I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon. 
Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?

Greg.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:43:12 GMT, Greg Pearce 
wrote:


>I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon. 
>Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
>degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?


Yes. All radio reception is degraded, notably mobile phones. That
said, LW reception is difficult on any DMU or EMU unless you're in
Droitwich Spa station.

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

Greg Pearce wrote:

> I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon.
> Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
> degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?
>
> Greg.


What can one listen to on long wave these days?

Short wave, and the many international stations is still good listening
but I thought there was very little left on LW.

Cheers

Greg Pearce wrote:

> I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon.
> Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
> degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?
>
> Greg.


What can one listen to on long wave these days?

Short wave, and the many international stations is still good listening
but I thought there was very little left on LW.

Cheers

grid58 (Paul) wrote:

> Greg Pearce wrote:
> 
>>I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon.
>>Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
>>degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?
>>
>>Greg.
> 
> What can one listen to on long wave these days?
> 
> Short wave, and the many international stations is still good listening
> but I thought there was very little left on LW.


Given the timing of the OP's question, I'd hazard a guess he's after 
Test Match Special (Radio 4 LW).

grid58 (Paul) wrote:

> What can one listen to on long wave these days?


Don't Radio Bore, sorry, 4 have their Cricket coverage on the LW 
version? Other than that there's whatever Atlantic 252 became.

Darren wrote:

>Other than that there's whatever Atlantic 252 became.


Sadly, it's just an extra frequency for RTE Radio One these days.

"Greg Pearce"  wrote in message 
news:ILty00.G5L@bath.ac.uk...

> I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon.
> Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
> degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?
>
> Greg.


Not sure about Voyagers, but I could hear the test match on a stationary 
Pendolino at Crewe and under the roof at Liverpool Lime Street. More 
difficult to hear when moving, due to electrical interference, but that also 
applied to older stock on electrified lines.

Bevan

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:47:22 +0100, Darren 
wrote:


>Don't Radio Bore, sorry, 4 have their Cricket coverage on the LW 
>version? Other than that there's whatever Atlantic 252 became.


Closed down, I believe.

You're unlikely to get LW under the OHLE, anyway, if car reception of
252 under pylons was anything to go by.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Mark Morton writes


>Given the timing of the OP's question, I'd hazard a guess he's after 
>Test Match Special (Radio 4 LW).


I've lately been listening to 198kHz AM on the bus, where the major 
sources of interference are the engines and the fluorescent light 
strips. Signal strength is significantly better with the aerial next to 
the window rather than metal bodywork, and the last time I tried 
listening on a 158 I heard absolutely nothing except broadband 
interference, so I'd guess a Voyager would be even worse.

-- 
Hil

yOn 26 Aug 2005 09:44:03 -0700, "grid58 (Paul)" 
wrote:


>
>Greg Pearce wrote:
>> I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon.
>> Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
>> degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?
>>
>> Greg.
>
>What can one listen to on long wave these days?
>

Ignoring what you can get by other means on the move the answer is
either cricket or the morning church service; I suspect the former is
what Greg is after.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:47:22 +0100, Darren 
wrote:


>grid58 (Paul) wrote:
>> What can one listen to on long wave these days?
>
>Don't Radio Bore, sorry, 4 have their Cricket coverage on the LW 
>version? Other than that there's whatever Atlantic 252 became.


Once upon a time you could listen to Air-Met.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

grid58 (Paul) wrote:

> Greg Pearce wrote:
> 
>>I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon.
>>Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
>>degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?
>>
>>Greg.
> 
> 
> What can one listen to on long wave these days?
> 
> Short wave, and the many international stations is still good listening
> but I thought there was very little left on LW.
> 
> Cheers
> 

Test Match Special on Radio 4!

Charles Ellson wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2005 09:44:03 -0700, "grid58 (Paul)" 
> wrote:
> >What can one listen to on long wave these days?
> >
> Ignoring what you can get by other means on the move the answer is
> either cricket or the morning church service; I suspect the former is
> what Greg is after.


Indeed; well guessed.

For what it's worth, my conclusions are as follows:

Reception on HSTs and Voyagers is similar: not perfect but adequate by
the window (ideally with the radio pressed up against it), but falling
off very rapidly with distance from the window.  Nothing but noise
audible when in the aisle seat of either.  In addition, the brakes of
Voyagers cause interference.  HST braking (perhaps unsurprisingly) does
not affect reception.  Further reduction in sound quality is evident in
cuttings and tunnels, not unsurprisingly.

