TV interference complaints leads to removal of Mitchelstown Mobile phone mast?

Antenna

I presume the problems reported in the piece below regarding TV reception is due to viewers' UHF masthead amplifiers having poor rejection of and being swamped by the GSM signals:

From Avondhupress.ie local newspaper May-17-2007:


"MITCHELSTOWN MAST MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN 14 DAYS

Cork County Council has ordered that the Meteor Communications mast at Market Square, Mitchelstown must be removed within 14 days as of Tuesday last, 15th May.

The mast, does not, according to the authorities, qualify as an exempted development under the Planning Act. Cllr Kevin O’Keeffe, who raised the matter originally, warmly welcomed the decision of Cork County Council when he spoke to The Avondhu on this Wednesday afternoon.

The stipulation that the mast be removed came after more than twenty residents from Mitchelstown town centre attended the first meeting of the Concerned Residents Against Mitchelstown Mast (CRAMM) last week.

Local dentist Derek Riordan acted as chairman as residents were vocal in their concerns over the depreciation of value on neighbouring houses and the impact the mast is having on their quality of life since its erection in New Square.

The problem of poor television reception for many people in the area was raised as one of the major concerns. It emerged that the mast has affected televisions in different ways with some people having one channel completely unwatchable and others experiencing a detrimental effect on all channels.

A representative for Three Fold Project Management Ltd, company that installed the mast for Meteor, subsequently contacted the chairman with a possible solution to the television concern. The representative requested a list of residents who are experiencing the problems and has promised to speak with Meteor and South Coast Television in a bid to rectify the situation.


Those attending voted to write to the property-owner and ask for the structure to be removed immediately. Cllr Frank O’Flynn, who was present at the meeting, informed all that the matter had been taken up with the enforcement department of Cork County Council.

Cllr O’Flynn also promised that a response to an investigation into the matter is imminent. Cllr Liam O’Doherty was also present at the meeting and outlined reasons as to why that the mast was interfering with local televisions and how this could be rectified.

It seems like it could be all ‘water under the bridge’ now that the planning authority has ordered the removal of the mast.
"

Foggy43

Strange!
The RTE relay that serves Mitchelstown is on a Mobile Phone mast owned by O2. It is a few miles north of Mitchelstown. Meteor have a mast right very close too it. TV3 is only vailable from Mullhaghanish. News to me that Meteor have a base station in the town.

Electioneering again? No mention of what channels effected? Media hype?

Bulmers

I think so...all the operators are on RTEs infrastructure nationwide, huge business for RTE and one the try to sell the space on their towers.

Ulsterman 1690

Metor probably have more than one mast in the area.

Mobile phone masts generally wouldnt cover anything like the same area as a TV mast.

The main 4 UK television networks for example would have about 1100 transmitter sites (including relays) The mobile phone company Orange has over 10,000

Sponge Bob

It may be related to windfarms, see this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055096821

Rippy

I have often seen interference from phone masts. Two sites I hgave seen a lot are Watergrasshill and Ringaskiddy. I have also heard about the Mitchelstown problems. I think both of these masts are also Meteor but this could be entirely coincidental. As you would expect , it affects the higher channels in group C/D the most. The answer is to use a satellite /UHF combiner as a low-pass filter. Put a 75 ohm resistor across the unused satellite input. This goes between the aerial(s) and the amp.
Unscreened amps are of course the worst , but I have even seen the problem on a high quality fully screened channelised amp.

Antenna

And in an earlier edition of The Avondhu newspaper Thursday April 12, 2007 there was this:
(I have highlighted all relating to TV reception)
"
Meteor mast rears its head in Mitchelstown
By Mairead O’Donnell
Concern has been growing among some Mitchelstown residents over the past few weeks as the facts concerning a new ‘neighbour’ come to light.
Householders in the New Square, Kings Street, George’s Street and Roberts Street area of the town are concerned for their future health following the mounting of a Meteor mast to the rear of a commercial building in New Square.
The mast, because it is in such close proximity to neighbouring houses have families concerned for their health because of possible radiation.
Concerns have also been raised regarding planning permission which, it is understood, was never sought for the mast. However, according to a source, Cork County Council have deemed the antennae to be exempt from planning because it is: ‘attached to a public or commercial building (other than educational facilities, childcare facilities or hospitals) by way of attachment to roofs, facades, chimneys, chimney pots or vent pipes’ and is therefore legal.
Neighbours have expressed their anger to The Avondhu this week regarding this exemption and say they feel ‘cheated out’ of a way to stand up for their community rights regarding mobile phone antennae.
“There is uproar around the country about mobile phone masts and many of them are a long way from any house. Here we have it clapped up to us. It is unbelievable if this can be allowed happen in the middle of a built up area,” a caller to The Avondhu said.

