It's not how close the frequencies are; after all the Amateur licence spreads something like 200+GHz, My PMR licence spreads 450MHz and my PMSE 20+GHz. It's what the frequencies are licenced for ie block 'A' base TX & block 'B' mobile TX etc, even my PMR designates base and mobile transmit frequencies [albeit it's not uncommon to find them being used inverted]. And of course don't forget there are 4 frequencies in use at a time not 2.
Grounding an Appliance
- Thread starter akwexavante
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Yes, I thought I'd written that.
That's what I understood you to be saying. However, since the quote you included with your "I'm in agreement with you on this one" comment was what I had written about payments for refuse collection services, I thought I should just make sure that you were also implying that you agreed with me about TV licences!
Kind Regards, John
Yes, I worded that badly, and it's really the second half of my sentence which is more important in terms of what I was thinking.
I obviously was not suggesting that exactly the same type-testing/approval could apply to both phones and repeaters, since phones don't (can't) transmit on the downlink frequencies. However, my point was that the same sort of testing/approval which applied to phones would presumably be equally applicable to repeaters, the only difference being a very slight (almost trivial) difference in the frequencies involved. In other words, I would have thought that it should/would be just as easy for the manufacturer of a repeater to get type approval for that product as it is for manufacturers of phones to get type approval for their phones, shouldn't it?
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
That would certainly be one approach, but I think it would probably be quite a struggle to shift UK opinion away from what it perceives as the advantage of having a few 'publicly-funded' TV channels.
My point therefore relates to the situation so long as we do have 'publicly-funded' channels (which isn't going to change any time soon) - in which situation, given the very high proportion of households that have licences, I stick to my pragmatic view that (just as with refuse collection) it would be simpler and better (and cheaper for the public) if the funding were via (central or local) taxation, rather than separate annual collection from each household (plus the 'chasing' etc.).
Kind Regards, John
Fairly obviously, when virtually everyone has a TV, any requirement for a Household to have a TV Licence equates to a Poll Tax.
All Australian Radio and TV licence fees were abolished in 1974 by the Australian Labor Party government on the basis that the near-universality of television and radio services meant that public funding was a fairer method of providing revenue for government-owned radio and television broadcasters [At the time, the combined TV/Radio licence fee was (AUD)$12.]
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has since then been funded by Government grants, now totaling around (AUD)$1.13 billion a year, and its own commercial activities (merchandising, overseas sale of programs, etc.). The Australian Government also funds the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) at about (AUD) $300 million, giving a total of (AUD) $1.43 Billion
However, Australia’s population is 25.7 million so (AUD)$1.43 billion works out to be (AUD)$55.64 per person.
The average household size in Australia is (about) 2.6 (https://aifs.gov.au/facts-and-figures/population-and-households), so the Australian Government contributes (AUD) $144.67 per household to the ABC and SBS.
Since 1974 https://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html indicates that inflation has been about 838%, so (AUD) $100.56 would equate to parity with the 1974 Licence Fee.
However it maybe that technology costs have increased since 1974 and, as a comparison, currently the cost of a UK (Colour) TV licence (£157.50) equates to about (AUD) $282.00
The current Australian Government constantly has limited funding to the ABC at well below the inflation rate.
I must urge you to beware of "Commercializing" the BBC in any way, just as most Australians resist any call for "Commercializing" the ABC.
There are programs originated and shown on the ABC which would never be shown on any "Commercial" TV Channel - Gruen for one (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/gruen), and I do hope that is not "Region Locked".
This.
Unfortunately there are those here who feel it is their duty to watch advertisements.
That is, of course, precisely what I have been suggesting for the UK, and for precisely the reasons you state.
Provided that the sums are done correctly, such that the appropriate amount of money (the same as it would have been with the licences) goes to the broadcasters), and general taxation adjusted appropriate so as to additionally recover what would previously have been collected as licence fees, as I've said, it's surely got to be not only much simpler and more 'equitable', but also cheaper?
