Not receiving all saorview channels

The Cush wrote: »

Using the last 2 as a guide I'd say about 2050 or whenever they replace digital broadcasting with a newer technology. Any changes to the current plan will be down to international coordination between countries.

Thanks for that.

What do you think, should there be action taken between the two governments to remedy the frequency clash between Preseli (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10555298) and Mt. Leinster, where many people will need their aerials changed to continue watching the Irish PSBs?

Or is this a minor issue that can be dealt with through Saorsat or getting new aerials installed for the people who live in a dodgy reception area and don't already have a wideband UHF aerial?

Brougher Mountain is quite a distance from Mt. Leinster, and its service area being defined by the border, is just too far away to be affected in any way by Mt. Leinster except in strong tropospheric ducting conditions I would imagine. Hypothetically, there could be places in the midlands who lose out on Brougher reception because of Mt. Leinster but those overspill concerns are secondary to providing proper in-group PSB multiplex coverage.

In any case, Brougher Mountain is much further away than Preseli is! I think we know how much testing ComReg carried out when people in Mt. Leinster's service area are picking up Preseli on an indoor aerial!

The original RRC-06 allocations should have been tested too, but that didn't stop them making a balls of Mt. Leinster and forcing thousands to get new UHF aerials too when switchover happens!

And yes, the Group B channels were assigned with a view to commercial broadcasts and one PSB multiplex. The RRC-06 plan is being used for two multiplexes, except channels above E59 are avoided.

lawhec wrote: »

You'd be surprised just how far north Mt. Leinster gets, at least on FM - it can get right into South Fermanagh and even into parts of Enniskillen in flat conditions. I don't know exactly how far TV penetrates on either VHF or UHF, but I would make the educated assumption that co-channel interference in part of Brougher's service area would be possible. Also tropospheric enhancement would reduce the overall reliability for both sites. Over the past few years I've seen posts from people in the midlands enquiring about why they can only get a few Freeview channels and not all of them, and quite often TG4 and TV3 from Mt. Leinster are responsible for knocking out the reception of two multiplexes. As for the service area being defined by the border, radio waves have the habit of not following man-made political boundaries - the analogue tv signal in Cavan town from Brougher is almost as good as that in Enniskillen.

Yes, I agree the allocations between Mt. Leinster and Preseli on the face of it is a balls up. I've suggested in the past that the first Saorview multiplex should be moved to E34 to (a) be compatible with current Group A UHF aerials, (b) it should still be reasonably picked up well by Group B aerials, and (c) it would allow easy diplexing of signals from both Mt. Leinster & Preseli aerials.

I wouldn't be suprised, I can pick up Beat 102 in Louth with a mediocre radio, and very good Mt. Leinster VHF and UHF TV with the right aerials. Colour is a bit washed out compared to closer transmitters, but reception was still sharp and snow-free.

My point about the border was that the service area was relatively small in comparison to the area that people on both sides of the border actually use Brougher. So long as the area roughly between Brougher Mtn. and Belturbet is able to enjoy good Brougher Mtn. reception, then it will overpower stray Mt. Leinster signals in all but the most extreme tropospheric ducting cases. If people in Westmeath end up losing out on reception every so often, it'll have to be a secondary concern to those who will lose out on Saorview completely or the more common scenario of having to pay for a replacement aerial.

For example, any report of someone failing to pick up Mt. Leinster's Mux 1 on Ch. E45 despite using a properly-aligned Group B aerial was due to inherently weaker Mt. Leinster reception because of terrain in combination with the co-channel interference from Preseli. Tropospheric ducting made the problem more widespread but that can't always be avoided, even my family's had problems with Cairn Hill reception being disrupted by Black Hill in Scotland once.

That's why I wouldn't be too concerned about CCI between Brougher and Mt. Leinster as the 130-mile-odd gap between the two, over land, would allow for reasonably-high power broadcasts. Though exactly how high is beyond my answering. I know the CH97 and GE06 agreements worked out formulae for the protection ratios required and for the distances needed to coordinate services etc etc. It's all academic anyway as so far, ComReg and OfCom have shown no interest at re-opening this process. If we borrow the UK's example, we'd need clearance at around 100KW peak ERP to replicate existing service from Mt. Leinster.

Of course, the existing Group A allocation for Mt. Leinster could also be used in an instantaneous switchover, with existing restrictions on UHF broadcasts carried over for DTT. Someone suggested this earlier. There were relays on coastal Wales which broadcast on Chs. 23 and 26 in analogue times, and the protection ratios for DTT are less stringent now than for analogue if anything (20dB off the top of my head) so that could also work out if ComReg and OfCom were to put their heads together.

Edit: and yes, while using Ch. 34 would be welcome, using Ch. 39 aswell means that some people will have to get Group A aerials instead of Group B aerials, albeit a far smaller number. But Group B aerials are better at picking up Group A channels than Group A aerials are at picking up Group B channels. So moving both channels to Ch. 30 and Ch.34 would be good in my eyes, and any future multiplex plans by the BAI or ComReg can involve a heart-to-heart with OfCom;)