The mast has also been found to be the source of serious interference to television reception in neighbouring households.
In a letter to ComReg (Commission for Communication Regulation), Councillor Kevin O’Keeffe outlined the problem and asked if investigations could be carried out. The regulator responded by stating that tests were conducted at two separate locations in New Square and results showed that some interference could be attributable to the new antennae.
The letter read: “The investigations concluded that no sources of interference to the TV broadcast band were apparent. However, some TV aerials in the area of New Square have been fitted with broadband amplifiers in order to boost the signal received from a local deflector service provider. With the absence of sufficient shielding and filtering, these amplifiers haves the effect of amplifying not only the TV broadcast signals but other signals in the local area, effectively overloading the TV receiver”.
It went on to state that ‘using ComReg’s own equipment, and in the presence of two local television antenna installers, Comreg staff demonstrated to both householders that it was possible to achieve good quality interference-free reception’.
Speaking with The Avondhu this week, Cllr O’Keeffe said he was highly disappointed with the response from Comreg and claimed that they ‘washed their hands of their responsibility to the local residents’.
“The letter basically told people that this is a problem of their own and to go fix it themselves. It’s not good enough an answer. People are concerned if this is the effect the mast is having on the televisions, what effect is it having on their health being exposed to this radiation 24 hours a day,” he told The Avondhu.
Councillor Liam O’Doherty has also been active on the matter and has contacted South Coast Television, the broadcast provider with whom most residents appear to be experiencing the interference. While the company appear to have also ‘washed their hand’ of the matter, Cllr O’Doherty has pledged to continue campaigning to rectify the problem.
Cllr O’Doherty explained to The Avondhu this week that South Coast Television have told him they will be ‘going digital’ in the Summer months and the problems with the aerials should not continue. Cllr O’Doherty, however, fails to understand why the residents of King Street and surrounds have to ‘put up with the interference in the interim’.

"

Sponge Bob

So this was all because of an amplified deflector signal in the affected houses . The local residents are dopes from the sound of it.

Had they a crap phone line Comreg would not have left Dublin to check , eircom can do as many crap installs as they like.

Ulsterman 1690

if this is the effect the mast is having on the televisions, what effect is it having on their health

For crying out loud who votes for these gobdaws :rolleyes: :mad:

lucernarian

I can't be sure but I would suspect that the TV signals from South Coast TV are probably more powerful than the mobile phone ones for most of the surrounding area, let alone any RTÉ relay nearby. I don't see what's more dangerous about mobile phone masts than TV ones.

Sponge Bob

The irony is that South Coast TV will only fix this problem with their amps by using MICROWAVES as they move from 700mhz ish spectrum to their new 11ghz ish spectrum .

And theres me thinking that mirowaves were the problem not, in fact , the solution. Have SCTV told the avondhupress about this ??

watty

Mobile GSM masts can't affect "proper" TV systems.

It is the rubbish that should be turned off, not the Mast.

SCTV should be turned off completely.

Ulsterman 1690

Uhhhh Watty its not SCTV thats the problem here its the crappy setups that people are using to recieve it.

