More "mobile Phone Mast" 'TV interference' publicity - Dunmore East Co. Waterford

Antenna

interesting reading here:

http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=26794&cat=news

"Major row erupts in Dunmore over mobile phone antennae
By Jennifer Long

RESIDENTS of Dunmore East are “shocked” and outraged” over claims that mobile phone antennae put up on the roof of their local supermarket could help in future sea rescues there.

The assertions by O2 and Meteor have been branded “hugely insensitive” in light of the appalling sea tragedies that have rocked the fishing village - including the sinking of the ‘Pere Charles’ fishing trawler only last January.

There’s huge ill-feeling over the antennae on the roof of the Dock Road Londis store which residents claim were “sneakily” put up in conjunction with the shop owner - and only came to their notice when their televisions picked up interference."

etc etc .

“There’s been an element of subterfuge on the part of these mobile phone companies because residents didn’t know even these items were present until some problems arose regarding interference with electrical items in their homes.”

etc

Again I assume mast head amplifiers needing to be replaced with better quality one or fitted with pre-filters.


There's also this:

“To add insult to injury, both O2 and Meteor have claimed that their developments could be of assistance in the future to sea rescue in Dunmore! This is a small community that’s been rocked by tragedies at sea and this claim has rubbed salt in the wounds of many people.

Down by the harbour there’s a monument erected in dedication to people who lost their lives at sea - their ages range from eight years of age to 70 - and that this claim could be made, when naval experts say that the ship-to-shore system used for sea rescue is completely separate from the antennae, has made matters worse.”

In fairness there have been many occasions when help was summonsed for marine emergencies by a mobile phone. Not all seavessels have Marine VHF radio, or it might be out of action, and a member of the public on the shore calling the emergency services is not going to have one, so the mobile operators' 'assertions' are totally right if mobile coverage on part of the coast is being improved.

watty

It only interferes with TV if your TV install is rubbish.

Sponge Bob

But the TV was there first so who pays for the new amps ??

lawhec

watty wrote:

It only interferes with TV if your TV install is rubbish.

Its more than likely though that the guy in my avatar is the head protester.

Actually, that's a bit of an insult to ol' Cletus as he never harmed anyone except a skunk.

Ulsterman 1690

But the TV was there first

It doesnt work like that

so who pays for the new amps ??

Those who wasted their money on substandard crap originally

Freddie59

Amazingly there's what is essentially a mast 'farm' on a hillside about two miles outside Dunmore and it doesn't seem to bother anyone for some reason or other. The selectivity of these protesters never ceases to amaze me.:rolleyes:

Antenna

Freddie59 wrote: »

Amazingly there's what is essentially a mast 'farm' on a hillside about two miles outside Dunmore and it doesn't seem to bother anyone for some reason or other.

I think I know the place you mention. Am I correct in saying that it is the site of a TV deflector operator

More reading about the above issue here:
http://archives.tcm.ie/waterfordnews/2007/10/19/story26916.asp

"

In particular, he said, the level of interference with televisions was making locals very worried from a health point of view.

“There’s been very serious interference with televisions, so much so that the mobile phone companies involved actually sent people to install some kind of gadgets to sort the problems in some of the houses,” he said.

“I live across the road from the Londis and my telly is gone now. When the antennae are having that much of an affect on televisions it makes you worry what their doing to people’s health.”
.

Sponge Bob

Their heads have gone from having no soaps , if they got themselves admitted to hospital there would be tellys with soaps and all in there.

marclt

The comments by the Mobile phone companies are insensitive... Even if the coverage is improved out to sea, there is a cut off (about 20miles or so) where although you have signal you cannot access the network due to the distance involved.

I would have thought that an emergency radio was an essential piece of kit for marine vessels and it would be illegal to go to sea without one on a commercial vessel.

Is the tx on the side of a building which is probably no higher than two storeys going to improve the signal way out to sea... ??