Kind Regards, John
There clearly must be a lot of such people, otherwise the adverts presumably wouldn't exist, hence presumably nor would we have commercial broadcasters (or even forums etc. like this one).
I think I must be fairly unusual, since I seem to be an advertiser's nightmare, being seemingly fairly 'immune' to many adverts. For example, every time I look at a page on this site, there are (ever-changing) adverts at the top and bottom of the page, but my brain is essentially blind to them - and I really don't have a clue as to what (or even 'what type of things') they are advertising, and very much doubt that my brain is noticing enough to be subliminally influenced to any appreciable extent.
It's similar with me, to an appreciable extent, with TV adverts. As I recently observed here, there are many TV adverts which I "know well", and which sometimes even 'entertain' me a bit, but without my having any idea (and/or persisting idea) as to what is being advertised.
I'm not sure how common is her behaviour but my wife very frequently records programmes on commercial channels which she wants to watch and then views the recordings immediately after the broadcast has finished, specifically so that she can 'fast forward' through all the adverts.
Kind Regards, John
I don't mind the amusing ads, like the Aldi ones, but they become a bore after a few showings. Mostly the ads just pass me by, I don't grasp what they are trying to sell. Some of them are so cryptic anyway.
I often do that - I just start watching a few minutes in, then FF through the ads..
All I can say is that it did - I can only assume by very careful RF design.
Dunno.
I vaguely recall discussing things with one of the suppliers - I can't remember why now, but I imagine one of our clients was looking for something. It didn't go ahead.
Why not ? What happens in the network ? The base sends out a radio signal that is picked up buy the phone. The phone sends out a radio signal that's picked up by the base station. All this device is doing is picking up the weak signal from one side, and repeating it to the other side - basically acting as a transmission path with negative loss. As long as it doesn't distort the signal from one side to the other then neither end is going to see any difference.
BTW - this would have been when GSM (a.k.a. 2G) was "the" standard. And the discussion about multiple frequencies didn't apply as, IIRC, the GSM standard was a "time slot, end end talking at a time" system. Therein might be a clue - with careful design I imagine you could gate the repeater transmitters according to the received signal of the receiver on the other side of the unit. But I never looked into the details beyond talking with one of the suppliers and thinking it was "a bit iffy".
They actually rely on that ?
Sorry, I worded that badly. If you have no aerial connected, and are using it for other purposes (such as as a computer display), then you don't need a licence for it. I've heard tales of people having a telly which is deliberately not connected (either to an aerial or power) and inviting the inspectors in - just for the "fun" of being able to say "told you so, no p**s off". That would have been back in the days of 2 or 3 analogue channels
It might be, but that still leaves the question of licensing. When you get a SIM card, that will (I assume) include an implicit or explicit licence to use that phone with that network's frequencies - which is a separate issue to type approval.
You are correct. The argument against that once it's a case of being reliant on handouts from No 11 - the size of that handout is at the whim of the current occupier of No 11 and whether he feels the BBC has been sufficiently supportive of whichever bunch is in power at the time. While the cost of the licence has to be agreed, it is then stable for a few years and can't be arbitrarily cut because whoever won the election last month thinks you didn't support them enough.
Which leads to ...
Agreed
As I think you previously mentioned ("oscillator") there is a potential problem if the repeater re-transmits on the same frequency that it received. In a 'fixed' P2P repeater that can be addressed by having highly directional 'in' and 'out' antennae, but that is obviously not appropriate on a mobile network.
However, is it not the case that there is a range of uplink and downlink frequencies/channels available? If so, it would be presumably be possible for the repeater to re-transmit (in both directions) on a different frequency from the one it had received. That would also avoid the other problem (in addition to 'oscillation') that could arise if a repeater re-transmitted on the received frequency and the phone (or whatever) was also getting some signal from the distant 'base station' as well as from the repeater (both on same frequency, quite possibly with some phase differences between the signals).
Sure - but, as you say, that is presumably dealt with by the SIM card.
