# My DECT phone "blocks" Channel 4 +1



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

Sorry - I know this is off topic so I'll keep it brief - it may affect some others here.

My Sky+ box has no problems with Channel 4 +1 but while testing the new channel logos earlier on I discovered that my second Sky box, connected to the same dish and in the same rack of equipment almost completely fails to display the +1 channel unless I turn off the DECT phone base station (or make a phone call on said DECT phone!)

Apparently this is a known problem.

The down-shift frequency used when converting the signal from the dish's LNB to the set top box for the transponder used by Channel 4 for their +1 service is roughly the same as that used by DECT base stations.

I have a known shielding issue with the main input component on my aging Sky box and I guess this is the first time it's manifested itself as this is the first time I've tried picking something up on this transponder...

I hope this helps/explains if someone's scratching their head wondering why Four+1 (and the Big Brother live stream) don't work but everything else does.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

aerialplug said:


> I have a known shielding issue with the main input component on my aging Sky box and I guess this is the first time it's manifested itself as this is the first time I've tried picking something up on this transponder...
> 
> I hope this helps/explains if someone's scratching their head wondering why Four+1 (and the Big Brother live stream) don't work but everything else does.


My box is an old Panny TUCT20 that I keep in use because it never gives any trouble and hasn't burnt out in over 2 years of 24/7 use with my Tivo.

The only time I have previously seen this issue on the box is with some dating or chatting channels in the 800s and 900s and they clearly use a much lower amount of bandwidth for their signal than a main channel like BBC1 on 101. I have never seen it before with a channel I actually want to watch.

So is the issue in fact that Ch4 have tried to do this +1 channel on the cheap by paying for the minimum amount of bandwidth for the channel signal from Astra? Kind of ironic in view of the huge fuss they made about the launch of this channel in the media, which the stupid media then fell for by just writing up the C4 press release. Whereas so far as Freeview is concerned people should just have been getting really angry about yet another valuable channel slot being wasted on a +1 channel.

I don't have a problem with +1 channels on Sky or Cable, where there is room for them, but not when they are created to the complete detriment of adequate total channel choice on a very limited platform like Freeview. Once again Ofcom is snoozing and saying that anything goes.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Yes it is DECT related as if I make a call on my DECT phone I get a No Signal Is Being Received message and if I turn the power off on the DECT base unit C4+1 appears in all its normal glory.

But if you are getting this problem and I am getting this problem then think just how many people nationally will be affected. So it seems C4 made a very bad choice of frequencies for this channel to be broadcast on. If they were a dating channel then they wouldn't care as long as the slot was cheap and as long as at least the majority of people could watch it.

It seems scary that a DECT base unit is putting out enough signal power to do this. I thought these things were low power compared to a mobile phone.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

I have to wonder if there is some sort of deal in this for C4 - Ive since learned that a series of channels were recently moved off this transponder for precisely this issue. Most were channels I've never heard of, and that's saying something given my exposure to finding logos for some of these stations.

For anyone who's interested, this is what I see on 4+1 when viewed on my old Pace Sky Digibox:










Despite the jumbled up appearance, the image is completely static - the only movement is the occasional flicker at the top of the screen where you see the programme attempt to draw a frame - you can just see the 4+1 logo in the right hand corner.

The rest of the screen is residual garbage left over in the MPEG decoder's memory from the last image that it decoded prior to channel change.

In my case I know exactly why this is happening - there's a vital component on the main board of the digibox with no shielding on it - and this erratic behaviour is exactly what you'd expect to see.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

aerialplug said:


> I have to wonder if there is some sort of deal in this - Ive since learned that a series of channels were recently moved off this transponder for precisely this issue. Most were channels I've nenver heard of, and that's saying something given my exposure to finding logos for some of these stations.


I have encountered the issue before on this box but basically only for shopping channels or ripoff premium text dating channels that most of us would never really want to watch let alone record on Tivo.

So it seems Ch4 have been sold a pup by Astra (or would be it Sky who would organise this with Ch4), which is kind of ironic in view of what a big bally hoo fuss they made about launching the channel a day or so ago.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

aerialplug said:


> The image is completely static - the only movement is the occasional flicer at the top of the screen where you see the programme attempt to draw a frame - you can just see the 4+1 logo in the right hand corner.
> 
> The rest of the screen is residual garbage left over in the MPEG decoder's memory from the last image that it decoded prior to channel change.


Mine starts off with No Signal is Being Received for several seconds when I first change to the channel then I just get some serrated coloured patterns that are static and frozen. But not so much of the Green that you get. I am getting jagged serrated sections in several colours. Mid blue, beige, off white and some purple and turquoise.

No doubt the symptoms will vary by box and possibly DECT phone make.

My DECT unit is a BT Studio 100. I don't suppose that is what you have?


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

It won't matter the brand - all DECT units use a common air interface so to all intents and purposes they look the same RF wise.

As I mentioned in a previous post (though it was added later so you may not have read it) my first generation Pace digibox is missing a vital lid off one of the components that's very prone to RF interference so it's no surprise to me that this is happening to it.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

aerialplug said:


> It won't matter the brand - all DECT units use a common air interface so to all intents and purposes they look the same RF wise.
> 
> As I mentioned in a previous post (though it was added later so you may not have read it) my first generation Pace digibox is missing a vital lid off one of the components that's very prone to RF interference so it's no surprise to me that this is happening to it.


This Panny has no specific issues other than that it is about 8 years old.

All I'm saying is that if in this incredibly small universe of UK Tivo enthusiasts its happening to both you and me its going to be affecting tens or hundreds of thousands of customers with older Sky boxes nationwide.

C4 obviously need to press to have a better frequency allocation from Astra in order to ensure maximum viewing figures for the channel as I certainly won't be getting a new box just so I can watch Ch135!


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

Just in case anybody wants to try, I had no problems getting my old out-of-warranty Sky digibox replaced for free with a brand new box - just by threatening to cancel my subscription because the old box was locking up. You have to hold your ground when they try and offer you a half-price box. But you should be able to get a free box in the end.

I still cancelled it in the end, because of the pin-entry issue. But I've now got a nice new freesat box.


----------



## Ashley (Apr 20, 2002)

I have 2 DECT base stations in the house - one in the same room as my Sky Box (An old Panny box bought s/h off eBay). I receive ch135 perfectly.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Ashley said:


> An old Panny box bought s/h off eBay


What model of Panny though?

