Deflectors deflecting?

bungeecork

Do deflector systems still "deflect" terrestrial signals from the UK along mountain tops, or do they just rebroadcast satellite signals?

And what is their legal status? Tolerated, legal or regularly raided?

Mossy Monk

in dungarvan i have access to 2 which broadcast satellite pictures and one which does a mixture of satellite and terrestrial

they are legal afaik

kilasser

The one in Kiltimagh Co. Mayo uses all satellite. That press red icon is a pain.

BrianD

Which means they are broadcasting illegally as they are supplosed to be amplifying weak terrestial signals and not from a sat receiver. Having said that, they have an odd legal status that is politically motivated (are these licences finite?) . I'm amazed that the stations that they are rebroadcasting haven't come knocking on the door. I'd imagine that most deflectors have closed by now ... most people want more

Mayo Exile

I'd imagine that most deflectors have closed by now ... most people want more

Not quite yet i think. Granted, ITV going FTA along with BBC lessens the need for them but with CH4 still not FTA a need exists as CH4 is still very popular amongst many viewers.

Antenna

They were licenced in the late 1990s, having previously been unlicenced for many years.

BrianD wrote:

Which means they are broadcasting illegally as they are supplosed to be amplifying weak terrestial signals

where is it stated Brian that they must not receive by satellite?, or where is it stipulated they must receive terrestrial??? can you find this on comrg's website???

With "deflectors" being licenced to transmit on different channels than incoming UK UHF terrestrial signals it technically it does not matter how signals are received so long as it is analogue PAL system I for transmission on the UHF channels they are allocated. Receiving from satellite does not result in more spectrum space being taken up - so long as the signal is converted to analogue PAL system I for transmission so its just the same as other terrestrial signals (though without NICAM sound - unless some have gone to the big expense of getting NICAM encoders!).

if they were merely "amplifying weak terrestrial signals" they would be retransmitting on the same UHF channels as they receive - however this was never the case (nor technically possible) with the vast majority of Irish 'deflector' systems, only in a very small number of cases of very low powered systems where there is terrain shielding between an area to be served and the received signals and receive aerial was this type of simple system possible.

I'd agree the term 'Deflector' is used incorrectly in this country - and gives rise to your confusion that now licenced systems are still illegal here. In the UK the term 'Active Deflector' is used to describe a system that transmits on the same channels as it receives - by just amplifying the incoming signals and feeding that to the transmit aerial - as I have just mentioned above. A 'Passive Deflector' has no amplification but seemingly has been used in some Welsh valleys where there is a very strong signal from a nearby transmitter at a receive point but no (direct) signal at houses a very short distance away down a slope

Since DTT has been introduced and increased in power in the UK the overall quality of long distance terrestrial signals from the UK on the mountains here has deteriorated, so there is more need for "deflectors" to source from satellite now.

The big drawback with doing this has been loss of teletext (very few people notice loss of NICAM stereo!!!).

As has been said, households having FTA satellite of BBC and now ITV has lessened the demand for them, but even in these households (apart from C4 issue) there is generally just one satellite receiver, but more than one TV, so they will probably still support the deflector if the "fee" is low. Deflectors 'charging' more will die off more quickly.

Freddie59

Antenna wrote:

They were licenced in the late 1990s, having previously been unlicenced for many years.



where is it stated Brian that they must not receive by satellite?, or where is it stipulated they must receive terrestrial??? can you find this on comrg's website???

With "deflectors" being licenced to transmit on different channels than incoming UK UHF terrestrial signals it technically it does not matter how signals are received so long as it is analogue PAL system I for transmission on the UHF channels they are allocated. Receiving from satellite does not result in more spectrum space being taken up - so long as the signal is converted to analogue PAL system I for transmission so its just the same as other terrestrial signals (though without NICAM sound - unless some have gone to the big expense of getting NICAM encoders!).

if they were merely "amplifying weak terrestrial signals" they would be retransmitting on the same UHF channels as they receive - however this was never the case (nor technically possible) with the vast majority of Irish 'deflector' systems, only in a very small number of cases of very low powered systems where there is terrain shielding between an area to be served and the received signals and receive aerial was this type of simple system possible.

I'd agree the term 'Deflector' is used incorrectly in this country - and gives rise to your confusion that now licenced systems are still illegal here. In the UK the term 'Active Deflector' is used to describe a system that transmits on the same channels as it receives - by just amplifying the incoming signals and feeding that to the transmit aerial - as I have just mentioned above. A 'Passive Deflector' has no amplification but seemingly has been used in some Welsh valleys where there is a very strong signal from a nearby transmitter at a receive point but no (direct) signal at houses a very short distance away down a slope

Since DTT has been introduced and increased in power in the UK the overall quality of long distance terrestrial signals from the UK on the mountains here has deteriorated, so there is more need for "deflectors" to source from satellite now.

The big drawback with doing this has been loss of teletext (very few people notice loss of NICAM stereo!!!).

