Jump to content


Photo

Get The Best Reception - Melbourne


  • Please log in to reply
822 replies to this topic

#801 Moonlight

Moonlight

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • 19 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 08:04 PM

Hi .. haven't been back here for ages.



Since around when analogue was switced off .. I have lost SBS completely. All other channels are fine

I am located in Werribee and have a Fracarro LPV 345F (?) digital antenna with a masthead amplifier attached to the antenna mast.
Appears that the reception bar is maxed out on my Topfield 5000 PVR on most channels .. only they work well.
I'm just wondering if anyone else has experienced this total loss of the SBS channel .. and what may be the issue?

Cheers

Edited by Moonlight, 20 February 2014 - 08:07 PM.


#802 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 09:32 PM

You haven't being paying attention to the "re-tune" advertisements have you?

SBS digital multiplex was previously on UHF channel 29. Just after the analogue shutdown a duplicate digital SBS multiplex started transmitting on VHF channel 7 after the it was vacated by the analogue channel 7 shutdown. Melbourne viewers then had until February 7 to re-tune their devices to pick up the VHF 7 digital transmission. After Feb 7 the old UHF 29 transmission was turned off. Now all main Melbourne digital transmitters are on VHF only including SBS.

#803 alanh

alanh

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 12,562 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 12:46 AM

If this were the case then all antennas for Mt Dandenong could be just band 3, this is not the case because channel "31" is still being transmitted on RF channel 32 and identifying itself to TV sets as channel 44.

Alanh

#804 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 03:33 AM

If this were the case then all antennas for Mt Dandenong could be just band 3, this is not the case because channel "31" is still being transmitted on RF channel 32 and identifying itself to TV sets as channel 44.

Funding issues prevent community channel 31 from moving from UHF 32 to VHF 10 in the short term. Maybe next year it will move and all 6 multiplexes will be on VHF for Mt Dandenong as per the plan of grouping all digital; TV transmissions together in blocks.

#805 Malich

Malich

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 04:48 AM

Funding issues prevent community channel 31 from moving from UHF 32 to VHF 10 in the short term.


Don't tell me you believed Alan's crazed posts from a little over a year ago? Or are you another of his friendly sockpuppet accounts?

#806 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 03:15 PM

Don't tell me you believed Alan's crazed posts from a little over a year ago? Or are you another of his friendly sockpuppet accounts?

You haven't been around very long if you think I believe any of the BS that Alanh posts. The ACMA does want C31 moved to VHF 10 but when that happens is anyone's guess right now. It would be nice if C31 moved into a new 23 Mbps VHF multiplex with high power output and 64QAM modulation with the option of other new 3D/HD channels in the multiplex but someone would have to pay the substantial power bill and capital equipment cost to do so. I doubt the new Liberal government would donate any money so maybe C31 could lease out the rest of an enlarged multiplex for another 8 new shopping channels!

#807 Malich

Malich

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 04:54 PM

The ACMA does want C31 moved to VHF 10 but when that happens is anyone's guess right now.


Unless ACMA have changed their mind since I had a fairly decent email and phone discussion with the community broadcasting section late last year, no they don't - they're much more intent on keeping VHF 10 vacant. While the idea has been floated and there has been some informal talk that it might be allocated to community TV, from what they told me then it hadn't even gotten as far as the "plan to develop a plan for a draft" stage.

One reason is that the commercial TV industry is vehemently opposed to it...

#808 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 08:07 PM

Unless ACMA have changed their mind since I had a fairly decent email and phone discussion with the community broadcasting section late last year, no they don't - they're much more intent on keeping VHF 10 vacant. While the idea has been floated and there has been some informal talk that it might be allocated to community TV, from what they told me then it hadn't even gotten as far as the "plan to develop a plan for a draft" stage.