Perhaps not the the black TU-CT20? Perhaps a little silver number instead? eg TU-CT30 or 31


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

I have a couple of 30s and they receive 135 fine.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> C4 obviously need to press to have a better frequency allocation from Astra in order to ensure maximum viewing figures for the channel as I certainly won't be getting a new box just so I can watch Ch135!


I would hazard a guess that they're using this transponder as a holding pattern until Astra 2C gets into the correct location and adds additional transponders at 28.2E.

I would hazard a guess that plans were made for this based on transponder space promised by Astra months, or even years, ago and now Astra is in a bit of a pickle until the "new" old satellite gets there.

I would further hazard a guess that when 2C does get there some existing channels will move off 2D onto 2C, allowing C4+1 onto 2D.

My logic being related to Freesat plans.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> I would hazard a guess that they're using this transponder as a holding pattern until Astra 2C gets into the correct location and adds additional transponders at 28.2E.
> 
> I would hazard a guess that plans were made for this based on transponder space promised by Astra months, or even years, ago and now Astra is in a bit of a pickle until the "new" old satellite gets there.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Is there any particular website that gives further information on all this?


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

satellites.co.uk and the Astra2D forums for starters.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

This morning I am now getting a C4+1 picture that you can actually see the program on but that keeps stopping and starting and breaking up in to separate frozen parts before starting again.

I notice that the Sky EPG only lists the current program on the channel.

It seems C4+1 have launched with only an engineering test. If they keep at it they might have this sorted out so that it can actually work on all Sky boxes in a few days time..............


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

My EPG is listing normally

This DECT 'phone problem has been around for a long time - but only now have the channels on that frequency been of much interest. In Germany, popular channels have been moved off that frequency (12.480GHz) - although the LNB shifts this down to the frequency which is actually clashing.

Apart from all the C4+1 regions - the only other thing on the same frequency is the Big Brother interactive feed - which people in other forums are also reporting as being affected.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ozsat said:


> This DECT 'phone problem has been around for a long time - but only now have the channels on that frequency been of much interest.


Correct. I have seen the picture breakup problem before on obscure shopping and dating channels on this Panny TUCT-20 box but never on one from a mainstream broadcaster. All I knew was that certain very obscure channels broke up - I never traced it to my DECT phone so thanks to aerialplug for that info.

However since the problem exists and since Channel 4 made such a fuss about launching this channel they would obviously be better off trying to shift it on to a frequency where this problem does not occur on certain older Sky boxes when a DECT phone is near by (as these days it is very likely to be).

Alternatively if this problem is going to become more common as Astra try to squeeze more and more channels on to their satellites and if newer Sky Digiboxes are not afflicted by it then perhaps it is time to upgrade my Sky box to a more recent model?

I have reported the problem to Channel 4 Viewer and Listener enquiries and at the same time also added Channel 4's 020 London switchboard number to the www.saynoto0870.com database as a way of reaching viewer and listener enquiries without having to be ripped off by paying to call an 0845 call charged at up to 40p per minute and excluded from landline and mobile phone fixed price inclusive calls packages.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

I think the launch time would have been largely out of C4's control.

They had to book a transponder - they had an agreement for one with Astra.
They had to book EPG space - they are at the whim of when Sky are prepared to add it to the EPG, and I seem to recall that is done months in advance.

To co-ordinate both, especially with the shortage of space on the 4 satellites there at the moment, is difficult.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> Alternatively if this problem is going to become more common as Astra try to squeeze more and more channels on to their satellites and if newer Sky Digiboxes are not afflicted by it then perhaps it is time to upgrade my Sky box to a more recent model?


The problem will not go beyond the one frequency - and so never more than around 8 channels - there are 6 C4+1's and a BB feed.

The 11GHz frequency doesn't hit as a direct match and doesn't seem to be affected.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ozsat said:


> The problem will not go beyond the one frequency - and so never more than around 8 channels - there are 6 C4+1's and a BB feed.
> 
> The 11GHz frequency doesn't hit as a direct match and doesn't seem to be affected.


OK thanks for the info.

But as C4 are a major broadcaster it would seem that they need to press Astra for the allocation of frequencies that avoid the problem on their channels.

The premium rate dating or minor shopping channels can then use these frequencies and who will care if they can't manage to tune in to one of those channels. And I doubt the channels themselves will care either as long as they are given a special extra cheap carriage deal.

It seems C4 have been allocated a pup here.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

A search of other forums show that DECT 'phone have been causing problems since 2000 (as far back as the forums go).

I personally think people will be told to stop using the 'phone rather than having expensive transponder space becoming idle.

The problem is not just with Sky Digital's position - but every satellite position!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ozsat said:


> I personally think people will be told to stop using the 'phone rather than having expensive transponder space becoming idle.
> 
> The problem is not just with Sky Digital's position - but every satellite position!


You are probably right that the satellite space won't be allowed to lie idle but perhaps it is better allocated to the likes of Passion tv and Milton Keynes tv that the few devotees of these channels may be prepared to go more trouble (eg turning off their DECT phone base station to do so) to watch.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> So is the issue in fact that Ch4 have tried to do this +1 channel on the cheap by paying for the minimum amount of bandwidth for the channel signal from Astra? Kind of ironic in view of the huge fuss they made about the launch of this channel in the media, which the stupid media then fell for by just writing up the C4 press release. Whereas so far as Freeview is concerned people should just have been getting really angry about yet another valuable channel slot being wasted on a +1 channel.
> 
> I don't have a problem with +1 channels on Sky or Cable, where there is room for them, but not when they are created to the complete detriment of adequate total channel choice on a very limited platform like Freeview. Once again Ofcom is snoozing and saying that anything goes.


As a TiVo owner, you should be delighted that at last terrestrial main channels are getting +1 channels - they could have been designed to help us work round clashes with our single tuners!


----------



## verses (Nov 6, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> As a TiVo owner, you should be delighted that at last terrestrial main channels are getting +1 channels - they could have been designed to help us work round clashes with our single tuners!


I too was thinking from this perspective, having the hour shift has often helped me to resolve a clash. Plus given the amount of drivel there already is on the limited channel selection a +1 channel seems as good a use as any.

Cheers,

Ian


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

verses said:


> I too was thinking from this perspective, having the hour shift has often helped me to resolve a clash. Plus given the amount of drivel there already is on the limited channel selection a +1 channel seems as good a use as any.
> 
> Cheers


I can't believe you are serious given what a severly lacking choice of channels there are on Freeview and that this will further restrict it.

