No power in Impington
Georgiegirl
message says they can't provide any repair times yet and have too many
calls to talk to me in person.
The Natural Philosopher
ice on overheads probably. That could be depending on where the break
is, a few hours to isolate the segment and reconnect the est, or if you
are in the bad bit, several days.
Calvin Sambrook
news:428f7c08-c25c-4212...@q18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Total of 7h off since 9pm. Eastern Electric (0800 783 8838) recorded
> message says they can't provide any repair times yet and have too many
> calls to talk to me in person.
Wrong sort of snow. Both Heart and BBC Radio Cambridgeshire seemed to be
off air this morning which made finding out if schools were closed
difficult.
Driving east last night at about 9:30 we were treated a firework display
with big bright blue flashes lighting up the sky. At first I thought they
were camera flashes but it seems they were snow shorting out power lines as
one, in Fulbourn, was followed by everything going very dark. Mostly the
system seems to auto recover after a short while though.
Chris
We had a *lot* of flickers in Romsey last night, though the power did stay
on. EDF's automated phone message was similarly uninformative.
There was a series of several obvious flickers within a couple of minutes
at one point in the early hours, after which things seemed to settle down,
so perhaps that was something switching over to fix the problem. Let's hope
it stays that way!
However, I've been suspicious of our power supply around here for some
time. A remarkable number of electrical devices in our house have been
suffering from what are probably power-related problems very recently, and
they are all decent kit that has otherwise been reliable for quite a while.
Given the number of other people who seem to have reported problems around
this area over the past few months, I have to wonder how robust our
electricity supply is, even without the weather-related problems last night.
Cheers,
Chris
Patrick Gosling
Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Wrong sort of snow. Both Heart and BBC Radio Cambridgeshire seemed to be
>off air this morning which made finding out if schools were closed
>difficult.
For the first time that I can remember, the Cambridgeshire County Council
web site actually seems to be vaguely coherent and up to date on the
subject :
<http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/education/schools/schoolclosure/>
-patrick.
ke...@cam.ac.uk
Coton off since 3 a.m., telephones included. Coming in along Madingley Road,
the traffic lights for the motorway were off but those for the P&R were on,
which puts some sort of boundary on it.
Katy
tony sayer
s.com>, Georgiegirl <email...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>Total of 7h off since 9pm. Eastern Electric (0800 783 8838) recorded
>message says they can't provide any repair times yet and have too many
>calls to talk to me in person.
Good old "lack of routine maintenance" EDF scores again;(...
--
Tony Sayer
David Woodhouse
They didn't quite manage it in Essex.
BBC Radio Essex were saying 'look at the web site'. Since the phone
lines were down, I tried to do so over GPRS -- when the mobiles
eventually started working; they were down till about 7am too.
The page that the radio station referred us to was about 600KiB, which
took a few minutes to load on my phone. When it finally displayed, I
found that I'd loaded a page full of pointless pictures which contained
a link to the _correct_ page. Which had crashed under the load, so then
they started reading out the schools over the radio instead, like they
used to. Not including my partner's school, so she left... and came back
a few minutes later because someone had finally managed to get through
to her mobile and the school _was_ closed.
--
dwmw2
tony sayer
scribeth thus
Grumble to EDF then .. or else nothing will get done till such times as
it falls over completely..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
>"Georgiegirl" <email...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:428f7c08-c25c-4212...@q18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> Total of 7h off since 9pm. Eastern Electric (0800 783 8838) recorded
>> message says they can't provide any repair times yet and have too many
>> calls to talk to me in person.
>
>Wrong sort of snow. Both Heart and BBC Radio Cambridgeshire seemed to be
>off air this morning which made finding out if schools were closed
>difficult.
>
Was that FM or DAB?..
>Driving east last night at about 9:30 we were treated a firework display
>with big bright blue flashes lighting up the sky. At first I thought they
>were camera flashes but it seems they were snow shorting out power lines as
>one, in Fulbourn, was followed by everything going very dark. Mostly the
>system seems to auto recover after a short while though.
>
There're called "reclosers" they trip, wait a while then try the line
again a few times and if the fault still persists they then call it a
day and give up.....
--
Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher
Well actually, out here its better than usual.
Not only have they cut back all the trees round the overheads, but
scheduled maintenance to cut back even more is planned.
These are slightly unusual conditions as well.
Mark Ayliffe
Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> illuminated us with:
Except they were showing all as open about 6:30 and when I last looked
were showing schools as either closed or blank. i.e. they weren't
confirming open schools.
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | A closed mouth gathers no feet.
ayliffe dot org |
Patrick Gosling
Mark Ayliffe <mark.see.sig.f...@ayliffe.invalid> wrote:
>On or about 2009-12-18,
>Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> illuminated us with:
>> In article <hgfhjf$7b5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>Wrong sort of snow. Both Heart and BBC Radio Cambridgeshire seemed to be
>>>off air this morning which made finding out if schools were closed
>>>difficult.