My Voyager journey took me from unelectrified to electrified line
(coming under the lines around Barnt Green) and I could not discern any
difference in reception there.

I also travelled on a 170 today (under OHLE all the way) and found the
reception to be excellent; incidentally there is a convenient window
ledge on which to position a small radio.

Greg.

Greg Pearce wrote:

> Further reduction in sound quality is evident in
> cuttings and tunnels, not unsurprisingly.


Before someone observant jumps on me I'll remove the above "not"...

Greg.

Greg Pearce wrote:

> I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon. 
> Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
> degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?


The cricket is on 5 Live Sports Extra on DAB, but I suppose that won't 
work on a Voyager either

Stuart wrote:

> The cricket is on 5 Live Sports Extra on DAB, but I suppose that won't 
> work on a Voyager either


DAB on the move (in a car) is poor at best, so a Voyager would be worse.

In article ,
grid58 (Paul)  writes

>
>Greg Pearce wrote:
>> I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon.
>> Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
>> degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?
>>
>> Greg.
>
>What can one listen to on long wave these days?
>
>Short wave, and the many international stations is still good listening
>but I thought there was very little left on LW.
>
>Cheers
>

CRICKET It is the in sport of 2005 
When I bought my last motor car I insisted it had a car-radio which
could pick up long-wave Radio 4

Shame it won't be on Terrestrial TV after this year

-- 
Alan

In article , Mark Morton
 writes

>grid58 (Paul) wrote:
>> Greg Pearce wrote:
>> 
>>>I'll have the misfortune of travelling on a Voyager later this afternoon.
>>>Does anyone know whether longwave radio reception (specifically) is
>>>degraded significantly by their metallic window coatings?
>>>
>>>Greg.
>> 
>> What can one listen to on long wave these days?
>> 
>> Short wave, and the many international stations is still good listening
>> but I thought there was very little left on LW.
>
>Given the timing of the OP's question, I'd hazard a guess he's after 
>Test Match Special (Radio 4 LW).


Or the Shipping Forecast !
-- 
Al

"Darren"  wrote in message
news:43105316$0$17459$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

> Stuart wrote:
> > The cricket is on 5 Live Sports Extra on DAB, but I suppose that won't
> > work on a Voyager either
>
> DAB on the move (in a car) is poor at best, so a Voyager would be worse.


DAB works fine in my bro-in-law's car - in major cities anyway.

R4 Long Wave is very poor in my Citroen everywhere except within a mile of
the transmitter at Droitwich..

TM

>

"Darren"  wrote in message 
news:43105316$0$17459$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

> Stuart wrote:
>> The cricket is on 5 Live Sports Extra on DAB, but I suppose that won't 
>> work on a Voyager either
>
> DAB on the move (in a car) is poor at best, so a Voyager would be worse.


I thought DAB was meant to be a cure for poor FM reception in cars in hilly 
areas etc. Obviously not.

David Haggas wrote:


> "Darren"  wrote in message 
> news:43105316$0$17459$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> 
>>Stuart wrote:
>>
>>>The cricket is on 5 Live Sports Extra on DAB, but I suppose that won't 
>>>work on a Voyager either
>>
>>DAB on the move (in a car) is poor at best, so a Voyager would be worse.
> 
> 
> I thought DAB was meant to be a cure for poor FM reception in cars in hilly 
> areas etc. Obviously not. 
> 
> 

It probably will be when there is total coverage

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 09:17:41 +0000 (UTC), "David Haggas"
 wrote:


>I thought DAB was meant to be a cure for poor FM reception in cars in hilly 
>areas etc. Obviously not. 


As I see it, DAB is a means for the Government to make a fortune by
flogging off the spare frequencies it leaves, and presumably to rake
in the VAT from the expensive new radios.

I have one television, which, for digital TV, required one 50 quid
box.  I have a lot more radios than that, and DAB radios seem quite a
lot more expensive with no significant price drops over time so far.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

> I have one television, which, for digital TV, required one 50 quid
> box.  I have a lot more radios than that, and DAB radios seem quite a
> lot more expensive with no significant price drops over time so far.


Plus, lots of local radio stations still are not avaliable digitally.

