4G

[dibble1]

I heard on Talksport this morning that when the 4G network goes live that all freeview signals will be lost thus rendering a lot of equipment useless.
Is this true????

[sunny-dave]

No - a limited number of people will get some interference - the 4G companies will be obliged to provide simple filters to fit to your aerial lead if you are affected.

[bibblebub]

Possibly 30,000 households might have no terrestrial broadcasting http://www.theregiste...nterference_freeview/

[sir.prize]

Here's one report

http://www.dailymail....ork-interference.html

[douglas9401]

I heard a similar tale on Radio 4 on Tuesday. Not all Freeview stuff will fall victim to this schoolboy error/grasping corporate/government ineptitude.
On the bright side it was stated that winning bidders of 4G services will be reponsible for making good any TV problems that result.

[sunny-dave]

The Daily Fail article is (no surprise) a piece of ludicrously badly written, ill-informed scaremongering.

[ChuckFickens]

"Not all Freeview stuff will fall victim to this schoolboy error/grasping corporate/government ineptitude."

You're obviously such an expert, how would you have done it better?

[Old_Geezer]

Possibly ensured the spectrum was allocated such that a new service doesn't interfere with the existing one just established ? It fairness you do expect experts not to produce this sort of issue. It doesn't show them in a good light.

[douglas9401]

I may have given some thought to conflict of services in what, it has to be said, is a fairly short time.
I don't claim to be an expert but have just checked and I'm not actually employed to be one Chuck.
Maybe nobody is?

[ChuckFickens]

OK, which part of the spectrum that is free would you have allocated to the 4G network?

[Old_Geezer]

It's not a case of which part is free. Sufficient pectrum should have been freed up in anticipation and the question not arise. Otherwise the resource isn't there to allocate at all.

[bibblebub]

Perhaps I should have added that within the page for which I gave the link is a link to the Ofcom report itself http://stakeholders.o...summary/dttcondoc.pdf so you can read it for yourself without a newspaper's spin.

[ChuckFickens]

"Sufficient pectrum should have been freed up in anticipation and the question not arise"

From where? you can't just conjure up frequencies from nowhere!

This isn't really my area of expertise, it is the company I work for area's of expertise though...

one of the main reasons behind freeview was always to squeeze more channels into a smaller amount of bandwidth, therefore to free up a frequency range for other uses, it was always known that there would be a possibility the new allocation of the freed up frequencies could interfere with freeview, the level of that possible interference wasn't realised fully 20 years ago because nobody predicted the insatiable need for fast mobile internet the general public would have.

Now it's happening it's been realised that a small percentage of people might need to install a filter (which will be provided for free) and an even smaller amount of people will need a mast head filter, it's no big deal though, the amount of people it will effect is a minute percentage of the population, but of course this has been blown out of proportion by the media..

It's very easy for people to be armchair warriors, but if you can't suggest a better (and workable) way of doing anything then you are not in a position to criticise.

[ChuckFickens]

For those interested.... here's the UK frequency allocation chart..

http://www.icta.mu/images/spectrum.jpg

Feel free to point out the spare frequencies that have obviously been overlooked and should be allocated to 4G.

[boxtops]

This was in the paper the other day, it said that for many people, Freeview would no longer be free.

[boxtops]

^ or rather, that we might have to pay for the Freeview - the figure of £212 was quoted.

[douglas9401]

So it's not possible to criticise without being in a position to solve the problem that's arisen?
Well let's shut down the whingeing media, bolt the doors to parliament and ban opinion.
Earlier declaration of an interest may have been appropriate.

[boxtops]

This is one article, there was an updated one this week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18174052

[ChuckFickens]

oppps... this is the UK chart...

http://www.roke.co.uk...uency-allocations.pdf

[boxtops]

there you go http://www.dailymail....ork-interference.html

[ChuckFickens]

"So it's not possible to criticise without being in a position to solve the problem that's arisen?"

You're not required to solve it to criticise, just understand it.