>>
>> For the first time that I can remember, the Cambridgeshire County Council
>> web site actually seems to be vaguely coherent and up to date on the
>> subject :
>>
>><http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/education/schools/schoolclosure/>
>
>Except they were showing all as open about 6:30 and when I last looked
>were showing schools as either closed or blank. i.e. they weren't
>confirming open schools.
True. It was still more useful than it's ever been before. And I
didn't have to listen through Radio Cambridgeshire this time ...
Although the main win was Mayfield having useful information on
their website ...
-patrick.
Duncan Wood
Yup, they've done the ones here before rather than after as well. CCC seem
to have not bothered gritting anything on the A505 or the A10 south of
Cambridge though.
Hamish
today it sounds like people are speaking with a mouthful of quality
street wrappers.
H
Mark Ayliffe
> their website ...
Ah, I didn't need that ;-)
--
Mark
Real email address | It is best to give advice in only two circumstances;
is mark at | when it is requested and when it is a life threatening situation.
ayliffe dot org |
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
What!, EDF looking after their plant;?..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
amishsymington.com> scribeth thus
Perhaps they've dropped the bit rates again like there're doing on High
Def TV;(...
--
Tony Sayer
Paul Bird
Did you hear that woman talking garbage on Peter White's program today,
what a load of obfuscation. I wish she'd used the name of the equipment
involved instead of attempting to cater to the less well informed by
just calling them encoders and then on responding to a direct complaint
by a listener that there were green lines across the program trying to
blame it on "first generation receivers".
If you can fill in the gaps Tony I'd be delighted to hear it...
PB
Paul Bird
Every so often I feel obliged to quote Andrew Gabriel on the subject,
sorry if you've seen this before.
Quote
First one (in recent years) was 10th December 2002. We were some
2-3 minutes from initiating load shedding (rolling blackouts).
I don't know the cause -- most likely a cold spell causing a
shortage of gas so that commercial consumers on cheap gas tarrifs
have their gas cut off, some of whom were gas fired power
stations, so we lose electricity generation capacity at peak
heating demand.
When a power plant wants to supply power to the grid, it contracts
to supply so much power for so much time. If it can't do it, it
has to pay another power station to do so in its place. The market
between suppliers means they carefully look to see if anyone
else unexpectedly drops off the grid, and immediately jack up
their prices to make maximum profit out of the failed plant
which now has to pay a premium to other suppliers to replace
the electricity it contracturally agreed to provide. On 10th
December 2002, this mechanism forced the wholesale price of
electricity to 500 times its normal price, and even then only
just managed to keep the lights on by the skin of its teeth.
Planning for rolling backouts took place in the following winter,
and only didn't happen because the weather forcast was wrong and
it didn't get as cold as was predicted. I don't have subsequent
dates, but there have been a number of supply shortage incidents
since then. Prior to the 2002 incident, we'd had a supply
infrastructure for decades with emergency capacity maintained in
reserve which gave us one of the most stable supplies in the world.
It was decided to mothball the emergency plant to save money (which
required a change in the law). It would have taken months to get it
back up working again.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Unquote
PB
Ian Bidwell
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:v2eni5tgciipjrkhq...@4ax.com...
> We couldn't get DAB at all.
>
> That's going to need fixing (along with a considerable improvement in
> quality) before they can consider turning off the FM.
Power cut in the Coton/Madingley area and the commercial run transmitter
seems to have no back up power
Ian
camjay
A lot of these goings on are viewable in realtime on http://www.bmreports.com/
magwitch
but ISTR they were further south in Chemlsford. Thunder snow is amazing.
Jon Green
> What!, EDF looking after their plant;?..
Well, the barrel cactus in the corner still looks OK, but you just can't
tell with those.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
tony sayer
<noone$$@llondel.org> scribeth thus
And when it is broke.. cite "elfin saftee" and leave it till the next
day to fix it;(...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> scribeth thus
That will be Danielle Nagler who's one of the best Bullshit monger's in
the British Bullshit Corporation..
Shes the "Manager" for High Definition TV...
--
Tony Sayer
Paul Bird
<snip>
Thank you for the link but I'm afraid it does little to reassure me,
just reminds me that we have a privatised electricity market competing
for the right to supply using "just in time" methods.
PB
zulu
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OgXw2KGJ...@bancom.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and what a rip off THAT is!
http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
<rant>
I bought an *HD Ready* TV with built in Freeview 4 years ago....and
finally...at last... I learn that HD will soon be available <don't hold your
breath> on Freeview.
Oh goody, thinks I, BUT...
I _then_ learn that my *HD Ready* TV with built in Freeview is NOT, in fact,
HD ready...
It seems that I need yet another bloody box to receive HD...
What _really_ annoys me is that ClassicFM keep carrying ads for *Freeview
plus* boxes with no mention of their inability to receive HD, or the fact
that they will be obsolete in a matter of a few months.
You can't even GET an HD Freeview box yet!
What a con!
