I was thinking that transmitter-to-transmitter would be at the higher frequencies, transmitter-to-home would be UHF. But like I said, it was just a random thought.
Transmitter to transmitter is taken off-air or over fibre, there isn't a separate network.
There's a chap being interviewed on Five Live at the moment who's some sort of expert who is talking about the frequencies becoming available to phone companies and is talking about 700 Mhz as if it's coming soon!
There's a chap being interviewed on Five Live at the moment who's some sort of expert who is talking about the frequencies becoming available to phone companies and is talking about 700 Mhz as if it's coming soon!
Thanks for the link to the thread in the mobile forum.
But this is the terrestrial forum and we focus on the implications of LTE800 for DDT coverage etc.
Random thought: the mobile phone operators like the lower frequency bands becuase their signals get better penetration indoors and travel further (among lots of reasons). Most TV aerials are roof mounted. Why can't DTT use the higher frequency bands? I guess you'd need more transmitters, but if the local relays were replaced with a greater number of higher-band relays you'd also have a lot more UHF spectrum to flog off, because only the main transmitters would use UHF.
Gary
Actually higher frequencies penetrate solid objects like walls better than lower frequencies
Actually higher frequencies penetrate solid objects like walls better than lower frequencies
At comparative power?
My memory of physics tells me that low frequency signals (long wavelength) pass around obstacles, but high frequency (short wavelength) signals like to bounce off of hard surfaces such as walls.
The exception is very high energy short wavelength signals (X-Ray etc.), these will pass through solid objects.
This is my simplistic recollection.
*Sits and waits for somebody to prove I know nothing.:D
Lower frequency spectrum is favoured by many popular services, including TV and mobile telephony, because it can pass through walls and other obstructions more easily than higher frequency spectrum, improving service coverage.
Lower frequency spectrum is favoured by many popular services, including TV and mobile telephony, because it can pass through walls and other obstructions more easily than higher frequency spectrum, improving service coverage.
Marti S has a point - e.g. take clear glass and light. Deep infra-red can't pass, but higher frequencies like yellow can. This is the original greenhouse effect.
In the 500-3000 MHz range the energy absorption, reflection etc. are not necessarily an increasing functions of frequency for all building materials.
I guess Ofcom wanted to promote the 800 MHz band and did not want to name exceptions. It is true that lower frequencies can travel longer and cover larger areas.
(power levels being equal)
Actually what I said isnt entirely true, it depends on the object, it seems concrete is better at UHF and 8" of brick has the lowest attenuation at 3230 MHz, I wont post a link because its a rather big technical pdf
Actually what I said isnt entirely true, it depends on the object, it seems concrete is better at UHF and 8" of brick has the lowest attenuation at 3230 MHz, ...
I think the point is that the major argument for using UHF ( <1GHz) spectrum is the ability to cover larger areas - i,.e. larger cells.
The attenuation in building materials is much less of an argument.
Now a larger cell size only makes sense in areas with little offered 4G traffic per km^2 - otherwise it is better to use higher frequencies with smaller cell sizes and better frequency reuse.
Higher frequencies also allows much smaller antennas and smaller devices.
OFCOM is selling off the 800Mhz Band and now wants to sell off the 700Mhz band between now and 2018 - what will be next in regards to DTT?
Is there any more bands that they can sell off after the 700Mhz band or have they run out of spectrum themselves to sell off to the Mobile Phone companies?
Any Thoughts?
Yes, the mobile companies won't be happy until they own the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Big business is the only thing which matters in Britain today, public service means nothing.
OFCOM has let the nation down over the years as DTT/ Freeview / Ondigital / ITV Digital came on air with 6 muxes and a mix of prices from free, cheap to high priced sky & sports channels.
7pm on Sunday 15th November 1998 was the big switch on....
We were told that we could get more muxes if we all went digital and closed the five national channels to free up space and allow movement of muxes to give space on transmitters around the UK to give 98% of the people all channels....
Yet we still have what is known as freeview lite were only 3 muxes are able to be seen... WHY?
