4G and Freeview

[rauschwerk]

I am deeply disturbed by the possibility, which the government seems to blithely accept, that the new 4G mobile phone service is going to do serious damage to Freeview reception for a very large number of people: see, for example, here http://recombu.com/digital/news/4g-w...ey_M10472.html

I have Freeview PVR and have just bought a Freeview TV. I imagine I can fit the filter quite easily if I need one, but what about those who cannot? It seems that they will not be reimbursed the cost of getting a technician to do the job. As for the possible offer of a free satellite dish, what use is that to me? As far as I can see, I'd have to replace my perfectly good PVR at my own expense.

When I read the last sentence of the cited article, words fail me. Don't we, through our taxes, pay OFCOM to protect us from these b****y capitalists with their b****y lucre?

[Gordon]

If you think that is bad.....it is going to get worse. After complete switchover [ends this year so all analogue TV will have gone] the UHF band will have been re-allocated. Without going into too much technical detail there are 49 channels in the band all of which were used exclusively for analogue TV. Freeview now only uses some of it [channels 21 - 30 and 39 - 60] the top end - channels 61 - 69, called the "800 MHz band" - is now cleared and will be used for 4G mobile phones whose service licences are about to be advertised and services will begin within a couple of years. The very technical documents relating to this are on OfCom's web site.

The base stations will blot out TV Freeview reception for up to 2Km around them unless mitigation measures [a filter in your aerial lead, if you are lucky, for your main TV but not for any others] are taken some of which will be insufficient and so you will be provided with an alternative service by Freesat or cable or whatever. About 2.3 million home re expected to be affected by this [the first estimate was only 750 thousand] but that is only an estimate, they don't really know how many. The proposed mitigation measures are entirely inadequate.

If that is not enough in about 8 years time there is a plan to take even more of the Freeview channels for more 4G [channels 49 - 60]. The scale of the problem is reflected by the fact that today there are currently 39 channels accessible to DTT viewers on a free-to-air basis via the Freeview platform. These are all cleared for UK DTT use by agreement with European neighbours. Without use of the seven cleared channels [31 - 37] in the 600 MHz band, but which are currently empty, this will be reduced to 21 following clearance of the 12 channels in the 700 MHz band, a halving of the available capacity. These 21 channels will be expected to support the same set of services as the original 39. If the 600 band is given to DTT then there will be 28. As a result all those filters that were issued for protection from the first tranche of 4G will be useless and another set will be needed for the second tranche. These maybe built in to new sets but what about perfectly serviceable old ones? This second 4G disruption will be a lot more intrusive than the first because it will involve a massive re-tuning exercise all over the country - and some people will probably have the wrong aerial type for the new channels.

Also remember that the DTT bands are now no longer exclusive to TV; a new set of local TV licences will be let this autumn with more to come next year sharing the spectrum and within a few years so called "White Space" devices will be allowed to use it too. One application is rural broadband. These will be "licence exempt" which means they will not be regulated except through recommendations for technical performance and I wonder whether this will be policed properly. Already radio microphones for theatres, events, outside broadcasts etc are allowed to use the same spectrum but under control of OfCom.

All this means that the opportunities for interference to Freeview and disruption to viewers are very considerable. A number of consumer groups and Freeview have protested vigourously to OfCom after their recent consultations on these matters. There is strong international pressure for all this to happen so I don't know what OfCom's decision will be [actually not theirs, they will "advise" government of course]. Although all these matters have been the subject of open consultations which professional organisations have responded to, the media have not really made the man in the street sufficiently aware. The consultations are now closed.

If all this bothers you, what can you do - complain to your MP? and write to the Times?!?

[rauschwerk]

Had I had any inkling of this 18 months ago I would have opted for Freesat. I thought I was beyond anger at everything that's going on in this country now, but this has made my blood boil all over again.

[Nick Armstrong]

Had I had any inkling of this 18 months ago I would have opted for Freesat. I thought I was beyond anger at everything that's going on in this country now, but this has made my blood boil all over again.

Having switched to Freeview last year, this is making mine start to simmer too

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the treasury will implacably pursue the lolly for 4g and hang freeview

[Flosshilde]

How will it affect BSKYB (& orther subscription services)? Will they be sitting pretty & rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of people giving up on Freeview & subscribing to SKY etc?

[Serial_Apologist]

I am certainly not prepared to spend huge sums of money for a piece of extra equipment demanded for what this monopoly is being allowed to impose; and in any case, I have my doubts whether either of the two rather ancient televisions that share my Freeview box would be capable of conversion. If what is mooted transpires, it will probably be at that point that I stop watching telly thenceforth, or watch selectively what's available via iPlayer, and just use my TVs to play DVDs and VHSs.

I think what has apparently been agreed is a diabolical liberty; if any epetitions materialise, I was certainly put my name to one.

Freedom of choice? My arse!

[Northender]

Having switched to Freeview last year, this is making mine start to simmer too

I switched from Freeview to Freesat a year or so ago. I didn't know what was coming - I just got tired of the constant retuning.

