Options
Is time for action to bring a full digital TV network to the UK ?
tvmad-alan
Posts: 1,996 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Back in November 1998 digital TV started with Six muxes along with four or five national channels and there was hope by many that once the old services were closed down that transmitters would be able to give a full power nation wide service with 98% of all the UK getting all 6 muxes and the extra muxes from using old channels numbers 
Sadly the service was hit by many troubles like having large fight with sky over customers and having to give free boxes and paying high for bid for channels and sport contacts, along with the large trouble of being limited to the amount of power per mux compare to old national channel ...
we also had QAM rates changes to try to give less break ups on the digital edge.
we also had the software changes that stopped some boxes from working.
We also had HD come to DTT ...
Sadly today we still have many areas of the UK without all the channels that are in some areas ( shame )
We have Local muxes which has cost our BBC multi millions which has been given to private TV companies to air on mux that has a limited coverage by transmitters
In less then three years time two muxes COM 7 & 8 will be pulled as they had a five year contact .....
So as a nation what do we need our public TV system to look like for the next 20 years ????
More HD channels ?
More +1 channels ?
More Transmitters to give full UK coverage ?
More power per Mux on all transmitters ?
More Muxes ?
More Internet TV services linked EPG channels ?
More SD channels ?
Stop any more space sell off' ?
Stop OFCOM & Governments pushing cost over to BBC to make any changes ?
Make space for 4xHD / UHD TV channels?
Make all channels push out wide screen all the time ?
Make sure all channels are given full bandwidth to give best images and sounds ?
We are one of 8 riches countries in the World and gave the world much of the technology for TV........:cool:
Sadly the service was hit by many troubles like having large fight with sky over customers and having to give free boxes and paying high for bid for channels and sport contacts, along with the large trouble of being limited to the amount of power per mux compare to old national channel ...
we also had QAM rates changes to try to give less break ups on the digital edge.
we also had the software changes that stopped some boxes from working.
We also had HD come to DTT ...
Sadly today we still have many areas of the UK without all the channels that are in some areas ( shame )
We have Local muxes which has cost our BBC multi millions which has been given to private TV companies to air on mux that has a limited coverage by transmitters
In less then three years time two muxes COM 7 & 8 will be pulled as they had a five year contact .....
So as a nation what do we need our public TV system to look like for the next 20 years ????
More HD channels ?
More +1 channels ?
More Transmitters to give full UK coverage ?
More power per Mux on all transmitters ?
More Muxes ?
More Internet TV services linked EPG channels ?
More SD channels ?
Stop any more space sell off' ?
Stop OFCOM & Governments pushing cost over to BBC to make any changes ?
Make space for 4xHD / UHD TV channels?
Make all channels push out wide screen all the time ?
Make sure all channels are given full bandwidth to give best images and sounds ?
We are one of 8 riches countries in the World and gave the world much of the technology for TV........:cool:
0
Comments
I agree with most of what you say with the exception of increasing power on the PBS muxes .
There is no need to do this as the relative power level on the PBS muxes is higher than the analogue broadcasts .
All six muxes and perhaps more should of course be added to relays .
The fact is that mobile companies want as much spectrum as possible and arguably it's a more productive and economically beneficial use than umpteen TV channels no one wants to watch anyway. +1 channels are even more wasteful - buy a PVR or use the catchup services instead.
We're talking about a future where more and more people are already looking to services like Amazon Prime and Netflix for most of their viewing.
Satellite is available to practically everyone and can deliver everything you ask for, and more, without the enormous expense on the part of the broadcasters (there's a reason why the commercial and interim multiplexes already don't extend far beyond the main transmitters and the most important relays. IPTV will also help as faster broadband becomes available.
There will be DSO 2 to move al uk DTT emission to the 600 MHz band to clear 700 MHz for mobile etc use
The band plan allows for a replication of the muxes we have (with a few more local SFN)
The government will require the emission to be DVB T2 and the codecs AVC And AVC fir HDand SD on all muxes AND that PSB emit HD only .
This gives arround 100 SD slots in addition to the PSB in HD etc.
With the conversion factor of SD to 1 HD do as a good rule if thumb,
comments
There has never been an expectation in the industry that all98% gets all...
And with the restricted spectrum it is unlikely ...
But if there was a new band plan more could be fitted in on ad hoc local basis
but it unlikely that country wide SFN could be afforded or allowed by the locals ... Remberber Whitby ..... And the effect of more multi frequency emission from co sited SFN sites....
but also remember that the DTT platform while still likely to be dominant over this period will continue to loose as the first /main TV It is niw about half .... DSAT with 95% max coverage has the other half ... And may increase more.
