Terrestrial TV Usage.

[Lucid]

View attachment 350223 There is a massive difference in the price between Freesat and Free to Air. At one point you needed a card for the Freesat, glad that is no longer the case.

Seems I am out of date, also
Note the bit about EPG provider, also these View attachment 350227 it seems are not considered as freeview channels, so are not available from my local transmitter, so for me only option is satellite.

Your local Freeview transmitter is a small relay. It fills because there's a shadow from some geographical feature (hills, valleys etc) that blocks the signal from the main transmitter. Many of these fill-in transmitters carry a reduced service. The channels you get on Freeview Lite are the core of the Freeview service. When they say that Freeview covers something like 98.5% of the UK population, then it's with the Lite service. Some of these Lite relay transmitters cater for just a few hundred homes. That's a heck of a commitment when you think about it.

The channels you listed above are all Freeview channels, but you'd need to be in the signal zone from a main transmitter or a full-service relay to get those additional channels.

 

[ericmark]

It says 1000 homes, Llanfair Caereinion where I live has a population of 1,810 (2011) so it likely would serve far more if it transmitted something worth receiving.

 

[Lucid]

View attachment 350284 It says 1000 homes, Llanfair Caereinion where I live has a population of 1,810 (2011) so it likely would serve far more if it transmitted something worth receiving.

I think you might be misinterpreting the data. They're not counting people or people watching. They're counting homes (houses, flats, etc) within the signal reach of the transmitter.

The data is quite old, and it's likely more houses have been built since. That's the most practical way that the 'homes served' number would increase. In other words, 'what's on' isn't going to make more homes appear. The homes are either within the transmitter's range or they're not. 'What's on' won't change that.

 

[ericmark]

I got aerial to work, saw what was broadcast, and decided freeview is not worth the hassle, same with VHF reception, so we use either internet or satellite for radio and TV, even given up with my amateur radio, there is just one guy I can reach, and not going to mess around with HF aerials.

People in general look at their own area, and when in North Wales I did use freeview, but here radio and TV simply don't work well enough to be worth messing with. And I find it annoying when people try to say what we should all do, when they have no idea what it is like in other areas of the country.

Not @Lucid I know he does realise that terrestrial is rubbish from Moel-y-sant, OK 44 programs is better than the three we had most of my life, but it does not compare in any way to the satellite TV we can get. OK I only use one fixed dish, my son-in-law has two dishes so he can watch Turkish TV as well, others I know can rotate their dishes, so can get even more.

So to compare terrestrial to satellite seems pointless, there is no comparison.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Not @Lucid I know he does realise that terrestrial is rubbish from Moel-y-sant, OK 44 programs is better than the three we had most of my life, but it does not compare in any way to the satellite TV we can get. OK I only use one fixed dish, my son-in-law has two dishes so he can watch Turkish TV as well, others I know can rotate their dishes, so can get even more.

So to compare terrestrial to satellite seems pointless, there is no comparison.

Eric, I do not understand your issue at all. At home, we have a good Freeview service, and a good signal from three main transmitters. I also have all the channels available on Freesat. Other than checking the Freesat works, we don't bother with it, simply because we don't need it. However, whilst away in the caravan, Freeview reception, depending on where we are, can be patchy to none existent, so long ago, I bought a dish so we had access to Freesat, which we find is a perfectly good substitute for Freeview. We appreciate that in the wilds of the countryside, Freeview reception may not be the best, so we compromise and use Freesat.

If you have a lack of channels via Freeview, then why can you not do what most everyone else does, and settle for Freesat?

 

[foxhole]

I’m lucky can get freesat and Freeview from my local transmitter which is under a mile from me so can pick up signal on a hair grip it’s so good .

 

[Lucid]

Eric, I do not understand your issue at all. At home, we have a good Freeview service, and a good signal from three main transmitters. I also have all the channels available on Freesat. Other than checking the Freesat works, we don't bother with it, simply because we don't need it. However, whilst away in the caravan, Freeview reception, depending on where we are, can be patchy to none existent, so long ago, I bought a dish so we had access to Freesat, which we find is a perfectly good substitute for Freeview. We appreciate that in the wilds of the countryside, Freeview reception may not be the best, so we compromise and use Freesat.

If you have a lack of channels via Freeview, then why can you not do what most everyone else does, and settle for Freesat?

I'm not speaking for Eric, but I have to say that I'm a bit flabbergasted by your reply. I hope it's just the way it's written and not what you actually mean, because if you really meant it, then this would display a shocking lack of empathy.

You don't understand his issue!?!

