Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
alanh

Community Tv

Recommended Posts

Would it make sense to have both CTV and NITV on the same multiplex, thus freeing up some bandwidth for SBS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would only be equitable if there was another national broadcasting transmission network established, otherwise SBS would still need to carry NITV outside of the metro area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frequency of posting is no indicator of accuracy

Aye, 'tiz true. A large number of posts is no indicator of accuracy. One only needs look in alanh's direction to determine that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLXXX,

I have never been suspended from either of these forums.

I never use four letter words like those appearing recently, call people names, and harrass people like the little group here. They do it for self-gratification because no one else posts. I also notice that this same group never posts a new idea for the others to comment on. Probably because for most posters in this group it is the same person.

I recall that the rabble of posters including you caused the thread on the use of DAB+ on channel repeaters was eventually closed down because of you all. The repeaters are still on air and Commercial Radio Australia wants to extend the number of these repeaters to other cities when they have the money.

Why don't you post on accountancy forums, do you get shown up for the same lack of knowlege that you post here. After all you have never worked in this industry but you do work in accountancy.

Alanh

Edited by alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You mean the thread about infill repeaters that you claimed were 'special engineering' and 'required real engineering' and 'a soldering' iron'? The very same thread where many people, my self included, tried to convince you that such items were available as off the shelf devices? The thread where it was eventually revealled by someone actually in the industry to be precisely what was expected, 'off the shelf' devices not a custom engineered device that required a skilled engineer to approach with a soldering iron?

The silly thread where you were so self absorbed with your own belief of infaliability that you couldn't even understand the simple statement of digital radio eventually becoming as popular as FM radio? The silly thread were you proved to any reasonable person reading that you really had no idea what you were talking about? The thread where over the duration of the thread you slowly learned what was being talked about and started using the correct terminology?

The thead where YOUR post was reported?

That thread? Is that the one you are talking about here, alanh? Just want to make sure that you aren't referring to some invisible thread that no one else but you can see where none of that went on.

Edited by DrP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Malich
I never use four letter words like those appearing recently, call people names, and harrass people like the little group here.

As a scientist, I'm always very wary when someone uses the word "never". Quite often it turns out to be so easy to disprove...

Probably because for most posters in this group it is the same person.

Alan, you've repeated this same claim quite frequently recently. I'm pretty sure you know it is not true, but I remind you that if it is true you should contact the mods about it. While not specifically mentioned in the board rules here, on most forums the use of multiple accounts in concert in order to harass others or support your own point is an offence punishable by suspension or banning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope the old half-wit is referring to me somewhere in his mixed-up ramble.If not I'm going to have to try harder to slag him.

Alanhalfwit:I will stop posting solely to abuse you the day you start posting polite and accurate replies to the intelligent posters who take the considerable time and effort to repeatedly correct your alzheimer's-influenced ramblings.

Until that happens-go root your boot.If you can still get it up.

And if this post disagrees with you,report me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only one getting user's posts wrong is you.

With that opening lie/line,there is absolutely zero reason to peruse the rest of the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I recall that the rabble of posters including you caused the thread on the use of DAB+ on channel repeaters was eventually closed down because of you all.

Us all? So there were multiple people?

The locked thread to which you refer is the following: Dab+ Repeater In Melbourne Cbd

I suggest you ask a friend of yours, with a reasonable technical knowledge, to peruse that thread and report back to you. I think you will find that your friend's report would tend to be consistent with the comments DrP made above:

You mean the thread about infill repeaters that you claimed were 'special engineering' and 'required real engineering' and 'a soldering' iron'? The very same thread where many people, my self included, tried to convince you that such items were available as off the shelf devices? The thread where it was eventually revealled by someone actually in the industry to be precisely what was expected, 'off the shelf' devices not a custom engineered device that required a skilled engineer to approach with a soldering iron?