I would rather have CNN, Euronews, Bloomberg Tv, Men & Motors or any of numerous channels that are free on Sky/Astra Freesat but not on Freeview than a +1 version of Channel 4

As a Tivo owner I have no need of a +1 channel as Tivo timeshifts for me.

I have no problem with the +1 channels on satellite and cable platforms where there is sufficient channel space for them. I believe the regulator should not allow them on Freeview but the regulator is a waste of space. The whole reason Channel 4 have all these +1 channels is to keep their rivals off Freeview and increase the chances that people will therefore end up viewing their channels, it is not to improve customer choice.

Years ago there might have been a need for +1 channels had there been air space but with PVRs there is now no need for them at all.


----------



## Ashley (Apr 20, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> What model of Panny though?
> 
> Perhaps not the the black TU-CT20? Perhaps a little silver number instead? eg TU-CT30 or 31


Correct! It's a TU-DSB31.


----------



## verses (Nov 6, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> I would rather have CNN, Euronews, Bloomberg Tv, Men & Motors or any of numerous channels that are free on Sky/Astra Freesat but not on Freeview than a +1 version of Channel 4
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> Years ago there might have been a need for +1 channels had there been air space but with PVRs there is now no need for them at all.


I too would like to have some of those channels, but I'd like them in place of QVC, BidUpTV, etc...

Having a PVR doesn't stop programs from clashing; last night for example had "My Name is Earl" and "Still Game" all on at 10pm. C4+1 means that "My Name is Earl" can now be recorded at 11pm instead.

Ian


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

verses said:


> Having a PVR doesn't stop programs from clashing; last night for example had "My Name is Earl" and "Still Game" all on at 10pm. C4+1 means that "My Name is Earl" can now be recorded at 11pm instead.


Of course you could solve this with a Sky+ or Freeview Playback box or for that matter by buying a second Tivo with a Lifetime sub and deploying Sanderton's Conflict Resolve model in Tivoweb.

With dual tuner and triple tuner PVRs becoming the norm and with the BBC launching their watch again for 7 days Iplayer facility the case for +1 channels becomes less and less rather than more and more.

It is a sad comment on the mentality or brain power of about 80% of the population that a lot of its female members in particular would rather watch a brainwashing shopping channel than a news channel.


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

> Of course you could solve this with a Sky+ or Freeview Playback


AND if you had cable V+ or standard STB


----------



## Mike B (Sep 16, 2003)

Pete77 said:


> What model of Panny though?
> 
> Perhaps not the the black TU-CT20? Perhaps a little silver number instead? eg TU-CT30 or 31


Both the TU-CT20 and TU-CT30 are Freeview boxes, not DSAT boxes, so I think you may be confusing your model numbers. The TU-DSB31 that Ashley refers to is a DSAT receiver however.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Mike B said:


> Both the TU-CT20 and TU-CT30 are Freeview boxes, not DSAT boxes, so I think you may be confusing your model numbers. The TU-DSB31 that Ashley refers to is a DSAT receiver however.


My box is actually a black Panasonic TU-DSB 20 and the TU-DSB30 and TU-DSB31 and TU-DSB40 and TU-DSB50 are also Panasonic Sky Digiboxes.

Sorry just transposed the letters in my head with CT having not bothered to walk over to the box and check the number.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> As a Tivo owner I have no need of a +1 channel as Tivo timeshifts for me.
> .


 

So you never encounter a clash on channels 1-4??

In the case of C4+1 it's replaced Film4+1 so no real loss there.

We can debate which channels should be on Freeview until cows come home, but basically the market and commercial interests will decide, not your or my personal taste.

It is significantly more expensive to be on Freeview than it is to be on satellite (an order of magnitude if I remember the figures correctly), so there will always be channels whose business model works with the costs of satellite but doesn't work with the costs of Freeview even when you factor in the extra ad revenue from the larger audience.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> a lot of its female members in particular would rather watch a brainwashing shopping channel


Blimey, Pete! That's a bit strong.

<hides message from intelligent wife who is reading a book, while switching off QVC which had some very good offers this hour>


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> It is significantly more expensive to be on Freeview than it is to be on satellite (an order of magnitude if I remember the figures correctly), so there will always be channels whose business model works with the costs of satellite but doesn't work with the costs of Freeview even when you factor in the extra ad revenue from the larger audience.


The terrestrial channels realise their chances of retaining market share on satellite and cable are doomed so their plan seems to be to capture nearly all of the slots on Freeview apart from the shopping channels (which no watches in any serious quantity) and thus just turn it in to a platform for the same broadcasters that previously inhabited analogue but cranking out a greater number of channels.

They probably also figure that Freeviewers are technical luddites in matter such as broadband tv so probably won't go down that road either.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ColinYounger said:


> Blimey, Pete! That's a bit strong.
> 
> <hides message from intelligent wife who is reading a book, while switching off QVC which had some very good offers this hour>


I think the just released Ofcom study on changing patterns of internet use and the high level of growth in its use by the female population using it for shopping will back me up scientifically on the question of who are the nation's biggest shopaholics.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> The terrestrial channels realise their chances of retaining market share on satellite and cable are doomed so their plan seems to be to capture nearly all of the slots on Freeview apart from the shopping channels (which no watches in any serious quantity) and thus just turn it in to a platform for the same broadcasters that previously inhabited analogue but cranking out a greater number of channels..


That would seem a good strategy, however of the 46 channels listed on the Freeview website, 19 of them are from broadcasters outside the analogue four.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> That would seem a good strategy, however of the 46 channels listed on the Freeview website, 19 of them are from broadcasters outside the analogue four.


There aren't really 46 channels are there though due to timeshares. In reality there are about 30 channels on at any one time and the analogue broadcasters have the lion's share of the non shopping channels.

Also how do you count UK History as it is part owned by the BBC and cranks out exclusively BBC programs.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Just counting what was listed on the Freeview website, don't have time to calculate time shares etc, although many analogue broadcaster channels are time shares so doubt it will make much difference.

UK History is part owned by Virgin Media too!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> although many analogue broadcaster channels are time shares so doubt it will make much difference


I suppose you are trying to split hairs over GMTV or CBeebies on BBC2 or something.

The fact of the matter is that people consider there are five analogue channels and five channels are broadcast. End of story.

Except of course in those area where analogue Five cannot be received.


----------



## speedyrite (May 18, 2002)

Does anyone know how far away from the Sky box to locate the DECT base station so as to avoid this problem?