The ACMA has UHF 32 listed as an interim channel assignment:
http://www.acma.gov....ralia wide.xlsm

So clearly they don't have plans to keep C31 on that channel and they need to move it elsewhere with the obvious candidate being VHF10. The only other viable option is to move it to UHF 27.

#809 Ron12

Ron12

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:42 PM

Speaking of channel 37, although it only has 6 MHz of free space, C31 doesn't need the full 7MHz bandwidth, so would it be viable to put C31 on Ch27 or would there be other technical reasons why this could not be done?

#810 Malich

Malich

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:53 PM

The ACMA has UHF 32 listed as an interim channel assignment:
http://www.acma.gov....ralia wide.xlsm

So clearly they don't have plans to keep C31 on that channel and they need to move it elsewhere with the obvious candidate being VHF10. The only other viable option is to move it to UHF 27.


That's because they are operating under an interim arrangement - a ministerial determination (this, which amends this, which amends informs 103 (4A)©(ii) of the Radiocommunications Act) was made in June last year to temporarily extend their licences from 31/12/13 to 31/12/14. That was a result of the Convergence Review - which was put on hold because it was a whole 'nother hot potato

They're definitely up in the air - but, as I said, when I asked ACMA about it late last year nothing was on the cards. Feel free to contact them yourself if you want the absolute latest info; they don't bite.

(At a guess, 27 would be an absolute last resort and even less likely since it's outside the normal planning rules and doesn't solve the 'problem' anyway...)

(edit as shown)

(edit #2: Now, South Yarra ... that's an interesting one. The commercial/national channels are all in an SFN with Ferntree Gully / Melbourne Inner / Safety Beach / Rosebud, but it has RF Ch 42 as "UA/MGV" while it's just straight UA on the others.

I think GoeForMoe had something to say about that earlier...)

Edited by Malich, 24 February 2014 - 11:22 PM.


#811 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:02 AM

Speaking of channel 37, although it only has 6 MHz of free space, C31 doesn't need the full 7MHz bandwidth, so would it be viable to put C31 on Ch27 or would there be other technical reasons why this could not be done?

ACMA shoved Telstra's trunking licenses away from the bottom of UHF 27 so that it can now be a full 7 MHz channel if needed.

#812 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:08 AM

That's because they are operating under an interim arrangement - a ministerial determination (this, which amends this, which amends informs 103 (4A)©(ii) of the Radiocommunications Act) was made in June last year to temporarily extend their licences from 31/12/13 to 31/12/14. That was a result of the Convergence Review - which was put on hold because it was a whole 'nother hot potato


By the time ACMA bothers to resolve the matter it's quite likely that C31 and the other community broadcasters will abandon their broadcast licenses and just stream their station online via various IPTV platforms. That is after all the future direction for TV and fewer people are switching on their TV's for broadcast TV let alone switching to channel 44. More times than not if I tune to 44 the content shown has me questioning why the spectrum is being used/wasted for the current purpose.

#813 Ron12

Ron12

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:13 AM

The ACMA's register of radiocommunications licences shows a number of licenses in the bottom 1 MHz of Ch27 (519-520 MHz).

#814 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 11:18 AM

The ACMA's register of radiocommunications licences shows a number of licenses in the bottom 1 MHz of Ch27 (519-520 MHz).


The ACMA will be moving those licensees in the 518-520 MHz range to alternative assignments over time.

#815 alanh

alanh

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 12,562 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:00 PM

Now that the restack has allocated blocks of 6 channels per site ie
Block A ch 6-8, 10 - 12
Block B 28 - 33
Block C 34 - 39
Block D 40 - 45
Block E 46 - 51.

So how does channel 27 fit?

So once the restack is complete there will be one unallocated channel available nationally on all sites. The complication is that community TV in mainland state capitals are using the unallocated channel in block B. So if the unallocated channel is to be allocated nationally, then community TV will have to close on their UHF channel.