--
�zulu� VIP
Tiger
> ...a direct complaint
> by a listener that there were green lines across the program
Green lines on a radio programme? Now that *is* worrying!
t
Paul Oldham
> I bought an *HD Ready* TV with built in Freeview 4 years ago....and
> finally...at last... I learn that HD will soon be available <don't hold your
> breath> on Freeview.
>
> Oh goody, thinks I, BUT...
>
> I _then_ learn that my *HD Ready* TV with built in Freeview is NOT, in fact,
> HD ready... It seems that I need yet another bloody box to receive HD...
And it gets even better: "HD Ready" only means that the display must be
have a native resolution of at least 720 lines, whereas for HD you
really want 1080 so a lot of people who bought "HD Ready" TV are now
finding that although their TV accepts an HD input the display isn't as
lovely as they expected.
See http://www.digitaleurope.org/web/news/telecharger.php?iddoc=242
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windscreen"
Eddy Langley
Yes. When the lights are on the verge of going out, electricity gets
expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as the value of lost load (i.e. the
cost to the wider world of blackouts). Seems perfectly sensible to me...
note the lights didn't go out...
Paul Bird
I was thinking more of the last paragraph of the long quote I posted by
Andrew Gabriel about the years before privatisation when there was
sufficient backup available to prevent this (almost) ever happening.
--
Paul Bird
Espen Koht
wrote:
> zulu wrote:
>
> > I bought an *HD Ready* TV with built in Freeview 4 years ago....and
> > finally...at last... I learn that HD will soon be available <don't hold
> > your
> > breath> on Freeview.
> >
> > Oh goody, thinks I, BUT...
> >
> > I _then_ learn that my *HD Ready* TV with built in Freeview is NOT, in
> > fact,
> > HD ready... It seems that I need yet another bloody box to receive HD...
>
> And it gets even better: "HD Ready" only means that the display must be
> have a native resolution of at least 720 lines, whereas for HD you
> really want 1080 so a lot of people who bought "HD Ready" TV are now
> finding that although their TV accepts an HD input the display isn't as
> lovely as they expected.
>
> See http://www.digitaleurope.org/web/news/telecharger.php?iddoc=242
Is there any suggestion Freewire HD will be any higher than 1280x720 @
50 and 60Hz progressive (720p)/1920x1080 @ 50 and 60Hz interlaced
(1080i) though?
The Natural Philosopher
The optimal strategy is to balance the demand and supply to the point
where the cost of power cuts exactly matches the cost of standby, and
then, if the curve is fairly flat around the point, err a little towards
the supply side for good PR.
If its not flat we have a situation where the cost of preventing power
cuts is extremely high, and the cost of having them is extremely high:
the best benefit to society is a to manage as close to this point as
possible.
Mike Lewis
"Georgiegirl" <email...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:428f7c08-c25c-4212...@q18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> message says they can't provide any repair times yet and have too many
> calls to talk to me in person.
We had that blackout as well. Twice in the evening. Then it wnet down inte
night and was still off when I went to work.
Were you affected last year? We hade trouble with the RCD's in the fuse box
tripping. Sometimes multiple times in a day. After enquiries of the
neighbours (one of whom had been complaining to EDF and been fobbed off had
spent a few hundred quid on electricians who found no fault at his house) we
dicsovered it was affecting dozens of houses and EDF eventually traced it to
a cable across an allotment which had been damaged.
Steve McIntyre
>have a native resolution of at least 720 lines, whereas for HD you
>really want 1080 so a lot of people who bought "HD Ready" TV are now
>finding that although their TV accepts an HD input the display isn't as
>lovely as they expected.
Meh, unless your display is 40" or bigger then you're not likely to
notice 1080 as opposed to 720. And nobody's broadcasting anything in
1080p anyway.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
Jon Green
Ahem. See .sig. ;)
Paul Oldham
> In article <db3107-...@bigjohn.hug>, Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
>> And it gets even better: "HD Ready" only means that the display must be
>> have a native resolution of at least 720 lines, whereas for HD you
>> really want 1080 so a lot of people who bought "HD Ready" TV are now
>> finding that although their TV accepts an HD input the display isn't as
>> lovely as they expected.
>
> Meh, unless your display is 40" or bigger then you're not likely to
> notice 1080 as opposed to 720.
Yeah, you have a point. Certainly with my eyesight it's all pretty
academic anyway.
> And nobody's broadcasting anything in 1080p anyway.
But presumably the same people who want HD-TV are also watching Blu-ray
discs and I thought they were predominantly 1080p?
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."
Eleanor Blair
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> And nobody's broadcasting anything in 1080p anyway.
>
>But presumably the same people who want HD-TV are also watching Blu-ray
>discs and I thought they were predominantly 1080p?
We actually got a HD freesat box (and started watching BBC HD, and the
occasional football match on ITV) before we got a blu-ray player. They
compare favourably. I think our telly might even only be 1080i though.
Steve McIntyre
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> And nobody's broadcasting anything in 1080p anyway.
>
>But presumably the same people who want HD-TV are also watching Blu-ray
>discs and I thought they were predominantly 1080p?