While I fully accept the platform is reaching the end of its life now with digital satellite and (eventually) DTT I can never figure out the blinkered anti-deflector attitudes that some people display on here. :rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

I'll give you 3:1 odds that all of these amplifiers were installed either directly by OR directly for SCTV in the first place but in eithe rcase with the full knowledge of SCTV

Mitchelstown is in a bit of a hole along a river IIRC.

lawhec

Unless there is a specific law that requires action from the organisation transmitting, its a pretty open and shut case to me - Meteor, through Comreg's confirmation, are not causing interference in the UHF Broadcast band and that it is down to faulty reception equiptment. Certainly in the UK (and especially with a number of TETRA base stations springing up) the onus is on the receiver to stump the cost. When Brougher Mountain started broadcasting DTT test transmissions, it wiped out the reception of several hundred homes receiving RTÉ. As I understand it those affected had to get new aerials installed at their own cost.

Sponge Bob

lawhec wrote:

When Brougher Mountain started broadcasting DTT test transmissions, it wiped out the reception of several hundred homes receiving RTÉ. As I understand it those affected had to get new aerials installed at their own cost.

North of the border this would be entirely correct . Were it to happen in Mitchelstown as a result of brougher then I feel that it would be the Beebs fault

DoubleJoe7

Would these microwaves that SCTV are introducing have the same affect as mobile phone masts? I'm a total noob when it come to this but, for the sake of argument, say mobile phone waves are harmful, would these tv waves, which are on a higher frequency, be as harmful/moreso?

watty

More so.

Except there is no proven harm from phone hadsets despite a 20 year trial. Masts are 1/1,000th to 1/10,000th the power of a handset beside your head.

If you peer into the waveguide on 11.7GHz 100mW transmitter everyday you will get a cataract. Standing 20 ft away from the aerial you won't

MMDS uses 0.5W at 2.5GHz (Chorus/NTL/UPC)
Microwave Oven 900W at 2.45 GHz (Well Shielded)
Hypercable about 1W at 11.7GHz (SCTV)
Phone Mast about 10W at 0.9MHz or 1.8GHz
UHF TV about 500,000W at 0.5MHz to 0.8Mhz

I've not heard calls for RTE1 or TG4 to be closed down

A severe exposure to microwaves causes cataracts. The radiation produced by Microwave ovens, phones, TV masts is non-ionising, thus should not promote cancer. No evidence has ever been found to prove a link to cancer. A seriously leaking Microwave would have to be closely stared at for some time to cause a cataract.

The risk for engineers or people dealing with faulty RF or Microwave equipment at high power densities is burns and cateracts.

Antenna

watty wrote:

UHF TV about 500,000W at 0.5MHz to 0.8Mhz

that is after the gain of the aerial array, and its ERP to the distant horizon, not the surrounding area.
The transmitters would probably be about 10000W
Only a small number of TV transmitters in this country have such high ERPs, and these are very tall masts on high mountains

ERP of MMDS etc transmit antenna would be much more than the transmitter output power.

Amateur radio could also have a huge ERP (in a particular direction) at their UHF or microwave bands, there is no limit on the gain of the antenna array someone might construct.

Ulsterman 1690

MMDS uses 0.5W at 2.5GHz (Chorus/NTL/UPC)

Analouge MMDS uses a damn sight more than that. typical Vision TX carrier power is 100w multiplied by antenna gain (15-25db) miltiplied by the number of channels plus add a bit for the sound carriers and you get a more realistic figure from the amount of RF power radiated from a main MMDS TX site.

Still not necessairly dangerous though unless you get too close to the main beam from the TX aerial and as it involves climbing youd need to be pretty unlucky (and probably stupid) to do so

I've not heard calls for RTE1 or TG4 to be closed down

Well not on those particular grounds anyway

Alun

watty wrote:

Phone Mast about 10W at 0.9MHz or 1.8GHz
UHF TV about 500,000W at 0.5MHz to 0.8Mhz

Shouldn't all those MHz's be GHz's?

lucernarian

Antenna, the ERPs of most of RTE's UHF transmitters are 500 kW. The power they use from the ESB would be 50 kW or most likely less. The gain from transmitters seem to be in the 8 to 15 dB ballpark for UHF.

And Ulsterman1960 touches on a point I have thought of before. If there are a few different frequencies transmitting from the same transmitter, is the effect on the body the total of the ERPs or the ERP of the strongest frequency??