[Ferretfancy]

Perhaps we should calm down a bit? Yes, it's going to be a problem for too many people,but it's likely to affect those who are using aerial amplifiers for weak signal or who are part of a shared distribution.Those of us who have an aerial on the roof should perhaps wait and see. Fitting a filter should not be too difficult.
I'm due to take delivery of an all bells and whistles Freeview TV in a a few days time, so I'm keeping fingers crossed

[Gordon]

I am certainly not prepared to spend huge sums of money for a piece of extra equipment demanded for what this monopoly is being allowed to impose; and in any case, I have my doubts whether either of the two rather ancient televisions that share my Freeview box would be capable of conversion. If what is mooted transpires, it will probably be at that point that I stop watching telly thenceforth, or watch selectively what's available via iPlayer, and just use my TVs to play DVDs and VHSs.

I think what has apparently been agreed is a diabolical liberty; if any epetitions materialise, I was certainly put my name to one.

Freedom of choice? My arse!

The mitigation measures proposed for the first 4G licences using the cleared 800 MHz band will supply, free of charge, any substitute service if your Freeview is lost. That could be a filter costing a few pounds that goes in your aerial feed which is supposed to protect all devices connected to that aerial including your PVR. Communal aerial systems in flats etc in theory only need one filter. This is supposed deal with the majority of cases suffering the interference. Severe cases [ie homes nearer the 4G base station and losing service that a filter can't restore] will get a free cable service if available or a Freesat box and installation. Only in some rare instances will a Sky basic sub be necessary. It isn't clear though whether any subscriptions involved will be paid in perpetuity.

The first tests showed that most TVs with external aerials were not affected badly by 4G handsets, the main issue being with base stations which operate continually. However a set top aerial and a not very good TV can be affected by a handset within 10 metres. To avoid this don't use the handset!!! But what if you are using your 4G hansdset to tweet the TV station that you are watching or simply checking email?!!! Isn't that one of the points of having mobile broadband? And what about your neighbours?!?

There is a proposed fund of £180 Million to pay for all that needs doing [mostly filters, nothing done about handsets] but this covers only one main TV not 2nd or more portables and works out at about £78 per household. Those usually operate on internal set top aerials in which case they are more vulnerable to interference and will need more protection than the main TV!!! Whoever thought up this mitigation proposal is nuts and has no idea of the practical effects of the interference and have not been thorough.

The estimate of 2.3 million homes affected is about 10% of the country but only a few thousand will need the severest treatment - they say. They say nothing about the very many people living in flats or in holiday homes, caravans etc that may have no external aerials [or inadequate ones] and have to make do with internal set tops. These are not protected by the plan.

All in all an ill thought out shambles. There will be no e-petitions unless someone starts one and has the means to do so. Protest only happens when people know about the issue and are organised; in this case only a few professional and [voluntary] consumer organisations have responded to OfCom consultations, mostly hostile, because they have been aware of the process. The BBC and the media in general have been remarkably quiet about it all.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I'm reminded of the time when the FM broadcast band was extended from a top frequency of 98 MHz to 108 MHz, all to the advantage of domestic listeners of FM radio. The expansion was into a band previously used for emergency services, and thus occupied by low power, mobile transmitters on a non-continuous basis.

Right next to 108 MHz was the aviation navigation band - more specifically the localizer frequencies used for Instrument Landing Systems (the Left of Runway/Right of Runway signal) - so no great significance there then!

The aviation industry had occupied that band since just after the war - ILS was a wartime development. The expansion to the FM band was purely for entertainment purposes - to gives us more channels and choice!

And lo, there was interference on the ILS channels close to the FM band.

Who paid for the fix? The aviation industry. So if you had an ILS receiver in your aeroplane, you paid for a fix (in many cases, that was a new receiver - a hell of a lot of money).

So win some, lose some.

4G is an international standard, not a UK standard. The DTT standard has a UK configuration that is causing problems. IT needs changing. You can petition all you like, it's going to happen.

I see they're already shifting transmitters away from channels 61 and 62. Has anyone tracked down the DTT channels that MAY be affected?

And as I see it, any mitigation measures will be paid for by the charges on future 4G auction winners (which in turn will be passed to 4G customers) and not individuals. Why don't those affected badly simply get a free 4G service and take the TV down the 4G pipe!?

So as ferret says, let's just calm down and wait and see.

[rauschwerk]

I'm not proposing a petition. All I am saying is that because of the lateness of this announcement, many people might have already opted for Freeview instead of Freesat and bought equipment such as Freeview PVRs which might become useless to them.

[Gordon]

I'm reminded of the time when the FM broadcast band was extended from a top frequency of 98 MHz to 108 MHz, all to the advantage of domestic listeners of FM radio. The expansion was into a band previously used for emergency services, and thus occupied by low power, mobile transmitters on a non-continuous basis.

Right next to 108 MHz was the aviation navigation band - more specifically the localizer frequencies used for Instrument Landing Systems (the Left of Runway/Right of Runway signal) - so no great significance there then!

The aviation industry had occupied that band since just after the war - ILS was a wartime development. The expansion to the FM band was purely for entertainment purposes - to gives us more channels and choice!

And lo, there was interference on the ILS channels close to the FM band.