As I understand it, wireless networking kit also uses the same frequency range as DECT phones - could wi-fi kit also be a contributory cause of this problem?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

speedyrite said:


> Does anyone know how far away from the Sky box to locate the DECT base station so as to avoid this problem?
> 
> As I understand it, wireless networking kit also uses the same frequency range as DECT phones - could wi-fi kit also be a contributory cause of this problem?


My DECT phone is about 18 feet away and still interferes.

Also getting this problem on Ch 275 - Wine Tv. Obviously they are much more of a minority channel so less in a position to demand that they move to a frequency without this issue than Ch4 are.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

Clashes are pretty much a thing of the past for me now with the ludicrous number of tuners under the telly.

2 tuners in the Sky+ box, 2 tuners in the Freeview PVR (Tevion 801, rarely used because of awfully buggy firmware despite numerous updates to try to fix) and of course faithful old TiVo with its own Sky tuner (which can't watch C4+1). There used to be an analogue DVD recorder down there too but for some reason that stopped being able to record discs for some reason and I've lost the reciept 

I still find the +1 channels useful though - especially when I realise I haven't set up a recording in time - and I'm with Pete here - +1 channels have NO business being on Freeview - though I think Freeview could do with a few less game/shopping channels too.


----------



## Ashley (Apr 20, 2002)

speedyrite said:


> Does anyone know how far away from the Sky box to locate the DECT base station so as to avoid this problem?
> 
> As I understand it, wireless networking kit also uses the same frequency range as DECT phones - could wi-fi kit also be a contributory cause of this problem?


DECT phones use 1.88 to 1.9 GHz. WiFi uses 2.4 to 2.5 or 5.4 to 5.7 GHz


----------



## speedyrite (May 18, 2002)

Ashley said:


> DECT phones use 1.88 to 1.9 GHz. WiFi uses 2.4 to 2.5 or 5.4 to 5.7 GHz


Close, but no cigar then...


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I suppose you are trying to split hairs over GMTV or CBeebies on BBC2 or something.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that people consider there are five analogue channels and five channels are broadcast. End of story.
> 
> Except of course in those area where analogue Five cannot be received.


No, I mean tmany channels from the big 4 are timeshares. BBC 3/BBC 4/CBBC/CBeebies etc, so when totting up the proportion of channels on Freeview from the big 4, disallowing timeshares makes little difference.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> No, I mean tmany channels from the big 4 are timeshares. BBC 3/BBC 4/CBBC/CBeebies etc, so when totting up the proportion of channels on Freeview from the big 4, disallowing timeshares makes little difference.


But you said:-



> *although many analogue broadcaster channels are time shares* so doubt it will make much difference.


Analogue channels are channels BBC1 to Five using UHF channels 21 to 69 and PAL. There is no BBC3/BBC4 etc on analogue. So your comments that many analogue broadcasters are time shares are incorrect.

You now seem to be "moving the goalposts" by claiming you were talking about the additional output of the traditional big four broadcasters (BBC, ITV, C4 and Five) on the new Freeview cable and satellite platforms and not on analogue at all. Now if that isn't moving the goalposts then I don't know what is.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

ozsat said:


> The problem will not go beyond the one frequency - and so never more than around 8 channels - there are 6 C4+1's and a BB feed.
> 
> The 11GHz frequency doesn't hit as a direct match and doesn't seem to be affected.


Actually, the problem does go beyond that one frequency - it affects one other as the actual interference is being caused at around 1.8Ghz, after the frequency has been dropped at the LNB to something a bit more manageable to go down coax.

As well as causing problems to programmes on the transponder at 12.480Ghz (C4+1 & BB live stream), the transponder nearest to 11.630Ghz can also be affected by DECT phones - and I've checked and that one is also completely blocked on my Sky box too.

A friend of mine has reported that he gets very poor reception on C4+1 but it then becomes squeaky clean when he turns off the DECT base - so the problem isn't limited to people like me where I know the shielding inside the digibox has been compromised.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

There was a similar IF problem with Analog Satellite when Asta 1D (I think) was launched and its transponders were below the band in use at that time. The down conversion in the LNB put the channels on the same frequencies as the upper end of the UHF band and people with poor quality coax running adjacent to the TV coax down the wall got terrestrial TV channels wiped out.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

katman said:


> There was a similar IF problem with Analog Satellite when Asta 1D (I think) was launched and its transponders were below the band in use at that time. The down conversion in the LNB put the channels on the same frequencies as the upper end of the UHF band and people with poor quality coax running adjacent to the TV coax down the wall got terrestrial TV channels wiped out.


My Sky connection is from a communal dish feeding 17 properties installed a couple of years ago. For cosmetic reasons it uses the original terrestrial analogue cable run in to each apartment from the new satellite cabling in the ducts.

Could this be why my signal is especially susceptible to the DECT interference?


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> My Sky connection is from a communal dish feeding 17 properties installed a couple of years ago. For cosmetic reasons it uses the original terrestrial analogue cable run in to each apartment from the new satellite cabling in the ducts.
> 
> Could this be why my signal is especially susceptible to the DECT interference?


Could well be if the cable is poor quality.

Is the cable actually a fully foil screened satellite type cable like CT100 or just el-cheapo TV coax with a very loosely woven braid ?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

katman said:


> Is the cable actually a fully foil screened satellite type cable like CT100 or just el-cheapo TV coax with a very loosely woven braid ?


Its whatever was fitted by the developer here in 1991. It has braiding on it of some kind.

When this Sky system was installed in 2005 they ran new cabling from the rooftop aerial to the nearby new Sky splitter boxes but then interfaced it with the existing coax for the final run in to each apartment. Cheaper that way plus certain people were sniffy about the idea of having coax cable down their skirting.

I think aerialplug has a standalone Sky dish though?


----------



## mrtickle (Aug 26, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> Its whatever was fitted by the developer here in 1991. It has braiding on it of some kind.


Sounds like cheap crap then, and totally unsuitable.

See this excellent article:
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm

I bet the cable in question looks like the 4th one down!



> When this Sky system was installed in 2005 they ran new cabling from the rooftop aerial to the nearby new Sky splitter boxes but then interfaced it with the existing coax for the final run in to each apartment. Cheaper that way


In that case the installers should be shot as well as the developers!



> plus certain people were sniffy about the idea of having coax cable down their skirting.


a) again sounds like lazy installers, or developers refusing to pay a proper price for a proper job. They should have replaced the entire cable runs into each appartment with fully screened CT100 or better. If it was done properly in the first place there would be drawstrings still in the trunking for it to be pulled through; if not they can pay for replastering.
b) the residents have every right not to want ugly visible cabling run by cheapskates and to insist on a proper job. The blame for the solution of "oh well, let's do a bodge job instead" lies with the installers/developers, not the residents!