As has been said, households having FTA satellite of BBC and now ITV has lessened the demand for them, but even in these households (apart from C4 issue) there is generally just one satellite receiver, but more than one TV, so they will probably still support the deflector if the "fee" is low. Deflectors 'charging' more will die off more quickly.

When 'deflectors' (a contradiction in terms - they are actually UHF transposers) were licensed in 2000 they were indeed required to stipulate where they would receive the signals from (in those days terrestrially) and were licenced for four channels only by the then ODTR (now ComReg).

The licences were for 18 months initially and were then extended by a further 4 years, and are due to expire (surprisingly!) in 2007/8........after the general election.......amazingly, South Coast TV, the country's biggest UHF transposer operator, who were VEHEMENTLY against MMDS when it was originally mooted are now getting a licence to to operate a......wait for it......MMDS system (of course they don't call it that - they prefer the term 'digital transmission syytem'). Do I detect a small amount of humble pie being eaten??!!:eek:

Antenna

Freddie59 wrote:

When 'deflectors' (a contradiction in terms

Another contradiction in terms was MMDS operators referring to their fill-in MMDS retransmitters as 'beam-benders'

Freddie59

Antenna wrote:

Another contradiction in terms was MMDS operators referring to their fill-in MMDS retransmitters as 'beam-benders'

I see you conveniently ignored the comment about deflector operators going to broadcast on Microwave frequencies.:D

Ulsterman 1690

"beam benders" is a brand name for MMDS equipment produced by California Amplifier corp

Most (not all) deflectors in the Republic are licenced. Some source off satellite (and if it improves the quality/reliablilty of their service why shouldnt they ?) Some source from NI or Welsh terrestrial transmitters and some source from other deflectors. Why it should matteradamn to anyone (bar maybe cable company shareholders) is beyond me as is why it should matteradamn whether one calls them "deflectors" "rebeamers" "relays" "repeaters" "transposers" or even "booster dish"

Of the deflectors that do still source their signals terrestrially some retransmit on the same channel but (usually) with opposite polorisation some use adjacent channels (e.g recieve from Divis on 21/24/27/31 and transmit on 22/25/28/32) some use totally differet channel groups and some even use a mix e.g. BBC1 relayed on-channel but UTV on Ch 35

Many households with satellite still rely on deflectors for
1) Video timeshifting
2) Channel 4
3) Kitchen/Bedroom TV's

Incidently the BBC relay on the Channel Islands was using a $ky digibox for a while (dont know if they still do) as it gave a petter picture than their SABRE (multi-yagi) array

L1011

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Incidently the BBC relay on the Channel Islands was using a $ky digibox for a while (dont know if they still do) as it gave a petter picture than their SABRE (multi-yagi) array

How did they backhaul the (extremely short) local news then? Or was it locally inserted?

I'd be interested in how Channel Television manage that as they have UTV-alike levels of local programming compared to t'Network.

Freddie59

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

"beam benders" is a brand name for MMDS equipment produced by California Amplifier corp

Why it should matteradamn to anyone (bar maybe cable company shareholders) is beyond me as is why it should matteradamn whether one calls them "deflectors" "rebeamers" "relays" "repeaters" "transposers" or even "booster dish"

Ooooooooooooooooooohhh!! Touchy! Merely pointing out the facts bud! They are what they are. Deflectors is a ridiculous title - an Irish solution to an Irish problem!!:eek: :eek:

Ulsterman 1690

On-channel relays are often referred to (not just in Ireland) as "active deflectors"

So at least as far as the on-channel variety are concerned its a perfectly valid term

MYOB as far as I know the signal from the mainland is recieved at Alderney fed by microwave to the studios (in Jersey I think) where the local inserts are done and then fed onwards to Les Platons (the main transmission/relay site for the Channel Islands)

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/features/sabre/index.asp
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/itw/Channel/history.html

Presumably they use fibre optics to feed the local programmes back to London for uplink to Astra 2D ?

lawhec

In the past,during the 405 line days there was a receiving station at Alderny that received the signal from Stockland Hill which was then sent by microwave to Fremont Point on to Channel TV who then did their own production before sending it back to Fremont Point. I understand that the BBC had a similar arrangement for their site at Les Platons.

For UHF, it was a lot trickier especially concerning present and future potential co-channel interference. The IBA engineering department developed SABRE which used a bank of aerials that could be finely adjusted to null out interference from other transmitters just a few degrees away. The BBC also used the SABRE setup. This allowed Alderny to receive Channel through a special relay station on UHF as well. Channel 4 was available from Fremont Point on its opening night, ahead of schedule for the islands.

The local ITV contractor which broadcast from Stockland Hill in the 1980's was TSW who did a lot of opt outs from the main ITV network and this frustrated Channel when compiling their schedule. Therefore some time during this period they investigated the possibility of another ITV feed and managed with French permission to set up a receiving station near Cherbourg which received Rowridge and hence TVS who stuck more to the ITV network for schedule. Channel 4 also moved to this new receiving station, the BBC stayed at Alderny and SABRE.

