Chanels on freesat?

That would depend on what material the channels present, rather than whether or not they're HD.

In article , fred scribeth thus

known as "clutter" buildings and suchlike as well as threes etc all of which make that nice clean earth terrain look anything but.

Good clutter models aren't cheap so you won't find them online...

In article , MuddyMike scribeth thus

Can you now get that any higher. Generally height is the most important factor in terrestrial TV reception ...

But, according to this:

In article , Terry Casey writes

Ha! Thanks Terry, saw September and assumed _this_ year. What are those boys doing? A major 500kW transmitter with DSO 14mths away still only pumping out 6/1.5kW digital? I get the impression Yorkshire is a pretty congested area signal wise and they are going a bit cagey.

In summary, sorry Mike you're fookd, FTA satellite is all you've got until next year unless you pay.

The power used to operate terrestrial TV transmitters pales into insignificance compared to the power used to launch a satellite into space...

If anything, the estimates are a little pessimistic.

Not according to numerous articles. Googled and found 2, though I admit they written by interested parties. However, just look how much CO2 is produced by a few terrestial transmitters!! Something that can easily be verified.

If my memory's correct, the EPG is on a different satellite. So if you had a suitably fancy system you could get it from one LNB and TV while using a second LNB & TV to watch programs.

How about changing to Freesat, they don't have quite as many channels as freesat, but the reception is great, as you already have a dish for sky all you need is the tuner.

I have been using Teleprompter on PC and laptop recently:-

But you know that choice. It's the ones that you are not getting that the rest of us do.

tim

Because I already have 200 pounds invested in freeview recorders

tim

Some argue that digital television transmitters produce significantly greater carbon emissions than satellite television systems, because satellites rely on solar power for most of their power and thus provide a greener alternative to expensive terrestrial buildouts. A U.K. trade group, ?UK Space,? estimated in 2006 that just the 50 most powerful analog television transmitters in that country (out of a total of 1,400) required 54 megawatts of electricity, representing a quarter of a million tons of CO2 per year that could be replaced by satellites that essentially use no terrestrial electricity at all.

Don't quite think so...

Probably isn't far off..each transmitter has several; 100KW units, and they aren't 100% efficient.

Of course the energy over say 25 years of a satellites lifetime has to be compared with the energy to put the satellites up in the first place...

And put in the context of the UK population as a whole. where it represents less than a watt per person.

So just turn the lights off, watch Sky, and save the planet.

Don't think Pye TVT or Marconi ever made more than a 40 kW one at most and those that were .. were very few and far between usually for the USA market..

Remember or did you see that article on the Sudbury transmitter recently when it was a 250 kW ERP analogue one. Two 6.25 kW transmitters used?..

Around 50% efficient but not on the go flat out all the time .. Course the digital ones, valve engined are even more efficient...

And do switch off your Sky box, those on standby do add together for quite a lot of power..

Remember that the power output figures quoted TV transmitters are their ERP, not the actual transmitter power (which will usually be many times smaller due to the gain of the aerial).

Yup grouped aerials are particularly important for group A and B transmitters - especially in difficult locations.

Indeed - we saw a rise of 19db overnight on the muxes that have just gone full power.