We were told that after the DSO ( digital switch over ) that power on the digital muxes would be at the same as old system, but no they are still no were near the power of the old system, so that people are still having to have power amps to get a good signal for all local muxes that do not break up in bad weathers or passing transport etc..... WHY ?
The Low space on DTT has given us channels that need to sell space and time to make money and this means shopping & betting all over the EPG and many adult channels at night on public TV system.
We have HD Digital mux made out of the six old muxes that are too high price for channel 5 HD to join even after bidding was opened..... WHY?
OFCOM has just said that it will allow bidding for two muxes on space form our old national TV channels on DTT.... BUT for HD only and for TV companies only to have them for 5 years only after they spend £ Millions on bidding and changing Transmitters......WHY would any company at this time spend so much ? ( Get real OFCOM, look at the 4G bids prices that all normal people on this forum told you that they was no way you would get near the price of 3G bidding )
OFCOM has put what MP's say as what is good for public TV, Radio, Phone etc....when in real they have mess up so much in other public services....WHY ? OFCOM should work for the nation as whole in bring services that are fair and right for all and public services to be the best and free for all at the cost to private services if needed...
Freeview should have10 muxes for SD services and 4 HD muxes and plans for 4XHD/superHD mux and plans to drop some space from SD services as HD items become normal for all UK.
And a real EPG that allows channels like ITV to sell air time, but to put that channel in the right space on the EPG and Internet, pay services to be given areas on the listings, plus allow allow data for full recording of new seasons and other show data.....
We need to be able to watch our TV in any place in the UK and move around in cars, trans, bikes or just walking by DTT....... 4G will be to costly for many to see players on items, SO DTT is only place for live TV and other TV services...
700MHz is military spectrum, so public services aren't losing anything.
Urrr - with respect what are you on about?
700MHz is currently used for Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting. It is not in use by the Military. That is why we are debating its potential loss to Mobile services here :rolleyes:
When everyone has Superfast Broadband connections there will be no need for Terrestrial, or Satellite TV for that matter, and they can turn over the whole broadcasting spectrum to 5G or whatever it is by then (allowing people to watch whilst mobile).
But that is a while away yet.
As a sign of what is to come however the PSB channels are included in the BT linear IPTV trials currently ongoing in addition to the pay channels.
When everyone has Superfast Broadband connections there will be no need for Terrestrial, or Satellite TV for that matter, and they can turn over the whole broadcasting spectrum to 5G or whatever it is by then (allowing people to watch whilst mobile).
But that is a while away yet.
As a sign of what is to come however the PSB channels are included in the BT linear IPTV trials currently ongoing in addition to the pay channels.
Not everyone has or wants an internet connection whereas almost everyone has or wants a free-to-air TV service.
I'm also sick of asymmetric and contended internet lines being described as "Superfast Broadband" because it isn't but that is another subject.
Not everyone has or wants an internet connection whereas almost everyone has or wants a free-to-air TV service.
But within a few years the number of people who don't want an internet connection is going to be small enough that it can be ignored. Withdraw OTA TV and they'll be forced onto the net.
I'm also sick of asymmetric and contended internet lines being described as "Superfast Broadband" because it isn't but that is another subject.
10Mbps throughput is what is necessary to broadcast HDTV to viewers over their internet connections. Broadcasting the same stream to many viewers via UDP/Multicast is much more efficient than the current arrangements.
But within a few years the number of people who don't want an internet connection is going to be small enough that it can be ignored. Withdraw OTA TV and they'll be forced onto the net.
Why should they be forced? Many will be elderly or disabled and have neither the resources to pay for a connection nor the inclination to learn how to use one.
Why for that matter should the rest of us be forced to piss about with an internet connection when all we want to do is switch on the TV and watch the programme of our choice?
And of course once the telecoms companies have a monopoly of the TV service they can charge us as much as they want to use it.
Yet we still have what is known as freeview lite were only 3 muxes are able to be seen... WHY?
Because the commercial mux operators are happy to fund 80 transmitters covering the vast majority of the country. They are not willing to fund the network of infill transmitters covering small areas, some with a coverage of less than 500. It is a commercial decision, the PSBs use the full network with all relays for their multiplexes.