Yes they are. But the players will happily scale appropriately to fit
720p just as well. Most people can't even tell if the aspect ratio is
correct on their widescreen TV, let alone anything as subtle as a
difference in resolution.
I'm blessed/(cursed?) with a job where I have to pay attention to
these things and after a while of looking for errors, artifacts
etc. then you can't *stop* looking for them... :-/
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Brian Morrison
> I'm blessed/(cursed?) with a job where I have to pay attention to
> these things and after a while of looking for errors, artifacts
> etc. then you can't *stop* looking for them... :-/
Yes, I know a couple of people who either work or have worked in the
broadcast TV industry. They don't watch TV programmes, they watch the
picture.
--
Brian
Jules
> I'm blessed/(cursed?) with a job where I have to pay attention to
> these things and after a while of looking for errors, artifacts
> etc. then you can't *stop* looking for them... :-/
I'm like that, not because I get paid for it, but because when everyone
starts wibbling about new technology and how marvellous it is, I make
sure I look at what's being offered - and not what the tech is
theoretically capable of.
From what I've seen so far, for anything broadcast it's still full of
glitches, artifacts, colour banding - and that's when it hasn't crapped
out completely due to any number of transmission faults.
Couple that with ever-more channels of ever-more ads and ever-less stuff
that I actually want to watch, and it just seems like an expensive waste
of time :-(
Thomas Womack
Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:43:09 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I'm blessed/(cursed?) with a job where I have to pay attention to
>> these things and after a while of looking for errors, artifacts
>> etc. then you can't *stop* looking for them... :-/
>
>I'm like that, not because I get paid for it, but because when everyone
>starts wibbling about new technology and how marvellous it is, I make
>sure I look at what's being offered - and not what the tech is
>theoretically capable of.
I bought a 1920x1080 HDTV (comes with free blu-ray player) after
seeing just how gorgeous David Attenborough wildlife documentaries
looked on blu-ray on a friend's HDTV; it seemed silly to save a
hundred pounds on something that should last a decade by going for a
lower resolution.
I admit I've watched precisely one blu-ray on it in three months, and
the high resolution made Kung Fu Panda look like a PC game being
played in a resolution too high for its texture map quality. Mostly I
use it for Wii Fit, which is a low-resolution video source and not
improved by the TV's upsampling algorithm.
Tom
zulu
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.21....@remove.this.gmail.com...
Too right!
Bring back 3 black and white channels on 405 lines...<g>
I had a second hand Bush TV with a picture tube with very rounded corners in
a box the size of a small tea chest...with a (converter) screwed underneath
it so that I could receive Anglia (or maybe it was BBC2)
Mind you the programs <seemed/were> better then, and you could even keep
track of them.
--
�zulu� VIP
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com (zulu) wrote:
> Bring back 3 black and white channels on 405 lines...<g>
>
> I had a second hand Bush TV with a picture tube with very rounded
> corners in a box the size of a small tea chest...with a (converter)
> screwed underneath it so that I could receive Anglia (or maybe it
> was BBC2)
Must have been Anglia. BBC2 was only ever on 625 lines/UHF.
My parents never got a tuner fitted to their first TV, so it was BBC1 only
in my childhood. Tuners seemed to wreck TV reliability so they never dared
get one. The TV is still in my mother's loft. Dunno if it would still
work. IIRC VHF TV was turned off some time ago.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Brian Morrison
> IIRC VHF TV was turned off some time ago.
Yes, I remember being able to receive 405 line VHF TV at or just after
the first couple of moon landings because that was the TV that was in
our dining room. After that the TV was removed and it wasn't because it
had failed. That was from the Ally Pally transmitter.
--
Brian
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Brian Morrison) wrote:
VHF transmissions were still going on long after the moon programme. They
only went when governments starting selling spectrum in the last couple of
decades.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
zulu
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8IadnfAEK6ayN7LW...@giganews.com...
You are correct, it was ineed Anglia.
I remembered ahter I had posted...and my wife put me right <g>
I nade an aerial out of a 68 inch length (IIRC) of copper rod bent into a
diamond shape.
Ho hum!
--
�zulu� VIP
tony sayer
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk scribeth thus
They haven't as such sold the spectrum in either Band 1, which remains
very under used, or Band 3 for that matter, a lot of which is used for
DAB broadcasting...
--
Tony Sayer
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
I did wonder about Band 1. Did anywhere other than London ever use it for
TV? My parents had a whopping great single dipole of their roof. It's
probably still there.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
zulu
...and thats another thing!
When are we getting DAB+ ?
--
�zulu� VIP
Brian Morrison
> In article <sPednZj-IYhuQbLW...@giganews.com>,
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk scribeth thus
>> In article <hgoc0t$j3j$1...@localhost.localdomain>, scra...@fenrir.org.uk
>> (Brian Morrison) wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/12/2009 17:02, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> IIRC VHF TV was turned off some time ago.
>>>
>>> Yes, I remember being able to receive 405 line VHF TV at or just after
>>> the first couple of moon landings because that was the TV that was in
>>> our dining room. After that the TV was removed and it wasn't because it
>>> had failed. That was from the Ally Pally transmitter.
