
> previous significant Freeview events......
>
You're too late, all the COM 7 carriers dropped at bang on 11am yesterday

In article <ji7n7kFnpv8U1@mid.individual.net>,
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> You're too late, all the COM 7 carriers dropped at bang on 11am
> yesterday

Hmm. I've just used my analyser and it is still showing a large
carrier of something on C55. This is at 11pm Friday. It is about the
same amplitude as C55 always was ie. slightly less than the main 6
but much larger than the mobile phone signals.

I've also done a retune and got nothing from C55 But I don't think
they've turned of the transmitter Com7 Sutton at this moment, just
not sending anything to it.

Bob.

In article <5a011fd092bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

Sorry. too much haste.

> Hmm. I've just used my analyser and it is still showing a large
> carrier of something on C55. This is at 11pm Friday. It is about the
^
am
> same amplitude as C55 always was ie. slightly less than the main 6
> but much larger than the mobile phone signals.

> I've also done a retune and got nothing from C55 But I don't think
> they've turned of the transmitter Com7 Sutton at this moment, just
^
off

> not sending anything to it.

> Bob.

On 01/07/2022 11:13, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <ji7n7kFnpv8U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You're too late, all the COM 7 carriers dropped at bang on 11am
>> yesterday
> Hmm. I've just used my analyser and it is still showing a large
> carrier of something on C55. This is at 11pm Friday. It is about the
> same amplitude as C55 always was ie. slightly less than the main 6
> but much larger than the mobile phone signals.
>
> I've also done a retune and got nothing from C55 But I don't think
> they've turned of the transmitter Com7 Sutton at this moment, just
> not sending anything to it.
>
It should have shut down without the transport stream being present, as
it's an SFN transmitter

Doesn't matter in this instance of course, but normally if a tx loses
its feed and it's in an SFN, the carrier should drop otherwise it'll
punch a hole in overlap areas

Not me, but last night a lot of stations are just blank, but normally the
Samsung retunes itself in the background, so one assumes that the
transmitters still exist and are on, and its only the content which is no
longer there.

I see Horror is becoming some other name. It is indeed amazing as soon as we
near the date when they are required to do AD, they miraculously get a
different name, ofdd coincidence.
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.!
"SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote in message news:t9kui3$20irh$1@dont-email.me...
> As per header.....
>
> Still find the level of comms not as good as it used to be for previous
> significant Freeview events......
>
> S.

In article <ji83hoFpms8U1@mid.individual.net>,
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> It should have shut down without the transport stream being
> present, as it's an SFN transmitter

> Doesn't matter in this instance of course, but normally if a tx
> loses its feed and it's in an SFN, the carrier should drop
> otherwise it'll punch a hole in overlap areas

I've no doubt you are correct.

I've just looked again at 2pm and there is still a carrier there.
It's only the channel and the amplitude that makes me think it's
likely to be Sutton rather than mobile phones, I may be wrong.

Bob.

On 30/06/2022 21:37, NY wrote:
> "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:t9kui3$20irh$1@dont-email.me...
>> As per header.....
>>
>> Still find the level of comms not as good as it used to be for
>> previous significant Freeview events......
>
> Hasn't COM7 already stopped broadcasting? Or is the carrier still
> present even if it has no programme streams?
>
> BBC Four HD and CBeebies HD still haven't appeared on PSB3. The channels
> are listed in the table of channels, but there are no
> video/audio/subtitle streams - as shown by TSReader. Looks as if some
> last minute hitch may have prevented the normal seamless handover of a
> channel from one mux to another. I gather (from thread on DigitalSpy)
> that the multiplexing servers for each transmitter's regional version
> (*) of PSB3 are being changed at the same time, so it's a bigger change
> than normal.
>
> (*) To include regional ITV HD - and presumably regional BBC One HD in
> the future.

BBC 4 HD appeared more or less immediately on PSB3 here (Hannington
transmitter).

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 01/07/2022 11:13, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <ji7n7kFnpv8U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You're too late, all the COM 7 carriers dropped at bang on 11am
>> yesterday
>
> Hmm. I've just used my analyser and it is still showing a large
> carrier of something on C55. This is at 11pm Friday. It is about the
> same amplitude as C55 always was ie. slightly less than the main 6
> but much larger than the mobile phone signals.
>
> I've also done a retune and got nothing from C55 But I don't think
> they've turned of the transmitter Com7 Sutton at this moment, just
> not sending anything to it.
>
>
> Bob.
>

Ditto here on both Sandy Heath and Oxford..... (both have been
transmodulated down to Ch 38 and Ch 39 here courtesy of the Triax TMB2000)

Signal quality sero but 100% signal strength, and spectrum analyser
reveals the ch 55 mux on both TXes.

