05-02-2019, 04:10 AM
(04-02-2019, 10:03 AM)colly0410 Wrote: Re post 13, Richard FM.
I'm wondering if UK/Ireland chose system I because a bit of protectionism was thrown in, why didn't they go for D/K or K1 if they wanted a negative/FM system and & an increase in definition? Read somewhere (One of Syncrodyne's brilliant posts I think) that we didn't want to burst out of the 8 Mhz UHF channel, but the French did it with systems L & K1 & they got away with it. Wondering if South Africa chose system I for a bit of protectionism as well. Oh dear I'm being a bit cynical aren't I?
The “protectionist” aspect of TV standards setting is difficult to judge on the basis of the available information. But I don’t see a preponderance of evidence in support of the notion that system I origins were in part protectionist.
As mentioned, the system I proposal came late in the TAC’s deliberations, and appears to have been technically based. I doubt that it was within the TAC’s remit to reach a recommendation that was specifically protective of UK industry. In fact, just as easily, any receiver makers represented on the TAC might have argued for international standardization in order to make it easier to build an export business based upon domestic model production. Also, that the UK’s starting point was what was essentially system D suggests that it did not have protectionism in mind back then. And if even if some members of the TAC were sympathetic to protectionism, I suspect that engineering discipline would have prevailed. I think that one would need to see the wording of the TAC report to make a final determination.
Also, the fact that future UK receivers would need to be dual-standard, covering the orphan system A as well as system I, in and of itself provided an element of protection for the domestic setmakers. Multi-standard receivers were hardly new in Europe, but very few of them covered system A, which introduced complications in part to due its use of inverted channels.
In the French case, the choice of positive/AM for system L, when negative/AM was the norm has been seen as a protectionist measure. But there was also a very valid technical argument, in that it made for simpler dual-standard receiver design, further helped by the use of a common sound IF for systems E and L. As with the UK case, the need for dual-standard receivers provided some protection. Whilst European multistandard receivers often did include system E, channel coverage was typically limited to some in Band III, as inclusion of the Band I channels added complexity. French domestic dual-standard receivers provided full system E VHF channel coverage, which the standard (inverted) IF channel was equipped to do.
Also, that the French chose the negative/FM system K1 for the Outré Mer territories, where dual-standard receivers were not required, tends to negate the argument that system L was positive/AM for protectionist reasons.
The French certainly seemed willing to “overstuff” a given channel, whereas the UK and other countries refrained from this. This French choice did affect the required protection ratios, as shown in the ST61 documentation. Had all countries adopted it, perhaps UHF channel allocation would have been more difficult. With the UK’s ambitious UHF transmitter plan, that may have been materially disadvantageous.
Overall, by no means am I saying that protectionism was not involved. But I have yet to see any solid case presented in support of the notion that it was definitely a factor.
For the South African case I don’t know the answer. Assuming that it wanted to do better than system B/G, then its choices were I (British) and K1 (French). South Africa may have leaned more towards a British than a French system, but no doubt there was a detailed engineering analysis that with whatever weightings were used, came out in favour of system I. For many years the South African TV receiver industry was very much controlled and protected, so that additional non-tariff barriers would have been superfluous.
Cheers,
Steve
