4G and Freeview

[Gordon]

......... Do I recognise a fellow telecoms engineer?

Yes, I spent some years with the old GPO [pre BT] in Central London and GEC telecomms research in Wembley before changing to broadcast engineering where I have spent 35+ years. Although retired I still work part time for one of the big names in the communications industry.

I am very much afraid that the great majority of journalists either can't understand this issue or fear that, if they try to make it clear, their readers and listeners will give up after a couple of sentences.

I don't understand why this has not had more public airing but I think you are right.

Like you, I don't watch a lot of TV, but if Freeview shrinks to 20 channels I fear that they may not include the few I do watch. I confess to being vague about how HDTV and radio might be affected by all of this. At the moment, the only way I can schedule radio recordings is on my PVR.

The second 4G proposal assumes that the same Freeview set of services in 6 multiplexes, plus possibly more, can be accommodated in much less spectrum with evolution of the present technology over the next 8-10 years to newer ones. Eg MPEG4 video instead of MPEG2, DVB-T2 in receivers everywhere instead of DVB-T1 and the use of some single frequency networks [like DAB]. SFNs have to be large geographically and will therefore mean the loss of some regional opt outs for BBC [who will have a new charter by then] and a significant adjustment of ITV which is made up of 15 regions.

All this will need new TVs and possibly aerials for many people who have not yet got the latest HDTV capable Freeview receivers that use T2 and MPEG4 to deliver a handful of HD services. Historically such transitions have taken many years and require double transmissions in old and new standards whilst that happens [including replacing all the portable 2nd and 3rd TVs in most households] requiring some extra spectrum or capacity from somewhere eg dropping bit rates as they do in DAB. The alternative is to drop services from the Freeview bundle; the dropping of all the radio services will help but on its own will be far from enough. Whole multiplexes may have to go or their service areas reduced significantly. A conundrum that OfCom have the dubious pleasure of resolving.

[Resurrection Man]

Many thanks for highlighting this. What hasn't really been aired sufficiently either is the fact that the total bandwidth available isn't enough for all the planned rubbish channels, HD etc. As the lunatic concept 'of giving the viewer more choice' gets bandied about by idiots like Vaizey then they will try and squeeze more and more shopping channels and the dross of repeat-u-like channels into this ever-decreasing spectrum. This then puts pressure on the broadcasters to reduce the bit rate on both SD and HD....so be prepared for a lot more digital artefacts mucking up the picture...and there is nothing that you or I can do about that. And reduction in the bitrate for R3 on Freeview.

From a commercial viewpoint this approach is also plain daft because the pot of advertising revenue available to fund these commercial channels gets spread ever more thinly and that is before you look at the shift in advertising spend away from TV towards the web.

As others have said, we shall have to wait and see. I am guessing/hoping that those who currently have an excellent signal quality on their channels won't be affected unless there is a 4G base-station next door. I just feel sorry for those people living in a Listed Building who won't be allowed to install a satellite dish.

And what about FM? Vaizey has already shifted the goalposts on this and gone back on what he said in opposition (part of the Coalition 'u-turns-R-us' approach to government) by making the 50% criteria include listening by ANY digital medium (ie including internet radio) into the mix rather than what was originally stated as 'listening to DAB'. Vaizey is nothing short of an egregious sanctimonious acolyte of big business.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

. . . is the fact that the total bandwidth available isn't enough for all the planned rubbish channels, HD etc. As the lunatic concept 'of giving the viewer more choice' gets bandied about by idiots like Vaizey then they will try and squeeze more and more shopping channels and the dross of repeat-u-like channels into this ever-decreasing spectrum.

Perhaps someone can explain why, apart from internet broadcasts, we need no less than four separate broadcasts of every radio station (5 for Radio 4) and two for most of our TV channels?

[Gordon]

And what about FM? Vaizey has already shifted the goalposts on this and gone back on what he said in opposition (part of the Coalition 'u-turns-R-us' approach to government) by making the 50% criteria include listening by ANY digital medium (ie including internet radio) into the mix rather than what was originally stated as 'listening to DAB'. Vaizey is nothing short of an egregious sanctimonious acolyte of big business.