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Its whatever was fitted by the developer here in 1991. It has braiding on it of some kind.


Ouch. You don't want a satellite feed coming down old brown co-ax!


----------



## terryeden (Nov 2, 2002)

aerialplug said:


> +1 channels have NO business being on Freeview - though I think Freeview could do with a few less game/shopping channels too.


I disagree. If there were hundreds of quality channels clamouring to get on Freeview, I'd be happy to lose the +1 channels.

I find the +1s fairly useful for resolving clashes - although I'd rather have twin tuners!

The fact is, +1 channels must be profitable or the wouldn't be there. I'm sure they don't make as much money as dodgy phone in channels or teleshopping - but in the absence of quality original programming ....


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

terryeden said:


> The fact is, +1 channels must be profitable or the wouldn't be there. I'm sure they don't make as much money as dodgy phone in channels or teleshopping - but in the absence of quality original programming ....


The profitability comes mainly from keeping off the Freeview platform other popular channels like Eurosport or CNN or MTV etc that customers might watch instead and so steal away C4 market share.

And for an outfit the size of C4 the cost of a channel slot to retain its market share by blocking out the opposition is a lot cheaper than having to produce or buy the rights for enough content to support another wholly different channel.

I expect the BBC would try to resort to the same dastardly tactics on Freeview if only both Ofcom and the BBC Trust had not made it clear that at the present time the BBC will not be allowed to launch any further channels on the Freeview platform.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> The profitability comes mainly from keeping off the Freeview platform other popular channels like Eurosport or CNN or MTV etc that customers might watch instead and so steal away C4 market share.
> 
> And for an outfit the size of C4 the cost of a channel slot to retain its market share by blocking out the opposition is a lot cheaper than having to produce or buy the rights for enough content to support another wholly different channel.


I think you have a poor understanding of the economics of these things and how advertsing works if you think Channel 4 would gian more in ad revenue from not having CNN on Freeview than the cost of running a +1 channel.

"I was going to advertise on Big Brother, but now Far Eastern Market Reports is being watched by a few thousand mre people I'm shifting my spend" is not something a media buyer would be likely to be saying, IMHO.

It's interesting looking at the stats (http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummar...gmulti&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary) that the +1 channels typicaly being in betwenn 25% and 505 of the ratings of the master channel. That could in many cases be a very quick and easy way to add 50% to their reach, which could be worth a lot advertsing money.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> It's interesting looking at the stats (http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummar...gmulti&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary) that the +1 channels typicaly being in betwenn 25% and 505 of the ratings of the master channel. That could in many cases be a very quick and easy way to add 50% to their reach, which could be worth a lot advertsing money.


I accept the +1 channels bring in more viewers for the channel and you haven't contested my point that a +1 channel is a hell of a lot cheaper to run than starting up yet another C4 channel with further content.

However in addition to bringing in more viewers for C4 fare they also take up a slot that a potential E4 rival in terms of content might otherwise easily have acquired. People are more likely to watch the E4+1 channel if there isn't an E4 rival with something else on air and if there is an E4+1 it makes it harder for an E4 rival with similar material to enter the marketplace.

The +1 channel principle is the same as the Procter & Gamble & Unilver philosophy in having numerous different brands of washing powder on the shelf so that any competitor who tries to enter the marketplace will find it very difficult to estabish much visibility.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I suspect it's very much more straightforward - they make cash out of a +1 channel because they can charge higher rates for the combination. No master plan required!

The "popular" channels you mention aren't on Freeview because ethey are not that popular - they don't beleive they can get the ad revenue required to pay the very high Freeview boradcast fees and still be profitable. There have been several occasions over the last few years when multiplex slots have come up for grabs, and they have chosen not to buy them.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Its all about market positioning is it not.

If you are BBC or ITV or C4 or Five you are in the FTA non pay tv business and you want to be dominant in that marketplace which means large viewer numbers at low revenue per viewer. If you are a clear cut pay tv channel like Sky Sports then you have less viewers at a high revenue per viewer.

Channel 4 is prepared to pay exorbitant amounts to acquire the right to another Freeview multiplex channel slot because it believes it protect its market position on a platform mainly for non subscription viewers. One would imagine its carriage deal on Astra is far cheaper per channel but then it gets a lower total share of that viewing audience because they have a lot more alternatives. C4 has tried dabbling its toe in the pay tv water and found you can't be an FTA and pay tv company at the same time - the public perceive you as one thing or the other.

The interesting channels are channels like Eurosport or TCM or Bravo which are neither obviously niche and pay or obviously traditionally FTA in background. They can jump either way according to market conditions.

My point would be that with a tighter regulatory environment on Freeview, justified by limited total capacity, and therefore a ban on shopping and +1 channels that channels such as Eurosport, TMF, CNN, UK Gold etc would then begin to appear on the platform. Perhaps you don't accept the case for doing this but then if this wasn't an artificially distorted marketplace we wouldn't have the BBC would we?


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

terryeden said:


> I disagree. If there were hundreds of quality channels clamouring to get on Freeview, I'd be happy to lose the +1 channels.
> 
> I find the +1s fairly useful for resolving clashes - although I'd rather have twin tuners!
> 
> The fact is, +1 channels must be profitable or the wouldn't be there. I'm sure they don't make as much money as dodgy phone in channels or teleshopping - but in the absence of quality original programming ....


A fair point - personally I'd rather see a few more quality channels (along the lines of UK History) on Freeview but I guess the market isn't there for these.

I totally agree that the +1 channels have their use and have used them on numerous occasions myself in the past to resolve a clash or record something I spot that has already started.

But the point I was making originally is that I'd far rather see a quality channel such as another UK-* channel on Freeview (even if it's not one that I'd want to watch myself) or better still a Freeview only channel (not much chance for a long term future though I suspect) than a +1 channel.

On the plus side, I wholeheartedly welcome C4+1 as a new Plus One contender - as others have already pointed out, it's the first of the "original five" to provide one. I hope Five will follow suite, but don't realistically expect BBC One & 2 and ITV to follow in the short term as they would need several new transponders to provide all the regions (even BBC2 would need at least half a new transponder to provide all the regions)

Oh, and if I was asked what I'd prefer - "gaming" (aka ripoff, tantamount to gambling imo) channel against a +1 channel - I'd vote for +1 - but I guess market forces also point to the fact that there is a commercial reason for the gaming channels and I accept that others have different opinions to me too.