This setup has lasted at least into the 21st Centurey though during the 50th anniversary celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II the BBC feed to the islands via SABRE suffered such bad interference that Sky Digiboxes were brought in as a back-up. I believe that not long after an undersea cable now links Jersey to England which carries the BBC television and radio feeds to the islands - it also works both ways to allow BBC Channel Islands to have their short opt-out sent up via satellite.

I think ITV and Channel 4 still use the French UHF pickup system. On satellite, Channels picture is that bit softer than the other ITV feeds and doesn't do widescreen either. When they started on satellite, Channels feed back to the network centre for uplink to Astra was done by a SNG truck at Fremont Point uplinked to another satellite (don't know which one), received at the uplink point and then sent to Astra 2D - this also explained why the Channel feed was slightly behind the other ITV channels. I'm not sure what method is currently being used - I seriously doubt a SNG is still being sited at Fremont. I also believe that the reason they don't have local programming in widescreen is not on cost grounds but that the incoming ITV feed being used is still analogue sourced and that no DTT still exists on the islands, thanks to French objections. And being small doesn't necessarily stop progress - UTV were one of the first ITV companies to broadcast local news and other productions in widescreen ahead of most of the ITV regions.

DMC

Fantastic stuff, NC, a joy to read, that.

byte

Yes. Very good report NC. Fair play.

L1011

Northern Correspondent wrote:

And being small doesn't necessarily stop progress - UTV were one of the first ITV companies to broadcast local news and other productions in widescreen ahead of most of the ITV regions.

Remember that UTV are 2-2.5x the size they claim to be to ITV Networks just due to the unofficial viewers down here - they're not small at all.

Freddie59

Northern Correspondent wrote:

The IBA engineering department developed SABRE which used a bank of aerials that could be finely adjusted to null out interference from other transmitters just a few degrees away.

Just one correction (AFAIK) - the array was not manually steered - it was self adjusting. (http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/fremont-point.asp). If you read the attached, the original receiving array consisted of YAGIs, but the SABRE receiving array is very similar in appearance to modern-day antennae. It was, indeed, cutting edge at the time.....and probably still is. The challenges facing those engineers with limited resources (and no computer predictions!) must have been horrendous to overcome.:)

Antenna

Re. the 'Active Deflector Systems' the following article written by well known TV DXer Roger Bunney appeared in TELEVISION magazine in JANUARY 1987, about such relay systems in the UK owned by communities themselves to service low populated reception blackspots which were expected to remain unserved by the national UHF network. Bear in mind this type of system which retransmits on the same frequencies as it receives can only be used to service screened valleys etc, and over fairly short distances - usually perhaps a mile or so max. MMDS "beambenders" operate in a similar manner. No doubt this article will prove interesting to many on this board

"
Practical Active Deflector Systems (TELEVISION magazine JANUARY 1987)

See attached picture also for Fig.1 .

The November issue contained an interesting article discussing the basics and practicalities of an active deflector system to provide TV reception at an otherwise screened location. The following notes are based on experience gained during the design of a number of such systems and will, I hope, provide further guidance for anyone tackling this sort of exercise. With one exception, in all the systems I've been involved with the signals have been retransmitted on the same channels as received. Fig. 1 shows a typical system.

Aerial Systems
The use of a Yagi aerial at the deflector site was generally avoided, the Triax BB Grid/Wolsey Colour King type of array being used for both reception and transmission. The BB Grid has a particularly good reflector screen and consequently a good front-back ratio, which is essential for avoiding feedback (r.f. "howl round"). The Grid type aerial has a relatively flat response and will have a gain variation of typically 1dB across a given channel group. When used for transmission this type of aerial avoids the upper channel gain tilt typical with a Yagi array, so that a fairly level field strength on all channels should be available at the domestic receiving site. This avoids the need for channel equalisers with the insertion loss (and expense) they introduce. A typical Yagi aerial has a gain variation of at least 3dB across a channel group: it's suitable for use at the domestic receiving site where the higher h.f. gain assists in overcoming cable losses etc. that tend to rise with increased frequency.
The Grid type aerial is a wideband system covering the entire u.h.f. band. It might be thought that this could give rise to problems with adjacent channel group signals but in practice no problems have been experienced. The perfectionist might however consider the use of a Labgear CM9034 u.h.f. group pass filter. This introduces an insertion loss of typically 1dB, with out-of-group signal attenuation of some 21dB. For optimum noise performance such a filter should be incorporated after the head amplifier at the receiving site - though the presence of interfering signals could make it preferable to include it in the feed to the head amplifier. If aircraft radar interference in the ch. 35-36 region is a problem a u.h.f. notch filter (RSPK4) can be inserted in line before any amplification.
With horizontally polarised signals the -3dB beamwidth of a single Grid aerial is typically 60 Degrees, which is far too broad. For reception at the deflector site two such arrays should be used, stacked side-by-side, giving a reduction in beamwidth to 30 Degrees at the -3dB points. This will also result in a much smoother polar response than with a Yagi array, due to the phase cancellation characteristics with signals coming from the sides. Stripline filters such as the Triax 721 (or 741 if a quad stack is used) offer minimal insertion loss while allowing efficient stacking for optimum gain.