Anyway, that aside any interference should be properly investigated and the responsible party held accountable for that poorer reception. Isn't the tv signal protected in some way??? I remember when the new stadium was built in Wexford it immediately impacted on residents behind the site, and work was undertaken to improve reception.

Antenna wrote: »

interesting reading here:

http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=26794&cat=news

"Major row erupts in Dunmore over mobile phone antennae
By Jennifer Long

RESIDENTS of Dunmore East are “shocked” and outraged” over claims that mobile phone antennae put up on the roof of their local supermarket could help in future sea rescues there.

The assertions by O2 and Meteor have been branded “hugely insensitive” in light of the appalling sea tragedies that have rocked the fishing village - including the sinking of the ‘Pere Charles’ fishing trawler only last January.

There’s huge ill-feeling over the antennae on the roof of the Dock Road Londis store which residents claim were “sneakily” put up in conjunction with the shop owner - and only came to their notice when their televisions picked up interference."

etc etc .

“There’s been an element of subterfuge on the part of these mobile phone companies because residents didn’t know even these items were present until some problems arose regarding interference with electrical items in their homes.”

etc

Again I assume mast head amplifiers needing to be replaced with better quality one or fitted with pre-filters.


There's also this:

“To add insult to injury, both O2 and Meteor have claimed that their developments could be of assistance in the future to sea rescue in Dunmore! This is a small community that’s been rocked by tragedies at sea and this claim has rubbed salt in the wounds of many people.

Down by the harbour there’s a monument erected in dedication to people who lost their lives at sea - their ages range from eight years of age to 70 - and that this claim could be made, when naval experts say that the ship-to-shore system used for sea rescue is completely separate from the antennae, has made matters worse.”

In fairness there have been many occasions when help was summonsed for marine emergencies by a mobile phone. Not all seavessels have Marine VHF radio, or it might be out of action, and a member of the public on the shore calling the emergency services is not going to have one, so the mobile operators' 'assertions' are totally right if mobile coverage on part of the coast is being improved.

Rippy

watty wrote: »

It only interferes with TV if your TV install is rubbish.

Not always the case. Crap unscreened amps and cable are certainly more susceptible, but I have seen problems with decent installs too, for example , triax yagi 10, wolsley wfav25 amp (fully screened enclosure with f connectors) and CT100 cable.
Tell- tale 'tyre mark' patterning particulary on the higher frequencies.
My cure is to use a tv/satellite diplexer as a low-pass filter (with a 75 ohm resister across the unused satellite input).
Maybe co-incedence, but most of the problems I have seen have involved Meteor masts.

Ulsterman 1690

The comments by the Mobile phone companies are insensitive...

I think they are spot on. In an emergency good mobile phone coverage can save lives and not just at sea.

Even if the coverage is improved out to sea, there is a cut off (about 20miles or so) where although you have signal you cannot access the network due to the distance involved.

To an extent this is true although IIRC its around 35 miiles (then again maybe Im mixing my miles and Km's up )

I would have thought that an emergency radio was an essential piece of kit for marine vessels and it would be illegal to go to sea without one on a commercial vessel.

Depends on how many people are on the vessel and the phone could still be a handy backup as I understand that coastal marine VHF coverage is far from complete

Is the tx on the side of a building which is probably no higher than two storeys going to improve the signal way out to sea... ??

Possibly although if its near the seafront it should still get quite a few miles out also it may be helping conserve capacity on other masts in more favorable locations.

Anyway, that aside any interference should be properly investigated and the responsible party held accountable for that poorer reception. Isn't the tv signal protected in some way???

Not necessairly. Strictly speaking the operator is only responsible for ensuring that he is not radiating spurious signals on frequencies used by other services (such as television) as long as this is the case then any interference on TV is probably down to deficencies in the recieving setup which obviously isint the operators responsibility (although they may as a goodwill gesture help the owner tape steps to resolve it)

I remember when the new stadium was built in Wexford it immediately impacted on residents behind the site, and work was undertaken to improve reception.