This thread seems to have wondered away from my original intention though, of informing people that there is indeed a problem with the transponder used for C4+1 if you have a DECT telephone.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Its all about market positioning is it not.


No, it's all about cash.

As you say the big four (well, three of them anyway) require large numbers to make money, and their whole business strategy has to be about increasing numbers. Plus One channels are a very cost effective way of increasing numbers.

Although the number of Freeview slots is finite, a strategy of filling them up with +1s to squeeze out potential competitors could never work; there are too many other slots still available and one fewer makes no material difference.

Besides Four + 1 simply replaced another Four owned channel, so the net effect on competirors is nil so far as slot availability is concered.



> My point would be that with a tighter regulatory environment on Freeview, justified by limited total capacity, and therefore a ban on shopping and +1 channels that channels such as Eurosport, TMF, CNN, UK Gold etc would then begin to appear on the platform. Perhaps you don't accept the case for doing this but then if this wasn't an artificially distorted marketplace we wouldn't have the BBC would we?


Freeview slots are expensive because of the material costs of maintaining a share of the terrestrial transmission network, not just because of competition. So artificially reducing competition for those slots which is what you are suggesting may well have no effect on persuading other channels to join up, certainly not ones like Europsport and UK Gold which have a pay TV model to protect.

As for shopping channels, I have no use for them either, but others clearly do or they would have gone bust, so in effect you're saying Ofcom should act to keep the chavs off our middle class airwaves. You usually call me a snob who doesn't understand poor people; how quaint for the roles to be reversed!


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

This thread wasn't intended as an argument about what should and shouldn't be on Freeview  All I wanted to do was let people know that Channel 4+1 was being disrupted by digital telephones, but it's since turned into an argument about +1 channels (and I'm not excluded from the reprimand here)...

Please, can we stop arguing about +1 channels (myself too) and leave the thread for what I intended it for - DECT interfering with certain satellite transponders. 

If people want to argue about +1 and their need, please start a thread on a different forum.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Getting back on topic Aerialplug do you also get the signal breakup problem with Wine Tv?


----------



## terryeden (Nov 2, 2002)

Any electrical device sold with a CE Marking (all of them nowadays) is required not to cause interference in other devices and to accept interference without failure from other devices.

This is covered by http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/faq.htm

So, in this case, DECT use the 1.8GHz band. This is a licensed band - unlike WiFi - so there shouldn't be anything else on there that.

The Sky box should be able to deal with interference from anything else CE marked. If it doesn't, I'd take it up with Sky an/or involve Ofcom.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

terryeden said:


> The Sky box should be able to deal with interference from anything else CE marked. If it doesn't, I'd take it up with Sky an/or involve Ofcom.


The Sky box is around 8 or more years old and was second hand so Sky aren't going to help, especially as I am only an occasional subscriber with them for the odd month. I suspect the crap 17 year old cabling problem here is involved.

Obviously I need to ask a few of my fellow flat owners who have Sky and DECT if they also have this problem on C4+1 and Wine Tv with their newer Sky boxes. Or when I get my Mum's Sky Pay Once Watch Forever box installed in October (for her birthday) I can always borrow that new Sky box and see how it compares here.

By the way which is the best of the new Sky boxes for reception. They all look the same now but the internals still vary by manufacturer as I understand it? As far as I know its possible to make a request from Sky for a particular make of box when arranging an install, even if they don't always honour that request in practice.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

I suspect that the cause of Pete77's problem is the poor cable therefore the CE compliance doesnt enter into it. The DECT phone is operating correctly within its licenced bad.

The SKY box is probably also operating correctly (unlike the other poster who mentioned a missing screening can inside his box).

The problem is that the LNB downconverts the Sattellite band to a lower IF frequency of 950MHz - 2Ghz that is then fed to the tuner to extract the desired channel. Poor quality cable will allow the unwanted RF trasnmissions from the DECT phone to interfere with the satellite signal you are trying to receive.

Any attempt at filtering this will be pointless as it will also remove the wanted signal. The only cure is to replace the cable with a decent grade Satellite Coax therby preventing the interference getting into the signal chain


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

katman said:


> The problem is that the LNB downconverts the Sattellite band to a lower IF frequency of 950MHz - 2Ghz that is then fed to the tuner to extract the desired channel. Poor quality cable will allow the unwanted RF trasnmissions from the DECT phone to interfere with the satellite signal you are trying to receive.
> 
> Any attempt at filtering this will be pointless as it will also remove the wanted signal. The only cure is to replace the cable with a decent grade Satellite Coax therby preventing the interference getting into the signal chain


I have been refusing to pay for this £300 Sky point for the last two and a half years on the basis that ever since they did the install Freeview reception has become significantly worse on the weaker multiplexes and now regularly disappears.

The install was done by a firm who were an officially approved Sky communal systems installers in the days before www.skyhomes.co.uk got in to installing free communal Sky systems from a shared dish as long as 4 residents sign up for a minimum Sky channel package for one year.

I have consistently contested their use of the original cable run in to each apartment but they maintain it is a tried and tested technique of theirs and gives acceptable results. the original coax is laid under both concrete floors and chipboard foors and I'm sure bodge it and scarper Cala homes didn't put in a proper cable duct. (not a new build flat but a conversion of a Victorian country house).

I have now been forced to pay for the point after they went to the County Court as legal advice was that because I signed an order form agreeing to have the system and pay the money I was liable to pay regardless, especially as Sky and analogue seemed to be working and the lease only talks about maintenance of the equipment for the communal analogue signal, which is still working ok using the same cable although I contend with more blurryness than before.

Thank you for your reference to the website about the cable types. I will now try and contest this with Cranleig Aerials and suggest that if they don't replace the cable run to at least my flat I will make an official complaint to Sky Homes.

This crap system for £300 doesn't even provide a second cable for Sky+. The LNB on the dish and the splitters they used could handle this but it would require a second fresh cable run from the splitter boxes. Perhaps I can force them to do this while they are providing a first cable run with adequate cable.

When I have a moment I will take a photo of the cable used and post a link to it.

This is potentially going to get a lot more relevant if the BBC launches an HD PVR with recording facility that needs the second feed, like Sky Plus does, to support its dual tuner. I refuse to subscribe to Sky on a long term basis.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

Pete77 said:


> Getting back on topic Aerialplug do you also get the signal breakup problem with Wine Tv?


Funny you should mention Wine TV - that was the one I used to test the other affected transponder - and yes - a complete lack of Wine TV here, with the same digital "mess" observed.