Amplifiers
The head amplifier, assuming that the received signals are weak or noisy, should be a low-noise, low-gain, high signal handling capability device: the recently introduced Labgear CM7271 with its 1.6dB noise figure (15dB gain) is ideal. A secondary amplifier such as the Triax wideband u.h.f. type with a.g.c. loop incorporated should be included some 30ft. farther along the feeder. During high-pressure, anticyclonic weather conditions an otherwise fair to poor strength signal at the receiving site can rise to very high levels. Although, as noted, a head amplifier able to handle high signal levels should be used later stages can be pushed into severe non-linearity and saturation under such conditions. The a.g.c. loop amplifiers produced by Triax for masthead/outside use are designed to overcome this problem by reducing the gain when a signal reaches a predetermined level. This arrangement will maintain signal stability over a wide and varying signal range.
The amplifier cascade gain needs to be chosen with the feeder length between the receive and transmit sites in mind. If necessary a further low-gain repeater amplifier could be inserted.
The Wolsey Amethyst distribution amplifier used at the transmitting site provides d.c. powering at its input to supply 24V to remote amplifier(s). The 12V Labgear range can easily be modified for 24V operation. The Wolsey Countryman amplifier mentioned in the November article for use at the receiver site is undoubtedly a very high quality unit but does have a rather high noise figure; including a low-noise head amplifier prior to the Countryman will enable optimum signal/noise performance to be achieved.


Transmitting Site
The distance between the receive and transmit sites can be as little as 50m, though care must be taken to avoid feedback. If necessary, erect a close-mesh screen behind the transmit aerial - the screen should be well earthed.
We generally use a wideband Amethyst amplifier at the transmitting site, fitted close to the aerial system. A grouped version of the Amethyst is available: this provides a higher output - at a cost!
The Triax Grid type aerial was generally used at the transmitting site due to its flat response, minimum back radiation and forward beamwidth that can be tailored to suit the receiving area. Of great importance is to reverse the transmit polarisation with respect to the receiving polarisation. If a horizontally polarized signal is being received, the signal transmitted from the active deflector site should be vertically polarised. This will provide protection at the domestic receiving site where low-level signals received directly from the main station could otherwise give rise to line pairing, patterning or worse. In hilly areas there's always the possibility that signals direct from the main station will be resolved along with those from the deflector, so to avoid interference effects ensure that the polarity is reversed.
Apart from being of reversed polarity the transmitted
signal needs to be as strong as possible at the domestic receiving site. A typical transmit aerial system will consist of at least two stacked bowtie grids, perhaps four. A vertically mounted four-bay Grid/bowtie array will have a beamwidth of well below 30 Degrees - nearer 20 Degrees. Two such arrays stacked side by side, i.e. eight bowties in line, will severely limit the beamwidth, which could be a problem when the home receiving sites are dispersed. Use of an Ordnance Survey map with at least 2 1/2 inch to the mile is recommended to calculate the required beamwidth at the -3dB points for the transmissions. Stacking two vertical bowtie/grid arrays one above the other will maintain the signal beamwidth, limit the vertical beamwidth and increase the gain by nearly 3dB. Results should be acceptable over a distance of about a mile. Mount the transmitting aerials a few feet above ground level and aim them at the valley/screened location to be served. It's wise to provide as high a transmitted signal level as possible to ensure that the domestic receiving aerials provide a noise-free output for the sets.


General Considerations
An 18-element Yagi aerial should provide an adequate signal at the domestic receiving sites, the high-frequency tilt overcoming the greater losses with rising frequency. Recourse to a preamplifier with a less adequate aerial is not recommended as this can result in co-channel interference being visible.
When considering an active deflector, review all locations within the intended service area - and just outside (it's possible that someone with adequate reception just outside the intended service area of the active deflector will experience interference once the deflector is in operation).
Arranging for a power supply to a remote deflector site can be difficult. If a mains supply is available, few problems will arise. I've known a remote site to be d.c. fed from the nearest dwelling via GPO twin telephone wire (on the ground) - taking into account the quite considerable voltage drop on load. At another site - in fact a second deflector in a double-hop system - a battery trickle powered by a wind-driven generator and time clock arrangement was used.
All deflector systems should have DTI approval - though I suspect that more than a few systems are in use in hilly parts of the UK without the authorities being aware of their existence. From information that comes to hand from time to time it's clear that our colleagues in the southern parts of Ireland operate many deflector systems with great enthusiasm, high powers and transmission distances of several miles.

TELEVISION JANUARY 1987 183
"

Freddie59

Antenna wrote:

Re. the 'Active Deflector Systems' the following article written by well known TV DXer Roger Bunney appeared in TELEVISION magazine in JANUARY 1987, about such relay systems in the UK owned by communities themselves to service low populated reception blackspots which were expected to remain unserved by the national UHF network. Bear in mind this type of system which retransmits on the same frequencies as it receives can only be used to service screened valleys etc, and over fairly short distances - usually perhaps a mile or so max. MMDS "beambenders" operate in a similar manner. No doubt this article will prove interesting to many on this board

Yes - you're quite right. An MMDS 'beambender' is an active deflector, except that it operates at 2.5 GHz, not UHF. Of course the transmitters involved would be of a much higher quality than your run of the mill UHF deflector system.