I had to have masthead amps on both TX'es for teh TMB2000 to be able to
successfully process the two Com7s.

I can now take the two amps out and still get the other 6 muxes from
both TX'es

I still need them though on Waltham and Sutton Coldfield.

"Brian Gregory" <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:ji9039FtojeU2@mid.individual.net...
> On 30/06/2022 21:37, NY wrote:
> BBC 4 HD appeared more or less immediately on PSB3 here (Hannington
> transmitter).

With playable video and audio streams? On Belmont, the entries in the list
of channels on the mux were present right from when I first checked about
13:00 on 29 June, but they were index entries only, with no matching
video/audio streams. All I got was the "BBC Four HD will return to Freeview
soon" caption.

On 01/07/2022 20:26, Brian Gregory wrote:
> BBC 4 HD appeared more or less immediately on PSB3 here (Hannington
> transmitter).

When FREEVIEW updated here, I noticed BBC 4 HD so had a look what was
going on. It has a caption that "BBC 4 returns soon". Odd, considering
that Freeview Lite has never carried BBC 4 HD!

On 01/07/2022 20:51, NY wrote:
> "Brian Gregory" <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote in
> message news:ji9039FtojeU2@mid.individual.net...
>> On 30/06/2022 21:37, NY wrote:
>> BBC 4 HD appeared more or less immediately on PSB3 here (Hannington
>> transmitter).
>
> With playable video and audio streams? On Belmont, the entries in the
> list of channels on the mux were present right from when I first checked
> about 13:00 on 29 June, but they were index entries only, with no
> matching video/audio streams. All I got was the "BBC Four HD will return
> to Freeview soon" caption.

Actually no, not now, I just checked.

I've have sworn they were working. But I guess I must have made a
mistake. Sorry.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 01/07/2022 12:19, Mark Carver wrote:
> It should have shut down without the transport stream being present, as
> it's an SFN transmitter
>
> Doesn't matter in this instance of course, but normally if a tx loses
> its feed and it's in an SFN, the carrier should drop otherwise it'll
> punch a hole in overlap areas

COM7 overlap area coverage was full of holes anyway. :)

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 04/07/2022 00:45, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 01/07/2022 12:19, Mark Carver wrote:
>> It should have shut down without the transport stream being present,
>> as it's an SFN transmitter
>>
>> Doesn't matter in this instance of course, but normally if a tx loses
>> its feed and it's in an SFN, the carrier should drop otherwise it'll
>> punch a hole in overlap areas
>
> COM7 overlap area coverage was full of holes anyway. :)
>
It was, I'm not convinced turning it into a national SFN was terribly
successful.
Firstly, the SI tables for all the transmitters had to cross refer to
all the other muxes carried by all the other transmitters.
This led to a huge unwieldy lump of data that gave some receivers
indigestion.

And I'm not sure, as you say, the signals in the overlap zones were
timed properly to give constructive rather than destructive reception.

I don't think anyone on the Tx side will miss it !

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jifirnFs5j0U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 04/07/2022 00:45, Brian Gregory wrote:
>> On 01/07/2022 12:19, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> It should have shut down without the transport stream being present, as
>>> it's an SFN transmitter
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter in this instance of course, but normally if a tx loses
>>> its feed and it's in an SFN, the carrier should drop otherwise it'll
>>> punch a hole in overlap areas
>>
>> COM7 overlap area coverage was full of holes anyway. :)
>>
> It was, I'm not convinced turning it into a national SFN was terribly
> successful.
> Firstly, the SI tables for all the transmitters had to cross refer to all
> the other muxes carried by all the other transmitters.
> This led to a huge unwieldy lump of data that gave some receivers
> indigestion.
>
> And I'm not sure, as you say, the signals in the overlap zones were timed
> properly to give constructive rather than destructive reception.
>
> I don't think anyone on the Tx side will miss it !

I can see the arguments for and against making COM7/8 into single-frequency
networks. But when it was decided to do this, why did they choose such high
carrier frequencies, *above* the 700 MHz threshold that was being sold off?

By the time of the SFN, when all transmitters (that supplied COM7/8)
standardised on 746 and 754 MHz (UHF 55 and 56), I think all transmitters
had been adjusted so other muxes used lower frequencies than that, as part
of the At700 clearance above 700 MHz. You'd think that if (*fictitious
example*) the highest frequency used anywhere for PSB1-3 and COM 4-6 was UHF
45, they'd choose to put the national SFNs for COM7/8 on UHF 46 and 47 - as
close to the existing broadcasts as possible. That would have allowed the
entire block above 47 to be sold off some time ago for mobile phone use. As
it is, they had to wait until 55 and 56 had been cleared, since they were
occupying isolated "island" frequencies in an otherwise empty "sea".