Poor cabling may well be the cause for many people but I have the same cabling being used by a Sky+ box in the same rack of kit - equipment can be the cause of the problem - but in my case as I've already mentioned the kit's shielding has already been compromised internally (by me when fixing a more fundamental fault) so I can't complain.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

aerialplug said:


> Poor cabling may well be the cause for many people but I have the same cabling being used by a Sky+ box in the same rack of kit - equipment can be the cause of the problem - but in my case as I've already mentioned the kit's shielding has already been compromised internally (by me when fixing a more fundamental fault) so I can't complain.


So the Sky+ box doesn't suffer from the problems on C4+1 or Wine Tv with picture breakup/disappearance then - despite your DECT phone?

Sounds like it may be time for a new Sky box then as I don't think the cable run in to my flat is going to get replaced any time soon. Having said that I have little cause to watch C4+1, although I really ought to make a greater effort to watch Wine Tv, as I do like wine. But may be that's like food where I love great food but cooking channels all bore me to death.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

Nope - it's a faulty Sky box in my case - the problems only happen on the old Pace box and not on the Sky+. However, if the problem is caused by faulty/leaky cabling, this won't affect the problem as the interference is already in the signal.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

aerialplug said:


> Nope - it's a faulty Sky box in my case - the problems only happen on the old Pace box and not on the Sky+. However, if the problem is caused by faulty/leaky cabling, this won't affect the problem as the interference is already in the signal.


It seems possible that any newer Sky box may perform better with this problem due to newer components and also a faster processor etc, etc.

Changing the cable for anyone in a communal flats setting is usually not a realistic option that is just not going to happen.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Just got a Tivo Update message telling me of the launch of Five US +1 and Five Life +1 on Ch 181 and 183. The pictures on these are fine and there is no break up at all.

Ch4 should obviously press for a better transponder as you and I are clearly not alone amongst all Sky customers in having these DECT conflict reception issues.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

And as I said a page or so back, at the moment there is very very little spare space until Astra 2C moves into location, completes testing, and activates transponders. For C4 it was that or nothing. Remember, C4 lease their own transponders, C5 doesn't.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Bad form, but... Astra 2C is now in place at 28.2E and testing. From Satellites.co.uk

The plan is:

- 10 new frequencies will be activated
- 6 frequencies off 2B will move to other birds (probably 2C) to allow 6 2B frequencies to be slewed onto the 2B steerable beam firing into west Africa.

So there will be 10 new transponders.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> Remember, C4 lease their own transponders, C5 doesn't.


Which transponders do Five use then?


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Ones "belonging" to Sky.

12304 H Tp 31 (Five) alongside Hustler and Sky Poker, etc.
12422 H Tp 37 Five Region 2, Five Us, Five US+1, Five Life, and Five Life +1

See http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/skyuk.html


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> Ones "belonging" to Sky.
> 
> 12304 H Tp 31 (Five) alongside Hustler and Sky Poker, etc.
> 12422 H Tp 37 Five Region 2, Five Us, Five US+1, Five Life, and Five Life +1
> ...


Is Wine Tv on a transponder that belongs to Sky or to somebody else?


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Wine Network is on Eurobird. It seems they tart around the transponders, depending on who has free capacity at any given time. They are on three transponders (but not at once):
11343 V Tp C4
11546 H tp D5S
11642 V tp D10S

IIRC, Sky don't have much space on Eurobird, only one not on Astra.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

This situation is really _not good_!

I was at my sister's house this afternoon and happened to mention the C4+1 issue being discussed here with my brother in law. Although he was unaware of C4+1's existence, we decided to have a look - and lo and behold - radical picture breakups (and he also described the exact freeze frame I have posted above on such channels as POP+1, currently on the other transponder affected).

we unplugged the DECT base station (about 3M from the set top box) and problem vanished.

This confirms to me that this is a far more prolific problem than I first thought it was (with my busted, hacked up Sky box) and now have proved that it happens to far more people than I first thought it would happen to (I've done the same experiment with another friend and he too had picture breakups until the DECT base station, this time downstairs, was switched off).

Channel 4 definitely need to change transponders. If you're a minority +1 channel you may get a few dozen complaints, that's not a major problem to your business model - but a mainstream "first generation terrestrial" channel getting this on so many people's boxes after such a big launch campaign can't be too good to their reputation.

Sadly, the short term winners will be Sky, I'm sure when unsuspecting people will call up their engineers with their associated call out fees to solve the problems, which probably will be solved with new cabling in many cases. Cabling isn't the problem in my sister's case though as I was involved in installing it and positioning the dish so I know what went into that installation...!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

I felt compelled to use C4+1 to belatedly view the first half of a program called Skins that I first caught the second half of on C4 last night and was not previously aware of (found it rather addictive even though I wasn't a big fan of Shameless from the same team).

Interestingly the breakup problem had reduced to the extent that C4+1 was only breaking up in to a frozen screen every few seconds rather than being permanently frozen with just the odd picture change. Of course after a couple of minutes I got up and turned off the DECT base station. But if it hadn't been for seeing your post I would never have worked out the DECT conflict link. C4 viewer relations were of course completely clueless on the cause of the issue when I called (I didn't tell them I knew turning off my DECT phone would solve it as they would then never have logged the issue for the engineers to look at).


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Well, 2C is still testing. As it's a satellite that's already been used (ie they know the basic functions work), all they will be doing is aligning uplinks, and making sure all the systems still work after their 9° move east. It shouldn't be too long till 2C starts becoming live.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

I have just checked C4+1 on Ch135 on Sky this evening and the DECT interference problem has disappeared (my DECT phone is switched on and working as normal) and I now have perfect picture and sound. The same is true over on Wine Tv, also formerly affected by the frequency clash with the mobile phone DECT signal.

So it would appear that the various parties have taken note there is a problem and Astra have perhaps decided either not to allocate frequencies that clash with DECT at all or perhaps only to allocate them to minor shopping or slapper on a sofa channels that probably pay them far less money.

Are others who were affected by this problem also finding it is now resolved?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

I spoke too soon it seems.

If I walk right up to the Sky box with the DECT phone in standby there is some pixellation and if I make a call I get pretty heavy picture break up and stalling.

But leaving the DECT phone on its base station in standby I am not now getting any problems with my Sky box on Ch 135, whereas previously DECT was interfering even with the phone in standby around 12 foot from the tv and Sky box.

So it would appear that Astra have done something to make the signal more robust and less prone to interference?