Channel 27 is a stand alone channel so if it is transmitted at high power then another transmitter on the same channel must not be closer than around 300 km away unless a single frequency network is created.
Very large Single Frequency Networks are not very reliable particularly in coastal areas for example in summer the signal from the Illawarra (Robertson transmitter) (248 km) easily interferes with the Hunter transmitter (Newcastle) (51 km) at Port Stephens. It takes the signal from Robertson a minimum of 827 microseconds or more to travel this distance. The interfering signal causes signal breakup. There is plenty of complaints on this forum about this.

If an SFN is used the programming must be identical. As a result community TV for example cannot be broadcast in other areas. For example in the Victorian case, Bendigo, Ballarat etc.

The best use for channel 27 is to broaden it to 7 MHz and transmit DVB-T2 to mobile phones. DVB-T2 can be set to be more tolerant of SFN delays. DVB-T2 has a specific mode for this to maximise reliability of reception and the signals transmitted would be of lower resolution for the small screen and giving a greater variety of programs. There is already chip which will receive DVB-T2 and DAB+.

Alanh

#816 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 05:04 PM

Alanh, using broadcast DVB spectrum to transmit to mobile phones is already an obsolete idea for a whole pile of reasons. LTE-B will relegate DVB-H/DVB-T/T2 transmission for mobile devices to the rubbish heap.
The ideas the ACMA threw about when planning the digital TV restacking was to have UHF 27 reserved for special intermittent broadcast use. For example in testing new forms of 3D, maybe DVB-T2, h.265 and other transmissions that need their own dedicated spectrum for a period of time. UHF 27 certainly isn't the best option for community TV due to the need for it to be different in adjacent areas, Clearly VHF 10 is the best option for community TV, but getting sensible progress for it to happen has stalled in bureaucracy.

#817 Ron12

Ron12

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:21 PM

What they could do is allocate Ch27 for use with Block A and free up a VHF channel for DAB+. This would increase the total number of frequencies for DAB+ multiplexes from 8 to 12 (4 per TV channel).

#818 alanh

alanh

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 12,562 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 02:33 AM

davmel,
The advantage of DVB-T2 which is how HD is transmitted in the UK and is rapidly spreading in Africa and the Soviet Block is that it has pipelining. This allows the signal to be separated in to different stream with different characteristics. I agree that it is useless without a receiver chip in the tablet. The use of SDR enables a single chip to receive all digital radio standards along with DVB-T/T2. They have just become available to manufacturers. The Finnish radio industry has found out how much more expensive it is to use the phone networks to broadcast compared to using DAB+, 600 times.This why Commercial Radio Australia and others are spending millions trying to get Samsung to install a DAB+ chip in their next generation of Galaxy phones.

Channel 27. If the ACMA wants to experiment they can use the Unallocated channels in each block so that whole city can be covered including SFN translators. The have not given community TV a full licence area coverage because the did not allocate channel 10 to the main transmitters and then the unallocated channels in the UHF blocks could then be used in black spots.

They should not need to experiment, as DVB-T2 is already in full time broadcasting with known characteristics. What is required is that it be mandatory now in all newly imported TVs. It does not add to the price. HVEC will take a little longer as chips are yet to be manufactured on a large scale yet. That too should also become compulsory so that it can be used for SD,HD and UHD. If they do this all networks can use these technologies all the time and not have to share. The idea that you put on the new technology on the air and it will take off is not the cheapest way to do it. The Yanks made it compulsory to be able to receive digital prior to the switchoff.

Alanh

#819 Malich

Malich

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:50 AM

He's becoming like a parody of himself, isn't he?


#820 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:20 AM

What they could do is allocate Ch27 for use with Block A and free up a VHF channel for DAB+. This would increase the total number of frequencies for DAB+ multiplexes from 8 to 12 (4 per TV channel).