>>
>> VHF transmissions were still going on long after the moon programme. They
>> only went when governments starting selling spectrum in the last couple of
>> decades.
>>
Well I'm not so sure about that, the Band 3 trunked radio systems were
about in the 1980s, they didn't prosper because of the arrival of GSM
but they certainly had the spectrum allocated.
>
> They haven't as such sold the spectrum in either Band 1, which remains
> very under used, or Band 3 for that matter, a lot of which is used for
> DAB broadcasting...
Well, radio amateurs have access to 50-52MHz roughly, so that is
definitely allocated to something else, although I suppose you could
claim it wasn't sold.
--
Brian
Chris Shore
"Brian Morrison" <scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:hgntlr$ejd$1...@localhost.localdomain...
After some time working as a projectionist years ago I can't
stop noticing dots in the corner of the screen at the end of
every reel...
Chris
Roland Perry
Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Chris Shore <chris...@arm.nospam.com> remarked:
>After some time working as a projectionist years ago I can't
>stop noticing dots in the corner of the screen at the end of
>every reel...
I always see the little square in the top-right of ITV programmes that
says the adverts are about to start.
--
Roland Perry
Chris Shore
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CgDQhpaV...@perry.co.uk...
Very similar. I remember my father writing to ITV sometime in the
70s to ask them what that was for and getting a very nice letter back
telling him all about it...
Chris
Roland Perry
on Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> remarked:
>> I always see the little square in the top-right of ITV programmes that
>> says the adverts are about to start.
>
>although I'm unsure as to whether a similar cue can be found to restart
>them.
A friend of mine who used to work at the BBC said it was simple: just
detect "non-sync" cuts. I assume that means a switch from one programme
feed to another that's not 100% got the frame scans aligned with each
other.
I'm not aware of anyone actually making a device that does this,
although on some (a small minority) of channels, my PVR actually splits
the programming around the adverts. Perhaps that's because as well as a
dodgy cut, the compression or aspect ratios are also different between
programme material and adverts.
--
Roland Perry
The Natural Philosopher
> The entity calling itself Brian Morrison wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:45:17 GMT
>> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When are we getting DAB+ ?
>> the "bubbling mud" MP2 codec artefacts. But I imagine the extra cost of
>> the equipment and the installed base on non-DAB+ receivers would make
>> the whole thing even less economically viable than the existing DAB
>> fiasco.
>
> The large installed base of analogue receivers hasn't stopped the
> proposal for a switch off for anlogue radio services, and the installed
> base of DAB is, by comparison, absolutely minute.
>
What goes in the 88-108 band if Analogue FM goes off??
Isn't DAB up higher towards UHF?
Yes, in this case, I AM that ignorant..
Anthony Frost
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <20091222205...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk>, at 20:57:24
> on Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> remarked:
> >> I always see the little square in the top-right of ITV programmes that
> >> says the adverts are about to start.
> >
> >Exactly what is needed to cue recording devices to stop recording,
> >although I'm unsure as to whether a similar cue can be found to restart
> >them.
>
> A friend of mine who used to work at the BBC said it was simple: just
> detect "non-sync" cuts. I assume that means a switch from one programme
> feed to another that's not 100% got the frame scans aligned with each
> other.
I suspect that's a touch of BBC-ism. In my years at an ITV company the
only non-sync cuts were to and from TV-AM/GMTV first thing as that was
done by the lines switching centre, the rest of the day everything was
properly locked.
There wasn't a visual indication of coming out of a break, we knew how
long it was going to be and could see the clock on the incoming
programme anyway. Later there was a teletext based system that could be
used for starting and stopping, used for unmanned overnight operations,
but it used an odd run-in sequence and a certain amount of obfuscation
so it couldn't be used domestically.
These days almost everything is done centrally so timing cues probably
don't get to leave the control area.
Anthony - TSW 1983-1992
The Natural Philosopher
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:55:12 +0000
> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's because the authorities want to push people towards digital due
>>> to it's greater spectral efficiency (which is debatable).
>> My point was that the authorities claim that can't move to DAB+ becasue
>> of the installed base of DAB receivers, while cherfully spitting in the
>> faces of the analogue kit owners.
>
> Oh yes, you didn't expect consistency of argument did you?
>
>>> DAB has not caught on, despite the BBC pushing it at every opportunity,
>>> as much as anything because the cost of transmitting equipment to cover
>>> the same area as FM is much higher.
>> And I thought it was becasuse it sounds shit. Bubbling shit.
>>
>
> Well it didn't have to, not reducing the bit rates to rock bottom would
> fix the first problem and moving away from the MP2 codec would fix both
> problems. So DAB+ was the answer but sadly we went with the very first
> version of DAB rather than waiting until the technology delivered on
> its promise.
>
I said it before, and I will repeat it now.
Radio will end up being IP over 3G or similar, long before DAB gets
sorted out.
There's a nation wide infrastructure of mobile masts, and there are good
codecs, and there is broadcast over IP standards.
