Bilsdale mast


How? Its the principle of paying for a service and not receiving it.

Not trying to be arsey mate but you've introduced a hypothetical situation which isn't relative to your point about refunds nor I'd it relative to my post.

Im certain no one will get a refund on their TV licence, the cost to sort it would probably outweigh any funds returned.

Can't imagine many will genuinely be after a refund either other than those who are genuinely in need or those who are kicking up a fuss due to their anti establishment mindset.
 
Not trying to be arsey mate but you've introduced a hypothetical situation which isn't relative to your point about refunds nor I'd it relative to my post.

Im certain no one will get a refund on their TV licence, the cost to sort it would probably outweigh any funds returned.

Can't imagine many will genuinely be after a refund either other than those who are genuinely in need or those who are kicking up a fuss due to their anti establishment mindset.
The cost to sort it might be more than the funds returned but that's their cost not the customers.

I'm not saying it should happen either mind.
 
The cost to sort it might be more than the funds returned but that's their cost not the customers.

I'm not saying it should happen either mind.

Oh yeah definitely. Thing is though will people be arsed about £3.50? Can't see many people being bothered about it.

Im sure I read that they might have to erect a new tower next to the old one, who would pay for this would it be the BBC or taxpayer or someone else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mux
Oh yeah definitely. Thing is though will people be arsed about £3.50? Can't see many people being bothered about it.

Im sure I read that they might have to erect a new tower next to the old one, who would pay for this would it be the BBC or taxpayer or someone else?

The BBC would need to pay. They broadcast and need infrastructure to do so. Unless there’s new tech available now such as internet based broadcast to many more smaller masts to achieve similar coverage.

With today’s technology, rebuilding a 300m+ mast seems a bit antiquated. Okay if it’s already there.
 
Oh yeah definitely. Thing is though will people be arsed about £3.50? Can't see many people being bothered about it.

Im sure I read that they might have to erect a new tower next to the old one, who would pay for this would it be the BBC or taxpayer or someone else?
I think its a private company who run the infrastructure, so the cost will be absorbed by them I would have thought.
The BBC would need to pay. They broadcast and need infrastructure to do so. Unless there’s new tech available now such as internet based broadcast to many more smaller masts to achieve similar coverage.

With today’s technology, rebuilding a 300m+ mast seems a bit antiquated. Okay if it’s already there.
Arqiva build and run them and they're a private firm. You might know better but I would think they would pay for this?
 
Last edited:
I think its a private company who run the infrastructure, so the cost will be absorbed by them I would have thought.

Arqiva build and run them and they're a private firm. You might know better but I would think they would pay for this?
Surely its insured?
 
Electronics inside I would imagine, capacitors etc
You'd imagine they'd be in one room, one box somewhere in the tower.
Whereas the story has been told to us as if the entire 300m of tower has been "on fire".

Its metal and concrete isn't it? How does any of that burn?
 
I think its a private company who run the infrastructure, so the cost will be absorbed by them I would have thought.

Arqiva build and run them and they're a private firm. You might know better but I would think they would pay for this?

You’d be right. I presumed it was the Beeb based on comments in the news articles. In this case any other companies using the mast may be liable for compensation on the basis the service isn’t available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mux
You'd imagine they'd be in one room, one box somewhere in the tower.
Whereas the story has been told to us as if the entire 300m of tower has been "on fire".

Its metal and concrete isn't it? How does any of that burn?

Yes, but the mast has cabling running from the equipment at the base to transmitters at the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mux
330m or so I think, its not like they can just knock another one up. Couldn't believe it when I heard it provided telly from Filey all the way to Seaham. Seems some in Sunderland too.

Its odd, when I was a kid Peterlee got their signal from Pontop Pike - Looking out of my window right now, and one house has its aerial pointing south, and the one next to it is pointing West - which is where Pontop is.
So it must still work - just need to spin the aerial.
.
Funny, its 22 miles to Pontop from here, and 33 to Bilsdale. But Bilsdale is a lot higher, so possibly a better signal.
i remember when we first moved to peterlee from wheatley hill and had one of these for the telly. it was like we'd entered the space age :eek:
Logon or register to see this image
 
i remember when we first moved to peterlee from wheatley hill and had one of these for the telly. it was like we'd entered the space age :eek:
Logon or register to see this image
There were no roof-top aerials in Peterlee when it was first built. Everyone had cable telly! There's still a few of the old boxes left if you look carefully. I had a cable running between mine and next doors' house when I lived in Granvile Road - couldn't figure out why, and then I realised it was for that.


Its funny, this topic has came up recently in Peterlee. By design there are no telegraph poles - all cables are under the ground in Peterlee.
But FTTP companies tried to bypass this cost by quietly installing their own poles a few months back. The people of Peterlee pushed back on them. Good, its pretty cool that there's no overhead cables all over the place here.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top