What's so complicated? He had good Freeview reception in a previous home. Now he has moved, it sucks. That's because the new location is on a restricted Freeview service. That doesn’t seem like such a difficult concept to grasp.

You have a similar issue with Freeview when caravanning. Thats quite common. Pretty places to camp are usually out in the wilds where service is a bit patchy. Satellite fixes that in a lot of cases.

You're happy with Freeview/Freesat. Okay, that's you. Eric looked at the options and decided that Sky offers him more than Freesat - more channels, and some benefits with home networking - so he decided that it's worth the cost.

Once again, not too difficult to grasp. You made a similar kind of value judgement about buying a caravan despite others viewing it as a waste of money. Everyone's mileage differs. We all make similar choices in different spheres of our lives.

 

[FrodoOne]

I "feel" for "ericmark" in the lack of terrestrial TV service available to him in a small town/village area.

I was surprised that, in the UK
"many people do not simply use the "Free to Air Services" which are available to them
but choose to use "Satellite" and other services, for which a fee is charged".

I may now have a better understanding of the UK situation and see that there is a Freesat service.
However, the antenna to receive this "Free" service must cost more than a Terrestrial UHF antenna !

Again, I am sorry for the problem which "ericmark" has.
If you look at the details of the transmitters and sites in the "link" which I provided for Victoria
https://ozdigitaltv.com/transmitters/VIC
and look at the lower powered (one star) sites,
you will see that all the five "Channels" that are available in the Australian State "Capital Cities" are available at those "minor" sites,
some of which have transmitters with a power as low as 5 W.

Hence, the same terrestrial TV service is available across all "populated" areas in Australia - without the need for satellite antennae.

It seems to be "odd" that,
if the Commercial Channels in Australia can afford the small extra cost of utilizing facilities provided by and for the "Public Broadcasters" (ABC & SBS) to reach a few extra "customers", the same is not done in the UK

The three Australian "Commercial" Network channels are named Seven, Nine and Ten
because those were the VHF Channels which they last used in the State "Capital Cities" - pre Digital TV
An odd thing concerning the re-allocation of frequencies/channels with the introduction of Digital TV is that these "Networks" now use (VHF) "channels" in the State Capital Cities which are different from their "Name".

If you look at
https://ozdigitaltv.com/transmitters/VIC/326-Mount-Dandenong-Mt-Dandenong
you will see that
"Seven" transmits on Channel 6,
"Nine" transmits on Channel 8, and
"Ten" transmits on Channel 11.
The ABC was originally on Channel 2 (and is often "known" as that) but it now transmits on VHF Channel 12.
SBS transmits on Channel 7.

There is still one "Public Channel" (31) in Melbourne, which is not available terrestrially elsewhere.
For many years the Federal government has been trying to have it closed down and switch to "transmission" only via the NBN (National Broadband) service.

In Australia, some "Upper Band" VHF Channels (6 and higher) are still used in State Capital Cities (and at "intermediate locations" - such as Albury).
Elsewhere, UHF Channels are used.
The "Channel" which was used by "Nine" contains the frequency band now used for DAB+ Radio Broadcasts.

 

[denso13]

The three Australian "Commercial" Network channels are named Seven, Nine and Ten
because those were the VHF Channels which they last used in the State "Capital Cities" - pre Digital TV
An odd thing concerning the re-allocation of frequencies/channels with the introduction of Digital TV is that these "Networks" now use (VHF) "channels" in the State Capital Cities which are different from their "Name".

If you look at
https://ozdigitaltv.com/transmitters/VIC/326-Mount-Dandenong-Mt-Dandenong
you will see that
"Seven" transmits on Channel 6,
"Nine" transmits on Channel 8, and
"Ten" transmits on Channel 11.
The ABC was originally on Channel 2 (and is often "known" as that) but it now transmits on VHF Channel 12.
SBS transmits on Channel 7.

There is still one "Public Channel" (31) in Melbourne, which is not available terrestrially elsewhere.
For many years the Federal government has been trying to have it closed down and switch to "transmission" only via the NBN (National Broadband) service.

In Australia, some "Upper Band" VHF Channels (6 and higher) are still used in State Capital Cities (and at "intermediate locations - such as Albury).
Elsewhere, UHF Channels are used.
The "Channel" which was used by Channel 9 contains the frequency band now used for DAB+ Radio Broadcasts.

Why do you use different font sizes, I struggle to read the small stuff at times?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I'm not speaking for Eric, but I have to say that I'm a bit flabbergasted by your reply. I hope it's just the way it's written and not what you actually mean, because if you really meant it, then this would display a shocking lack of empathy.