The silly thread where you were so self absorbed with your own belief of infaliability that you couldn't even understand the simple statement of digital radio eventually becoming as popular as FM radio? The silly thread were you proved to any reasonable person reading that you really had no idea what you were talking about? The thread where over the duration of the thread you slowly learned what was being talked about and started using the correct terminology?

The thead where YOUR post was reported?

That thread? Is that the one you are talking about here, alanh? Just want to make sure that you aren't referring to some invisible thread that no one else but you can see where none of that went on.

I doubt your friend would be able to agree with your own [self-serving] characterisation of that thread.

Why don't you post on accountancy forums, do you get shown up for the same lack of knowlege that you post here.

Actually, I rarely get "shown up" for lack of knowledge on this forum, as a survey of my posts will confirm. That's because I check my facts, and the clarity of my expression, before posting.

As you know, a very high percentage of your posts to this forum are challenged, as a survey of your posts will confirm. I see that you are trying once again to rationalise that state of affairs as due to use of more than one member name. I regret to advise you: that is a misguided assumption of yours, a delusion.

I suggest it would be pretty clear to most people who read the technical threads of this forum regularly that the following member names are associated with different personalities, each with their own distinctive mix of technical knowledge and style of expression:

GoForMoe

DrP

Malich

James T Kirk

GlennP

The fact that the above people, others I haven't mentioned, and I, may all quite regularly agree that you are wrong alanh, on particular matters, and post to that effect, does not entitle you to conclude that we are not different people.

We are different people. It just so happens that you are wrong, surprisingly often, over a surprisingly wide range of issues.

If you re-read the locked thread carefully, and objectively, you may come to the realisation that you could have expressed yourself better at the beginning of it than you did. In my opinion, you brought most of the problems on yourself, through making rash statements. If some people became immoderate in their comments, and I recall some contributors did, it would have been out of frustration with your "intransigence" shown in that thread. (And on top of other rash statements of yours, made in earlier threads.)

I never use four letter words like those appearing recently

I agree you avoid use of profanities.

Edited by MLXXX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we be surprised by preparationH being wrong so often... no I'm not.. he's consistently wrong so it's not surprising... Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes perusing this forum will see that... the issue is our concern for newbies being misinformed.

As for the topic at hand

From the myswitch website today for the main Melbourne transmitters , proposed date of retune 10/3/2014 which happens to be 4 months after the switchoff.

Service information

Service Pre-Retune Post-Retune

Channel Freq(MHz) Channel Freq(MHz)

ABC 12 226.5 12 226.5

SBS 29 536.625 7 184.5

Seven Network 6 177.5 6 177.5

Nine Network 8 191.625 8 191.625

Network Ten 11 219.5 11 219.5

Community Television 32 557.625 32 557.625

(apologies for the cut and paste table but I wanted to put it in the post rather than a link)

C31 Melbourne has no plans to move the main transmitter at switch off or post that at the restack... as I have previously stated I have confirmed this with them directly.

Edited by beeblebrox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really important is that if there is to be any transmission and or LCN changes they must happen at analog switch off time on the main sites. This is because MATV systems with channel amplifiers will have to be retuned, along with SBS. Also all viewers will need to rescan their receivers for SBS anyway. This is unlikely to be repeated by large MATV systems such as hotels, hospitals etc along with those who cannot retune their receivers themselves. The result is that some of the potential community TV audience will miss out on their programs through cost/landlord or ignorance.

Alanh

Again... real world...

Unless the customer has modern channel processors then in most cases single channel amplifiers will actually need to be replaced for SBS as the existing will be UHF units. In many cases where a head end has been running for many years I would not be attempting to retune a single channel amp anyway I would be replacing it with a new unit... the cost of an amp (or even the whole headend) v's the risk associated with trying to stuff around with something that may have been running to 10-20 years IMHO is too great to warrant bothering with them.

Most modern channel processor headends (not tighta.ss old fashioned single channel amps) can be reconfigured in seconds via a laptop, or even remotely and any professional in the business will be designing and costing the restack factor into any job they do.