And the use of wired and wireless IP delivered services will increase .....
As people view on tablets etc ....
So more HD and SD channels emitted at Higher quality
But not much change in coverage ... Except more channels become universally availabke if they can afford it.
,
I don't know if I'd go that far. I think there'll always be a need for some broadcast TV - the main channels won't go away.
Anything more niche is probably going to cut down in size (no more 50 shopping channels, maybe a couple) or move to video on demand.
Exactly what do you mean by action? Who will pay for your dreams? Do you understand the meaning of the word "commercial" as in FTA commercial television or are you proposing a subscription model?
streaming is fine (when fast enough and cheap enough) for catch-up TV, but not suited to mass delivery of programming simultaneously to millions of viewers.
I wish the BBC would take note that the middle B of their name stands for Broadcasting not IP delivered Narrowcasting.
Not everyone wants to buy a PVR, for possible reasons they wouldn't use it often enough or they have higher priorities to spend the money on. Also, some people have the internet with a limited data plan, so don't have enough spare data usage to watch catchup services which use hundreds of MB's for one 30 minute programme.
The +1 channels are useful if you're busy doing something then want to watch the programme later.
The power is an issue to the number people that can have full DTT into there homes at ALL times as we all know the weathers and even birds on aerials can give a little blocking etc.
London CP gave 2000Kw per channel on channels 23 for BBC 1 old money, Today it's only 200Kw and we know from the past the low power along with QAM rate gave lots of trouble to people on the outer edge of the transmitter range.
So a 10% or 20% power up would give a more stable broadcast to all within the transmitters range in any weather to come as we all Know that the weathers are getting more to the extreme then ever because of greenhouse gasses.
IPTV is the new kid in broadcasting which OK looks good at times BUT it does have a number of troubles .......
1) Cost to the public is higher in that on top of having a TV and aerial, you need to have broadband into your home which adds a monthly cost on top any TV and then a TV packages would add too.
2) Most broadband still use copper wire ( phone lines ) which does give trouble with speed / bandwidth and noise to the line in people that live at a distant from towns & exchanges.
3) Copper wire on poles does have troubles in that they are hit by weathers and are damaged along with cars etc. knocking them down so people do loose broadband / IPTV .
Digital Satellite TV has given the UK more free channels using Freesat service above the one time cost of the box and dish and what DTT can give with limited transmitter and range of signals .
Again Satellite has troubles with signals on dish in bad weathers with break up and signal lost and this has been known for many years and why SKY is slowly over years as tech comes to move from Satellite TV only on there boxes to broadband base services.
Also Dsat could have trouble with Satellites being knocked off air by billions of objects spinning in space around earth now and along with years to make a new Satellite and then putting a new one back up in place is not a stable national TV service like DTT could be.
I seen many post in past years that say broadcasting is not going to last long.......?
OK it may change but it will always be there for the public for many reasons....
1) entertainment will always be needed and TV can and is so much cheaper then any other type .
2) TV into your home is not only entertainment but does give knowledge and facts to all again cheaper.
3) People may be living longer due to food and medicines but they will always need TV as a entertainment because the body always breaks down and can no longer work without pain etc. and home entertainment by TV is cheap.
4) TV companies are still making shows and the number channels are still growing and £ billions spent on films, sports drama etc. that still need a screen to view them and TV the object we all look at now and I feel for many years to come.
DTT does need to grow with more transmitters in the UK to give all the public and cheap entertainment etc.
DTT does need to be able to grow it's channels even if it's +1 channels along with HD and even new UHD.
DTT signal must be kept strong for all UK in any type of weathers and other damage it.
98% was a goal at the start of Digital TV and this must be still the goal now not only in bring all muxes to all people but also to all areas in the UK at all times.
There are many places where reception is interference limited so upping power will make reception worse ... The specification all be it an external antenna at10 m is very robust in the service area ...
To get six muxes every where will need more sites to support SFN operation .. Which are not likely to be welcomed by local residents ... Let alone the cost of the transmitter and then all homes aerial needing repointing .... And then the revenue costs.....
As I have mentioned dso2 PSB go HD only and in addition about 20+ SD to 98.5%
And then another 60 or so SD or 20 HD or the likely mix..... To 93%
If the channels can afford the costs .... .???
Yes got it wrong with ch23 being BBC 1 as it was ITV .....
Yes got it wrong with 2000KW but you got wrong with only 500KW it was 1000KW
and you are wrong about the power being measured different it same KW is a KW .
data from https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Crystal_Palace
So digital signal is a 5th of the power of analogue and it would be better for all if there was a national 5% or more power up to all transmitters in the UK as it would give more public a stronger signal and the digital cliff would move a larger distance from transmitters ..
