4G interference will knockout Freeview

heero_yuy · 03-06-2011, 13:43

Quote:

760,000 households risk losing Freeview when 4G telephony comes online, and even with mitigating techniques Ofcom reckons 30,000 households face a future without terrestrial broadcasting.

The regulator reckons those 30,000 will have to switch to satellite or cable to get their TV broadcasts, as 4G telephony leaks into their television transmissions. The rest should be OK as long as they get better filters, and know enough to fit them, but Ofcom wants the mobile operators to take responsibility for that.

Source

This sort of thing seems to happen everytime a new system is brought on-line. Happened with 625 lines and colour: We were promised here on the south coast that French interference would be a thing of the past. Eventually it was worse than on the old 405 line system.

**Chris** · 03-06-2011, 14:50

I've believed for some time now that the digital switchover should have focused on Freesat rather than Freeview ... So far as I can see, in terms of available bandwidth and %age population coverage it wins hand down. There would have been no need for any complicated switchover either ... Simply two systems running in parallel until it was possible to turn analogue terrestrial off, at which point nobody would have to have re-tuned anything.

**Kymmy** · 03-06-2011, 15:22

Freesat is the option.. it's one of the reasons as to why freesat was originally brought in.. not to replace terrestrial but to supplement it.. WIth the costs and ease of use now being a lot lower there's no reason (apart from local planning/building constraints) that someone getting interference from 4g couldn't get better reception..

Surely just a better front-to-back gain antenna would be able to pinpoint the desired signal along with an attenuator to drop the background signal to negligible levels should be the first option.. Easy to do if the installer knows their business..

nodrogd · 03-06-2011, 23:55

We had all this when TETRA first came out, but that turned out to be mostly a storm in a teacup. Most receivers have fairly good immunity nowadays. In locations very close to a base station, the use of a notch or bandstop filter on the antenna should be all that is necessary.

Uncle Peter · 04-06-2011, 00:42

5.7 Million households with some kind of amplifier.

I wonder how many of those would actually need an amplifier if they had the correct type of tv aerial installed properly by an installer who actually knows what they are doing. Some of the botch jobs I've seen done by so-called professional installers are beyond belief.

..and how many of those households have been duped into buying the cheap tat sold by catalogue stores, DIY chains and those high street electrical shops. Good quality RF amps are never cheap. Even if there's a legitimate need for an amp there is no point installing one unless you are using good quality coax cable and connectors - the type you will not find in Maplins, B&Q or the back of a cowboy installer's van.

These are the people who are going to have problems if any.

nodrogd · 04-06-2011, 12:08

The problem is nearly all the amps on sale at the moment, be they aerial boosters or internal distribution amps, are designed to operate up to UHF ch68, which includes the unwanted 4G frequencies. With any luck we will see modified ones on the market soon, but the best policy is wait and see on this one.

Uncle Peter · 04-06-2011, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by nodrogd

The problem is nearly all the amps on sale at the moment, be they aerial boosters or internal distribution amps, are designed to operate up to UHF ch68, which includes the unwanted 4G frequencies. With any luck we will see modified ones on the market soon, but the best policy is wait and see on this one.

...and the el cheapo specials being designed around noisy old BJT transistors which amplify anything and everything.

The 14.99 on in the hi-de-hi catalogue is particularly grim.