Who paid for the fix? The aviation industry. So if you had an ILS receiver in your aeroplane, you paid for a fix (in many cases, that was a new receiver - a hell of a lot of money).

So win some, lose some.

And the one off cost of that receiver compared to the cost of the aircraft and its operating costs? The revenue to the Treasury from the new, largely commercial radio [eg Classic FM] licences?

4G is an international standard, not a UK standard. The DTT standard has a UK configuration that is causing problems. IT needs changing. You can petition all you like, it's going to happen.

Yes 4G is an international standard and is in use in many parts of the world already. The DTT "standard" is not just UK, it is Europe wide [and used in many other parts of the world] after complex agreements about spectrum usage at WRC Geneva 2006 and ratified more recently. France, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal will have similar problems to us but they have yet to get there because their plans for LTE/4G are not yet formed. Germany has little DTT neither does Holland or Belgium because they are heavily cabled countries.

Whatever these countries may wish to do the momentum behind the move towards 4G is very powerful with large potential profits and that means, as you say, it will happen regardless of what our OfCom [mere instrument of government] or any consumers might wish.

I see they're already shifting transmitters away from channels 61 and 62. Has anyone tracked down the DTT channels that MAY be affected?

After DSO is complete at the end of this year there will be NO use by DTT/Freeview of channels above 60. The bulk of TV transmitters are well away from channels above 60 already. Even now very few remaining analogue TV services in Kent, Northumberlanand and N Ireland might use some of the channels 60+ and almost no DTT. See here for current UK DTT frequencies and proposed LTE/4G:



You will see that the first 4G tranche will take the empty channels 61 - 69 [the 800 MHz band] . A second will take 48 - 60 [top of the 700 MHz band] requiring a large one- or two-off re-tune by Freeview receivers. The LTE system is so placed in channels 61-69 that it carves its own 10 MHz guard band [which is then competely wasted and no-one else can use it] to prevent self-interfering but only allows 1 MHz between themselves and TV channel 60 which means here is systematic interference into channels 60 and below. The base stations will affect TVs accessing any channel from about 55 upwards depending on the TV receiver performance which was determined with no foreknowledge of these developments.

And as I see it, any mitigation measures will be paid for by the charges on future 4G auction winners (which in turn will be passed to 4G customers) and not individuals. Why don't those affected badly simply get a free 4G service and take the TV down the 4G pipe!?

MitCo is the mobile companies and so they will pay the bills [only those they think they should at their discretion] with government underwriting any spend over the £180 million.

TV down 4G could be received on handsets of course, but will need a completely new type of TV set, that currently does not exist, that can access the 4G spectrum using IP. Current IPTV enabled teles can only access radio spectrum using WiFi IEEE 802.11.x or Ethernet by wire to a broadband router which is clearly not wireless. 4G services, like many other IP based ones, will not guarantee service delivery and may not support constant, reliable HDTV streaming to a quality equal to Freeview. That is why that option is not on the table from MitCo. I tried this week to get the Euro football by streaming and gave up - no access to service at all.

So as ferret says, let's just calm down and wait and see.

Amen. Just hope that you, or your aged aunt, aren't the ones in a 4G hot spot. Wait and see = fait accompli

I dont really care that much as there is very little of interest on TV anyway. What I object to is that consumers at large who have spent lots of money in good faith on accommodating DSO have no idea this is being done and there is no one to represent their interests. Why worry, we can always rely on the good guys at OfCom and DCMS though can't we? And the BBC are of course livid and loud in their objections.

[rauschwerk]

What I object to is that consumers at large who have spent lots of money in good faith on accommodating DSO have no idea this is being done and there is no one to represent their interests.

Hear, hear! Many thanks, Gordon, for your lucid explanation and helpful diagram. Do I recognise a fellow telecoms engineer? 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.

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.

I find it remarkable that the UK, one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, is less heavily cabled than Germany, the Netherlands or Belgium.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And the one off cost of that receiver compared to the cost of the aircraft and its operating costs? The revenue to the Treasury from the new, largely commercial radio [eg Classic FM] licences?

I really can't see what that has to do with the price of tea.

I assume you consider the one-off cost of a new radio compared to the cost of the aircraft and its operation and also to the society benefits from the new radio stations, to be so small so that was OK, then? Well, it did cost the aviation business a lot of money. But, yes, small beer compared to the original capital and revenue costs of the aurcraft and to the government revenue from radio licensing.

Wouldn't you expect the same to apply here? What's the price of a new Freesat receiver compared to a family's total possessions and operating budget and to the revenue the government will receive from 4G licensing? Where the aviation changes really hurt was amongst those people who owned private, light aircraft, operating them purely for pleasure. They got no assistance with the change - didn't even get counselling!

Thanks for the elucidation of the changes - perhaps it would have been clearer if you'd tabled them at the start.

So: lots of exciting retuning ahead! Just as well I bought a wideband aerial! I suppose you could always give the people in difficult areas Freeview Light - a fix apparently good enough for many people living in rural areas.

The ferret has it right: I'll wait and see what comes to pass, as surely it will no matter how many petitions to the contrary.