We were told that after the DSO ( digital switch over ) that power on the digital muxes would be at the same as old system, but no they are still no were near the power of the old system, so that people are still having to have power amps to get a good signal for all local muxes that do not break up in bad weathers or passing transport etc..... WHY ?
The power was set at a level to match the required coverage area. Increasing the power unnecessarily means the signal can cause interference in other areas operating co-channel.
The Low space on DTT has given us channels that need to sell space and time to make money and this means shopping & betting all over the EPG and many adult channels at night on public TV system.
Not low space, the excessive space not wanted by the mainstream broadcasters.
We have HD Digital mux made out of the six old muxes that are too high price for channel 5 HD to join even after bidding was opened..... WHY?
If they bid, it wasn't too expensive. They just got a better deal for providing the HD channel exclusively on pay tv platforms.
OFCOM has just said that it will allow bidding for two muxes on space form our old national TV channels on DTT.... BUT for HD only and for TV companies only to have them for 5 years only after they spend £ Millions on bidding and changing Transmitters......WHY would any company at this time spend so much ?
The BBC, Channel 4 and Arqiva actually support this.
Freeview should have10 muxes for SD services and 4 HD muxes and plans for 4XHD/superHD mux and plans to drop some space from SD services as HD items become normal for all UK.
That would be a lot of shopping channels. As much as you might wish for it not to be the case, mainstream broadcasters simply don't want to operate that many FTA channels. Advertising revenue is finite and simply wouldn't support that number of channels.
Comments
Transmitter to transmitter is taken off-air or over fibre, there isn't a separate network.
THe 800 MHz band and the 2600 MHz band have just been sold.
Ofcom announces winners of the 4g mobile auction
But the 700 MHz will not be before the 2019-2020 timeframe - and it may not even happen in Europe.
Lars
New thread about the auction results here:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1800247
This thread is about the 700 MHz band.
Lars
Yes, I know that, but he was saying 'well there's 800 Mhz now and then 700 Mhz to come afterwards' as if it's going to happen next month!
This thread is supposed to be about what could happen after (if) both are sold off!
For anyone who's interested in the mobile phones implications of 800MHz, here is the 4G auction thread for the 800MHz band and others, in the Mobile Phones board: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1800223
Last but not least, for the political implications of the £1 billion auction shortfall: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1800233
Thanks for the link to the thread in the mobile forum.
But this is the terrestrial forum and we focus on the implications of LTE800 for DDT coverage etc.
Lars
Actually higher frequencies penetrate solid objects like walls better than lower frequencies
My memory of physics tells me that low frequency signals (long wavelength) pass around obstacles, but high frequency (short wavelength) signals like to bounce off of hard surfaces such as walls.
The exception is very high energy short wavelength signals (X-Ray etc.), these will pass through solid objects.
This is my simplistic recollection.
*Sits and waits for somebody to prove I know nothing.:D
Marti S has a point - e.g. take clear glass and light. Deep infra-red can't pass, but higher frequencies like yellow can. This is the original greenhouse effect.
In the 500-3000 MHz range the energy absorption, reflection etc. are not necessarily an increasing functions of frequency for all building materials.
I guess Ofcom wanted to promote the 800 MHz band and did not want to name exceptions. It is true that lower frequencies can travel longer and cover larger areas.
(power levels being equal)
Lars
I think the point is that the major argument for using UHF ( <1GHz) spectrum is the ability to cover larger areas - i,.e. larger cells.
The attenuation in building materials is much less of an argument.
Now a larger cell size only makes sense in areas with little offered 4G traffic per km^2 - otherwise it is better to use higher frequencies with smaller cell sizes and better frequency reuse.
Higher frequencies also allows much smaller antennas and smaller devices.
Lars
Yes, the mobile companies won't be happy until they own the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Big business is the only thing which matters in Britain today, public service means nothing.
7pm on Sunday 15th November 1998 was the big switch on....