(Btw, I ask because of what a friend of mine did. He saw Three rock mountain and thought it would be a good idea to climb it. He was talking to me a few weeks after, and told me that he climbed some big tower in the mountains. I learned that it was no less than the live TV tower, with all its analogue and digital broadcasts. And he touched the UHF white element thing at the top. After telling him off a bit, we wondered what the effects of such a large amount of NIR would be)

Antenna

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Antenna, the ERPs of most of RTE's UHF transmitters are 500 kW. The power they use from the ESB would be 50 kW or most likely less.

Considering all TV transmitters (including relays), my reference to a 'small number' is correct. The antenna gain at UHF is considerable, there would be no RF exposure concerns for anyone on the ground near the mast as it is ERP to the distant horizon

lucernarian

Mea culpa, I stupidly thought you said 100 kW as opposed to 10 kW.

Antenna

The issue that started this thread rumbles on. Presently (ISSUE: July-05-2007) on avondhupress.ie there is the following. I have highlighted all relating to 'TVI'

"
ACTION AGAINST MAST ESCALATES - LOCALS THREATEN NOT TO RENEW T.V. LICENCES

A crowd of approximately forty people packed Mitchelstown’s Ozanam Centre to attend a 2 hour public meeting held by Concerned Residents Against Mitchelstown Mast (CRAMM).

At the meeting, group chairman Derek Riordan expressed his gratitude to the sizeable crowd of people that came to the second public meeting held since protests against the controversial mast began.

The group called for the town to unite in the issue, claiming that while at the moment only a part of the town was affected, this could happen anywhere in Mitchelstown.

He outlined the progress of the groups actions, noting that every organisation contacted by the group with regards to the poor television reception of late have “washed their hands” of the situation – with RTE advising they get in touch with ComReg, who have since ruled that the mast is operating within normal guidelines, and that the issue is the fault of the amplifiers used by South Coast.

South Coast, the group noted, have been “of no help.” The meeting heard views from the floor, where members of the public who claim not to use South Coast Television as a provider maintain that their reception has also suffered.

Some also claimed interference with their radio, CD and DVD players. CRAMM circulated a letter, to be sent to RTE, proposing that the undersigned will refuse to pay their television licences should the interference continue, citing “a poorer quality of life” as reason for such action.

The group then explained further concerns including depreciation of property value in the vicinity of the mast.

Mr Riordan read from a written reply from Meteor, owners of the mast, who deny any such devaluing of property, noting that house prices in Dublin 4 are not detrimentally affected by RTE’s large mast in Donnybrook.

The group also highlighted the involvement of local businessman Pat O’Donnell, landlord of the house upon which the mast was erected. CRAMM say that despite approaches from the group, pleading for goodwill on behalf of the town, Mr O’Donnell refused to block the mast, saying that the matter was out of his hands.

However, the group then presented a letter from Threefold, the communications company subcontracted by Meteor to set up the mast. The letter is signed by Mr O’Donnell, and gives his endorsement for the mast to be put on his premises.

CRAMM note that the letter is signed June 7th, after they had approached Mr O’Donnell. The status of the property came into question. The location has been categorised as a residential dwelling by enforcement officers due to the two apartments therein.

CRAMM’s concerns lie with a precedent being set if such a dwelling can have a mast mounted. Councillor Liam O’Doherty spoke at the meeting, explaining the planning process and urged people to make their feeling known by submitting objections to the planning permission application.

In a statement to The Avondhu, Meteor replied to queries made at the meeting, such as the possibility of co-location with an existing mast on the outskirts of the town and the exact nature of their planning application.

“Meteor always seeks to share existing sites where possible, however on this occasion, it was not feasible as the shared site wouldn’t have supported sufficient indoor coverage in the town. With regards to the planning application, Meteor has submitted a full planning application for retention of the existing site and we expect to hear more on that around mid-August”, the statement said.

CRAMM outlined the planning permission application at Thursday’s meeting, in which the residential status of the building is ignored, the applicants instead referring to the building as “Mrs. Quinn’s Charity Shop”.

CRAMM cite this as an attempt by Meteor to circumvent the enforcement planners categorisation. Barry Magee, Managing Director of Mrs Quinn’s Charity Shop, came from Dublin for the meeting. The shop only rents the premises and has no idea this issue had arisen, he said.