Yes the goalposts have been moved somewhat by adding any means of consuming radio digitally to the list that contribute towards switchover criteria. Looking at the latest RAJAR figues it is not encouraging so a decision looks yet further away. However the memorandum of Understanding has just been agreed that will allow the network build out to proceed in preparation [see statement on DCMS web site]. This will eventually provide coverage matching that of FM geographically and will also enhance the signal levels in places where it's needed too.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It should also be mentioned that it looks as if this new arrangement will wipe out all reliable use of the pan European 868-868.6 MHz frequency hopping spread spectrum. Goodness knows what that will mean for the many domestic applications (such as automation controls, smoke alarms, etc.) and the even greater use in industry. Now that really will be a problem. (The US uses 902-928 MHz).

[Resurrection Man]

Perhaps someone can explain why, apart from internet broadcasts, we need no less than four separate broadcasts of every radio station (5 for Radio 4) and two for most of our TV channels?

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying that on your Freeview wotsit that you see two BBC 1's, for example? If that is the case then that simply means that you are between a couple of regions and so picking up a transmitter from each of them.

[Resurrection Man]

Yes the goalposts have been moved somewhat by adding any means of consuming radio digitally to the list that contribute towards switchover criteria. Looking at the latest RAJAR figues it is not encouraging so a decision looks yet further away. However the memorandum of Understanding has just been agreed that will allow the network build out to proceed in preparation [see statement on DCMS web site]. This will eventually provide coverage matching that of FM geographically and will also enhance the signal levels in places where it's needed too.

DCMS website ?

[Gordon]

DCMS website ?

http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/9176.aspx - 18k - 2012-07-02

While I'm at it the multiple transmissions referred to, not counting internet, I think are the fact that BBC1 say is on DTT/Freeview, Sky Free, Freesat and on Virgin cable. Isn't Radio 4 is on all these too plus DAB and FM [I don't count Long Wave].

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying that on your Freeview wotsit that you see two BBC 1's, for example? If that is the case then that simply means that you are between a couple of regions and so picking up a transmitter from each of them.

Since this is all about radio frequency spectrum constraints, I hope it hasn't escaped your notice that, in the case of BBC broadcasts and many other radio stations, they're available on:

FM
DAB
Freeview
Freesat

Radio 4 is also available on LW
In the case of TV the same applies. Most stations are available on

• Freeview
• Freesat

Jusy how much radio frequency bandwidth should we expend on all this chatter? The radio spectrum is the perfect example of a limited resource. Perhaps we should 'go green' and convert to renewable-communications?

[teamsaint]

Since this is all about radio frequency spectrum constraints, I hope it hasn't escaped your notice that, in the case of BBC broadcasts and many other radio stations, they're available on:

FM
DAB
Freeview
Freesat

Radio 4 is also available on LW
In the case of TV the same applies. Most stations are available on

• Freeview
• Freesat

Jusy how much radio frequency bandwidth should we expend on all this chatter? The radio spectrum is the perfect example of a limited resource. Perhaps we should 'go green' and convert to renewable-communications?

perhaps we should stop the politician driven charge towards digital, which would solve your multiple platform dilemna.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

perhaps we should just drop a digital stream or two, or three . . .

[Resurrection Man]

perhaps we should just drop a digital stream or two, or three . . .

Starting with the shopping channels and the adult channels...the dating channels...the gay channels ....DAB

[An_Inspector_Calls]

No, not DAB. What you should be campaigning for is more bandwidth (not much) for DAB.

[Bryn]

DAB is so easily, and seriously, compromised by mobile telephone transmission sites. Every time I drive past one the DAB gets disrupted. I first noticed the effect when passing the transmitters adjacent to Ashford Hospital, but have since encountered it when passing a similar mobile telephone aerial profusion nearer to my home.

[Resurrection Man]

No, not DAB. What you should be campaigning for is more bandwidth (not much) for DAB.

Nope...FM does very nicely thank you.