<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19154">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>I would second that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>I don't think anyone would be likely to notice the
effects of doubling or even quadrupling power in typical circumstances, but it
will improve the noise and interference margin, so improving the signal quality
across a wider range of propagation conditions. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Finding a good elevated aerial position for
your intended patch can be far more productive, and although it
may mean more intial work or capital expense, once done it is likely to
cost no more in upkeep than a poorly sited antenna, while even saving you the
extra electricity that a more powerful transmitter would have
taken!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>For maintenance or repair we have on occasion
reduced our 600W erp to 40W - a fifteen-fold reduction - and it is remarkable
how small a difference it makes to coverage and reception quality (although in
adverse conditions it would definitely show up). We lose coverage of one small
settlement, and get more in-car 'flicker' in some parts of the patch, but the
core is relatively unaffected.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>However, it's a complex set of interactions, and
you really need the use of good propagation prediction software and antenna
modelling in the hands of a knowledgeable operator to predict the likely cost
benefits of increased Tx power versus antenna design and siting. (Cue
Ian?!)</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Alex</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=info@a-bc.co.uk href="mailto:info@a-bc.co.uk">Associated Broadcast
Consultants</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=cma-l@commedia.org.uk
href="mailto:cma-l@commedia.org.uk">CMA-L</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 17, 2011 9:08
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [cma-l] DCMS consultation
meetings on amendments to communityradio law</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Regardless, transmitter power probably makes a lot less
difference than people expect - even if you doubled the power it would
probably be difficult for most people to tell the difference in a blind test.
(If I'm honest with myself I don't think I could tell with just a radio to
judge).
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The biggest impact on coverage (positive or negative) is transmitter
(aerial) position - which could easily double (or halve) your coverage
depending whether it is a good or bad position. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If you have coverage problems, having ruled-out faults, the path of least
resistance first of all is to look at your transmitter site, and see if there
could be a better location. If your transmitter is at your studio, then STL's
(Studio Transmitter Links) might not cost as much as you think and they give
you much more freedom over this important variable.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I think there are bigger impediments to CR than licenced transmitter
power!</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Glyn Roylance</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.a-bc.co.uk">www.a-bc.co.uk</A><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>