Sorry, but Eric obviously lives in a part of the world where many would envy him his location. He does tend to moan about many things, that are simply a part of being where he lives. A less than satisfactory Freeview signal, is a minor exchange for living where he lives, especially when he has perfectly good alterntive sources for his TV. Where I am at the moment, there is no Freeview, so I compromise using satellite for reception.

I made a conscious choice to live, where I live - a small village, with countryside on the doorstep, yet a full strength main TV signal, a good regular bus service passing through, good local services, and good shopping just a short bus ride away. It's not as 'wild' as I would perhaps like, but it's a fair compromise..

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

It seems to be "odd" that,
if the Commercial Channels in Australia can afford the small extra cost of utilizing facilities provided by and for the "Public Broadcasters" (ABC & SBS) to reach a few extra "customers", the same is not done in the UK

The UK is a much smaller country, with a much higher population, some living in valleys, where TV signals cannot so easily reach. Another issue is, like everywhere else, there is a limited amount of bandwidth available to use for TV transmissions - that is the crux of the issue. Each transmitter, needs to fit in at a frequency which does not interfer with other neaby neighbours, and there simply is not enough available bandwidth for every small local transmitter, to carry a full service to every tiny area. Main transmitters use horizontal polarisation, low power, local ones use vertical to try the improve the situation, but still not enough bandwidth to satisfy everyone.

 

[Lucid]

I "feel" for "ericmark" in the lack of terrestrial TV service available to him in a small town/village area.

I was surprised that, in the UK
"many people do not simply use the "Free to Air Services" which are available to them
but choose to use "Satellite" and other services, for which a fee is charged".

I may now have a better understanding of the UK situation and see that there is a Freesat service.
However, the antenna to receive this "Free" service must cost more than a Terrestrial UHF antenna !

It is more expensive, but not massively so. A decent terrestrial aerial is around £20-£40 ($40-$80 AUD). A perfectly serviceable 60cm sat dish with quad LNB and wall mount would be around £40-£60 ($80-$100 AUD).

Again, I am sorry for the problem which "ericmark" has.
If you look at the details of the transmitters and sites in the "link" which I provided for Victoria
https://ozdigitaltv.com/transmitters/VIC
and look at the lower powered (one star) sites,
you will see that all the five "Channels" that are available in the Australian State "Capital Cities" are available at those "minor" sites,
some of which have transmitters with a power as low as 5 W.

Hence, the same terrestrial TV service is available across all "populated" areas in Australia - without the need for satellite antennae.

It seems to be "odd" that,
if the Commercial Channels in Australia can afford the small extra cost of utilizing facilities provided by and for the "Public Broadcasters" (ABC & SBS) to reach a few extra "customers", the same is not done in the UK

What you're perhaps overlooking is the difference in geography and in population distribution between Australia and the UK.

Australia has something like 27 million people mostly living in the coastal region of a continent.

The UK has almost 3 times as many people, and they all live in a parcel of land about a quarter of the size of NSW.

By the way, those red stick pin things, those are some of Australia's terrestrial TV masts.

The UK map of just out main transmitters (not including the small 'fill-in' transmitters looks something like this.

In order to have them this close together, no two locally adjacent transmitters can share any transmission frequency with its neighbours. In addition, there's all the relay stations required to fill the gaps where the geography of the land creates dead spots.

In total, the UK has over 1,000 TV transmitters. Now, the relay stations use a different polarisation. It's vertical. This doesn't make their transmissions invisible to horizontally polarised aerials. It simply reduces the apparent strength that an oppositely polarised aerial 'sees'. Arranging the frequencies and polarisations so that there's no cancellation or other interference is a heck of a planning task.

Here's an idea of the density of the Freeview Lite transmitters because of the mountainous Welsh geography.

Some of these are little more than a couple of miles apart (3km). They all need to have their frequencies arranged so that someone in a fringe area doesn't lose their signal. Can you imagine how much of a task that is to plan? Now think how much more complicated it would be to throw in a couple of extra muxes.

Australia and the UK are quite different, each with their own challenges and solutions. For example, in the UK we haven't used VHF for TV since the end of the 1960s. Australia has been populated for tens of thousands of years. Britain has been populated for over half a million years. In that time, people moved inland to the hilly areas and spread throughout the British Isles. Australia's main population surge came with colonialisation during the 18th and 19th centuries. Australia has alpine regions (and ski resorts) in NSW, but these regions don't support much in the way of agriculture, and so they're not populated in the same way as the hilly areas of the UK.

 

[FrodoOne]

What you're perhaps overlooking is the difference in geography and in population distribution between Australia and the UK.

Australia has something like 27 million people mostly living in the coastal region of a continent.

The UK has almost 3 times as many people, and they all live in a parcel of land about a quarter of the size of NSW.

