On 24/11/2023 12:31, Brian wrote:
> I wasn't talking about TV receivers being interfered with. The problem
> was the AM signal getting into the baseband video and audio circuits of
> the TV transmitters at the site, and so affecting the transmitted signals.

Even quite low power VHF transmitters could be a problem with RF because
often the antenna might be not far above roof level.

We once had OB unit used our teambase for an OB of a climb on Ben Nevis,
they had a scanner and comms vehicle in our car park. They tried a
camera outside for a general view of the Ben but were suffering from RF
interference. They said they test equipment at Brookmans Park and
Crystal Palace, we explained that we had a lot lower power but the
antenna were less than 90ft agl.

Our workshop was RF screened because of that.

Maybe LW will just go on till something major fails.

I do detect that the BBC are completely illogical with the mw shut downs.
Its as if there are several committees only responsible for a channel who
do not take to each other. Its about time the BBC became a broadcaster of
better quality stuff that has no way of being funded on commercial outlets.
It would be cheaper, and not so dumbed down. You get more technically
accurate stuff made in bedrooms on You Tube than the BBC seem to make now be
it radio or TV.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Mark Carver" <mark@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kru8qjFe5tcU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 19/11/2023 09:47, Scott wrote:
>> As far as I can see, the Radio Ulster medium wave service on 1341 kHz
>> has closed but Radio 4 continues on 720 kHz. This seems illogical as
>> I assumed Radio Ulster would be the pre-eminent service. Surely R4
>> DAB coverage (on the main BBC multiplex) will be at least as good as
>> Radio Ulster so what is the logic of retaining one and not the other?
>> It cannot be Test Match Special as this is available on Five Live
>> Sports Extra.
>
> All of the R4 MW fillers continue to broadcast. The Beeb have said that
> the Radio 4 LW 'opt out' programming (which is also carried on the MW
> fillers) will cease at the end of March next year. From that point there
> will be no need for the MW fillers to continue, and some are expecting all
> of them to be switched off in April.
>
> As for 198 LW itself, who knows, the energy companies still have hundreds
> of thousands of teleswitches in use, so fortunes are intertwined with that
> mess.

[received via email, replying via usenet]

brian gaff wrote:

> It should be  https for any browser to actually allow it these days,
> unless its the router itself web address of course.

There's nothing that forbids http://
browsers are likely to flag pages as insecure if not https://
but so what?

>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Carver wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://txfeatures.mb21.co.uk/coldfield/11.shtml
>>>
>>> My security package (Bitdefender) says the link is suspicious
>>
>> VirusTotal (which includes BitDefender) disagrees
>>
>> <https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/2058fde486be154a7a6ea562c5d3c186ffea49d3d7d758a4621973a214e4adc7>

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:47:52 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

>Maybe LW will just go on till something major fails.
>
> I do detect that the BBC are completely illogical with the mw shut downs.
>Its as if there are several committees only responsible for a channel who
>do not take to each other. Its about time the BBC became a broadcaster of
>better quality stuff that has no way of being funded on commercial outlets.
>It would be cheaper, and not so dumbed down. You get more technically
>accurate stuff made in bedrooms on You Tube than the BBC seem to make now be
>it radio or TV.
> Brian

My view is they should surrender high cost events such as the World
Cup to ITV and concentrate on the public service obligation.

PS when I say 'my view' it is just a suggestion for discussion. I do
not have a settled view. I can see pros and cons.

In message <7nugmilclm32i4nplelafs8fmk86rhcojk@4ax.com> at Thu, 30 Nov
2023 12:07:53, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:47:52 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
><brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
>>do not take to each other. Its about time the BBC became a broadcaster of
>>better quality stuff that has no way of being funded on commercial outlets.
>>It would be cheaper, and not so dumbed down. You get more technically
>>accurate stuff made in bedrooms on You Tube than the BBC seem to make now be
>>it radio or TV.
>> Brian
>
>My view is they should surrender high cost events such as the World
>Cup to ITV and concentrate on the public service obligation.

It's always been a balancing act: if they _only_ did certain stuff, the
calls for the abolition of their public funding would avalanche (they're
getting pretty strong as it is, sadly IMO).

Where it _is_ a bidding matter, I tend to agree - with legislation to
protect where possible. But that's really only possible where there is a
geographical anchor, like Wimbledon: for international events like world
(football) cup, and Formula 1, if such legislation gets too restrictive,
the organising bodies (such as FIFA) will just take their business to
other countries. (You may say, what if a lot of that organisation's
audience is in the UK? Well, they're businesses - they're not interested
in that audience if it isn't willing to pay. That'd only be relevant if
a lot of their audience is in the UK _and_ would only pay if the events
were in the UK.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
[via Penny Mayes (mayes@pmail.net)]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:39:50 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <7nugmilclm32i4nplelafs8fmk86rhcojk@4ax.com> at Thu, 30 Nov
>2023 12:07:53, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:47:52 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
>><brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>[]
>>>do not take to each other. Its about time the BBC became a broadcaster of
>>>better quality stuff that has no way of being funded on commercial outlets.
>>>It would be cheaper, and not so dumbed down. You get more technically
>>>accurate stuff made in bedrooms on You Tube than the BBC seem to make now be
>>>it radio or TV.
>>> Brian
>>
>>My view is they should surrender high cost events such as the World
>>Cup to ITV and concentrate on the public service obligation.
>
>It's always been a balancing act: if they _only_ did certain stuff, the
>calls for the abolition of their public funding would avalanche (they're
>getting pretty strong as it is, sadly IMO).
>
>Where it _is_ a bidding matter, I tend to agree - with legislation to
>protect where possible. But that's really only possible where there is a
>geographical anchor, like Wimbledon: for international events like world
>(football) cup, and Formula 1, if such legislation gets too restrictive,
>the organising bodies (such as FIFA) will just take their business to
>other countries. (You may say, what if a lot of that organisation's
>audience is in the UK? Well, they're businesses - they're not interested
>in that audience if it isn't willing to pay. That'd only be relevant if
>a lot of their audience is in the UK _and_ would only pay if the events
>were in the UK.)

There must be plenty of countries where there is a sole bidder.

Scotland could refuse to play in retaliation :-)

On 30/11/2023 12:05, Andy Burns wrote:
> [received via email, replying via usenet]
> brian gaff wrote:
>
>> It should be  https for any browser to actually allow it these days,
>> unless its the router itself web address of course.
>
> There's nothing that forbids http://
> browsers are likely to flag pages as insecure if not https://
> but so what?

They're a pain in the bot. Most websites don't require any security as
they don't request or deliver confidential data.

--
Max Demian

On 30/11/2023 12:07, Scott wrote:
> My view is they should surrender high cost events such as the World
> Cup to ITV and concentrate on the public service obligation.

Even though the majority choose to watch those events on BBC?

On 30/11/2023 13:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Where it_is_ a bidding matter, I tend to agree - with legislation to
> protect where possible. But that's really only possible where there is a
> geographical anchor, like Wimbledon: for international events like world
> (football) cup, and Formula 1, if such legislation gets too restrictive,
> the organising bodies (such as FIFA) will just take their business to
> other countries.

Some events, perhaps like Wimbledon want the coverage on Free To Air to
attract more participation in the sport.

Obviously others, like football, have an audience don't play the game
and will pay large amount to watch their own team.

On 30/11/2023 13:53, Scott wrote:
> Scotland could refuse to play in retaliation 🙂

Would many notice?

Op 20-11-2023 om 11:53 schreef Scott:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 13:41:47 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/11/2023 13:10, Tweed wrote:
>>> Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19/11/2023 09:47, Scott wrote:
>>>>> As far as I can see, the Radio Ulster medium wave service on 1341 kHz
>>>>> has closed but Radio 4 continues on 720 kHz. This seems illogical as
>>>>> I assumed Radio Ulster would be the pre-eminent service. Surely R4
>>>>> DAB coverage (on the main BBC multiplex) will be at least as good as
>>>>> Radio Ulster so what is the logic of retaining one and not the other?
>>>>> It cannot be Test Match Special as this is available on Five Live
>>>>> Sports Extra.
>>>>
>>>> All of the R4 MW fillers continue to broadcast. The Beeb have said that
>>>> the Radio 4 LW 'opt out' programming (which is also carried on the MW
>>>> fillers) will cease at the end of March next year. From that point there
>>>> will be no need for the MW fillers to continue, and some are expecting
>>>> all of them to be switched off in April.
>>>>
>>>> As for 198 LW itself, who knows, the energy companies still have
>>>> hundreds of thousands of teleswitches in use, so fortunes are
>>>> intertwined with that mess.
>>>>
>>> If the LW transmitters are only to be used for radio teleswitching, can the
>>> carrier be funded in power or turned off when switching commands are not
>>> being issued?
>>
>> It's 25 BIT per second data carousel, that has to address various
>> batches of devices with different tariffs. I think it has to be more or
>> less continuously transmitted ?
>>
>> Anyway, switching Droitwich (etc) on and off is going to shorten the
>> life of the valves etc even faster !
>
> What do the Danes do at Kalundborg? I understood they broadcast
> shipping forcasts and news summaries only with long periods of
> silence.
>

About 2,5 hours per day 50 kW,
the rest of the day 100mW.
http://www.mwlist.org/mwlist_quick_and_easy.php?area=1&kHz=243

Rink

Op 21-11-2023 om 0:07 schreef JMB99:
>  Belfast Telegraph - Thursday 11 March 1976
>
>
> BBC RADIO IN NORTHERN IRELAND
>
> Radio 4   417 m 719 khz
>
>
>
>
>
> The Stage - Thursday 13 September 1979
>
> New frequency
> "The long wave reception problems remain in some areas," said Miss Sims,
> "but in central London a new medium wave frequency should provide an
> alternative for listeners who live in steel framed buildings or suffer
> electrical interference." We understand that the new frequency is to be
> 720kHz (417m) which should improve the Radio 4 signal considerably in
> the daytime.
> However, some interference may be found at night because the same
> frequency has been allocated to a German station.
> Ian Mclntyre's desire for flexibility, something he plans for Radio 3 of
> which he is now controller, is, however, one of Monica Sims's principal
> aims. But she is quick to point out that this does not mean doing away
> with long established and popular series which are. as she says, "part
> of the daily lives of Radio 4 listeners."

The German station was Langenberg WDR2 (Ruhrgebiet, Nordrhein Westfalen).
I think it was 200 kW.

Rink

On 30/11/2023 15:36, JMB99 wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 12:07, Scott wrote:
>> My view is they should surrender high cost events such as the World
>> Cup to ITV and concentrate on the public service obligation.
>
>
> Even though the majority choose to watch those events on BBC?
>
>
Given a choice yes, given no choice ITV get all of the audience, what's
the problem ?

On 01/12/2023 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
>> Even though the majority choose to watch those events on BBC?
>>
>>
> Given a choice yes, given no choice ITV get all of the audience, what's
> the problem ?

So why don't ITV leave them for CH5 to cover, what's the problem?

On 01/12/2023 15:53, JMB99 wrote:
> On 01/12/2023 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> Even though the majority choose to watch those events on BBC?
>>>
>>>
>> Given a choice yes, given no choice ITV get all of the audience,
>> what's the problem ?
>
>
> So why don't ITV leave them for CH5 to cover, what's the problem?

None, the point is when an event is on the BBC and another channel, most
viewers will select the BBC to avoid the ads.

If the BBC are not covering the event, then all the viewers will select
who ever is showing it instead. They don't care who's showing it.

To be honest, there are very few sports events that are duplicated on
BBC and ITV (or where ever) these days.

In message <ksuemaF5baiU3@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 1 Dec 2023
16:07:32, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes
>On 01/12/2023 15:53, JMB99 wrote:
>> On 01/12/2023 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> Even though the majority choose to watch those events on BBC?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Given a choice yes, given no choice ITV get all of the audience,
>>>what's the problem ?
>> So why don't ITV leave them for CH5 to cover, what's the problem?
>
>None, the point is when an event is on the BBC and another channel,
>most viewers will select the BBC to avoid the ads.
>
>If the BBC are not covering the event, then all the viewers will select
>who ever is showing it instead. They don't care who's showing it.
>
>To be honest, there are very few sports events that are duplicated on
>BBC and ITV (or where ever) these days.
>
If there _is_ duplication, at least if the BBC are covering it at all,
it's likely to be between multiple BBC channels. Applies to a lot more
than sport, of course.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There should be a place on the ballot paper for 'None of the above', and if
enough people filled that in, the system might start to change. - Jeremy
Paxman in RT, 2014/1/25-31

On 01/12/2023 16:07, Mark Carver wrote:
> To be honest, there are very few sports events that are duplicated on
> BBC and ITV (or where ever) these days.

I don't tend to watch sport but I think it is just the final that will
be on both (or more).

Op 20-11-2023 om 21:29 schreef Scott:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:29:26 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 20/11/2023 12:04, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Also, as an aside, where did 720 kHz (417 metres) come from? I cannot
>>> find it as one of the old BBC wavelengths. As far as I can see, it was
>>> first used by LBC. Is it one of these 'international' frequencies
>>> that can be used at low power by anyone?
>>
>> Well, it's an interesting question. The IBA had never intended to use
>> the frequency (719 pre 1978) but owing to planning delays for Saffron
>> Green they had to find two temporary allocations, at the bottom end of
>> the MF band for a temporary lash up at Lots Road power station.
>>
>> They obtained 719 and 557. 719 didn't seem to be an issue, but 557 was
>> being used by by Radio Veronica, an offshore pirate station. The IBA dug
>> their heals in, and there was a bit of a kurfffle, but Capital launched
>> on 557 (539m).
>>
>> Anyway, LBC moved to 1151kHz at Saffron Green in May 1975, but the Beeb
>> resurrected the Lots Road site and used 720 kHz from 1979, after a
>> year's worth of complaints from London R4 listeners that they couldn't
>> receive LW properly (as of course R4 moved to LW in Nov 78)
>
> I understand it was relocated to Crystal Palace when Lots Road power
> station was scheduled for demolition.
>>
>> 720 has been used in N.Ireland for R4 since Nov 78. I can't find any
>> record of it being used anywhere else in the UK other than for R4 in
>> London and NI ?
>
> It's a decent signal. It can be received in Glasgow.
>>
>> Further reading regarding Lots Road
>>
>> <https://www.bbceng.info/Technical%20Reviews/tott/39-42_G4OYX_Signal_Issue_56.pdf>
>
> Thanks for that. It looks like the use of the frequency was
> negotiated with another authorised user, presumably elsewhere in
> Europe. I assume Northern Ireland would be less of an issue in that
> regard.
>

720 was in the 1975 plan with 4 transmitter for UK.

Belfast 0,5 kW
Londonderry 0,3 kW (synchronised with Belfast)
Coventry 0,5 kW
London 0,5 kW

As you can see in the original Final Acts of the 1975 plan:
handle.itu.int/11.1004/020.1000/4.98.43.en.100
(= pdf, download starts immediately)

see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Frequency_Plan_of_1975

Rink

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 02:05:48 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:

>Op 20-11-2023 om 21:29 schreef Scott:
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:29:26 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/11/2023 12:04, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, as an aside, where did 720 kHz (417 metres) come from? I cannot
>>>> find it as one of the old BBC wavelengths. As far as I can see, it was
>>>> first used by LBC. Is it one of these 'international' frequencies
>>>> that can be used at low power by anyone?
>>>
>>> Well, it's an interesting question. The IBA had never intended to use
>>> the frequency (719 pre 1978) but owing to planning delays for Saffron
>>> Green they had to find two temporary allocations, at the bottom end of
>>> the MF band for a temporary lash up at Lots Road power station.
>>>
>>> They obtained 719 and 557. 719 didn't seem to be an issue, but 557 was
>>> being used by by Radio Veronica, an offshore pirate station. The IBA dug
>>> their heals in, and there was a bit of a kurfffle, but Capital launched
>>> on 557 (539m).
>>>
>>> Anyway, LBC moved to 1151kHz at Saffron Green in May 1975, but the Beeb
>>> resurrected the Lots Road site and used 720 kHz from 1979, after a
>>> year's worth of complaints from London R4 listeners that they couldn't
>>> receive LW properly (as of course R4 moved to LW in Nov 78)
>>
>> I understand it was relocated to Crystal Palace when Lots Road power
>> station was scheduled for demolition.
>>>
>>> 720 has been used in N.Ireland for R4 since Nov 78. I can't find any
>>> record of it being used anywhere else in the UK other than for R4 in
>>> London and NI ?
>>
>> It's a decent signal. It can be received in Glasgow.
>>>
>>> Further reading regarding Lots Road
>>>
>>> <https://www.bbceng.info/Technical%20Reviews/tott/39-42_G4OYX_Signal_Issue_56.pdf>
>>
>> Thanks for that. It looks like the use of the frequency was
>> negotiated with another authorised user, presumably elsewhere in
>> Europe. I assume Northern Ireland would be less of an issue in that
>> regard.
>>
>720 was in the 1975 plan with 4 transmitter for UK.
>
>Belfast 0,5 kW
>Londonderry 0,3 kW (synchronised with Belfast)
>Coventry 0,5 kW
>London 0,5 kW
>
I thought LBC started using the frequency in 1973?

Op 15-12-2023 om 10:04 schreef Scott:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 02:05:48 +0100, Rink
> <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>> Op 20-11-2023 om 21:29 schreef Scott:
>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:29:26 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/11/2023 12:04, Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also, as an aside, where did 720 kHz (417 metres) come from? I cannot
>>>>> find it as one of the old BBC wavelengths. As far as I can see, it was
>>>>> first used by LBC. Is it one of these 'international' frequencies
>>>>> that can be used at low power by anyone?
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's an interesting question. The IBA had never intended to use
>>>> the frequency (719 pre 1978) but owing to planning delays for Saffron
>>>> Green they had to find two temporary allocations, at the bottom end of
>>>> the MF band for a temporary lash up at Lots Road power station.
>>>>
>>>> They obtained 719 and 557. 719 didn't seem to be an issue, but 557 was
>>>> being used by by Radio Veronica, an offshore pirate station. The IBA dug
>>>> their heals in, and there was a bit of a kurfffle, but Capital launched
>>>> on 557 (539m).
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, LBC moved to 1151kHz at Saffron Green in May 1975, but the Beeb
>>>> resurrected the Lots Road site and used 720 kHz from 1979, after a
>>>> year's worth of complaints from London R4 listeners that they couldn't
>>>> receive LW properly (as of course R4 moved to LW in Nov 78)
>>>
>>> I understand it was relocated to Crystal Palace when Lots Road power
>>> station was scheduled for demolition.
>>>>
>>>> 720 has been used in N.Ireland for R4 since Nov 78. I can't find any
>>>> record of it being used anywhere else in the UK other than for R4 in
>>>> London and NI ?
>>>
>>> It's a decent signal. It can be received in Glasgow.
>>>>
>>>> Further reading regarding Lots Road
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbceng.info/Technical%20Reviews/tott/39-42_G4OYX_Signal_Issue_56.pdf>
>>>
>>> Thanks for that. It looks like the use of the frequency was
>>> negotiated with another authorised user, presumably elsewhere in
>>> Europe. I assume Northern Ireland would be less of an issue in that
>>> regard.
>>>
>> 720 was in the 1975 plan with 4 transmitter for UK.
>>
>> Belfast 0,5 kW
>> Londonderry 0,3 kW (synchronised with Belfast)
>> Coventry 0,5 kW
>> London 0,5 kW
>>
> I thought LBC started using the frequency in 1973?
>

Yes LBC did at London Lots Road.
As described by Mark Carver above.
557 Capital and 719 LBC

Detailed description from the IBA start on mediumwave you can find here:
<https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZF58QkZu1NO9K0JYw0bfmabV2pRQVXAFGb7#folder=4636614185&tpl=publicfoldergrid>
and choose :
IBA_TechnicalReview5_IndependentLocalRadio2750.pdf
see pages 10 and 18+19

I just mentioned the 1975 plan, which started in November 1978.

Guide to Broadcasting 18 (1980) mentions three UK transmitters
for BBC Radio 4 on 720 kHz:
Lisnagarvey 10 kW, London 500 kW, Londonderry 0,25 kW.
Of course the London 500 kW dhould have been London 500 Watt.

Guide to Broadcasting 20 (1989) mentions Radio 4 on 720:
Lisnagarvey 10 kW, London 0,1 kW, Londonderry 0,25 kW.

Rink

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 20:12:02 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:

>Op 15-12-2023 om 10:04 schreef Scott:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 02:05:48 +0100, Rink
>> <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Op 20-11-2023 om 21:29 schreef Scott:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:29:26 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/11/2023 12:04, Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, as an aside, where did 720 kHz (417 metres) come from? I cannot
>>>>>> find it as one of the old BBC wavelengths. As far as I can see, it was
>>>>>> first used by LBC. Is it one of these 'international' frequencies
>>>>>> that can be used at low power by anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's an interesting question. The IBA had never intended to use
>>>>> the frequency (719 pre 1978) but owing to planning delays for Saffron
>>>>> Green they had to find two temporary allocations, at the bottom end of
>>>>> the MF band for a temporary lash up at Lots Road power station.
>>>>>
>>>>> They obtained 719 and 557. 719 didn't seem to be an issue, but 557 was
>>>>> being used by by Radio Veronica, an offshore pirate station. The IBA dug
>>>>> their heals in, and there was a bit of a kurfffle, but Capital launched
>>>>> on 557 (539m).
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, LBC moved to 1151kHz at Saffron Green in May 1975, but the Beeb
>>>>> resurrected the Lots Road site and used 720 kHz from 1979, after a
>>>>> year's worth of complaints from London R4 listeners that they couldn't
>>>>> receive LW properly (as of course R4 moved to LW in Nov 78)
>>>>
>>>> I understand it was relocated to Crystal Palace when Lots Road power
>>>> station was scheduled for demolition.
>>>>>
>>>>> 720 has been used in N.Ireland for R4 since Nov 78. I can't find any
>>>>> record of it being used anywhere else in the UK other than for R4 in
>>>>> London and NI ?
>>>>
>>>> It's a decent signal. It can be received in Glasgow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further reading regarding Lots Road
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bbceng.info/Technical%20Reviews/tott/39-42_G4OYX_Signal_Issue_56.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for that. It looks like the use of the frequency was
>>>> negotiated with another authorised user, presumably elsewhere in
>>>> Europe. I assume Northern Ireland would be less of an issue in that
>>>> regard.
>>>>
>>> 720 was in the 1975 plan with 4 transmitter for UK.
>>>
>>> Belfast 0,5 kW
>>> Londonderry 0,3 kW (synchronised with Belfast)
>>> Coventry 0,5 kW
>>> London 0,5 kW
>>>
>> I thought LBC started using the frequency in 1973?
>>
>
>
>Yes LBC did at London Lots Road.
>As described by Mark Carver above.
>557 Capital and 719 LBC

I just wondered why they started in 1973 if the frequency was not
allocated until 1978 but your link seems to explain this - as I
thought it was obtained by negotiation.
>
>Detailed description from the IBA start on mediumwave you can find here:
><https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZF58QkZu1NO9K0JYw0bfmabV2pRQVXAFGb7#folder=4636614185&tpl=publicfoldergrid>
>and choose :
>IBA_TechnicalReview5_IndependentLocalRadio2750.pdf
>see pages 10 and 18+19
>
>I just mentioned the 1975 plan, which started in November 1978.
>
>Guide to Broadcasting 18 (1980) mentions three UK transmitters
>for BBC Radio 4 on 720 kHz:
>Lisnagarvey 10 kW, London 500 kW, Londonderry 0,25 kW.
>Of course the London 500 kW dhould have been London 500 Watt.
>
>Guide to Broadcasting 20 (1989) mentions Radio 4 on 720:
>Lisnagarvey 10 kW, London 0,1 kW, Londonderry 0,25 kW.
>
Would putting Lisnagarvey and Londonderry on the same frequency not
cause problems? If the latter was only 0.25 kW could they not have
found a different frequency such as 1484 kHz (202 metres) that was
used for low powered services for Radio 1 and Radio 2 many miles
away?

On 20/11/2023 10:53, Scott wrote:
> What do the Danes do at Kalundborg? I understood they broadcast
> shipping forcasts and news summaries only with long periods of
> silence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalundborg_Transmitter

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 22/11/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
> I'll look into this. Now it is getting past Bitdefender okay but with
> a DreamHost message 'Site not found'.

The site is hosted at Dreamhost in the US.

Maybe your DNS is resolving it to a different IP address from most other
UK users?

For me, using OpenDNS in the UK, txfeatures.mb21.co.uk resolves to
66.33.220.142.

(Tested by typeing
nslookup txfeatures.mb21.co.uk
at a Windows command prompt)

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:25:34 +0000, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

>On 20/11/2023 10:53, Scott wrote:
>> What do the Danes do at Kalundborg? I understood they broadcast
>> shipping forcasts and news summaries only with long periods of
>> silence.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalundborg_Transmitter

Thanks. I thought it was something along these lines. I was wondering
more how the transmitter operates part time. Can a transmitter easily
be turned on and off or does it continue to operate in silence? I
remember from Tony Currie's book about Radio Clyde (recommended by
Mark) that the MW transmitter stayed on all night with station idents
mandated by the IBA every 15 minutes.

He tells of one listener they thought was listening all the time, so
at 45 minutes before the start-up TC opened the line to the
transmitter and broadcast a good morning message to this lady, who
then phoned the studio two minutes later.