What is the highest UHF channel that is now used for terrestrial TV in the
UK? I can't find a list of every transmitter and its frequencies, to sort it
by frequency.

On 04/07/2022 09:38, NY wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jifirnFs5j0U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 04/07/2022 00:45, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2022 12:19, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> It should have shut down without the transport stream being present,
>>>> as it's an SFN transmitter
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter in this instance of course, but normally if a tx
>>>> loses its feed and it's in an SFN, the carrier should drop otherwise
>>>> it'll punch a hole in overlap areas
>>>
>>> COM7 overlap area coverage was full of holes anyway. :)
>>>
>> It was, I'm not convinced turning it into a national SFN was terribly
>> successful.
>> Firstly, the SI tables for all the transmitters had to cross refer to
>> all the other muxes carried by all the other transmitters.
>> This led to a huge unwieldy lump of data that gave some receivers
>> indigestion.
>>
>> And I'm not sure, as you say, the signals in the overlap zones were
>> timed properly to give constructive rather than destructive reception.
>>
>> I don't think anyone on the Tx side will miss it !
>
>
> I can see the arguments for and against making COM7/8 into
> single-frequency networks. But when it was decided to do this, why did
> they choose such high carrier frequencies, *above* the 700 MHz threshold
> that was being sold off?
>

From its conception t'was only ever going to be a temporary service.
It used spectrum that even in 2013 was headed for mobile operators.
There weren't then and ain't now room for it elsewhere.

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

On 04/07/2022 09:38, NY wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jifirnFs5j0U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 04/07/2022 00:45, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2022 12:19, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> It should have shut down without the transport stream being
>>>> present, as it's an SFN transmitter
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter in this instance of course, but normally if a tx
>>>> loses its feed and it's in an SFN, the carrier should drop
>>>> otherwise it'll punch a hole in overlap areas
>>>
>>> COM7 overlap area coverage was full of holes anyway. :)
>>>
>> It was, I'm not convinced turning it into a national SFN was terribly
>> successful.
>> Firstly, the SI tables for all the transmitters had to cross refer to
>> all the other muxes carried by all the other transmitters.
>> This led to a huge unwieldy lump of data that gave some receivers
>> indigestion.
>>
>> And I'm not sure, as you say, the signals in the overlap zones were
>> timed properly to give constructive rather than destructive reception.
>>
>> I don't think anyone on the Tx side will miss it !
>
>
> I can see the arguments for and against making COM7/8 into
> single-frequency networks. But when it was decided to do this, why did
> they choose such high carrier frequencies, *above* the 700 MHz
> threshold that was being sold off?

COM 7/8 were originally intended to close at 700 MHz clearance (that
rolled through the UK between 2017 and 2020).

Originally they were in the so called 500 MHz band (Ch 31-35 and 37)
that had been cleared of services at DSO (2008-12)
(As was the 800 MHz band, Ch 61-68)

700 MHz clearance involved moving everything that was between Ch 49 and
60, and shifting it down band. This meant the 500 MHz had to utilised
for Muxs 1-6, and the local muxes. There was a tiny 15 MHz lump of
spectrum in the 700 MHz band (Ch 55/56) that would remain available for
a little while, so COM7 and 8 were turned into national SFNs and moved
there. Five (of the original 30 ) sites were ditched, because the cost
of moving them to the 700 MHz band (new antennas etc) didn't stack up.
COM 8 closed in June 2020, because it had become financially
unsustainable. Don't forget also that the COM 7/8 transmitters were all
repurposed pre DSO kit, and so almost 25 years old. They were ready for
the scrap heap anyway.

> What is the highest UHF channel that is now used for terrestrial TV in
> the UK? I can't find a list of every transmitter and its frequencies,
> to sort it by frequency.

Ch 48 is the highest UHF channel in use now.

In article <t9nkq3$2bv54$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 01/07/2022 20:26, Brian Gregory wrote:
> > BBC 4 HD appeared more or less immediately on PSB3 here (Hannington
> > transmitter).

> When FREEVIEW updated here, I noticed BBC 4 HD so had a look what was
> going on. It has a caption that "BBC 4 returns soon". Odd, considering
> that Freeview Lite has never carried BBC 4 HD!