To be precise analogue was measured in peak sync ,which is average power of about 40% at white and 60% at black .
Digital is measured at peak average power ,which when comparing actual amplifier power needed is four times more ,6dB
The difference as far as coverage is concerned is at least 20 dB and with modern tuners much more .
So if 500kW ERP was used for coverage in a particular area for analogue 5kW ERP would do to digital modulation.
But in practise due to cliff edge issues and digital modulation being able to cope with a greater degree of multipath interference higher power is used to overcome refraction losses over terrain or buildings so better coverage results in some areas that once needed relays for analogue ,but of course not in every area .
But when you are interference limited that does not improve things.
To receive a signal you need to have it a certain ammount above the noise floor ....
An interfering signal raises the noise floor ........
Unless it is a within guard interval within a SFN .
So winding up the power reduces the coverage ....,
The power that a transmitter is set to is the power which gets the best coverage noting the effect that the transmitter has on other coverage areas ...
We in the uk have a system based on sites developed in the 1950s to get the maximum coverage from a small number if sites in band1 and then band3 .. Which were rationalised in the 1960s when band 4/5 co-siting occurred.
If you start with a blank sheet of paper and the ability to put the transmitters anywhere you will get a better more effective coverage ... But also note that towns are not located fir good tv reception ... And as Whitby showed people do not want a mast In an optimal location.
And upsets the Belgians.
The space debris is in low earth orbit, not geosynchronous orbit where the DTH satellites are.
You get what you pay for. 99% of that cheap entertainment is unwatchable crap. Having more transmitters and more channels doesn't improve the entertainment quality, that is clear from the current situation.
Before or after world peace and the eradication of poverty?
So buy a PVR or spend more money on a better internet connection, or wait for a repeat.
Don't see why everyone should spend the money (in taxes and licence fees) for the minority who don't want to spend their own, for something that is totally unnecessary and wasteful
You've missed the point.
Live streaming is where multicast comes in - which is very efficient as it eliminates duplication (e.g. the BBC would not have to send millions of copies of live BBC1, they'd only need to send one to each ISP and it would only be duplicated and sent along network links where there are end users wanting to watch BBC1. That is possibly oversimplified but it gets the point across
Even for catchup you can sort that problem out by having the ISPs host content delivery networks - like some already do for Netflix - so the BBC/ITV/Sky/whoever themselves is not having to deal with the demand themselves.
1) most people already have broadband so this is irrelevant, it's basically as essential a service as a telephone is
2) this is not a huge problem because except for 4K, you don't need masses of bandwidth to support streaming IPTV - in time (when BT finally gets the memo) they'll do fibre to the home
3) this is probably rarer than you think - and if that did happen, you'd have bigger problems than if you wanted to watch Strictly. The one time a car did crash into my pole, the only thing that happened was that the cover over the junction box fell off - the phone lines and internet still worked
A well aligned, appropriately sized dish does not suffer too much in weather (and a badly aligned or installed aerial or distribution system can suffer - it is not immune)
The chances of a satellite failing are far lower than any individual transmitter, especially those served by relay sites that won't have stringent monitoring or multiple power feeds - indeed, there's been at least one collapse of a UK transmission mast because of fire in recent years, and of course Emley Moor in the 60s went down because of ice, and there have been other events relating to a loss of power or broadcast feed (and would you believe satellite is the backup for the fibre or other links?).
If a satellite failed, there are backup plans. ASTRA etc could move another satellite into position, or move important channels to another satellite while other plans are put into place, or indeed the satellite that failed can often be recovered. Satellites tend to fail at the start (launch issues) and end of their lives - it generally doesn't happen in the middle
And the limits in the total uk expenditure ... To ensure gdp was not impacted too much by investment by every house hold ,,
The that I was working with knew the technical issues for after DSO
So Proposed the 200 site option as all sites was going to be very expensive
But the operators of the comm muxes both at DTT launch and at freeview relaunch could not get the channels to be on air.... And although DTT slots have been scarce ..
. If the number doubled as will happen at DSO 2 will they all be filled?
But seriously ...
we all remember the restrictions that ch5 analogue had to tolerate ...
Basically all major transmitters south of the m4 and east if the A1 are internationally coordinated ....
But of course Dover Analogue had more viewers than CP...
Forcing channels to show archive 4:3 material in 16:9 would be pointless.
Our local relay station causes more reception problems than it solves, adding more muxes would make things worse. Hardly anyone relies on it anymore and it would be cheaper to buy a new aerial for the very few that do than to keep it going.
That's VERY much the exception, the vast majority of relays were (and still are) there to provide cover where there was previously none.