OT; Now, over to our correspondent...

It seems to be necessary on news programs to have someone at the scene of the news for no apparent reason.

T'other night it was "Now over to Fred Bloggs at Hove Crown Court". As it was 6:45 the court was closed so there was no point in Fred being there.

However, why is there such a long delay between the studio presenter saying "Whats happening" and Fred replying?

With modern communication I can't see why there should be any delay at all.

Reply to
David Lang
Loading thread data ...

The speed of light hasn't increased lately and delays for encoding and buffering have ...

Reply to
Andy Burns

Not to mention the countless BBC reporters hanging around in Athens.

Reply to
stuart noble

But it doesn't seem to affect mobile phones etc?

Reply to
David Lang

Mobile phone calls do have small buffering/encoding delays, more noticeable if you call someone in the same room, but signal tends to only travel tens or hundreds of miles, signals between studio and presenter outside the courthouse can travel tens of thousands of miles...

Reply to
Andy Burns

It's not such a stupid question. Isn't the answer, in part at least, that 15+ years ago ENG (Electronic News Gathering) would likley as not be done over a point-to-point microwave link, but now they are all SNG over geostationary satellite with their inherent latency?

Reply to
Graham.

How often do you phone someone that is in the same room as you?

Reply to
ARW

Mobile phone signals are processed for delay equalisation as standard - part of the process to remove/reduce the effects of multipath propagation. there is more information in each data packet than just the voice message.

Reply to
Bob Minchin

The reasoning is c*ck anyway - the phones do not talk to one another directly, even if they are in the same room.

Reply to
Huge

Judging by the dish antennae on the roofs of the ENG vans, I always assumed that was the case.

Reply to
Huge

Often, when testing phones.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Wright

Welcome to the wonderful world of digital. All digital signals are delayed in one way or another. With pictures, even more.

And on a live broadcast, the 'other end' will be using off air for comms. And that is even more delayed.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

It certainly does. But not to a noticeable extent.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

It's very noticeable with digital radio mics. If you have another cabled mic in the same location, the digital one is noticeably late.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

For testing VoIP, quite frequently.

Did I say they did? It's just that *being* in the same room, hearing the person live as well as through the mobile network makes the delay noticeable ...

Reply to
Andy Burns

Ah, good point.

Reply to
Huge

But most of the pictures in newspapers like the Sun are going to be of things or people which their readers are already familiar with. Pictures of celebrities, politicians, footballers, birds with big t*ts etc etc. And except for the t*ts, it's not that different in most papers, come to that. Just how many different photographs of Angelas Merkel does anyone need to see ? Fully clothed at least.

michael adams

...

>
Reply to
michael adams

It's probably a satellite link. Speed of light effect.

Another Dave

Reply to
Another Dave

Yup. Hence analogue time pips are ahead of their digital counterparts.

Reply to
bert

Whilst I, otoh, can see *every* reason why 'modern communication techniques' could account for this delay. :-)

Reply to
Johnny B Good

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.