We were told that we could get more muxes if we all went digital and closed the five national channels to free up space and allow movement of muxes to give space on transmitters around the UK to give 98% of the people all channels....
Yet we still have what is known as freeview lite were only 3 muxes are able to be seen... WHY?
We were told that after the DSO ( digital switch over ) that power on the digital muxes would be at the same as old system, but no they are still no were near the power of the old system, so that people are still having to have power amps to get a good signal for all local muxes that do not break up in bad weathers or passing transport etc..... WHY ?
The Low space on DTT has given us channels that need to sell space and time to make money and this means shopping & betting all over the EPG and many adult channels at night on public TV system.
We have HD Digital mux made out of the six old muxes that are too high price for channel 5 HD to join even after bidding was opened..... WHY?
OFCOM has just said that it will allow bidding for two muxes on space form our old national TV channels on DTT.... BUT for HD only and for TV companies only to have them for 5 years only after they spend £ Millions on bidding and changing Transmitters......WHY would any company at this time spend so much ? ( Get real OFCOM, look at the 4G bids prices that all normal people on this forum told you that they was no way you would get near the price of 3G bidding )
OFCOM has put what MP's say as what is good for public TV, Radio, Phone etc....when in real they have mess up so much in other public services....WHY ? OFCOM should work for the nation as whole in bring services that are fair and right for all and public services to be the best and free for all at the cost to private services if needed...
Freeview should have10 muxes for SD services and 4 HD muxes and plans for 4XHD/superHD mux and plans to drop some space from SD services as HD items become normal for all UK.
And a real EPG that allows channels like ITV to sell air time, but to put that channel in the right space on the EPG and Internet, pay services to be given areas on the listings, plus allow allow data for full recording of new seasons and other show data.....
We need to be able to watch our TV in any place in the UK and move around in cars, trans, bikes or just walking by DTT....... 4G will be to costly for many to see players on items, SO DTT is only place for live TV and other TV services...
Business, its a funny old thing.
And they could charge us £100 a week to access it, which has been their goal all along.
Urrr - with respect what are you on about?
700MHz is currently used for Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting. It is not in use by the Military. That is why we are debating its potential loss to Mobile services here :rolleyes:
But that is a while away yet.
As a sign of what is to come however the PSB channels are included in the BT linear IPTV trials currently ongoing in addition to the pay channels.
Not everyone has or wants an internet connection whereas almost everyone has or wants a free-to-air TV service.
I'm also sick of asymmetric and contended internet lines being described as "Superfast Broadband" because it isn't but that is another subject.
But within a few years the number of people who don't want an internet connection is going to be small enough that it can be ignored. Withdraw OTA TV and they'll be forced onto the net.
10Mbps throughput is what is necessary to broadcast HDTV to viewers over their internet connections. Broadcasting the same stream to many viewers via UDP/Multicast is much more efficient than the current arrangements.
Free competition does not make for great infrastructure.
Why should they be forced? Many will be elderly or disabled and have neither the resources to pay for a connection nor the inclination to learn how to use one.
Why for that matter should the rest of us be forced to piss about with an internet connection when all we want to do is switch on the TV and watch the programme of our choice?
And of course once the telecoms companies have a monopoly of the TV service they can charge us as much as they want to use it.
But the cost to the consumer won't be.
Because the commercial mux operators are happy to fund 80 transmitters covering the vast majority of the country. They are not willing to fund the network of infill transmitters covering small areas, some with a coverage of less than 500. It is a commercial decision, the PSBs use the full network with all relays for their multiplexes.
The power was set at a level to match the required coverage area. Increasing the power unnecessarily means the signal can cause interference in other areas operating co-channel.
Not low space, the excessive space not wanted by the mainstream broadcasters.
If they bid, it wasn't too expensive. They just got a better deal for providing the HD channel exclusively on pay tv platforms.
The BBC, Channel 4 and Arqiva actually support this.
That would be a lot of shopping channels. As much as you might wish for it not to be the case, mainstream broadcasters simply don't want to operate that many FTA channels. Advertising revenue is finite and simply wouldn't support that number of channels.