“I’m appalled that the good name of Mrs Quinn’s Charity Shop is being used as a tool for a mobile phone mast,” he said.

He added that letters have been sent from the charity to Mr O’Donnell, Meteor and Threefold, outlining their objection to the mast.

He added that he has given each party 7 days to reply to the matter before the charity refers to their solicitors. Derek Riordan has since contacted The Avondhu. He thanked Mr Magee for coming from Dublin for the meeting, and noted the work that local councillors Liam O’Doherty, Frank O’Flynn, Kevin O’Keeffe and local TD Ned O’Keeffe have done to help CRAMM.

He also revealed that the enforcement planners have since referred the matter to the County Solicitors. Another meeting has been called for this Thursday at 8pm. CRAMM expect bigger numbers at this meeting, and so it will be held in the town hall.
"

Ulsterman 1690

The group called for the town to unite in the issue, claiming that while at the moment only a part of the town was affected, this could happen anywhere in Mitchelstown.

Wont SOMEBODY think of the children :rolleyes:

lucernarian

The cheek of meteor to mention the RTE mast in donnybrook!!

Foggy43

I wonder has the construction and completion of the Mitchelstown bye-pass anything to do with this TV reception problem. The bye-pass I am sure opened just before Christmas and runs from the West side to the East and is 'Elevated', I think, to the north. Mitchelstown is in a hollow and the 'square' is the lowest point.

Could this be a possible reason? The Meteor mast may have became an easy target to blame?

watty

It's a combination of poor RTE signal anyway, rubbish SCTV preamps. NIMBYism and Hysteria.

Close down SCTV and have proper nationwide QOS limits for RTE/TV3/TG4.

If RTE won't improve with more higher power relays they should lose licence. TV3 should have lost their's already as they have only done an 80% roll out. They won't pay RTE to be on all the repeaters. False pretences of a "National Licence" that is.

lucernarian

Are there ever local surveys carried out like what BBC have in the UK to check reception and quality of service in a particular area??

And as I'm sure you people know, windmills are affecting coverage too. I was at my grandaunts recently in Co. Cavan, and there was the tell-tale flickering and variable ghosting, caused by a windfarm 2 miles away. She's on the side of a hill so only Cairn Hill is available to her. Ironically her UK channels have a better signal.

watty

Yes. but not since 1999 DTT tests.

You can do it more completely and accurately via a computer model. Except the one I have doesn't do windfarms.

Ulsterman 1690

If RTE won't improve with more higher power relays they should lose licence

Theres very few places in the Republic where one cannot get good recepton of RTE with a proper aerial (Although the same cannot be said of TV3) sticking on lots of high power relays just to carer for the "rabbit ears" and junk coax brigade would be an irresponsible use of both frequency spectrum and licence payers money

Ironically her UK channels have a better signal

Hardly unusual (especially near the border). One will also find places in NI with better reception of RTE (or Scottish TV) than the NI channels.

lucernarian

But this is with a proper aerial setup, and you also say that "Theres very few places in the Republic where one cannot get good recepton of RTE with a proper aerial".

This is rather contradictory, as even if people in the south get very strong UK reception, then surely there should be very few places where the difference would be noticeable? I had enquired round and my relations were not the exception.

watty

About 90% can get percent RTE perfectly with a properly configured aerial system on roof. About 80% or a bit less for TV3. About 8% can only get poorer RTE and 0.5% to 2% (disputed size, )either no TV or very poor.

Few peple in the "south" get good never mind strong UK TV. But it depends where you live if near the border.

Antenna

watty wrote:

It's a combination of poor RTE signal anyway, rubbish SCTV preamps. NIMBYism and Hysteria.

The RTE1, RTE2 and TG4 signals would not be poor in Mitchelstown as there is a relay serving the town.

However masthead amps would usually be used there for TV3 and SCTV reception.