Some other points that may be of interest to readers of this forum:

* The word 'deflector' was coined by the then-illegal UHF operators in the 1980s and onwards in their lobbying for a licence. They argued that they were merely 'defecting' the signal rather than rebroadcasting it - thus they argued that there was no need for a licence. As Mr Bunney's article adeqautely demonstrates, an active defelctor is amplifying the icncoming received signal (a very weak one in some cases) to a strength where it can be retransmitted over a path of several miles. Much the same as an RTE transposer, except that the outgoing frequencies are the same as the incoming ones.

* South Coast Community TV have been awarded a 'digital broadcasting licence'. Another fluffy term. They will actually broadcast on the 10 - 11 GHz band (same as some of Sky's satellite services). Amazingly, this is actually an MMDS system, which many deflectors laughed off in the 90s as 'unsuitable for Irish terrain'.:eek:

Yes - the readers may find the above very intersting indeed.....especially the ones who campaigned against the introduction of MMDS. I wonder will the same protests apply to the 'digital broadcasting system'??:D

byte

Great article, Antenna.

My folks hometown uses such a system, of which I set up some of it! It's done practically identical to what you've described.

Ulsterman 1690

Freddie seems to have some kind of anti-deflector agenda in his postings ?

As as been stated already many of the transmitters relaying UK channels in the Republic ARE operating on-channel and therfore truly ARE "deflectors" Of course SOME systems do have to use other channels and technically are not deflectors however the terminology has in everyday speak evolved to encompass all transmitters relaying terrestral (and satellite) channels from outside the Republic on standard UHF channels

Of course the transmitters involved would be of a much higher quality than your run of the mill UHF deflector system

An overgeneralisaion. Engineering standards at Irish deflectors vary widely (as do engineering standards of Irish cable TV systems BTW) But most deflectors use essentially the same kind of equipment as would be used by a cable company or small RTE relay transposer and presumably they need to confirm to some kind of minimum standard in order to be licencable by COMREG.

Now there is SOME validity (only some mind) in your comments RE: the irony of the proposal by ONE deflector group for the use of 10GHz digital transmissions in the light of their past opposition to MMDS but it should be remembered that
The Southcoast proposal involves much shorter transmission ranges (compared with the cell sizes of up to 50km with "conventional" MMDS) which are a lot more feasable at microwave frequencies. The fact that it ill use part of the band used by satellite TV is irrelevent since
1) Satellite recieving dishes are directional and point up at the sky
2) parts of the 10-12 GHz band are ALREADY used for various terrestrial transmissions (mainly point-to-point telecommunications links) without any ill-effect on satellite reception
3) Any allocation to Southcoast would be on a "secondary basis" (conditional on no undue harmful interference to existing services)
4) In any case most (if not all) programming carried on such a service would be sourced off satellite so presumably they cant be doing with causing interference to satellite signals ?????????

BrianD

I'm not sure if the deflectors had to meet a minimum technical standard. They were supposed to be an Irish solution to an Irish problem. They were handed out on the basis that they were short term 'stop gap' licences. Obviously the long term solution has yet to arrive.

The community deflector system is ultimately a bankrupt idea that has no future as it stands. People want more than the fuzzy pictures that were distributed (even if they were sometimes better tha RTE's). Furthermore, I believe that communities felt that the distribution platform was handed over to a monopoly and that some of the community deflectors never got an opportunity to upgrade technically along with a viable business model. The MMDS operators would argue that there is no competition in CATV areas and MMDS is just the same. However, wireless TV platforms could have competing operators (in theory and assuming availability of frequencies) and at the very least there should have been a more competitive tendering process for the original licences.

South Coast seems to be developing a viable system and one with a sustainable business model. I think another factor is that Irish people love getting something for nothing and I would guess that more people received a deflectors signal than actually made the voluntary payment. Part of the opposition to MMDS was the fact that everyone would have to pay up!

Freddie59

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Freddie seems to have some kind of anti-deflector agenda in his postings ?

Not so. I didn't think that pointing out the facts would demonstrate a leaning towards one side or the other. I could quite as easily point out that you demonstare an anti-Cable/MMDS bias.

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

An overgeneralisaion. Engineering standards at Irish deflectors vary widely (as do engineering standards of Irish cable TV systems BTW) But most deflectors use essentially the same kind of equipment as would be used by a cable company or small RTE relay transposer and presumably they need to confirm to some kind of minimum standard in order to be licencable by COMREG.

And where do you get that information? In reality, a Cable/MMDS company like NTL/Chorus would operate under stringent engineering conditions, much the same as Eircom, ESB, etc. Are you in agreement that the transmitter in this link (http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/7225/txgal5.html) would be representative of an RTE setup? In fairness, the South Coast people seem a world apart from this: http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/7225/txgal6.html

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Now there is SOME validity (only some mind) in your comments RE: the irony of the proposal by ONE deflector group for the use of 10GHz digital transmissions in the light of their past opposition to MMDS but it should be remembered that
The Southcoast proposal involves much shorter transmission ranges (compared with the cell sizes of up to 50km with "conventional" MMDS) which are a lot more feasable at microwave frequencies.