People at fixed locations can ALREADY get top class BBC channels via IP
Radio via digital terrestrial is also very good.
DAB radio is already overtaken.
Jon Green
> DAB has not caught on, despite the BBC pushing it at every opportunity,
> as much as anything because the cost of transmitting equipment to cover
> increase in path loss, that means you need 4 times as many transmitters
> for coverage.
I don't think that's helped, but the main consumer resistance point for
DAB has been twofold: the cost of the radios, and the power consumption.
What's really driven FM listening has been mobility. I suspect that
probably 80% or more of radio listening (probably rather higher) is done
on portable radios, car radios or personal radios.
You can buy a little FM job, running off one AA battery and using
earphones, for less than a fiver, and it'll run for hours and hours on
that one battery. You can't get a DAB radio for less than twenty quid,
and certainly not in that format, and most certainly not with that
endurance -- and even more assuredly with any chance of catching and
holding a solid signal without "running water" noise (coming back to
your previous point).
There are a lot of good things to be said about digital radio broadcast,
but unfortunately they're mostly theoretical. When it comes to the
practicalities, from transmission to receiving equipment, analogue FM
has it beat hollow, and the available technologies won't change that for
a fair while yet.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Roland Perry
Dec 2009, Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org> remarked:
>These days almost everything is done centrally so timing cues probably
>don't get to leave the control area.
So what are the little squares for (I'm sure I've seen some recently -
but I don't watch a huge amount of TV)?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 2009, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
>> DAB has not caught on, despite the BBC pushing it at every opportunity,
>> as much as anything because the cost of transmitting equipment to cover
>> the same area as FM is much higher.
>
We've got a DAB receiver (bought one to see what the fuss was about),
and live in a major built up area. The reception is awful.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On 22/12/2009 21:57, Brian Morrison wrote:
>> DAB has not caught on, despite the BBC pushing it at every opportunity,
>> as much as anything because the cost of transmitting equipment to cover
>> the same area as FM is much higher. Doubling the frequency means a 6dB
>> increase in path loss, that means you need 4 times as many transmitters
>> for coverage.
>
>I don't think that's helped, but the main consumer resistance point for
>DAB has been twofold: the cost of the radios, and the power consumption.
> What's really driven FM listening has been mobility. I suspect that
>probably 80% or more of radio listening (probably rather higher) is done
>on portable radios, car radios or personal radios.
Indeed, and that's why the BBC is pushing at the wrong door. For those
who do have DAB at the moment, the main appeal isn't the ability to
listen to stuff you already can listen to but in (theoretically)
better quality, it's the ability to listen to stuff that you can't get
on FM. People don't buy DAB to get more or better BBC, they buy it to
get programming that isn't available to them on FM.
To get past that barrier and turn DAB into a mainstream format, it has
to be available in the types of products that are currently routinely
bought, such as car radios.
>You can buy a little FM job, running off one AA battery and using
>earphones, for less than a fiver, and it'll run for hours and hours on
>that one battery. You can't get a DAB radio for less than twenty quid,
>and certainly not in that format, and most certainly not with that
>endurance -- and even more assuredly with any chance of catching and
>holding a solid signal without "running water" noise (coming back to
>your previous point).
This may be a daft question, but *why* is DAB reception more
power-hungry than analogue reception?
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Andrew May
> I don't think that's helped, but the main consumer resistance point for
> DAB has been twofold: the cost of the radios, and the power consumption.
> What's really driven FM listening has been mobility. I suspect that
> probably 80% or more of radio listening (probably rather higher) is done
> on portable radios, car radios or personal radios.
>
> You can buy a little FM job, running off one AA battery and using
> earphones, for less than a fiver, and it'll run for hours and hours on
> that one battery. You can't get a DAB radio for less than twenty quid,
> and certainly not in that format, and most certainly not with that
> endurance -- and even more assuredly with any chance of catching and
> holding a solid signal without "running water" noise (coming back to
> your previous point).
>
Of course, if the government was really serious about reducing our
energy consumption then instead of banning TV standby they would ban DAB
and make everyone use FM.
Jules
> There's nothing like enough bandwidth within the current infrastructure.
> Domestic nano, or pico, cells with ADSL backhaul migh solve that,
> though. But it's amazing how much of my 2 8Gb ADSL lines' capacity my
> three Squeezebox IP radios consume.
I assume the numbers are quite large as a percentage of line cost, too -
All for something that was essentially free via FM and analogue.
Espen Koht
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> There's nothing like enough bandwidth within the current infrastructure.
> Domestic nano, or pico, cells with ADSL backhaul migh solve that,
> though. But it's amazing how much of my 2 8Gb ADSL lines' capacity my
> three Squeezebox IP radios consume.
I'm looking to be amazed. Uncompressed CD quality stereo audio is 1.4
Mbs but internet radio probably isn't offering that. So I imagine
compressed to 256Mbps or less. In your example multiply this by 3, so a
less 5% of your 2 lines operational bandwidth?