As for most hotels and hospitals, most that I know of don't carry ctv on their matv now and are unlikely to in the future even when given the option as they're more focus on VOD and Pay channels that give them incremental revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would only be equitable if there was another national broadcasting transmission network established, otherwise SBS would still need to carry NITV outside of the metro area.

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Timj

NITV is now part and funded as part of the SBS budget. After all it is the Special Broadcasting Service, no mention of nationality.

SBS has a simulcast of SBS HD and SBS1. Considering that the capability of nearly all receivers is to be able to display HD then SBS1 could be dropped and replace by community TV, inserted at the transmitter site. The big advantage of this approach is that community TV will have exactly the same coverage area as all other broadcasters in that city, considering that SBS is moving to channel 7. The translators will automatically carrry the Community TV signal without modification and no extra transmitter will be required.

SBS is currently only transmitting 19 Mbit/s and this can increase to 23 Mbit/s when they move to channel 7 allowing them to not loose any of their current capability. I suppose that SBS doesn't want to share!

Beeblebrox, considering that tuned MATV systems will have to modified or retuned to continue SBS reception, and if SBS was including the CTV signal no modifications for CTV will be required and if this occured prior to receiver retuned, then every TV will get the CTV signal. I agree that a alot of body corporates will not wish to pay to get CTV which is why they don thav it yet.

In addition if CTV is not provided now, just a band 3 antenna will be needed to feed the amplifiers as well. Remember that Adelaide switches SBS to channel 7 in 12 days and Perth in 26 days and there is only a month to modify the MATV systems in those cities.

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SBS has a simulcast of SBS HD and SBS1. Considering that the capability of nearly all receivers is to be able to display HD then SBS1 could be dropped and replace by community TV, inserted at the transmitter site.

As noted previously, SBS intend to commence breaking their HD simulcast to instead show content from both SBS One and SBS2 that is available in HD.

The big advantage of this approach is that community TV will have exactly the same coverage area as all other broadcasters in that city, considering that SBS is moving to channel 7. The translators will automatically carrry the Community TV signal without modification and no extra transmitter will be required.

And the big disadvantage is an inability to utilise their full multiplex in areas that they don't have community television, with SBS' goal first and foremost to provide for SBS services. That's why NITV was merged with SBS rather than SBS carrying a distinct NITV service as an external channel - it means SBS are in full control of their channels.

SBS is currently only transmitting 19 Mbit/s and this can increase to 23 Mbit/s when they move to channel 7 allowing them to not loose any of their current capability. I suppose that SBS doesn't want to share!

Or they want to put it towards easing the addition of future services or to increase bitrates.

Beeblebrox, considering that tuned MATV systems will have to modified or retuned to continue SBS reception, and if SBS was including the CTV signal no modifications for CTV will be required and if this occured prior to receiver retuned, then every TV will get the CTV signal. I agree that a alot of body corporates will not wish to pay to get CTV which is why they don thav it yet.

So then a retune from the SBS UHF channel amplifier to the UHF Community TV frequency would be the most efficient process, reusing part of the existing equipment not needing to buy another channel amplifier.

In addition if CTV is not provided now, just a band 3 antenna will be needed to feed the amplifiers as well. Remember that Adelaide switches SBS to channel 7 in 12 days and Perth in 26 days and there is only a month to modify the MATV systems in those cities.

Even if it was a certainty for them to move to VHF (they've just confirmed the permanant assignment of a portion of the 6th channel spectrum, there's no confirmation on a band move), it certainly could not be organised within a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official. Alan has lost the plot. Months of anger has built up to this point, now he's making a "name" for himself. Utterly disgraceful conduct here in the 'What's Happening' section. This needs to be stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Malich

When you've got mods that just go "Wow" and lock the thread, what can you do?

Luckily, Alan seems to have put me on his ignore list. I don't know why he'd think that makes a difference to me, and in fact I see only upsides - I get to correct Alan's ridiculous statements and lies, he continues on in his usual ignorance, nobody gets into a pointless slanging match with the fool, and everybody has a chance to learn the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...