Maybe you misunderstand me...........South Coast have been granted a licence for the whole of Munster (and that's a fair size!). They are on receord as saying that their transmitters (built by www.mds.fr) will have a radius of 200 Km. Seems a little bit bigger than an MMDS transmitter to me!!!:eek:

The fact that it ill use part of the band used by satellite TV is irrelevent since
1) Satellite recieving dishes are directional and point up at the sky
2) parts of the 10-12 GHz band are ALREADY used for various terrestrial transmissions (mainly point-to-point telecommunications links) without any ill-effect on satellite reception
3) Any allocation to Southcoast would be on a "secondary basis" (conditional on no undue harmful interference to existing services)[/QUOTE]

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

4) In any case most (if not all) programming carried on such a service would be sourced off satellite so presumably they cant be doing with causing interference to satellite signals ?????????

Now think of what you're saying.......of course they won't interfere if they're broadcasting on different outgoing frequencies. The argument against this licence (by, believe it or not, Sky) is that while the outgoing frequencies may ot be the same as the incoming ones they could cause interference to satellite users in the locale who would be reeiving on frequencies close to the outgoing (transmitted) ones.

Freddie59

BrianD wrote:

Part of the opposition to MMDS was the fact that everyone would have to pay up!

I think you've just hit the nail on the head....:D

Ulsterman 1690

I could quite as easily point out that you demonstare an anti-Cable/MMDS bias

Whatever about cable I make no secret of my opinon that MMDS is a pretty brutal system. What passes for Cable in most Irish Cities/towns is not much better insofar as its just strung from house to house (regardless of whether the occupants subscribe or not) offers widely varying reception quality and in most cases doesnt even have the saving grace of offering broadband/relephone services

And where do you get that information?

From visits to various deflector sites, RTE sites and cable headends across the Republic

In reality, a Cable/MMDS company like NTL/Chorus would operate under stringent engineering conditions,

Doesnt stop them stringing cables across buildings (In some cases without owners permission) not to mention Leaking signals, poor reception and holding onto licnces in some towns for years on end without providing ANY service

Are you in agreement that the transmitter in this link would be representative of an RTE setup?

Ive seen some pretty brutal RTE setups particularly at some of the old VHF relay sites although in fairness most of these have been discontinued

. The argument against this licence (by, believe it or not, Sky) is that.....they could cause interference to satellite users in the locale

Ummmm Isint their licence conditional on them NOT causing such interference and resolving any such interference at their own expense

Maybe you misunderstand me...........South Coast have been granted a licence for the whole of Munster (and that's a fair size!). They are on receord as saying that their transmitters (built by www.mds.fr) will have a radius of 200 Km

I assume they mean collectively rather than individually for each TX. A 200Km transmission radius from a single TX would be a feat even on VHF Band 1 !

The community deflector system is ultimately a bankrupt idea that has no future as it stands

The deflector system has operated succesfully for over 25 years in some places. Many MMDS cells on the other hand have never made a penny. Of course digital satellite and terrestrial TV mean that the lifespan of deflectors (in their current form anyway) is limited to 10 years maximum however it also means that future prospects for MMDS are even bleaker

Freddie59

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Whatever about cable I make no secret of my opinon that MMDS is a pretty brutal system. What passes for Cable in most Irish Cities/towns is not much better insofar as its just strung from house to house (regardless of whether the occupants subscribe or not) offers widely varying reception quality and in most cases doesnt even have the saving grace of offering broadband/relephone services


From visits to various deflector sites, RTE sites and cable headends across the Republic


Doesnt stop them stringing cables across buildings (In some cases without owners permission) not to mention Leaking signals, poor reception and holding onto licnces in some towns for years on end without providing ANY service

Ive seen some pretty brutal RTE setups particularly at some of the old VHF relay sites although in fairness most of these have been discontinued


Ummmm Isint their licence conditional on them NOT causing such interference and resolving any such interference at their own expense


I assume they mean collectively rather than individually for each TX. A 200Km transmission radius from a single TX would be a feat even on VHF Band 1 !

The deflector system has operated succesfully for over 25 years in some places. Many MMDS cells on the other hand have never made a penny. Of course digital satellite and terrestrial TV mean that the lifespan of deflectors (in their current form anyway) is limited to 10 years maximum however it also means that future prospects for MMDS are even bleaker

I'm assuming (due to your username) that you are situated (or originate) from North of the Border. Now before you cry 'foul' I'm not going to commence some sort of North/South rant!! I have friends in the North itself.

I overheard a conversation once where someone passed remarks like 'cable strung from house to house', but, while networks in the North may be underground, they only have about 20% of the houses on their route subscribing.

Here in the Republic some 80% of homes in the vicinity of the cable subscribe. Now, which is the most successful? Also, cable companies now appear to be coming into their own.