Change here was on the 30th. Since then we've had BBC4 SD on a channel
number specific to Scotland. Along with a message that BBC4 will "return
soon". I hope/assume that means as HD, but await to see... However AIUI
the BBC have said that BBC4 will be dropped from 'Freeview' at some point
anyway. Nice if we can have HD for the Proms this year, though - although
the pictures are better on R3. :-)

To answer the question, though: No. As yet I've not done a spectrum.

Busy with other things. Most currently looking at the audio quality of YT
output to see if they mangle what gets uploaded.

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

Robin wrote:

> NY wrote:
>
>> I can see the arguments for and against making COM7/8 into single-frequency
>> networks. But when it was decided to do this, why did they choose such high
>> carrier frequencies, *above* the 700 MHz threshold that was being sold off?

Raking in a few quid before the spectrum auctions had taken place and the mobile
networks were ready to start using it.

> From its conception t'was only ever going to be a temporary service.

True enough.

> It used spectrum that even in 2013 was headed for mobile operators.
COM7 was originally at CH31,32,33 depending on transmitter and COM8 at
CH34,35,37 similarly.

On 04/07/2022 10:40, Andy Burns wrote:
> Robin wrote:
>
>> NY wrote:
>>
>>> I can see the arguments for and against making COM7/8 into
>>> single-frequency networks. But when it was decided to do this, why
>>> did they choose such high carrier frequencies, *above* the 700 MHz
>>> threshold that was being sold off?
>
> Raking in a few quid before the spectrum auctions had taken place and
> the mobile networks were ready to start using it.
>
>> From its conception t'was only ever going to be a temporary service.
>
> True enough.
>
>> It used spectrum that even in 2013 was headed for mobile operators.
> COM7 was originally at CH31,32,33 depending on transmitter and COM8 at
> CH34,35,37 similarly.
>
Yes, I lose track of what was intended, but as I said in the other post,
this sub band (500 MHz band) had originally been cleared of broadcast
services, and lay empty between DSO in each area, and COM 7 and 8 coming
along in 2013/4.

I can't remember whether the original intention was to flog this off too ?

im Lesurf wrote:

> AIUI the BBC have said that BBC4 will be dropped from 'Freeview' at some
> point
I interpret that as a call to pre-emptively complain about losing it (like 6music)

> currently looking at the audio quality of YT
> output to see if they mangle what gets uploaded.

Pretty sure they do mangle it, not sure how good the Opus codec is at the
bitrate they use?

On 04/07/2022 11:02, Andy Burns wrote:
> im Lesurf wrote:
>
>> AIUI the BBC have said that BBC4 will be dropped from 'Freeview' at some
>> point
> I interpret that as a call to pre-emptively complain about losing it
> (like 6music)
Indeed.

I challenge anybody to produce a quote from anybody in BBC management
saying that BBC 4 *Will* close ?

What Tim Davey said is, 'services *such as*...BBC 4 might have to close

On 04/07/2022 10:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <t9nkq3$2bv54$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 01/07/2022 20:26, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>> BBC 4 HD appeared more or less immediately on PSB3 here (Hannington
>>> transmitter).
>> When FREEVIEW updated here, I noticed BBC 4 HD so had a look what was
>> going on. It has a caption that "BBC 4 returns soon". Odd, considering
>> that Freeview Lite has never carried BBC 4 HD!
> Change here was on the 30th. Since then we've had BBC4 SD on a channel
> number specific to Scotland.
BBC 4 SD moved to LCN 24 in Scotland a few years ago, (to make way for
BBC Scotland on LCN 9)
You've clearly not run a full rescan until last week !

> Along with a message that BBC4 will "return
> soon". I hope/assume that means as HD, but await to see...

Read it again (Ch 106). I'm staring at it now, says BBC Four HD will
return ....

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jift2eFtj0aU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 04/07/2022 11:02, Andy Burns wrote:
>> im Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>> AIUI the BBC have said that BBC4 will be dropped from 'Freeview' at some
>>> point
>> I interpret that as a call to pre-emptively complain about losing it
>> (like 6music)
> Indeed.
>
> I challenge anybody to produce a quote from anybody in BBC management
> saying that BBC 4 *Will* close ?
>
> What Tim Davey said is, 'services *such as*...BBC 4 might have to close

If the BBC mention the word "close", even if it is qualified by "might" or
"could", I think we can take it as read that it is the firm plan to do so,
even if this is an internal-only-not-for-publication plan. Or am I just
being cynical?

And I presume the plan is not just to drop BBC Four from Freeview but from
all forms of broadcast, including Freesat/Sky and cable, turning it into an
online-only service where you have to know what programmes are in the
library in order to go looking for them to download them.