[cma-l] Local TV calls for Muxco rethink

[CMA-L]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Laurence <rjhlaurence at mac.com>

I agree with Ian. Another advantage of locating transmitter sites
closer to the viewers is you can use lower power which in turn reduces
co-channel interference, permitting reuse of the same frequencies. I
have been told that with careful coordination and frequency planning,
this means many more sites than the proposed 65 could be made
available.

For example in West Yorkshire, the muxco proposal has a single service
covering Leeds, Huddersfield, Halifax and Wakefield, but no service at
all for Bradford. In my opinion these are totally separate communities
- I live in Leeds and I don't want my local channel to have to cover
three other cities I don't go to very often. But surely smaller,
lower-power transmitters would allow for smaller coverage areas, and
many more of them, especially with the amount of white space on bands
IV and V.

If we are going to have local TV, shouldn't it be - er - local?

Richard Laurence

On 23 Oct 2011, at 23:18, Ian Hickling <transplanfm at hotmail.com> wrote:

Simple enough to do.
Locate the local station in the same direction as the larger one - but closer!
There are other solutions which are copyright!

------------------------------------

Ian Hickling
Partner

transplan UK

________________________________
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:30:22 +0100
Subject: Re: [cma-l] Local TV calls for Muxco rethink
From: info at a-bc.co.uk
To: ian at transplan.uk.com

I think the trouble is though Ian is that the domestic TV receiving
equipment has directional antennas - meaning that the community site
would need to be close to the Arqiva site, or else the house would
need a new receiving antenna installed and keep switching antennas.
So really, no practical alternative to colocating at existing broadcast site...
Cheers,
Glyn

On 23 October 2011 08:38, Ian Hickling <transplanfm at hotmail.com> wrote:

  I'd like to point out that transmission equipment for local
television in Band IV/V done on a stand-alone basis from a small local
site is not particularly expensive - apart from possibly the
currently-available encryption hardware.
The RF part is totally comparable with the standard systems and
techniques we use at present for Community Radio in Band II.
Only if local TV broadcasters either choose or are forced to use
existing TV transmission sites and structures do the costs become high
- and probably prohibitive.


------------------------------------

Ian Hickling
Partner
transplan UK


> From: cma-l at commedia.org.uk
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:24:25 +0100
> To: cma-l at commedia.org.uk
> Subject: [cma-l] Local TV calls for Muxco rethink
>
> Broadband TV News, 10.26 Europe/London, October 21, 2011 By Julian Clover
>
> Over 40 companies looking to launch local TV services in the UK have
> written to culture secretary Jeremy Hunt asking him to reconsider
> plans to force them to use a single multiplex operator.
>
> The letter is supported by Martin Campbell, until recently a senior
> executive at Ofcom, and now chair of the Broadcast Journalism Training
> Council. Other signatories include Kcom (the communications company in
> Hull), the University of Lincoln and the UK’s oldest local TV channel,
> Channel 7 in Grimsby.
>
> The operator of Muxco is yet to be determined, though as the UK’s
> principal transmission provider, Arqiva would be the obvious choice.
>
> Muxco would own the equipment and retain the revenues from selling any
> spare capacity on a local multiplex beyond a single local TV service.
>
> Jaqui Devereux from United for Local Television (ULTV), the industry
> association, said: “All of the signatories to this letter support the
> broad thrust of the government’s local TV policy but are asking for a
> rethink on Muxco. Many of the smaller companies we represent feel most
> strongly because they know Muxco will have little reason to want to
> spend time and money to offer good coverage outside of big cities.”
>
> There are also concerns that plans to use the QPSK 2/3 coding rate,
> outside of the Freeview-compliant D-Book, will also hit the reception
> chances of the news stations.
>
> ULTV claims DTT transmission equipment is inexpensive and the £25
> million in BBC funding secured by the government would be better used
> to establish a start-up fund, administered by Ofcom, to support local
> TV on multiple platforms.
>
> Further Information:
>
> - Local TV’s letter to Jeremy Hunt MP:
>
> http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/10/21/local-tvs-letter-to-jeremy-hunt-mp/
>
> Source: http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/10/21/local-tv-calls-for-muxco-rethink/
>
> \\
>
> Community Media Association
> --
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/
> http://twitter.com/community_media
> https://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/