[cma-l] DAB trial, PPL and PRS

Fri Jul 17 13:10:09 BST 2015

B

Ridiculous seems to be the word that sums it all up    yes

As for knowing these things before we set out, I suppose it is the same
argument as the restriction rules etc ..the key is that we set out on the
venture with good intentions hoping that folk would all find a nice middle
ground, we certainly didn’t think we would be arguing about the same things
10 years down the line and counting. There are sadly a lot of things that
don’t make any sense 

..for all we know     I might be one of them   ???
LOL

Keep on truckin’ chaps     as Joan Baez once sang   ‘’we shall overcome’’

Nick

  _____  

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
[mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of Bruce Rodger
Sent: 17 July 2015 12:39
To: tlr at gairloch.co.uk
Cc: The Community Media Association Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cma-l] DAB trial, PPL and PRS

yes, we were aware of the costs beforehand - but it’s only now that I look
in more detail that I see that their charge for the pilot DAB service is 66
per month, whereas an FM-only charge would be less (63)

Just highlighting the ridiculousness of the fees.

B.

On 17 Jul 2015, at 12:33, tlr at gairloch.co.uk wrote:

Bruce

We all know that PPL is an aggressive operator that grossly overvalues its
repertoire for small radio stations, but I'm puzzled why you need to raise
the question now. This and other costs were well known ahead of applications
for the trial, and were one of the several reasons we decided it was
financially too costly and short-term an exercise for us to try - given that
there is no guarantee at all of a continuing licence at the end.

List members had identified this very problem in advance, and it was
discussed fully on the list a long time back. At that time I wrote:

"The DAB licence thing is of course another question. In my opinion there is
no justification for PPL to ask for extra money for a simulcast by DAB (nor
by Internet). If having the extra delivery method enhances the value of your
station then that will be reflected in increased revenues and they will get
their cut automatically under the existing NBR arrangements. I see no
justification for any additional charge simply because you are available on
two different types of radio."

Incidentally, for FM+DAB+stream, PPL charges community stations more in
total than it charges small commercial stations! Their charges are highly
regressive and have many illogicalities, but they rely on the fact that none
of us has the financial resources to mount a tribunal case against them, and
the CMA has proved very weak in negotiation with them (apologies to those
involved, but it's a fact).

Cheers

Alex

On 17 July 2015 at 12:05 Bruce Rodger <bruce at celticmusicradio.net> wrote:

(should we be thinking about setting up  separate forum for those of us
involved in the small-scale DB trials?)

Has anyone had any discussion/negotiation regarding PPL and the small-scale
DAB pilot?

Shortly after the announcement, PRS contacted us saying that there would be
no additional fees for the DAB pilot, assuming that the DAB service was a
simulcast of our FM service. Good news.

PPL, on the other hand, contacted us today saying there would be a £500+VAT
license for the 9 month period.

This is despite

*	the DAB service is a pilot
*	the DAB service is a simulcast of our FM service
*	the DAB service covers broadly the same area as our FM service
*	The 500+VAT for 9 months for a pilot/development service is actually
MORE than the equivalent fee for a production FM service! (159/quarter)

Does anyone else have difficulty understanding how they justify this?

Bruce.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150717/cc2d3097/attachment.html>