At the minute I have from NTL:

1. Analogue TV
2. Digital TV
3. 3 Meg Broadband.

I'm also thinking of moving to www.blueface.ie for my phone. I take on board your points about deflectors, and many are valid ones. However, I'm sure you will agree that in your statement that some MMDS transmitters have not made any money, the existence of FTA deflectors, not fair competition, have caused this.

I wonder what the result would have been if deflectors had been forced to 'scramble' their signals also. Take it a stage further....if MMDS had succeeded financially, would wireless Broadband have been far more progressed than it is at the minute, as the companies involved could have reinvested the money?

Amazing too that MMDS has been written off for years, yet still exists and is now providing Digital TV. I can't see companies continuing to operate a service that is 'loss making' (your words) - can you?

Another scenario: imagine if one of the mobile phone networks had an open door policy where you didn't have to subscribe but could use the phone anyway? How long would the other networks have lasted. Food for thought indeed!:)

Ulsterman 1690

I'm assuming (due to your username) that you are situated (or originate) from North of the Border. Now before you cry 'foul' I'm not going to commence some sort of North/South rant!! I have friends in the North itself.

Quite frankly I dont see how it mattersadamn If im located on the dark side of the moon ! But like it says on my profile my location is "mainly Belfast". Ive lived/worked and have friends/relations in both NI and the Republic and have an interest in broadcasting issues and technology on both sides of the border (and elsewhere) otherwise I wouldnt be posting on the Irish cable and digital board

while networks in the North may be underground, they only have about 20% of the houses on their route subscribing.

Yes but in the Republic the cablenets had (until recently) the monopoly in most areas on access to UK terrestrial channels which is widely acknowledged as being the main driving force behind subscriptions. In NI everyone already has access to UK terrestrials so there is less incentive to subscribe to cable and the operators have to work harder to attract subscribers

At the minute I have from NTL:1. Analogue TV 2. Digital TV 3. 3 Meg Broadband.

Most of the Republics cable subscribers dont have access to cable broadband as for Analouge/Digital TV well its hardly a big deal. When I turn on my tap water comes out.........:rolleyes:

Obviously the deflector companies looked at scrambling and decided that the financial benefits of denying service to those unwilling/unable to pay were outweighed by the costs such as
1) Cost of the hardware (and installing it in everyones home)
2) Likelihood of alienating exising paying customers through increaced charges (to pay for #1) loss of video/second TV functionality and cluttering up their living rooms with extra boxes/cabling
3) High probability of the damn thing being hacked anyway

The fact that deflector subscriptions were so cheap meant that enough people were/are willing to pay so that the service remained viable in most areas and the one or two operators who did attempt scrambling very quickly dropped it for the above reasons.

Incidently deflectors are hardly alone in having a few extra unofficial viewers. When one transmits unencrypted analouge down cable strung across peoples property (often without their permission) its pretty inevitable.

As for the MMDS companies crying about "unfair competition" its a bit rich given as their whole business model is based on the assumption that they would be able to exploit a market without competition which was developed by the deflector groups in the first place

At the end of the day Deflectors, Cable and MMDS have their strenghs and flaws but as long as theyre able to compete the consumer will decide at the end of the day. In the long run though I suspect theyve all had their day and for most people digital satellite (whether FTA FTV or $ky) or maybe digital terrestrial (If RTE/the Government can get their fingers out of their orfices) will be the way to go

Freddie59

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Yes but in the Republic the cablenets had (until recently) the monopoly in most areas on access to UK terrestrial channels which is widely acknowledged as being the main driving force behind subscriptions. In NI everyone already has access to UK terrestrials so there is less incentive to subscribe to cable and the operators have to work harder to attract subscribers

No - it's just people in the Republic appear to be far more choosy than their Northern counterparts.:rolleyes:

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Most of the Republics cable subscribers dont have access to cable broadband as for Analouge/Digital TV well its hardly a big deal. When I turn on my tap water comes out.........:rolleyes:

It IS quite a big deal actually, given the difficulties RTE appear to have rolling out Digital. Indeed, some of the aforementioned UK cable companies (NTL included) haver not even deployed Digital in many areas....so it would appear to be quite a feat on the Irish Cablenets part.:eek: Recently it was announced on www.enn.ie that NTL have now given Broadband to all of Galway & Waterford, with a large portion of Dublin also converted. :eek: :eek:

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Obviously the deflector companies looked at scrambling and decided that the financial benefits of denying service to those unwilling/unable to pay were outweighed by the costs such as
1) Cost of the hardware (and installing it in everyones home)
2) Likelihood of alienating exising paying customers through increaced charges (to pay for #1) loss of video/second TV functionality and cluttering up their living rooms with extra boxes/cabling
3) High probability of the damn thing being hacked anyway

Not my point. What I argued is that for a level playing field to exist, all operators should be forced to have the same conditions. Again I cite the mobile phone companies as an example. Also - the deflector operators themselves cried foul at this.:)

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

The fact that deflector subscriptions were so cheap meant that enough people were/are willing to pay so that the service remained viable in most areas and the one or two operators who did attempt scrambling very quickly dropped it for the above reasons.

