[cma-l] DCMS consultation meetings on amendments to communityradio law

Wed Oct 19 10:20:02 BST 2011

I agree with Nick too, to some extent. And also with Ian. And Roger. Hmmm,
that makes me quite an agreeable person!

As for effective communication, I often wonder why we are all ranting to
each other, and what use that is?
But actually it is the right place, because its the CMA forum, and they are
the ones that should be taking our message on.

However, I also despair, as Nick points out, that there are a lot of "I'm
alright Jacks" around, and the problem is that people will whinge and rant
until they get what they want, be it a license, some funding, some change in
broadcasting regulations that affects them directly in a positive way.

The problem is, then they're alright, Jack. Even if everybody else isn't.
The CMA doesn't have enough welly because membership of the CMA contains
very little in the way of obligation. If it were like a union, the CMA could
go up to whoever-it-is and say "right, we're not going to stand for this and
we have 128 stations behind us". But they can't and the people we are up
against know this and are laughing. And that's why they don't take us
seriously. The BBC, and umbrella commercial radio outfits are organised in
that way. And they have effective lobbying, and so can get regulation past
(such as the 50% rule) that should never have existed.

The example I particularly take issue with is how all the CMA members are
going to the BBC iRadio, while the CMA player, which we should be
supporting, flounders. It's a crying shame, because if we acted together the
CMA player would contain much more content of original and diverse nature
than the iRadio. Plus we wouldn't be all donating all our listening
statistics, in glorious detail, to the BBC to help them make sure their
radio / choice of music is more spot on than ours (and I CMA stations don't
get access to all that data).

Anyway, I didn't want to turn this into a rant. I just wanted to point out
the need for unity.

Best

Peter Vautier
London Chinese Radio

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Ian Hickling <transplanfm at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> OK Roger - I *was* joking!
> Regarding this:
>
>
> *CR is being badly treated by the authorities. Why should commercial
> businesses be protected by law from the activities of community projects?
> It’s nonsense*.
>
> I agree!
> But we all knew about that from the very beginning.
> Did we complain then?
> Have we been complaining continuously ever since?
> What results have we seen?
> What does this tell you about effective communication?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> *Ian Hickling
> **Partner*
>
> *transplan UK*
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> From: rj.thorne at btinternet.com
> To: cma-l at commedia.org.uk
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:13:16 +0100
>
> Subject: Re: [cma-l] DCMS consultation meetings on amendments to
> communityradio law
>
>  Please don’t speak for me - I’m not fed up with his moaning,  though I’d
> say that “ranting” is a better description of Nick’s posts at times!  As is
> regularly pointed out he can be inaccurate, and certainly often comes out of
> left-field.  But usually worth a read even if just for the entertainment.
>
>
>
> Underneath it all though the man is correct. CR is being badly treated by
> the authorities. Why should commercial businesses be protected by law from
> the activities of community projects? It’s nonsense.
>
>
>
> I would pay money to be a fly on the wall at a meeting between Nick and the
> DCMS.....
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:
> cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] *On Behalf Of *Ian Hickling
>
> *Sent:* 18 October 2011 14:18
> *To:* office at ccr-fm.co.uk; Alan Coote; cma-l
>
> *Subject:* [cma-l] DCMS consultation meetings on amendments to
> communityradio law
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> I'm going to do this in public, because we're all fed up with your moaning.
> No - actually - we do appreciate what you're saying.
> Let's get some facts into this.
>
> Firstly - about Key 103 - if it is that causing the problem.
> That's on 103,0 at 347 metres AOD and an antenna elevation of 40m with an
> aggregate 4kW on Saddleworth Moor and you're on 102,8 with 25W at 153m AOD
> and 34m antenna elevation and an aggregate 48W at Bolligton - 27km due south
> with a complete geological signal block anywhere to the east of you.
> 103,0 is second adjacent to you, which providing you're both within
> specification, means no part of your transmission envelopes overlap more
> than at -60dB.
> That is one millionth of full power level.
>
> So - any cross-talk you're getting can only be attributed - forgive me for
> being blunt - to the use of crap radio receivers.
> I'm sure you wouldn't want legislation introduced  to allow for that?
> No fault of the rules, the broadcasters or of Ofcom.
> There is a possible solution of moving your frequency either one channel
> further away from Key 103 or somewhere entirely different - but that's a
> much bigger exercise as I'm sure you'll understand.
>
> Secondly - the so-called "crackle crackle hiss hiss crackle" is not being
> generated by you or by them.
> It's your radio picking up other random signals which are of a level higher
> than the wanted one.
> This may be because of low signal strength - or again the radio itself - or
> more likely its aerial aystem.
> Again, not the fault of the rules, the broadcasters or of Ofcom.
>
> Thirdly - your idea of upping power by 1W at a time. Beside it being
> completely outside any concept of engineering planning logic, it would do no
> good at all. Power (allied with propagation format) gets you penetration;
> height gets you range. So - to increase coverage area you'll need to
> provide your antenna with a better view of its target. Therefore more height
> - or an entirely new location. That's always assuming that you are actually
> emitting your full ERP, which in itself may be part of the problem.
>
> Look - buy me a decent lunch and I'll spend a day with you looking at the
> problem and I'll do you a Spectrum Audit Scan which will show just how near
> or effective other broadcasters are. And I'll analyse your problem
> crackle/hiss areas too.
> Then we might be able to come up with a good practical sound engineering
> solution.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> *Ian Hickling
> **Partner*
>
> *transplan UK*
>
> _______________________________________________ Reply -
> cma-l at commedia.org.uk The cma-l mailing list is a members' service
> provided by the Community Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.ukTwitter:
> http://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation Canstream Internet Radio
> & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/_______________________________________________ Mailing list guidelines:
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe or manage
> your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
>
> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community
> Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
>
> Mailing list guidelines:
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>

-- 
野火烧不尽，春风吹又生
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20111019/8941eb0f/attachment.html>