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

Tue Mar 8 12:40:20 GMT 2016

I’m only guessing, but DCMS maybe funding the trial and hence calling the shots.

But it would appear once again Ofcom have been instrumental in creating a buggers-muddle. 

They (DCMS and Ofcom) need to explain what has changed in 9 months, what remedial action was taken to avoid a two year delay, what significant aspects are they expecting to achieve now the goal post have moved and how will that improve the outcome for the industry?

Good luck… wish I had time to attend.

Kind Regards

Alan

Alan Coote

Email - alan.coote at MonogramMedia.co.uk

Phone - 0800 949 6655

Mobile - 07801 518858

Twitter - @TheAlanCoote 

Twitter - @LTBShow

Web - http://www.LetsTalkBusinessOnline.com

From:  <cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk> on behalf of "martin at martinsteers.co.uk" <martin at martinsteers.co.uk>
Reply-To:  "martin at martinsteers.co.uk" <martin at martinsteers.co.uk>, "cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk" <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
Date:  Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 12:02
To:  Richard Hilton <Richard.Hilton at bitc.org.uk>
Cc:  "cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk" <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
Subject:  Re: [cma-l] Ofcom: 10th March, DCMS: 11th March

On that note I have asked that those going to the ofcom meeting clarify and get confirmation

On 8 Mar 2016 12:00, "Richard Hilton" <Richard.Hilton at bitc.org.uk> wrote:
Anyone note this bit in Martin’s post:-

They have also stated that post the 9 month "trial" period they wont provide any more technical support.

May not be needed but if this is an experiment you’d think Ofcom would want to remain close to the stations to pick up on any issues.  This doesn’t seem a very positive way to do that.

Richard

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of Martin Steers
Sent: 08 March 2016 11:11
To: The Community Media Association Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cma-l] Ofcom: 10th March, DCMS: 11th March

To clarify really.. this was not ofcoms decision, it was the DCMS who have instructed Ofcom to extend the trials, it wouldnt be fair to hold criticism against Ofcom for this as they are simply following instructions

They have also stated that post the 9 month "trial" period they wont provide any more technical support.

On 8 March 2016 at 10:59, Alex Gray, Two Lochs Radio <tlr at gairloch.co.uk> wrote:

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 sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
www.avast.com

_______________________________________________

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

The information in this email is confidential and may be privileged. It is for use by the addressee only. If you are not the addressee or if this email is sent to you in error, please let us know by return and delete the email from your computer. You may not copy it, or use its contents or disclose them to another person. No liability is accepted for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan any attachments. 
_______________________________________________ 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20160308/cff5f385/attachment.html>