View attachment 350608

Initially, I was attempting to compare the area England (130,279 km²) with Victoria (227,444 km²) but the entire UK is 243,610 km²,
only slightly larger than Victoria.
Your comparative maps show this quite clearly.

By the way, those red stick pin things, those are some of Australia's terrestrial TV masts.

The UK map of just out main transmitters (not including the small 'fill-in' transmitters looks something like this.

In order to have them this close together, no two locally adjacent transmitters can share any transmission frequency with its neighbours. In addition, there's all the relay stations required to fill the gaps where the geography of the land creates dead spots.

In total, the UK has over 1,000 TV transmitters. Now, the relay stations use a different polarisation. It's vertical. This doesn't make their transmissions invisible to horizontally polarised aerials. It simply reduces the apparent strength that an oppositely polarised aerial 'sees'. Arranging the frequencies and polarisations so that there's no cancellation or other interference is a heck of a planning task.

The same technical problems exist in Australia, of course !
If you check the link in https://ozdigitaltv.com/transmitters/VIC for the Melbourne transmitters (Mount Dandenong)
you will see that there are four sets of relay transmitters within 5 km of the main towers and each is not more than 5 km from another.

While the highest point near Melbourne is Mount Dandenong (633 m), that area is quite "hilly" - if not actually "mountainous".
Two "adjacent" sites (Upwey and Selby) use the same set of frequencies but the lower powered Upwey transmitters use Vertical polarization with Selby using Horizontal polarization.

A similar situation exists at Arthurs Seat and Rosebud - about 80 km South on the Mornington Peninsula.
However, the frequencies used there are not the same as those use "across the bay" in Gelong, since this is a clear "line of site" and interference could occur.
(By the way, at its widest East-West point (41 km), Port Phillip is wider than the English Channel, at its narrowest point (34 km)
Anyone for swimming?)

You also wrote
"Australia has alpine regions (and ski resorts) in NSW, but these regions don't support much in the way of agriculture, and so they're not populated in the same way as the hilly areas of the UK."

In this you may be correct.
However, the East cost of Australia has "Tableland" country where "TV Signal Shadows" do exist.

As I was "looking" around on the https://ozdigitaltv.com/ site
I found this site (https://ozdigitaltv.com/transmitters/ACT/448-Banks-Theodore )
near Canberra - virtually a Southern Suburb of Canberra
I have no idea of the areas that those small 7 W transmitters are serving on this Dual Transmission site.
Also Jindabyne (https://ozdigitaltv.com/transmitters/NSW/38-East-Jindabyne ) seems to have an additional SMT48 "Channel".
which I would guess stands for "Snowy Mountains TV".
And, there it is - https://snowymountains.tv/

My "point" is that Australian "Authorities" and "Companies" seem to have gone further than those in the UK
to ensure that "most' of the population can receive terrestrial TV signals
and not be "left out in the cold",
as "ericmark" seems to have been !

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

My "point" is that Australian "Authorities" and "Companies" seem to have gone further than those in the UK
to ensure that "most' of the population can receive terrestrial TV signals
and not be "left out in the cold",
as "ericmark" seems to have been !

As both Lucid and I have tried to explain to you, it is not a matter of UHF frequency bandwidth, without clashing with other transmitters.

 

[Lucid]

Initially, I was attempting to compare the area England (130,279 km²) with Victoria (227,444 km²) but the entire UK is 243,610 km²,
only slightly larger than Victoria.
Your comparative maps show this quite clearly.

<SNIP>

My "point" is that Australian "Authorities" and "Companies" seem to have gone further than those in the UK
to ensure that "most' of the population can receive terrestrial TV signals
and not be "left out in the cold",
as "ericmark" seems to have been !

And after all that, Australia still doesn't have the sheer density of digital TV transmitters on the ground that the UK does, so the problem of juggling all the UHF frequencies isn't the same either.

Add to that, Oz uses a bigger UHF range. You have 42 individual channels between RF Ch28 and 69, plus has an additional 14 channels in the VHF band. That gives your country a total of 56 RF channels to juggle with versus the UK's 28. Do you get it now? You have double the number of channels to play with, so of course you can include more stations. If we had 56 RF channel slots to play with then no doubt we'd be able to include a bigger selection for those receiving from relays. But we don't, and so the UK does a sterling job with the resources on hand.

Ericmark isn't 'left out in the cold' as you put it. He has the core / the essential / the full PSB package on Freeview. What he's lacking is the additional range of channels that are not part of the PSB bouquet. That's just a fact of geography.

Now, can we please leave this alone?


PSB - Public Service Broadcast(ing)