That would be a backwards step to split block A across VHF and UHF resulting in substantially different propagation patterns for the different stations. The blocks need to be kept as blocks. Metro customers can then rely on only needing VHF antennas from the main transmission sites. VHF 27 should only be reserved for test transmissions because it doesn't fall into a block group, it's an odd remaining channel, and some tuners wouldn't pick it up if they've been programmed to scan only UHF 28-69.
As for DAB+, the ACMA has allocated 2 VHF channels nationally (VHF 9 & 9A) and that is more than enough for the purpose.

#821 davmel

davmel

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:45 AM

The Finnish radio industry has found out how much more expensive it is to use the phone networks to broadcast compared to using DAB+, 600 times.This why Commercial Radio Australia and others are spending millions trying to get Samsung to install a DAB+ chip in their next generation of Galaxy phones.

The "Finnish radio industry" has tried the futile idea of trying to stream a broadcast to individual customers with individual data streams to each mobile network user which is never going to work on a large scale. They did not use the recently approved LTE-B spec that is built for efficient multicasting. Telstra and Ericsson had the world's first trial of LTE-B at the MCG in late January to prove the concept works. LTE-B has not been tested on a large scale in Finland so it's pointless using them as an example. It's far more efficient to do a firmware update for LTE phones to support LTE-B than it is to completely change the design of phones with DAB+ chipsets, have custom software to access that receiver, add dedicated VHF antennas (with their much longer wavelength) onto the circuit board for something that few people will want to use. The reality is that LTE-B is a DAB+ killer especially as LTE networks expand and become far more ubiquitous than DAB radio network coverage. What's the point of a DAB+ receiver in your phone when the poor antenna makes indoor coverage unworkable? The radio networks aren't going to have an extensive array of transmission towers across our cities and country to provide ubiquitous coverage for indoor inefficient receivers.

They should not need to experiment, as DVB-T2 is already in full time broadcasting with known characteristics. What is required is that it be mandatory now in all newly imported TVs. It does not add to the price. HVEC will take a little longer as chips are yet to be manufactured on a large scale yet. That too should also become compulsory so that it can be used for SD,HD and UHD. If they do this all networks can use these technologies all the time and not have to share. The idea that you put on the new technology on the air and it will take off is not the cheapest way to do it. The Yanks made it compulsory to be able to receive digital prior to the switchoff.


No need to experiment? We were the first country to have HD transmissions for DVB-T. Why wouldn't we need spectrum reserved for DVB-T3 or DVB-T4? or countless other possibilities that no one has thought of yet? If we have reserved spectrum for testing we can be a proving ground for new technologies rather than just following what other countries do.
But at the end of the day I'm a pessimist regarding the need for testing, since our significantly reduced TV spectrum limits any possibility of easily moving to new standards given legacy compatibility issues so we'll be stuck using DVB-T and MPEG-2 for the next 20-30 years at least and any new innovation in efficient codecs will happen with the LTE and future mobile network standards which are far more adaptable and dynamic compared with TV broadcasting. Within a decade most people will be watching IPTV rather than DVB-T broadcasts anyway. Channel C31 should get on the leading edge of that transition and stay relevant or they will just disappear.

#822 Malich

Malich

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:45 AM

The "Finnish radio industry" has tried the futile idea of trying to stream a broadcast to individual customers with individual data streams to each mobile network user which is never going to work on a large scale.


I think that's something Alan made up - I don't recall hearing or seeing anything about Finland doing such a trial or exercise (although due to their low mobile data prices - e.g. 0.70 euro/GB - PtP IPTV streaming via 3G/4G is quite popular there). If I missed something, do you have a link I can follow up?

I suspect though that he's getting his Scandinavian countries confused, and actually meant Sweden (which was discussed earlier) not Finland. In which case, it wasn't even that - it was a desktop study comissioned & produced by a company that owns & runs radio broadcasting networks. Hardly an impartial source.

#823 Moonlight

Moonlight

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • 19 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 03:14 PM

You haven't being paying attention to the "re-tune" advertisements have you?


You got me ^

All good now - after doing a re-scan on my Toppy PVR