On 28 Aug 2005 04:48:18 -0700, "Joe Patrick"
 wrote:


>> I have one television, which, for digital TV, required one 50 quid
>> box.  I have a lot more radios than that, and DAB radios seem quite a
>> lot more expensive with no significant price drops over time so far.
>
>Plus, lots of local radio stations still are not avaliable digitally.
>

And, most of the DAB stations sound awful because of the inadequate
bitrates used.

Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:03:52 GMT, Stuart 
wrote:


>David Haggas wrote:
>
>> "Darren"  wrote in message 
>> news:43105316$0$17459$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>> 
<snip>
>>>DAB on the move (in a car) is poor at best, so a Voyager would be worse.
>> 
>> 
>> I thought DAB was meant to be a cure for poor FM reception in cars in hilly 
>> areas etc. Obviously not. 
>> 
>> 
>It probably will be when there is total coverage


ITYF it is very dependent on the nature and position of the aerial
used on a car. In the case of e.g. a "we'll fit it free" radio I
wouldn't be surprised if in many cases the car's original aerial has
been used totally mucking up the tuning.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Neil Williams wrote:


> I have one television, which, for digital TV, required one 50 quid
> box.  I have a lot more radios than that, and DAB radios seem quite a
> lot more expensive with no significant price drops over time so far.



They have dropped in price quite considerably, you couldn't get a DAB 
set for under 100 a couple of years ago, Now you can pick one up for 60

Paul Sherwin wrote:

> And, most of the DAB stations sound awful because of the inadequate
> bitrates used.


And most churn out what they claim to be Today's Best Mix as well all 
centrally broadcast from Bristol, which makes them sound awful....

32 Radio stations, 3 Songs, 1 Presenter, Its Today's Worst Mix.

In article <q4oQe.55762$Il.36102@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Stuart
 writes

>Neil Williams wrote:
>
>> I have one television, which, for digital TV, required one 50 quid
>> box.  I have a lot more radios than that, and DAB radios seem quite a
>> lot more expensive with no significant price drops over time so far.
>
>
>They have dropped in price quite considerably, you couldn't get a DAB 
>set for under 100 a couple of years ago, Now you can pick one up for 60
>


Not that its worth that;!....
-- 
Tony Sayer

> And most churn out what they claim to be Today's Best Mix as well all
> centrally broadcast from Bristol, which makes them sound awful....


It sounds awful even in Bristol!

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:16:38 GMT, Stuart 
wrote:


>They have dropped in price quite considerably, you couldn't get a DAB 
>set for under 100 a couple of years ago, Now you can pick one up for 60


Still too expensive by a long way, especially for personal readios.
I'd spend 20 quid on a personal radio at most, and I'd expect a very
good one for that money.

They will come down in price, but due to their complexity it will be a
while until they match the price of regular FM radios.  The coverage
will also need to improve; over in the land of TV I'm quite
disappointed that analogue switch-off is being considered before the
signal level[1] of digital reaches that of analogue nationally.

[1] in the sense of being able to pick it up on a small set-top
aerial, for example.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:18:54 +0100, Darren 
wrote:


>And most churn out what they claim to be Today's Best Mix as well all 
>centrally broadcast from Bristol, which makes them sound awful....


Our local version of that (Milton Keynes FM 103 Horizon) is now
announcing at what time one can hear specific songs during the day.
Nothing like giving the presenters a bit of freedom...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

> Still too expensive by a long way, especially for personal readios.
> I'd spend 20 quid on a personal radio at most, and I'd expect a very
> good one for that money.


I just heard an advert for Digital Radio on the radio (ironically one
that is not avaliable on DAB), which said that "you can buy a digital
radio for the price of an analogue one. What I want to know is WHERE?
It must be a top-of-the-range analogue one compared to a
bottom-of-the-range digital one!

> Still too expensive by a long way, especially for personal readios.
> I'd spend 20 quid on a personal radio at most, and I'd expect a very
> good one for that money.


I just heard an advert for Digital Radio on the radio (ironically one
that is not avaliable on DAB), which said that "you can buy a digital
radio for the price of an analogue one. What I want to know is WHERE?
It must be a top-of-the-range analogue one compared to a
bottom-of-the-range digital one!

Neil Williams wrote:


> They will come down in price, but due to their complexity it will be a
> while until they match the price of regular FM radios.  The coverage
> will also need to improve; over in the land of TV I'm quite
> disappointed that analogue switch-off is being considered before the
> signal level[1] of digital reaches that of analogue nationally.
> 
> [1] in the sense of being able to pick it up on a small set-top
> aerial, for example.



