James May Man Lab Thursday - setting up offshore pirate radio

2»

Comments

  • the first Booksthe first Books Posts: 642
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    iceola wrote: »
    Is that true that for every minute of silence on a radio station they can potentially get fined 25K ?

    By "fine" do you mean the penalty payment that might be due to a radio station operator by a second party transmission provider for every period of un- agreed outage.? (eg silence).

    When that happens it is the transmitter operator that is being "fined" by the station, not the station receiving a fine.

    :(or am I missing some dry humour relevant to the thread's theme?:(
  • the first Booksthe first Books Posts: 642
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ahall41116 wrote: »
    When I did my rsl for hospital radio danum (Doncaster) 20 years ago (cripes) there was a 10m height restriction on the antenna, which prevented us putting our transmitter on the roof of the 15 floor hospital building.

    Has this been removed from rsl licenses now?

    Your question promoted me to find out. And if you have not done so for yourself, I can tell you...... it's now 20 metres above ground level. Do not know when it changed ;in 2006 when I lasted held an RSL licence it was 10 metres.

    Any one see the programme? Any indications that Mister May may have been in breach of his licence?;)
  • Mark CMark C Posts: 20,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Your question promoted me to find out. And if you have not done so for yourself, I can tell you...... it's now 20 metres above ground level. Do not know when it changed ;in 2006 when I lasted held an RSL licence it was 10 metres.

    Any one see the programme? Any indications that Mister May may have been in breach of his licence?;)

    I saw the programme.The Tx was on top of a building, I can't remember how high it might have been, possibly only 20 metres, possibly higher, but does it really matter, it was only on the air for 5 to 6 hours.
  • ahall41116ahall41116 Posts: 107
    Forum Member
    Mark C wrote: »
    I saw the programme.The Tx was on top of a building, I can't remember how high it might have been, possibly only 20 metres, possibly higher, but does it really matter, it was only on the air for 5 to 6 hours.

    many of the bones The Daily Mail picks over arent really important, but it doesnt stop them running "BBC BREAKS RADIO AUTHORITY RULES" headlines.
  • Mark CMark C Posts: 20,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ahall41116 wrote: »
    many of the bones The Daily Mail picks over arent really important, but it doesnt stop them running "BBC BREAKS RADIO AUTHORITY RULES" headlines.

    I can't imagine any of the dimbo journos that write for the Mail (or any other media organisation for that matter) even beginning to understand the technicalities of radio broadcasting to construct such an article.
  • the first Booksthe first Books Posts: 642
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mark C wrote: »
    I saw the programme.The Tx was on top of a building, I can't remember how high it might have been, possibly only 20 metres, possibly higher, but does it really matter, it was only on the air for 5 to 6 hours.

    My post was meant to be in the spirit of the thread and the programme it relates to, light hearted.

    But you asked a question and I say, yes, it does matter if as a result of some technical breach by one licensed user another licensed user of the spectrum, operating with compliance, suffers interference to their service, whether that is for 5 seconds,5 minutes 5 hours,5 days or 5 whatever,
  • Mark CMark C Posts: 20,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My post was meant to be in the spirit of the thread and the programme it relates to, light hearted.

    But you asked a question and I say, yes, it does matter if as a result of some technical breach by one licensed user another licensed user of the spectrum, operating with compliance, suffers interference to their service, whether that is for 5 seconds,5 minutes 5 hours,5 days or 5 whatever,

    Well, my comment wasn't 100% serious either, but even if Mr May's tx aerial had been 100% over height, I doubt the nearest co channel users (Loughborough and Reading)
    would have suffered any noticeable problems within their TSAs.
  • ahall41116ahall41116 Posts: 107
    Forum Member
    Mark C wrote: »
    Well, my comment wasn't 100% serious either, but even if Mr May's tx aerial had been 100% over height, I doubt the nearest co channel users (Loughborough and Reading)
    would have suffered any noticeable problems within their TSAs.

    So then the question: why have a height rule?

    Why drive @ 70 mph on a motorway when everyone else drives @ 80?

    I worried over whether to put my mast over 10m or at least 50m. The latte rwould have given much greater coverage, but I didn't want to break 'those' rules.

    Ash
  • Mark CMark C Posts: 20,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ahall41116 wrote: »
    So then the question: why have a height rule?

    Why drive @ 70 mph on a motorway when everyone else drives @ 80?

    I worried over whether to put my mast over 10m or at least 50m. The latte rwould have given much greater coverage, but I didn't want to break 'those' rules.

    Ash

    Height alone may not be the most significant factor.
    There's aerial beam tilt, ERP, surrounding urban clutter, surrounding topology, etc etc
Sign In or Register to comment.