Strictly speaking it wasnt the stadium builders/owners responsibility (unless the local council specifically made it a condition of planning permission) although they probably agreed to undertake this work as a goodwill gesture.

Ulsterman 1690

The comments by the Mobile phone companies are insensitive...

I think they are spot on. In an emergency good mobile phone coverage can save lives and not just at sea.

Even if the coverage is improved out to sea, there is a cut off (about 20miles or so) where although you have signal you cannot access the network due to the distance involved.

To an extent this is true although IIRC its around 35 miiles (then again maybe Im mixing my miles and Km's up )

I would have thought that an emergency radio was an essential piece of kit for marine vessels and it would be illegal to go to sea without one on a commercial vessel.

Depends on how many people are on the vessel and the phone could still be a handy backup as I understand that coastal marine VHF coverage is far from complete

Is the tx on the side of a building which is probably no higher than two storeys going to improve the signal way out to sea... ??

Possibly although if its near the seafront it should still get quite a few miles out also it may be helping conserve capacity on other masts in more favorable locations.

Anyway, that aside any interference should be properly investigated and the responsible party held accountable for that poorer reception. Isn't the tv signal protected in some way???

Not necessairly. Strictly speaking the operator is only responsible for ensuring that he is not radiating spurious signals on frequencies used by other services (such as television) as long as this is the case then any interference on TV is probably down to deficencies in the recieving setup which obviously isint the operators responsibility (although they may as a goodwill gesture help the owner tape steps to resolve it)

I remember when the new stadium was built in Wexford it immediately impacted on residents behind the site, and work was undertaken to improve reception.

Strictly speaking it wasnt the stadium builders/owners responsibility (unless the local council specifically made it a condition of planning permission) although they probably agreed to undertake this work as a goodwill gesture.

I have seen problems with decent installs too, for example , triax yagi 10, wolsley wfav25 amp (fully screened enclosure with f connectors) and CT100 cable.

Is that particular amp wideband (more suceptable) or filtered ?

Maybe co-incedence, but most of the problems I have seen have involved Meteor masts.

I suspect that would be down to most newer masts being Meteor since Eircell/Vodafone and Digifone/02 have been around a lot longer and a lot of their base stations used existing masts.

Rippy

Ulsterman 1690 wrote: »

Not necessairly. Strictly speaking the operator is only responsible for ensuring that he is not radiating spurious signals on frequencies used by other services (such as television)



Is that particular amp wideband (more suceptable) or filtered ?

Yes the WFAV25 is a wideband amp. I don't think any wideband amps cut off sharply at 855 mhz. I doubt however that it 's range extends up as far as 950mhz.
In my humble opinion , SOME masts radiate spurious signals below 950 mhz.
If it was solely a problem with receiving equipment ,everybody with a wideband M/H amp close to any phone mast would eperience problems.
This is clearly not the case.
I have tried using channelised amps before to solve the problem (Triax group B , 25db variable ,if I recall correctly). This did improve matters slightly over an equivalent wideband amp, but did not eradicate it completley. Still had to use the satellite diplexer dodge.

watty

A wideband amp will pickup strong signals even at 1800MHz (the 2nd GSM frequencies used by Meteor, O2 is on 900MHz).

Here I can see the GSM900 signals about 20dB more than the TV. Given the simple single coil & C per stage on a Wideband amp, the 1800Mhz is only attenuated about 12dB or 18dB. 900MHz not at all compared with Ch68, meaning that even the 1800MHz signals are 2dB to 8dB stronger than the TV signals!

These may modulate the TV signals. You need a Helical filter or low pass filter in front of the amp (two sat duplexers in series is good).

A 18 element yagi followed by attenuator will help as it is narrow band. the 4x bowtie aerials are worst as they are wideband.

I'm 800m from a phone mast and 13km away from 100W TV transmitter. No surprise my TV is clearer with the aerial off the chimney and on a wall facing toward TV and way from phone mast.