The problem is that as analogue and digital TV uses the same 
frequencies, to give digital the same coverage will probably mean 
turning off analogue to make room for it.

I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has 
a digital reciever, then switch overnight.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 GMT, Stuart 
wrote:

<snip>

>The problem is that as analogue and digital TV uses the same 
>frequencies, to give digital the same coverage will probably mean 
>turning off analogue to make room for it.
>

They don't use the same frequencies, DTT uses previously unused
channels in the same frequency bands within which there were many
"spare" channels (in theory but not always in practice with analogue
services) in most of the country. Digital services have already passed
the point of providing a mere duplicate of analogue services where DTT
has been provided. It is not channel availability which is required to
provide the same coverage but transmitter availability where IMU there
is currently no general intention to upgrade beyond the current number
of sites as most digital television services are deemed to be
"available" via satellite by the great majority of persons in areas
remote from a terrestrial transmitter.


>I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has 
>a digital reciever, then switch overnight.


There is no announced intention of "making certain", just setting of
dates by which time people in relevant areas are expected to have had
enough time to upgrade their equipment, in most cases probably due to
"natural wastage". 
The provisional switchover timetable is on:-
<http://www.dtg.org.uk/consumer/switchover.html>

Apart from an experimental scheme in two Welsh villages there is no
current intention to subsidise the costs of converting any
installations, see:-
<http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/FAQ/faq12.html>
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 GMT, Stuart 
wrote:


>The problem is that as analogue and digital TV uses the same 
>frequencies, to give digital the same coverage will probably mean 
>turning off analogue to make room for it.


True, but I fear the main goal is to make money for the Government by
selling off the frequencies...


>I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has 
>a digital reciever, then switch overnight.


Don't hold your breath.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:00:41 +0100, Charles Ellson 


>It is not channel availability which is required to
>provide the same coverage but transmitter availability where IMU there
>is currently no general intention to upgrade beyond the current number
>of sites as most digital television services are deemed to be
>"available" via satellite by the great majority of persons in areas
>remote from a terrestrial transmitter.


And the trouble with that is those who cannot, for whatever reason,
fit a fixed aerial.  The signal quality of DTT is generally not high
enough to get a decent signal from a set-top aerial.

If that isn't downgraded service, I don't know what is.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) writes:


> And the trouble with that is those who cannot, for whatever reason,
> fit a fixed aerial.  The signal quality of DTT is generally not high
> enough to get a decent signal from a set-top aerial.
>
> If that isn't downgraded service, I don't know what is.


Might that not change when they turn off the analogue service?
Currently digital is broadcast at much lower power than analogue, so
when analogue goes off-air they will be able to increase the power of
the digital transmitters.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 UTC, Stuart  
wrote:

: I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has 
: a digital reciever, then switch overnight.

We (in the Borders ITV area) are to be the first to lose analogue, 
sometime next year. As a nice twist, since all digital boxes decode a 
colour signal, we are then to be forbidden to buy black and white 
licences, even if we only own black and white television sets.

Ian

--

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:39:38 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:00:41 +0100, Charles Ellson 
>
>>It is not channel availability which is required to
>>provide the same coverage but transmitter availability where IMU there
>>is currently no general intention to upgrade beyond the current number
>>of sites as most digital television services are deemed to be
>>"available" via satellite by the great majority of persons in areas
>>remote from a terrestrial transmitter.
>
>And the trouble with that is those who cannot, for whatever reason,
>fit a fixed aerial.  The signal quality of DTT is generally not high
>enough to get a decent signal from a set-top aerial.


No, this is a bit of a myth. It's just down to signal strength. DTT
copes much *better* than analogue with the ghosting and patterning
typical of analogue TV on an indoor aerial. I can receive perfect DTT
on an indoor aerial here in Oxford, but the TX is only a few miles
away so signal strength is good.

The problem at present is the TX power is limited because DTT has to
coexist with the existing analogue network.

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:4312c8eb.402648@news.tesco.net...

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 GMT, Stuart 
> wrote:
> >I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has
> >a digital reciever, then switch overnight.
>
> Don't hold your breath.


Indeed. The other way round is much more likely. Remove the supply and the
demand will soon disappear. Now where have I heard that before?

