Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Radio interference

Sir, — The recent changes supported by Mr Forsyth (May 2) are irrational and impractical as shown hy the continuing complaints about interference that worsens

with each further station. It takes 20 kilohertz spacing to allow reasonable reproduction of music. Using narrower band widths impoverishes quality besides causing adjacent channe' interference. What good are more channels obtained by degrading the existing service? Evidently these fundamentals are not understood by the broadcasting authorities or the correspondent. Interference with the concert programme could not occur under the arrangements I suggested since New Zealand and Australia would mutually concede about 10 clear channels, more than compensating their publics for the loss of stations to make this possible. Throughout Australia and New Zealand normal broadcast sets receiving local programmes do not suffer significant interference from outside the area. — Yours, etc., P. A. G. HOWELL. May 7, 1979.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19790509.2.136.17

Bibliographic details

Press, 9 May 1979, Page 22

Word Count
144

Radio interference Press, 9 May 1979, Page 22

Radio interference Press, 9 May 1979, Page 22