Rippy

Thanks for clearing up some confusion there Watty.. I still don't see how the problem is not more widespread, given the large number of amps and phone masts in use.
From field experience , I agree bow -tie grids are more affected than grouped yagis.

watty

Well:
:: Nearly half the population uses Cable or Satellite.

:: People are used to poor reception

:: 20% of offical coverage don't get TV3 at all

:: Good coverage in UK quality terms is about 60% to 75%

Ulsterman 1690

Rippy wrote: »

I still don't see how the problem is not more widespread, given the large number of amps and phone masts in use.

Possibly because
1) Not all masts transmit at the same power level
2) Some masts transmit on one band (900 , 1800 or 2100 MHz) only
3) If the local TV channels in an area are at the high end of the band theyre more likely to be affected by mobile phone signals than if they are at the low end of the band (The reverse is the case with the TETRA PMR system)

Rippy

Ulsterman 1690 wrote: »

Possibly because
1) Not all masts transmit at the same power level
2) Some masts transmit on one band (900 , 1800 or 2100 MHz) only
3) If the local TV channels in an area are at the high end of the band theyre more likely to be affected by mobile phone signals than if they are at the low end of the band (The reverse is the case with the TETRA PMR system)

Arrrgh, TETRA, since the anouncment that the emergency services in the republic are switching over to it I have been dreading it. I have some high pass filters in stock ready for it, but have not seen problems yet.

I assume that meteor , being the smallest operator , uses fewer masts of higher power (larger cells) for coverage. I bet they use 900 mhz more too.

watty

No. I don't think Meteor have 900MHz.
The early GSM operators got the nice 900MHz (better coverage, esp. hills, buildings, trees). The 1800MHz added after for more space. Much poorer coverage.

If you don't have enough masts either the handset runs out of power or people can't get a connection due to congestion. I recently switched to O2 and the signal is always more stable (900MHz). With Meteor I could move 1ft in room and lose it even with a nearly full bars. Vodaphone is lower 900MHz than O2.

Vodaphone (was eircell) & O2 might have some 1800MHz too, I don't know. Digiweb Mobile (not GSM or 3G based, but a real data system) is the lowest 900MHz allocation. The handsets transmit on 872MHz. Note the GSM 900 band (which sort of includes the Digiweb allocation) is two blocks of frequencies, the lower block is base RX (handset TX) and the higher block is base TX (from 920MHz up, handset RX). No matter which operator the TX and RX are about 50MHz apart, but there is only a 4Mhz gap between top of Base RX band and bottom of Base TX band.

864MHz is ISM, for sensors, remote control, Zigbee, Wireless microphones etc. Maplin & Argos had 2 way radios on 864MHz, which are vanished, perhaps they were not legal. 1200MHz to 1340MHz is Wireless Experimenter/ Radio Ham band (mostly ATV, repeater at Spur Hill).
1400MHz is licenced Security camera system links.

3G/HSDPA is 2100MHz.
Wireless Experimenters/Amateur 2.3 to 2.4GHz
WiFi, video senders 2.4MHz
MMDS 2.5GHz
Eircom FWA 3.5GHz
Others FWA 3.6GHz

Tetra was originally meant to use 872 /920MHz GSM for base and non-GSM inter-handset. But no-one took up the licence and the licence auctioned for Mobile Broadband along with 450MHz.

New Tetra is still basically dual mode. Works like 3G /GSM if base is in range. Works like a digital encrypted version of PMR446 (which is analogue FM) when base out of range, i.e. peer to peer.

lawhec

No. I don't think Meteor have 900MHz.

Meteor do indeed have 900Mhz spectrum to play with, though I believe that this is used more for rural areas and they use 1800MHz more extensively in built up areas. Certainly in Monaghan & Cavan they use 900MHz.

Ulsterman 1690

02 Ireland have 900 and 1800. Im pretty sure Vodafone Ireland have as well

watty

Perhaps they added 1800MHz for extra capacity later. Certainly Meteor hasn't 900MHz in most areas. Perhaps they got in 900MHz in some areas that O2 and Vodaphone hadn't installed?