Coming back to the OP's request, it certainly got me thinking about Test
Match Special - if Blofeld was on, the lack of reception would be a positive
advantage. Imagine him on a Voyager:

"There's a shop, selling an excellent cake. And... oh my goodness, there's a
class 90 just going by with a rake of MkIIs - almost as good as those buses
I like so much. Oh dear, a pigeon has just smashed itself to pieces on the
nose of this 220. Meanwhile, the train manager is coming through and I can't
hear myself think because of the screaming of those kids in the quiet zone.
Sorry, Mr Producer? What was that? Oh, my dear chap, you think I should talk
about the cricket? How extraordinary. The score? Well, let's see. Err...
Bill, who's batting?..."

Regards

Jonathan

"Jonathan Morton"  wrote in
message news:dev1a4$mmo$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...


> Coming back to the OP's request, it certainly got me thinking about Test
> Match Special - if Blofeld was on, the lack of reception would be a
positive
> advantage. Imagine him on a Voyager:
>
> "There's a shop, selling an excellent cake. And... oh my goodness, there's
a
> class 90 just going by with a rake of MkIIs - almost as good as those
buses
> I like so much. Oh dear, a pigeon has just smashed itself to pieces on the
> nose of this 220. Meanwhile, the train manager is coming through and I
can't
> hear myself think because of the screaming of those kids in the quiet
zone.
> Sorry, Mr Producer? What was that? Oh, my dear chap, you think I should
talk
> about the cricket? How extraordinary. The score? Well, let's see. Err...
> Bill, who's batting?..."


We were forced to <ahem> enjoy the cricket coverage at work recently because
my supervisor is a fan of the game.  He is also a stubborn old sod who gets
the hump if he loses control of the radio!

On hearing my less than subtle complaints about the commentators, one of my
workmates commented upon the fact that I wasn't the first Bond to wish a
slow and painful death upon a Blofeld.
: )

"Bondee"  wrote in message
news:dev1np$clr$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...


> We were forced to <ahem> enjoy the cricket coverage at work recently
because
> my supervisor is a fan of the game.  He is also a stubborn old sod who
gets
> the hump if he loses control of the radio!


Sounds a sound man :-)


> On hearing my less than subtle complaints about the commentators, one of
my
> workmates commented upon the fact that I wasn't the first Bond to wish a
> slow and painful death upon a Blofeld.
> : )


Though I love cricket, I'm with you there, as my earlier post indicated.

Incidentally you could be closer than you realised. Ian Fleming had a habit
of naming characters after friends. James Bond himself was named after the
author of "Birds of the West Indies", and Blofeld was named after Henry's (I
think) father, who also knew Fleming.

Regards

Jonathan

On 29 Aug 2005 10:26:37 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 UTC, Stuart  
>wrote:
>
>: I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has 
>: a digital reciever, then switch overnight.
>
>We (in the Borders ITV area) are to be the first to lose analogue, 
>sometime next year. As a nice twist, since all digital boxes decode a 
>colour signal, we are then to be forbidden to buy black and white 
>licences, even if we only own black and white television sets.
>

You were superceded -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4390579.stm

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:19:04 UTC, Liz  wrote:

: On 29 Aug 2005 10:26:37 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
:  wrote:

: >We (in the Borders ITV area) are to be the first to lose analogue, 
: >sometime next year.

: You were superceded -
: 
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4390579.stm

I forgot them. But that's a local pilot scheme, really, due to the 
particular geography around one transmitter. We're due to be the first
region to go. The Digital TV website still says 2008, but we've been 
told here that it'll be late next year. And unlike the people of 
Ferryside and Llanstephan, we're not going to be given nice new 
digital sets...

Ian

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:38:49 +0100, Ian Johnston  
 wrote:


> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:19:04 UTC, Liz  wrote:
>
> : On 29 Aug 2005 10:26:37 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
> :  wrote:
>
> : >We (in the Borders ITV area) are to be the first to lose analogue,
> : >sometime next year.
>
> : You were superceded -
> :
> : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4390579.stm
>
> I forgot them. But that's a local pilot scheme, really, due to the
> particular geography around one transmitter. We're due to be the first
> region to go. The Digital TV website still says 2008, but we've been
> told here that it'll be late next year. And unlike the people of
> Ferryside and Llanstephan, we're not going to be given nice new
> digital sets...
>
> Ian



I wouldnt have thought that many of you had TV sets yet anyway?