Incidently deflectors are hardly alone in having a few extra unofficial viewers. When one transmits unencrypted analouge down cable strung across peoples property (often without their permission) its pretty inevitable.

I would imagine that's a bit of a sweepring statement. When you put something free into the air anyone can use it - and there's no way of making them cough up. Yes I would also imagine an amount of it goes on on the cablenets......but I would imagine the numbers involved would be far less, given that the CableCos sometimes prosecute under the braodcasting act (I think there was a case in Tallaght in the Star earlier this year).

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

As for the MMDS companies crying about "unfair competition" its a bit rich given as their whole business model is based on the assumption that they would be able to exploit a market without competition which was developed by the deflector groups in the first place

Fair point. But it doesn't change things. Would I be correct in stating that only Ireland has these type of licences? Maybe you might help out on this as you seem to have a fair knowledge of the situation.

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

At the end of the day Deflectors, Cable and MMDS have their strenghs and flaws but as long as theyre able to compete the consumer will decide at the end of the day. In the long run though I suspect theyve all had their day and for most people digital satellite (whether FTA FTV or $ky) or maybe digital terrestrial (If RTE/the Government can get their fingers out of their orfices) will be the way to go

Can't agree with you there. When the Beeb went FTA two years ago the death knell was sounded for the Cablecos. It hasn't happened. And indeed many operators such as Magnet and Smart are now seeing the delivery power of the medium and are embracing it. From my own personal viewpoint I hope they remain, as I (for one) am enjoying aa great service for (relatively) small monay.

As I have said in other posts I would not like to see ANY Irish company go to the wall, least of all in favour of Sky. There's room for everyone, and the only winner is me- the consumer!:D

watty

I think the "Deflectors" are allowed now to continue till DTT starts (which could be never).

Really with BBC & ITV FTA the orignal reason has vanished though there is some C4 demand (Big Brother?)

The only future for Cable / MMDS is Digital with Broadband and phone as well as TV.

The current Analog MMDS was obsolete when installed should never have been allowed.

Niether MMDS nor Cable has had any sensible quality of service imposed. I got rid of cable in 3 addresses and MMDS in a 4th as I regarded it as unwatchable.

Even the Terrestrial TV network leave many people with poor pictures. Or 20% of TV3 viewers none at all!

watty

There are no Irish Cable / MMDS companies. Except maybe Casyvision but they are small. NTL and Chorus arn't.

Sky of course is not even "really" a British company.

Freddie59

watty wrote:

There are no Irish Cable / MMDS companies. Except maybe Casyvision but they are small. NTL and Chorus arn't.

Sky of course is not even "really" a British company.

OK Watty. Splitting hairs time then! Right - the owners are foreign (as with many Irish-based companies). However, a lot of Irish people earn their living in these companies. This in turn generates its share of revenue for the economy and support/ancillary industries. Is that clear enough for you?:D

Freddie59

watty wrote:

I think the "Deflectors" are allowed now to continue till DTT starts (which could be never).

Really with BBC & ITV FTA the orignal reason has vanished though there is some C4 demand (Big Brother?)

The only future for Cable / MMDS is Digital with Broadband and phone as well as TV.

The current Analog MMDS was obsolete when installed should never have been allowed.

Niether MMDS nor Cable has had any sensible quality of service imposed. I got rid of cable in 3 addresses and MMDS in a 4th as I regarded it as unwatchable.

Even the Terrestrial TV network leave many people with poor pictures. Or 20% of TV3 viewers none at all!

Ah come on now! Talk about a sweeping statement. RTE's transmission network is second to none (regardless of that shower in Montrose itself) and their coverage is excellent - as is their picture quality.

As for the TV3 coverage that's their own decision for financial reasons.

Cable would now appear to have a much brighter future with the products you mention. This will have a huge knock-on effect to quality as the companies upgrade the networks. If you look at any of the broadband threads, you will quickly see that the cable medium (NTL in particular0 seems to be the most efficient way of delivery.

Can't agree with your comments on MMDS, but you're entitled to your opinion.

If you had such problems with cable why did you keep having it reinstalled?

rlogue

I think if you actually read Watty's post you'd realise that most urban houses in Ireland come with analogue cable pre-installed.

Ulsterman 1690

Well said although at the risk of nit picking its worth pointing ot that many urban houses in Ireland are not actually situated in cabled areas.

Freddie59

rlogue wrote:

I think if you actually read Watty's post you'd realise that most urban houses in Ireland come with analogue cable pre-installed.

Point taken. But I think you mean pre-occupied. Don't know if it's the case with new ones, because of Sky, Magnet, et al.:)

Freddie59

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Well said although at the risk of nit picking its worth pointing ot that many urban houses in Ireland are not actually situated in cabled areas.

Again a valid point. With houses becoming more expensive it's now the norm for people in, say Cavan, to commute to Dublin. Programme on RTE recently showed some taxi drivers do it!:eek: