On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:31:10 +0100
Richard Evans wrote:
Also having it only on L-Band probably didn't help, as that makes it
very expensive to provide any reasonable coverage. I seem to remember
reading that coverage was very limited, and there were sod all receivers
available in the shops.

Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.

As for recievers - my Denon picks up L Band but its the only one I know of.

B2003

In article , d
scribeth thus
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:31:10 +0100
Richard Evans wrote:
Also having it only on L-Band probably didn't help, as that makes it
very expensive to provide any reasonable coverage. I seem to remember
reading that coverage was very limited, and there were sod all receivers
available in the shops.

Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.

It is a good frequency band for a high capacity type of GSM phone system
but hardly appropriate for low cost Broadcasting;!...


As for recievers - my Denon picks up L Band but its the only one I know of.

Does it pick up anything at all?..


B2003


--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:53:30 +0100
tony sayer wrote:
As for recievers - my Denon picks up L Band but its the only one I know of.

Does it pick up anything at all?..

There were test transmissions here in London for years but they stopped them
last year. Last time I checked a few months back there was nothing there. Or
no DAB broadcasts anyway.

B2003

On 10/29/10 12:53 PM, tony sayer wrote:
In , d
scribeth thus
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:31:10 +0100
Richard wrote:
Also having it only on L-Band probably didn't help, as that makes it
very expensive to provide any reasonable coverage. I seem to remember
reading that coverage was very limited, and there were sod all receivers
available in the shops.

Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.

It is a good frequency band for a high capacity type of GSM phone system
but hardly appropriate for low cost Broadcasting;!...

They thought at one time that it would be good to replace analog
low-power community radio and perhaps local radio. National and some
regional radio could use Band III.

gr, hwh

d wrote:


Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.


XM has decent coverage on S Band.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:37:33 -0800
dave wrote:
wrote:


Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.


XM has decent coverage on S Band.

Its via satellite so there usually won't be half a city between the
transmitter and your radio. Does it work indoors? I'll bet it doesn't.

B2003

d wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:37:33 -0800
wrote:
d wrote:


Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.


XM has decent coverage on S Band.

Its via satellite so there usually won't be half a city between the
transmitter and your radio. Does it work indoors? I'll bet it doesn't.

B2003

XM is a hybrid satellite/terrestrial system. They cover a good deal of
Los Angeles with a 10 KW transmitter on Mt. Harvard. It gets indoors
surprisingly well.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:54:30 -0800
dave wrote:
XM is a hybrid satellite/terrestrial system. They cover a good deal of
Los Angeles with a 10 KW transmitter on Mt. Harvard. It gets indoors
surprisingly well.

Given that my 100mw wifi system which also operates in S band can barely
penetrate 2 walls in my house I find that rather surprising but I'll take
your word for it.

B2003

On 10/29/10 3:01 PM, d wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:54:30 -0800
wrote:
XM is a hybrid satellite/terrestrial system. They cover a good deal of
Los Angeles with a 10 KW transmitter on Mt. Harvard. It gets indoors
surprisingly well.

Given that my 100mw wifi system which also operates in S band can barely
penetrate 2 walls in my house I find that rather surprising but I'll take
your word for it.

L-Band DAB would use kiloWatt power as well as 1,7 MHz channels.
Standard 2,4 GHz Wi-Fi would use rather wider channels.

gr, hwh

On 10/29/10 07:49 , d wrote:


XM has decent coverage on S Band.

Its via satellite so there usually won't be half a city between the
transmitter and your radio. Does it work indoors? I'll bet it doesn't.




Hit or miss. I've gotten satellite reception indoors without an
external antenna, internal antenna only, and without ear a window.
But it was a frame house.

When I checked the antenna orientation function on the radio, it
showed that, indeed I was receiving satellite signal, and not the
terrestrial repeater.

Near a window, no problem. With an external antenna, exceptional
reception.

So, yes, it does work, indoors. But it's not always easy.