Paul

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:29:43 GMT, paulSPAM@paulsherwin.co.uk (Paul
Sherwin) wrote:


>The problem at present is the TX power is limited because DTT has to
>coexist with the existing analogue network.


This is reassuring - but remember that digital "copes" differently
with a weak signal than analogue.  What I mean by that is that you
will get unpleasant jumping and noise from a weak digital signal,
while you might just have got a bit of snow from a weak analogue
signal.

The same applies to mobile phones - with an analogue phone (remember
those) it was possible to carry on a conversation with a very weak
signal, where with a digital once you're below a certain threshold it
breaks up completely.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:43:14 UTC, "paul Hutchinson" 
 wrote:

: I wouldnt have thought that many of you had TV sets yet anyway?

Snobby git. On a cold winter's evening you can hear little but the 
whirring of dozens of disks ...

Ian

In article , Liz
 writes

>On 29 Aug 2005 10:26:37 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 UTC, Stuart  
>>wrote:
>>
>>: I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has 
>>: a digital reciever, then switch overnight.
>>
>>We (in the Borders ITV area) are to be the first to lose analogue, 
>>sometime next year. As a nice twist, since all digital boxes decode a 
>>colour signal, we are then to be forbidden to buy black and white 
>>licences, even if we only own black and white television sets.
>>
>You were superceded -
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4390579.stm


And there are reports that it hasn't been as successful as the digital
spin doctors would like us to believe!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

"Jonathan Morton"  wrote in
message news:dev4j6$12a$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> "Bondee"  wrote in message
> news:dev1np$clr$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > We were forced to <ahem> enjoy the cricket coverage at work recently
> because
> > my supervisor is a fan of the game.  He is also a stubborn old sod who
> gets
> > the hump if he loses control of the radio!
>
> Sounds a sound man :-)
>
> > On hearing my less than subtle complaints about the commentators, one of
> my
> > workmates commented upon the fact that I wasn't the first Bond to wish a
> > slow and painful death upon a Blofeld.
> > : )
>
> Though I love cricket, I'm with you there, as my earlier post indicated.
>
> Incidentally you could be closer than you realised. Ian Fleming had a
habit
> of naming characters after friends. James Bond himself was named after the
> author of "Birds of the West Indies", and Blofeld was named after Henry's
(I
> think) father, who also knew Fleming.


I believe that Fleming was at Eton with Henry's grandfather, could be wrong
though.  The pair didn't get along (understatement) so when it came to
naming the arch-villain in his books, Blofeld was the obvious choice.

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-dM8V9dQzjLsf@localhost...

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:43:14 UTC, "paul Hutchinson"
>  wrote:
>
> : I wouldnt have thought that many of you had TV sets yet anyway?
>
> Snobby git. On a cold winter's evening you can hear little but the
> whirring of dozens of disks ...


Is that the hamsters running in their wheels?
: )

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:01:35 UTC, "Bondee" 
 wrote:

: 
: "Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-dM8V9dQzjLsf@localhost...
: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:43:14 UTC, "paul Hutchinson"
: >  wrote:
: >
: > : I wouldnt have thought that many of you had TV sets yet anyway?
: >
: > Snobby git. On a cold winter's evening you can hear little but the
: > whirring of dozens of disks ...
: 
: Is that the hamsters running in their wheels?

Hamsters? Hamsters? We'd have given our bloody back teeth for 
hamsters.

Ian

On 29 Aug 2005 10:26:37 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 UTC, Stuart  
>wrote:
>
>: I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has 
>: a digital reciever, then switch overnight.
>
>We (in the Borders ITV area) are to be the first to lose analogue, 
>sometime next year. As a nice twist, since all digital boxes decode a 
>colour signal, we are then to be forbidden to buy black and white 
>licences, even if we only own black and white television sets.
>

Who says you can't have a B+W licence ? Even a B+W set has the colour
signal present up to a point in the circuitry. The set-top box might
process the colour content but a colour picture cannot be produced
without further equipment in the form of a colour television.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:16:55 UTC, Charles Ellson 
 wrote:

: Who says you can't have a B+W licence ?

The TV Licensing Authority, both to me and to the local paper who, at 
my prompting, took it up with them. It's like having a colour video 
recorder and black and white TV - you need a colour licence because 
the colour signal is decoded at some point.