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
>
> The entity calling itself Espen Koht wrote:
>>
>> In article<871vimh...@news2.kororaa.com>,
>> August West<aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's nothing like enough bandwidth within the current infrastructure.
>>> Domestic nano, or pico, cells with ADSL backhaul migh solve that,
>>> though. But it's amazing how much of my 2 8Gb ADSL lines' capacity my
>>> three Squeezebox IP radios consume.
>>
>> I'm looking to be amazed. Uncompressed CD quality stereo audio is 1.4
>> Mbs but internet radio probably isn't offering that. So I imagine
>> compressed to 256Mbps or less.
>
> reason).
>
>> In your example multiply this by 3, so a less 5% of your 2 lines
>> operational bandwidth?
>
> traffic; presumably due to upstream congestion. The infrastructure isn't
> really there yet for large amounts constant rate streamed data - it's
> budgeted based on bursty demand. The 8Mbps is just the local loop sync
> speed - upstream transfer can be much smaller than that.
Running on a very asymmetric (20Mb:768k) connection I am now fairly
convinced that a lot of my performance issues are about upstream
bandwidth exhaustion, namely that the 'ack's use up all the bandwidth.
magwitch
They are handy if you are recording and want to avoid ads - nowadays I
just get the DVD... I'm sure they're not there for my convenience though.
The Natural Philosopher
> The entity calling itself The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> I said it before, and I will repeat it now. Radio will end up being
>> IP over 3G or similar, long before DAB gets sorted out.
>
>
>> There's a nation wide infrastructure of mobile masts, and there are
>> good codecs, and there is broadcast over IP standards.
>
> Domestic nano, or pico, cells with ADSL backhaul migh solve that,
> though. But it's amazing how much of my 2 8Gb ADSL lines' capacity my
> three Squeezebox IP radios consume.
>
REally? I get perfect reception on less than 256Kbps.
>> Radio via digital terrestrial is also very good.
>
> Terrestrial digital TV multiplexes? Yes, it is.
> Satellite, too.
>
>> DAB radio is already overtaken.
>
> It was overtaken even before it was launched.
>
:-) I think I agree.
The Natural Philosopher
High speed DSP.
Rather than microamp IF strips.
> Mark
The Natural Philosopher
> The entity calling itself Espen Koht wrote:
>> In article <871vimh...@news2.kororaa.com>,
>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's nothing like enough bandwidth within the current infrastructure.
>>> Domestic nano, or pico, cells with ADSL backhaul migh solve that,
>>> though. But it's amazing how much of my 2 8Gb ADSL lines' capacity my
>>> three Squeezebox IP radios consume.
>> I'm looking to be amazed. Uncompressed CD quality stereo audio is 1.4
>> Mbs but internet radio probably isn't offering that. So I imagine
>> compressed to 256Mbps or less.
>
> reason).
>
>> operational bandwidth?
>
> traffic; presumably due to upstream congestion. The infrastructure isn't
> really there yet for large amounts constant rate streamed data - it's
> budgeted based on bursty demand. The 8Mbps is just the local loop sync
> speed - upstream transfer can be much smaller than that.
>
The Natural Philosopher
I've done massive UPLOADS from various sites moving data around. It
really messes with downstream performance.
zulu
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hgu3ru$3ns$3...@news.albasani.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
> if enough people start to want it, they will use IP broad/multicasting.
I'd _much_ rather keep FM.
--
�zulu� VIP
The Natural Philosopher
YMMV..
Alex Selby
> The entity calling itself Brian Morrison wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:07:05 +0000
>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The entity calling itself Brian Morrison wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:45:17 GMT
>>>> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When are we getting DAB+ ?
>>>> Not sure if we are, it would make a lot of sense if only to get rid of
>>>> the "bubbling mud" MP2 codec artefacts. But I imagine the extra cost of
>>>> the equipment and the installed base on non-DAB+ receivers would make
>>>> the whole thing even less economically viable than the existing DAB
>>>> fiasco.
>>> The large installed base of analogue receivers hasn't stopped the
>>> proposal for a switch off for anlogue radio services, and the installed
>>> base of DAB is, by comparison, absolutely minute.
>> to it's greater spectral efficiency (which is debatable).
>
> My point was that the authorities claim that can't move to DAB+ becasue
> of the installed base of DAB receivers, while cherfully spitting in the
> faces of the analogue kit owners.
Yeahbut DAB sets are so much more expensive than analogue that there
might be more money invested in DAB than analogue by now. This argument
is so obviously correct that if someone discovered a way to make
analogue sets twice as expensive, but do exactly the same thing, then
you'd only have to roll them out to a third of the country before it
became inevitable that you'd have to continue with the rest of the
country.
Anthony Frost
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
I don't remember seeing any recently, though I think Channel and the
Scottish franchises may still run their own adverts locally so they
might still be there. Older programmes from the bigger franchises
(Thames, Central, Granada, etc) often had them on the master tape so
you'll still see those.