Also amplified settop aerials can be worse affected by nearby mobile phone masts than masthead preamps, so this is probably part of the problem too, especially the viewers who claim they do not use SCTV, but also have interference - they probably have amplified set-top aerials.




this week's (July-12-2007) Avondhu Press has the following update:

"
MAST APPLICATION DEEMED INVALID BY COUNTY COUNCIL

The planning application for retention of the controversial mobile phone mast in New Square, Mitchelstown has been deemed ‘invalid’ by the County Council.

Meteor, the company that erected the mast, must now re-apply for planning permission. The mast was the main topic for discussion at County Hall this week, when Cllr Liam O’Doherty called for the standing order of discussion to be suspended in light of the protest assembled by CRAMM (Concerned Residents Against Mitchelstown Mast) outside the building.

Cllr Frank O’Flynn was in contact with The Avondhu to note his vigorous opposition to the mast, and added that he has requested that the Council contact Meteor by letter and phone and ask that they comply with the now expired enforcement order.
"

Antenna

The article below was published in the Irish Examiner (probably did not appear in the national edition) last Wednesday..
Notice at the end of the article that a county councillor in another area of Co. Cork is after jumping on the bandwagon and claiming that a wireless broadband mast is affecting TV reception! The Councillor concerned does not appear to have had got anyone in the TV trade to check her TV reception before making these allegations... Probably more to do with the controversy of people being cranky about overhead ESB wires going up the mountain to power it!



"Irish Examiner
18 July 2007

TV disruption: phone mast to be turned off

By Seán O’Riordan
A METEOR mobile phone mast, believed to have disrupted scores of television signals in Mitchelstown, Co Cork, is to be switched off tomorrow.

Last week, county manager, Martin Riordan, said he was preparing a legal case against the mobile phone company and that in the interim he would ask it to switch off the mast.

His comments came as more than 50 people affected by disruptions protested outside County Hall.

At a meeting of the council’s northern division yesterday, councillor Kevin O’Keeffe said he’d been informed by the local authority’s enforcement section that Meteor had agreed to turn off the mast.

“I welcome the fact that Meteor has finally succumbed to people power. I hope it sends out a message to other private companies that this council will get tough on those who flout its planning laws,” he said.

He added Meteor should give compensation to people whose reception was affected.

It also emerged that the council’s legal case against Meteor will take place on September 7.

Meanwhile, councillors were told that another mast — which isn’t illegal — was believed to be disrupting television signals in the Millstreet area.

Councillor Marie “The Shamrock” Murphy claimed that the PermaNET broadband mast, situated in the Clara Mountain, had affected television reception in a number of homes, including her own.

“I cannot receive (RTÉ) channel one properly. I also know of some people who have problems with both (RTÉ) channels. There have been reception problems in Millstreet in the past, but they have got a lot worse since this mast was put up. I’ve no doubt the mast is responsible,” she said.

PermaNET said it had been licensed by Comreg to provide broadband services to people in the Millstreet area and was using a prescribed frequency which shouldn’t interfere with television reception.

The company added, however, it would investigate complaints made to it.

Locals also claim that overhead cables running to the mountain-top mast are a blight on the landscape.

PermaNET said that in its planning application it was never given the option of any method other than overhead cables to deliver power to the mast.

Even if it had the option of burying cables, the company said, this would be too costly to make the project economically viable.
"

watty

Amplfied set top aerials are a blot on the landscape. They should be banned. If the signal is good enough for setop aerial an amp will make it worse.

If the signal is not good enough, the amp just amplifies the noise and local interference pickup.

They are useless thus in both cases.

The ONLY thing an aerial amp is good for is to cancel out the loss of the downlead from the mast. So they only are any advantage near the aerial (but > 1.2m away ) where the aerial cable is longer than 4m / 13ft

Ulsterman 1690

I’ve no doubt the mast is responsible,

What technical qualifications does the gobsh- I mean Counciller in question have that enable her to speak with such authority on the subject ? :rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

any windfarms out there ??

why is mullaganish going UP another 50m anyway ???

Ulsterman 1690

I suspect a combination of
1) alleviating windfarm ghosting
2) The realisation that a mast designed for VHF TV transmission isint high enough for UHF (TV3 and TG4)
3) To compensate for the apparent abandonment of plans for the Kilduff (South Midlands) TX (only speculating on this last point but it does seem to have died a death ???)