There's an odd parallel - it was once the case, and may still be, that
the duty payable on spirits was based on the maximum alcohol 
proportion at any point in the production process. Hence whisky 
diluted to 5% ethanol would incur the same duty per litre as the full 
strength stuff.

Ian 

--

Neil Williams wrote:

> Our local version of that (Milton Keynes FM 103 Horizon) is now
> announcing at what time one can hear specific songs during the day.
> Nothing like giving the presenters a bit of freedom...


I believe its a Network Playlist provided from HQ (although certain key 
stations like Essex FM don't take it) you can listen to SGRfm and 
Broadland 102 during the local programmes in the day, and you'll hear 
the same songs in the same order (within about 5 mins of each other)

Playlist is only around 90 minutes long as well so it don't take long 
for the same song to come back.

yyOn 29 Aug 2005 20:27:06 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:16:55 UTC, Charles Ellson 
> wrote:
>
>: Who says you can't have a B+W licence ?
>
>The TV Licensing Authority, both to me and to the local paper who, at 
>my prompting, took it up with them. It's like having a colour video 
>recorder and black and white TV - you need a colour licence because 
>the colour signal is decoded at some point.
>

The difference there is that a VCR actually does something productive
with the colour content unless it has been nobbled or has not been
installed as a receiving device - a licence is not required for the
viewing of pre-recorded tapes containing non-broadcast material. I
suspect this has originated from some relatively junior employee with
no great consideration paid to the fine details which have caused them
previous defeats in court. One of their favourite claims is that a
licence is required to merely _possess_ a working television despite
no such type of licence being available.
<snip>
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:4312c8eb.402648@news.tesco.net...

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 GMT, Stuart 
> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that as analogue and digital TV uses the same
> >frequencies, to give digital the same coverage will probably mean
> >turning off analogue to make room for it.
>
> True, but I fear the main goal is to make money for the Government by
> selling off the frequencies...
>
> >I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has
> >a digital reciever, then switch overnight.
>
> Don't hold your breath.


The dates are announced - BUT the BBC has already pointed out that if the
government wants to allow it (and other terrestrial broadcasters) to go
ahead with HD transmissions on terrestrial digital then it will need much of
this spare bandwidth to enable this to happen!

TM

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:lvj6h19finn3tne1m7nmlpv97i4b6pa472@4ax.com...

> On 29 Aug 2005 10:26:37 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
>  wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 UTC, Stuart 
>>wrote:
>>
>>: I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has
>>: a digital reciever, then switch overnight.
>>
>>We (in the Borders ITV area) are to be the first to lose analogue,
>>sometime next year. As a nice twist, since all digital boxes decode a
>>colour signal, we are then to be forbidden to buy black and white
>>licences, even if we only own black and white television sets.
>>
> Who says you can't have a B+W licence ? Even a B+W set has the colour
> signal present up to a point in the circuitry. The set-top box might
> process the colour content but a colour picture cannot be produced
> without further equipment in the form of a colour television.


A friend of mine was forced into buying a Colour Licence because he had a 
NTL "set top box", although he only used a B&W TV set.
Various people and organisations including NTL tried to have it reversed 
without success.

The criteria used is that the "Set top box" is capable of "receiving" a 
colour signal.  So is the aerial but, it can't show a colour picture!

KW

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
news:lvj6h19finn3tne1m7nmlpv97i4b6pa472@4ax.com...

> On 29 Aug 2005 10:26:37 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
>  wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:38:24 UTC, Stuart 
>>wrote:
>>
>>: I suspect in some cases they'll make sure everyone in a certain area has
>>: a digital reciever, then switch overnight.
>>
>>We (in the Borders ITV area) are to be the first to lose analogue,
>>sometime next year. As a nice twist, since all digital boxes decode a
>>colour signal, we are then to be forbidden to buy black and white
>>licences, even if we only own black and white television sets.
>>
> Who says you can't have a B+W licence ? Even a B+W set has the colour
> signal present up to a point in the circuitry. The set-top box might
> process the colour content but a colour picture cannot be produced
> without further equipment in the form of a colour television.


A friend of mine was forced into buying a Colour Licence because he had a
NTL "set top box", although he only used a B&W TV set.
Various people and organisations including NTL tried to have it reversed
without success.

The criteria used is that the "Set top box" is capable of "receiving" a
colour signal.  So is the aerial but, it can't show a colour picture!

KW