Anthony
Jon Green
> Indeed, and that's why the BBC is pushing at the wrong door. Forsuch those
> who do have DAB at the moment, the main appeal isn't the ability to
> listen to stuff you already can listen to but in (theoretically)
> better quality, it's the ability to listen to stuff that you can't get
> on FM.
Amen to that. Planet Rock. 'Nuff said.
> This may be a daft question, but *why* is DAB reception more
> power-hungry than analogue reception?
Well, I'm not an expert, but here goes...
For FM, you need a tuner, demodulator and an amp.
For DAB, you need all of the above (with a software-controllable tuner),
but also a small computer/FPGA/similar to do the MP2 decodes.
Unsurprisingly, the extra hardware adds both cost and power consumption.
And also complexity. I can put together an FM receiver with a few
discrete components - it's not hugely more complex than a crystal radio.
See
http://www.somerset.net/arm/reprints/simplefm_photo.jpg for a pic of a
really simple one that only needs one transistor.
A DAB radio, OTOH, is essentially a digital device with analogue bits
either side. It's no longer a project a reasonably bright 8-year-old
could put together with a handful of cheap components. At least
licensing fees aren't an additional problem now MPEG-1 layer 2 is out of
patent, though that's not to say that the chipset won't carry its own
licensing burden.
One way or the other, DAB's more expensive, lower quality (thanks to the
UK implementation), more power-hungry and a royally greater pain in the
bum than FM. The only significant benefit is greater channel density,
although that's more than offset by the density of those allocating them.
tersono
wrote:
<snip>.
>
>And also complexity. I can put together an FM receiver with a few
>discrete components - it's not hugely more complex than a crystal radio.
> See
>http://www.somerset.net/arm/reprints/simplefm_photo.jpg for a pic of a
>really simple one that only needs one transistor.
>
<snip>
Hm. I'd really like to see the circuit diagram.
<sounds of raspberries, and cries of "work it out from what you can
see of the PCB".>
And I do notice that there seem to be two transistors, not one.
--
Only three people have ever understood the Schleswig-Holstein problem
One's dead, one's gone mad, and I've forgotten.
Roland Perry
> > but I don't watch a huge amount of TV)?
>
>I don't remember seeing any recently, though I think Channel and the
>Scottish franchises may still run their own adverts locally so they
>might still be there. Older programmes from the bigger franchises
>(Thames, Central, Granada, etc) often had them on the master tape so
>you'll still see those.
I'll post a message if I see any over the next few days.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 2009, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
>> if enough people start to want it, they will use IP broad/multicasting.
>
The current trend is to cache the content near the edge of the network.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Green
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:59:49 +0000, Jon Green<jo...@deadspam.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>.
>>
>> And also complexity. I can put together an FM receiver with a few
>> discrete components - it's not hugely more complex than a crystal radio.
>> See
>> http://www.somerset.net/arm/reprints/simplefm_photo.jpg for a pic of a
>> really simple one that only needs one transistor.
>>
Your wish is my command!
http://www.somerset.net/arm/fm_only_one_transistor_radio.html
> And I do notice that there seem to be two transistors, not one.
The three-lead plastic-cased device isn't a transistor, it's an
adjustable shunt v-reg, essentially a variable Zener.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
<Its for a friend>
The X-Factor was using the squares for each break this year
</Its for a friend>
The Natural Philosopher
That is a very good idea.
Stream from your telephone exchange.
The Natural Philosopher
> On 24/12/2009 07:10, tersono wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:59:49 +0000, Jon Green<jo...@deadspam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>.
>>>
>>> And also complexity. I can put together an FM receiver with a few
>>> discrete components - it's not hugely more complex than a crystal radio.
>>> See
>>> http://www.somerset.net/arm/reprints/simplefm_photo.jpg for a pic of a
>>> really simple one that only needs one transistor.
>>>
>> Hm. I'd really like to see the circuit diagram.
>
> Your wish is my command!
> http://www.somerset.net/arm/fm_only_one_transistor_radio.html
>
Blimey. I havent built a super-regen receiver since 1966!
>> And I do notice that there seem to be two transistors, not one.
>
> The three-lead plastic-cased device isn't a transistor, it's an
> adjustable shunt v-reg, essentially a variable Zener.
>
Well I think that's a bit cheating.
> Jon
Roland Perry
Dec 2009, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <r.moss-...@computer.org> remarked:
>>> > So what are the little squares for (I'm sure I've seen some recently -
>>> > but I don't watch a huge amount of TV)?
>> I'll post a message if I see any over the next few days.
>
><Its for a friend>
>The X-Factor was using the squares for each break this year
></Its for a friend>
That might explain why I've seen them; X-Factor is the only ITV
programme I've been watching recently.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
on Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> remarked:
>> That might explain why I've seen them; X-Factor is the only ITV
>> programme I've been watching recently.
>
I know, all that other wonderful stuff I'm missing. However X-factor is
a wonderful pantomime, and as long as you record it and zip through all
the adverts and repetitious stuff, it's well worth an hour a week just
to understand what everyone else is talking about.
--
Roland Perry