Provided 'the rules' were properly established, I don't see why there should be a problem. Just as now, the government would have to agree (every few years) on what fee the BBC should get and then, rather than collect that amount in licence fees (going directly to the BBC), 'guarantee' that the Chancellor will pay that amount to the BBC each year (until a new figure is mutually agreed) - leaving it up to the Chancellor to decide how he was going to collect those monies 'from the people' through taxation adjustments/whatever.
There surely must be countless other situations in which the government is 'contractually obliged' to make payments to 'suppliers'/whoever at rates that are pre-determined/agreed and which cannot be changed at the whim of a Chancellor??
Kind Regards, John
The way the system works is the base and mobile communicate on a control channel, when a call is set up the working channel is negotiated and a route through the network is established. Sure the systen is evolving but this basic format has always been there, as I understand it. It is not possible to build a repeater using the same transmit and receive frequency without very significant physical isolation, even using impossibly directional aerials, so additional channels will have to be employed. By neccessity the additional channels will have to be identical to the range used by the base and mobile.
This is the simplistic layout of a full duplex repeater, be it analogue, digital, air tubes, string and tin cans etc
Base transmits on a 'GO' channel, which is rebroadcast on another 'GO' channel.
Mobile transmits on a 'RETURN' channel which is rebraodcast on another 'RETURN' channel.
Without worrying about how or why, base says to mobile listen on G1 and I'll listen on R1.
The repeater has to be able to comply with that instruction in some way. That instruction has to be translated by the repeater to G2 & R2 and instructions sent forward to the mobile which has to comply.
That has to happen, with the way the phone service works it is not possible to not work this way.
In the very unlikely scenario the repeater is able to repeat on the same channel [such as one set of aerials in a remote location like the roof and the other set in the room] then yes it would be possible, however the chances of being able to guarantee that sort of isolation are way beyond restrictive. But in any case the repeater would still have to channel hop to follow the base.
The next problem is the base and mobile establish contact [for now we'll just accept that is possible on the same channel] and the next step is they tell each other how strong the signals are and adjust their power, the phone says I have this amazingly strong signal [because I'm right beside the repeater] and the base calculates it can turn the power right down, way way down but the mobile reports the signal is still strong... get the picture. In the mean time the base is reporting a very weak signal from the mobile so the mobile cranks the power up to max, in fact all 32 mobiles in use are all cranking the power up to maximum to a level which is capable to reach 10 miles but the repeater is only 10 feet away so 32 people are now cooking their brains with a transmitter running at 5000 times the power needed.
Because the base has turned power down too low to reach the repeater properly the user now starts trying to get a signal at the window and all of a sudden base receives both signals [from mobile and repeater] which is of course completely out of phase and time so the base is unable to decode it.
So we're starting to see single channel working doesn't work and we accept the repeater has to run 4 channels. When base says listen on G1 the repeater has to do that and at the same time it has to find a clear channel and tell the the phone to go there. Additionally the repeater needs to communicate with the network to advise the presence of the additional channels being used. Power levels are then negotiated and adjusted correctly.
So far only three of the functions required have been described and you'll notice I've referred to channels, as mentioned before the channels are a combination of frequency and TDM.
Adding repeaters into the network is actually a complex thing to do as it doubles the number of channels used and requires negotion with the service provider, thinking about it I wonder if it may even need to be enabled by them.
Yes they actually rely on that. [additional capacity from the service providers]
I do not know much about TV advertisements in this country. (Australia) (I see them mainly when they are reviewed on Gruen !)
Apart from a nightly News Program, I do not watch much TV directly but set up my PVR to record that which I might wish to view at a later time - at my convenience and NOT that of any broadcaster.
(Of course, I then "fast forward" over all the advertisements.)
I am quite amazed that statistics seem to indicate that only about half the households in this country have a PVR, since the precursors to this in the form of VHS and even Beta tape recorders seemed to be so common.
I would think streaming and 'catch up' services make a separate PVR virtually unnecessary.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
