We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Freeview tv, set for problems


daz60

Likes # 0

freeview to payviewThis does not affect me,rid of my tv last year,for those who rely on that 'ray of light' in the corner as a window to the world,housebound people or pensioners it seems that they may have to face a charge of £212 for a filter to prevent interference from the transmitters when 4G comes.

A foreseeable event left to the last moment and ,dare i say ,typical of this countries attempts at upgrading for the digital age.

A new quango to be set up to implement the process,no doubt the vulnerable will be means tested to decide on whether they recieve funding,no comment on payscales for those who will be in charge.

Should the companies pay or the subscriber,or indeed the taxpayer.?

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

Perhaps off subject, but since changing from 'top-box' freeview system to a television with combined freeview system, we have had many problems regarding losing a signal. Re-programming helps but doesn't seem to resolve?.

Like this post
wiz-king

Likes # 0

spuds It could be one of two things -

TV is not as sensitive as the set top box - needs a pre-amp for the aerial

TV has too strong a signal - needs an attenuator in the aerial lead

Go into the menu and have a look for a page that give the info about signal strength (Diagnostics on my TV), you need over 80% for a good picture. If they are all at 100% then it might be they are too strong and reducing the strength with a attenuator might help.

I have both! One TV needed a pre-amp on the aerial lead (LG monitor/TV) the other needed an attenuator (LG TV) --- I set both for ~95% signal and it improved the quality of them - no drop-outs or pixellation.

Like this post
Chegs ®™

Likes # 0

Many years ago I was heavily into CB & then amatuer radio and recall that I was the one who had to redress any interference to other transmissions as I was the cause.Therefore I would expect that the 4G companies be made to redress any issues caused to other transmissions,if it costs them 2p or £212 I care not,they're the cause so they should fix it.

Like this post
octal

Likes # 0

Chegs ®™ you were not the cause of interference caused to poorly designed equipment that is susceptible to picking up transmissions it wasn't supposed to, you end up doing the manufactures job for them.

I think in this case the problem lays with the receiving equipment and not 4G, they were only offered a band that happened to close to the existing TV band by the government. So it is back to the TV manufacturers who make the TV's but they will argue that their equipment was designed and operated as intended at the time without any problems before 4G appeared, so it's back to the government to ask the question why they placed another high power non compatible system so close to another? I can see this going around in circles for some considerable time, and ultimately it will be the consumer or tax payer who loses out at the end of it as usual.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

I've got one of those USB TV tuner 'sticks' with a coaxial aerial socket.It's working ok at the moment (basically, it enables you to view freeview TV on your computer).

Will these types of gadgets be made redundant by the 4G 'invasion'?

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

AitchBEE

4G is basically going to make existing wireless connection speeds look as if they are standing still - with 4G you can potentially get data download transfer speeds of around 1 Gigabyte per second on a stationary device - 100 Mps on the move.

There's going to be a battle between two competing formats, and eventually one of them will lose out. Like many technology issues, 4G is not a clear-cut situation just yet.

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

I've only recently upgraded to 3G from my old semaphore phone, I expect at least 25 years out my my technology investments!

Like this post
Graham*

Likes # 0

'John Tate, Director of Policy & Strategy at the BBC, said the introduction of 4G would highly lucrative and that the signal interference problem should be dealt with using the “polluter pays” principle.'

Spot the typo...

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

'4G is basically going to make existing wireless connection speeds look as if they are standing still'

Is it possible then, that 4G could make Freeview a redundant receiving technology, thereby making the interference issue irrelevant? If it's that fast, would it be economical to receive in this way? And could it also make satellite and cable receiving technology redundant? Or are we heading that way by the time 5G arrives?

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

wiz-king

Thanks for the information. Over the past number of years we have had an array of aerials and boosters, which have brought in channels that other people in my area were unable to get. We have two satellite dishes, but that's a different matter at present. Since changing the televisions from the old system with top-boxes to digital with freeview pre-installed, things have gone wrong channel wise, so I suspect that its going to be a case of getting the local aerial installation company involved?.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 review: The best iPad mini and Nexus 7 rival tablet around

IDG UK Sites

Which Mac? Complete Apple Mac buyers guide for 2014

IDG UK Sites

Mobile email is powerful and useful - but also hopelessly intrusive

IDG UK Sites

Samsung lights up London skyline with Midnight Rainbow