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Yeah, pete, they sent a little man up on a space elevator to change the satellite and the laws of physics... 

Seriously, once the satellite is up there, the settings are pretty much fixed (hard to believe, but for that generation it's true). There is very little they can actually do to "tune" the satellite once it is up there. They certainly don't have any way of making the signal more robust in reaching your receiver! The power outputs and frequencies are chosen up to a decade before the satellite is launched. The only time power outputs generally change is if they have to move the frequency onto one of the spare transponders because a transponder is failing - in fact, that is one of the main purposes of Astra 2C that's just arrived at 28.2E

And the chances of any tweak being enough so that a 60w lightbulb in geostationary orbit 36000 KM away isn't drowned out by a DECT phone a couple of metres away is...?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp,

You surely miss the point that ch135 in the Sky EPG can be attached to any actual channel transmitted on any transponder on the Astra satellites at 28 degrees East. So while the actual output on this transponder would continue to clash with DECT equipment Ch4 could push for the use of a different transponder attached to ch135 in the Sky EPG.

As for what satellites output not being able to be changed significantly once they are up there as an owner of three Worldspace radios who has been using their satellite radio service for their last 5 years I can fairly confidently say that you are over simplifying.

This is because for the last 9 years or so Worldspace were directing their satellite transmissions on Beam 1 of their Afristar satellite mainly towards West Africa and Southern Europe and broadcasting using MP3 but now they have decided to completely change the strategy of their product and have been progressively re-orienting the output of the transponders on Beam 1 of their satellite to provide far better coverage in mainland Europe that is receivable from a far wider range of elevations in the sky than previously was possible. Also they plan to change the entire audio encoding system from MP3 to AAC+ all using their existing satellite launched in 1998 with a lot of clever software modifications. Sadly the receivers they sold to customers were not as flexible as their satellite and so these changes will render our existing receiver units completely useless on December 1st this year.

The transponder is only the transponder but what it transmits and the strength at which it transmits it can be modified by a ground control station and by updating the software running on the satellite from the ground control station.

Having said that I see that in daylight hours the interference problem on Ch135 has returned at its previous strength and I am also now seeing the interference problem on Ch 323 - TrueMovies.

So perhaps it is time for a new Sky box where newer, more sophisticated components and/or a faster processor may overcome these problems. Having said that if I could live without my DECT phone then this Sky box seems fine as it is.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

No, you are completely misrepresenting what I am saying and inventing stuff I didn't say. Again.

I said absolutely nothing about 135 can't be pointed elsewhere on another transponder. Please point exactly where I said that. Of course it can. Honestly, I don't know why I even bothered replying to you as you are not in the slightest bit interested in other peoples opinions.

What I said was - and I will try and make it easier for the hard of thinking - that the transponder (transmitter on the satellite) characteristics are fixed. The transponder that 135 is on has certain characteristics, and those aren't going to change. If it moves transponder, yes it will change. It it moves *frequency* it definitely will change. The physics is also fixed and aint gonna change.

Yes, of course they can change what's transmitted on it, and it doesn't care what data it is. I never said otherwise. What I said was that the power and often the frequency are fixed for many of the transponders. They have additional "spare" transponders that can be used for additional capacity and/or replacing faulty transponders. And who brought audio encoding into it? I never did. It's a total red herring and totally irrelevant to this conversation.

You are also introducing steering, which is something completely different, and again is something that has to be inherently designed into the satellite, and something that wouldn't in the slightest affect your reception of C4+1 unless you think you can ask Astra to point the satellite beam directly at your dish, and not where it is currently aiming. You can't add steering with a software upgrade if the satellite doesn't already have it... 

The sad fact is that the transponder C4+1 is on does clash with DECT. Your box is susceptible to this interference due to the box failing or it having a particularly bad design feature. Either stop standing on top of the box with your DECT phone provoking it into interference, or get a new box.


----------



## Benedict (Jun 8, 2002)

kitschcamp said:


> Either stop standing on top of the box with your DECT phone provoking it into interference, or get a new box.


Or better quality cable between your LNB and your box.

From memory I believe it's the frequency of the signal that's downconverted by the LNB that DECT interferes with. This is the signal present on the cable from your dish and is also present at the front end of the digibox tuner before it gets further downconverted within the box.

Sometimes simply using better screened coax, or eliminating any unnecessary joins in the coax can solve the problem.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> The sad fact is that the transponder C4+1 is on does clash with DECT. Your box is susceptible to this interference due to the box failing or it having a particularly bad design feature. Either stop standing on top of the box with your DECT phone provoking it into interference, or get a new box.


Well I'm not standing on top of the box with my DECT phone. It happens with the phone and base station around 10 to 12 feet (3 to 4 metres) away from the phone in my living room.

I take your point about a new Sky box being a possible solution.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Benedict said:


> Or better quality cable between your LNB and your box.
> 
> From memory I believe it's the frequency of the signal that's downconverted by the LNB that DECT interferes with. This is the signal present on the cable from your dish and is also present at the front end of the digibox tuner before it gets further downconverted within the box.
> 
> Sometimes simply using better screened coax, or eliminating any unnecessary joins in the coax can solve the problem.


If you will recall my satellite signal only arrives over 17 year old poor quality coax cable for the final run from the communal ducts in to my flat. This is because other residents objected to cosmetically unsightly additional cabling and/or to make the job easier for the aerial firm and bump up their already fat profits depending on your point of view.

At some point I will try and borrow a newer Sky box and see if it has any impact at all on the problem.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

Bad cables followed by bad shielding in the box would cause most problems.

In my case, as I've mentioned earlier, the circuitry that does the down-conversion is usually contained in a little metal can, completely shielded. In my case the cover has been removed as I had to re-solder the contact back on when one time a plug jammed and I ended up twisting the connection on the inside and snapping it (aerial plug still firmly jammed on - but this happened long after I started using that name on the forum).

So, no shielding, expect problems! So, I'm not complaining - especially since 4+1 (with it's horrible logo) works fine on my Sky+ should I ever want to watch it.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

But as the problem is also now affecting TrueMovies its not exactly restricted to C4+1.

As I have no reason to suspect any failure or interference within my Sky box (even though it is an old but generally considered very good model especially with a weak signal) but I do know that the coax cabling used to provide the final communal cable run in to my flat is not up to standard the only way to double check this is to substitute a recent model Sky box. If the problem still occurs at that stage the cabling will be the suspect. 

I suppose that substituting another DECT phone but still using the current Sky box would also be a useful further double check.


----------

