«

Seems like the government stuff up again, listed changes for May have
not been implemented..

On 4/06/2011 6:55 p.m., Brian Mathews wrote:
>
>
>
> Seems like the government stuff up again, listed changes for May have
> not been implemented..

Ah well, no big deal really, just need to do a rescan when it happens.

I would rather see them scrap this bizzare idea of 2 freqs in use
everywhere, meaning that mobile recievers need constant rescanning
instead of allowing seamless reception as driving around.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:07:50 +1200, Richard wrote:

> I would rather see them scrap this bizzare idea of 2 freqs in use
> everywhere, meaning that mobile recievers need constant rescanning
> instead of allowing seamless reception as driving around.

Care to explain how you would have two transmitters on the same frequency
in the same region?

You DO, of course, know why you need to have more than one transmitter in
a hilly built-up area?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:55:02 +1200, Brian Mathews wrote:

> Seems like the government stuff up again, listed changes for May have
> not been implemented..

Are you sure that this is something done by the National Party?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On 4/06/2011 11:18 p.m., Boots wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:07:50 +1200, Richard wrote:
>
>> I would rather see them scrap this bizzare idea of 2 freqs in use
>> everywhere, meaning that mobile recievers need constant rescanning
>> instead of allowing seamless reception as driving around.
>
> Care to explain how you would have two transmitters on the same frequency
> in the same region?
>
> You DO, of course, know why you need to have more than one transmitter in
> a hilly built-up area?


total synchronization of them allows for a single frequency network on
digital.

google dvb sfn for more stuff.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:16:39 +1200, Richard wrote:

> total synchronization of them allows for a single frequency network on
> digital.

How would you account for phase changes as signals bounce around hills
and buildings?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Brian Mathews wrote:
> Seems like the government stuff up again, listed changes for May have
> not been implemented..

Is this you again Woger? I have about 100 instances of your nyms in my
killfile (which I export and then import into new machines over the
years[*]). I swear I have a 'Brian Mattews' entry for you but you may have
changed some of it as this got through.
[*] I swear that, partly because of your massive contribution to my
krillfile I need computers quite a bit more powerful than I normally would
to deal with the overhead. *You* are directly responsible for part of my
expenses, both fixed cost for plant and ongoing cost in the form of
electrical consumption. Bastard!

(Apologies if this isn't Roger Shepard.)
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 11:19:06 +0000 (UTC), Boots
<> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:55:02 +1200, Brian Mathews wrote:
>
>> Seems like the government stuff up again, listed changes for May have
>> not been implemented..
>
>Are you sure that this is something done by the National Party?


The Documents I have does list GOVT..

On 5/06/2011 10:42 a.m., Boots wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:16:39 +1200, Richard wrote:
>
>> total synchronization of them allows for a single frequency network on
>> digital.
>
> How would you account for phase changes as signals bounce around hills
> and buildings?

Same way that it deals with that when its on a different freq - the
guard intervil is there.

No difference between a syncronized transmission and a reflection, the
DVB-T standard deals with both very well. Not like that ATSC piece of
crap that cant deal with what would be a moderate ghost on analog.

In message <isfcqc$4jf$>, Richard wrote:

>> How would you account for phase changes as signals bounce around hills
>> and buildings?
>
> Same way that it deals with that when its on a different freq - the
> guard intervil is there.

I don’t think you need a guard band with digital transmissions. Consider
that Wi-Fi works fine with heavily-overlapping channels (negative guard
band, if you like).