[cma-l] Ofcom: 10th March, DCMS: 11th March

[Alex Gray, Two Lochs Radio]

James

 

What you say about Ofcom’s role regarding choice and plurality is of course true for duly-licensed regular broadcast services. However, Ofcom also has a duty to observe transparent and equitable treatment of stakeholders, and this is where it appears to be falling short in this case.

 

Despite what you say, we are not talking about intended ongoing programme services – this was strictly a technical trial for a limited period – Ofcom was a great pains to make this very clear to all applicants, regardless of what nod or wink you feel it gave at a meeting. The criteria for selection of participants was also only to a limited extent based on extending choice – most are simulcasts and there was only a requirement to carry a minimum of two services. The primary criteria for awards were to do with achieving a spread of different technical scenarios for transmission, relays and programme feeds.

 

In fact, Ofcom’s selection criteria for the trial included about 60 specific technical criteria and just 12 programming/service criteria.

 

It would have been reckless of a community radio station to base plans on anything other than the strict 9-month technical trial, which meant most, including ourselves, had to rule themselves out, even where they could have offered a very useful additional technical challenge to evaluate the system (such as our mountainous terrain), but Ofcom is now giving a distinct advantage to those who took a gamble with their station’s resources. Ofcom has also paid for a substantial amount of equipment for what is now an ongoing service, and no longer qualifies as a technical trial. (NB those stations and Ofcom should really now be recording that as ‘state aid’ which may affect other grant applications.)

 

Whether or not Ofcom has taken the right decision at this point, I don’t see how you could be surprised that the decision might aggrieve some who took Ofcom at its word and based their own decisions on goalposts that it has retrospectively moved a very significant distance.

 

Alex

 

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of James Cridland
Sent: 08 March 2016 02:26
To: martin at martinsteers.co.uk; The Community Media Association Discussion List <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [cma-l] Ofcom: 10th March, DCMS: 11th March

 

In a stakeholder meeting, I asked (when these were first advertised) whether they'd really be pulled off after nine months, denying audiences the additional choice they may have become accustomed to. Ofcom wriggled a bit in their answer, but seemed to say "we'll look at that when the time comes". There was a clue there.

>As this is a technical feasibility trial how is extending it to 3 years going to give a significantly better outcome?<

It isn't. The actual technical feasibility trial is over; at least, without making a few changes to the multiplexes, Ofcom won't learn more over the next two years. That's not the point really.

It's worthwhile examining why Ofcom exists. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/what-is-ofcom/statutory-duties-and-regulatory-principles/ - it is there to ensure a wide range of services and a plurality of providers. Turning off services while men in suits look at broadcast law and at broadcast field strengths is against Ofcom's statutory duty. More to the point, it is also unnecessary.

So, Ofcom has elected not to remove the additional choice to listeners that these small-scale multiplexes offer. They now have two years to look at the results of the data and then at the legislation. It's the right choice for the listener, and I'm surprised that anyone would want anything else.

J 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20160308/07e21e7a/attachment.html>