facturers to install Carrier ID
(CID) within all new equipment
as standard and have been
looking forward to witnessing
the effects.
Unfortunately, CID has not quite
reached its potential and much
of this is down to broadcasters,
and other satellite users, failing
to implement it wholeheartedly.
We must be fair here, however,
and recognise that a growing
desire to limit CAPEX within
a competitive market natural-
ly works against the desire to
replace non-CID enabled legacy
equipment.
There is also a lack of knowl-
edge amongst broadcasters,
with many unsure what actually
needs to be done to properly
implement Carrier ID.
It must be pointed out, howev-
er, that if all broadcasters imple-
mented the existing Carrier ID
initiative for all transmissions,
interference could be solved in
minutes by locating and alert-
ing the source of interference to
a fault in their setup or network.
This may not be prevention
which is, of course, better than
a cure, but it goes a long way to
reducing the effects of interfer-
ence and does not require any
additional equipment.
LOOKING AHEAD
Common sense suggests that by
broadcasters working to solve
interference, satellite operators
will no longer be forced to spend
millions of dollars of manpower
and resources on a preventable
problem, therefore extending
both a cheaper and better ser-
vice to the former. Sadly, many
believe satellite interference is
simply not the problem of the
broadcaster or not enough of
an issue to expend capital solv-
ing. The question is, what will
be the predicament in 5 or 10
years?
We must put solutions in place
today to prepare for tomor-
row, to predict, or even better,
work in the presence of inter-
ference. With the situation pre-
Satellite interference
only affects a minor-
ity of services and is
therefore often ignored
by broadcasters.
dicted to worsen by many, more
incidences will only compound
the issue, and sooner or later
broadcasters may find business
operations becoming more dif-
ficult. No broadcaster wants to
experience their first incidence
of serious interference during a
high-profile, high-earning foot-
ball match or the live final of a
popular reality TV show.
Furthermore, the cost of tack-
ling interference and investing
in new equipment will surely be
offset by the savings passed on
by the operator which no lon-
ger spends capital solving the
problem for users. So, you see,
solving interference is a win-win
for all, but we must work truly in
collaboration to have a hope of
tackling the issue.
At IBC, we are running a series
of masterclasses, aiming at
equipping broadcasters with
the knowledge about interfer-
ence, the tools available, and
what they need to do to get on
board. More information avail-
able here.
Broadcast Beat Magazine • www.broadcastbeat.com • 23