[comradio-l] Grant Goddard Radio Blog: Small local stations & the Digital Economy Bill - debated in the House of Lords

[CMA-L]

Please note:

*Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour):* I thank the noble Lord, Lord de
Mauley, for his brevity. It is not as if I am not paying attention, or
giving this less than its due, but we have already travelled over some of
this terrain. However, I shall endeavour to reiterate the assurances. For
small, local commercial and community stations, both the coverage area of a
digital multiplex and the cost of its carriage are too great at present.
That is one reason why we believe that those stations are best served by
continuing to broadcast on FM. We have also committed to retaining FM for
radio after the digital radio switchover. Of course, the Government will not
stop any station that wants to and can move to digital, but we will reserve
capacity on FM for those which have no obvious route there. I want to
address a couple of the concerns that the right reverend Prelate expressed.
How will we support those stations which remain on FM? In order to ensure
that stations on FM can operate and compete with services on digital after
switchover, the Government have already said that we are committed to
establishing a combined electronic programme guide for radio. That will
allow listeners to access stations via the station name, irrespective of the
platform carrying the service. Listeners will therefore move seamlessly
between bands, selecting stations simply by name; that is currently not the
case when listening to FM and AM stations on an analogue radio receiver. We
are working with the industry on that issue and encouraging its development.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Grant Goddard : radio blog <blog at grantgoddard.co.uk>


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

Small local stations & the Digital Economy Bill: debated in the House of
Lords<http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/small-local-stations-digital-economy.html>

 The issue of the potential impact on small, local radio stations of the
government’s proposed ‘Digital Radio Upgrade’ was first raised in this blog
in July 2009, which
stated<http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/digital-radio-upgrade-everyones-winner.html>
:

*“… the potential losers from Digital Radio Upgrade would seem to be:*
*• commercial stations presently carried on local DAB multiplexes who might
have to be bumped because there is no longer the capacity after amalgamation
*
*• local commercial stations presently carried on their local DAB multiplex
who will have to quit DAB because they do not wish to serve the enlarged
geographical area after amalgamation of multiplexes (for example, the cost
of DAB carriage for Kent/Sussex/Surrey is likely to be considerably higher
than Kent alone)*
*• new entrants*

*In the rush to frame proposals in Digital Britain that respond to the
circumstances of the large radio players with substantial investments in DAB
infrastructure, it might appear that the voices of the smaller local
commercial radio stations have got lost in the stampede of lobbying. These
stations might be small in number but many of them remain standalone, so
they will not benefit financially from the relaxation of co-location rules.
Digital Britain is condemning many of them to remain on FM (or AM), leaving
the large radio groups to dominate the DAB platform.*

*Although the proposals in Digital Britain have been framed to ‘help’ local
commercial radio, overwhelmingly they will reduce the financial burden of
group radio owners with local station operations in adjacent areas, and of
group owners who have invested in DAB infrastructure. There is little in the
way of financial benefits for independent local commercial stations, or for
potential new entrants, both of whom face being crowded out of the DAB
platform.”*

Last night, the House of Lords debated three amendments, amongst several, to
the Digital Economy Bill which proposed that the voices of small, local FM
radio stations and their listeners should be considered before the
government commits the UK to digital radio switchover.

These amendments were eventually withdrawn after debate (see below) during
which the government minister, Lord Young, made vague assurances that the
views of listeners and others would be canvassed.

RadioCentre, the commercial radio trade body, subsequently commented: *“Clause
30 (which relates to the switchover powers) was debated in detail, with
proposed amendments withdrawn following debate and assurances from
Government.”*

*Amendments 236 & 237*
*Moved by Lord Howard of Rising*

*236:* Clause 30, page 33, line 17, after “to” insert “ — (a)”
*237:* Page 33, line 19, at end insert "; and
( ) the needs of local and community radio stations; and
( ) the needs of analogue radio listeners."

*Lord Howard of Rising:* My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also
speak to Amendment 237. The amendments are designed to ensure that attention
is paid to the local and community radio sectors and the many millions of
analogue radio listeners — to which I should add the providers of satellite
systems about which the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, spoke. They should all be
listened to before any decision is taken about switchover. We on these
Benches have not hidden the fact that we remain unconvinced that the
Government’s plans to switchover in 2015 are realistic. We do not believe
that audiences will be ready by then. The audience must remain at the
forefront of all our considerations when we debate these parts of the Bill.
As drafted, the Secretary of State will have to pay heed only to Ofcom and
the BBC. Despite the BBC’s dominance in the radio industry, there is a
strong argument that it would be helpful for community and local radio
stations to be consulted. Indeed, the whole commercial radio sector should
be included. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the Secretary of
State consult the other parts of the industry that will be affected. It
would also seem both reasonable and important for the Secretary of State to
consider the needs of those who listen to analogue radio. The Government
stated in their final Digital Britain report that they would start the
countdown to switchover once digital listening made up 50 per cent of radio
listening. That seems far too low. It would still mean that there were
millions of listeners not using digital. Our amendment would ensure that the
needs of those listeners were taken into account before the Secretary of
State could nominate a switchover date. The amendment is simply an attempt
to ensure that all who will be affected by switchover are considered before
the Secretary of State nominates a date. As I have said, it does not seem
unreasonable to ensure that listeners are placed at the forefront of these
considerations. I hope that the Committee will agree. I beg to move.

*Lord Gordon of Strathblane:* My Lords, I think that I can offer some
reassurance to the noble Lord opposite. Unless all those targets were going
to be met, virtually the entire commercial radio industry would not support
the clause, which it does, with one minor exception. The feeling is that
this is an empowering clause that does not oblige the Secretary of State to
set a date. Indeed, he can set a date and then withdraw it if precisely
those targets mentioned by the noble Lord are not met. The radio industry
seems to feel that the Government have got it right. I hope that that
reassures him.

*The Lord Bishop of Manchester:* My Lords, in speaking to the amendment
moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, I recall that in an earlier
debate this evening, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, expressed deep
disappointment that I was not supporting an amendment that stood in the
names of the noble Lords. I hope that they will now feel slightly happier,
because I support this particular amendment. I do so because the Bill as it
stands provides very little safeguard for those who are living in remote
areas, some of them perhaps still relying on long wave, let alone FM, for
their radio reception. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard,
made about the Digital Britain report. If I recall correctly the point was
made at Second Reading that, when 90 per cent has been reached, there will
still be one in 10 people — some of whom would presumably lose access via
their radio to all the national, BBC and commercial radio stations — for
whom we really ought to have the greatest concern. Short of listening via
the internet — which I know the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, though no longer in
his place, would be urging us to do — or Freeview, there is nothing that the
10 per cent would be able to do until the DAB signal catches up with the FM
one. Through this and other similar amendments, I hope the Government will
come to recognise that there are some very serious reservations about giving
the Secretary of State the power to set the switchover date without proper
statutory consideration of the wider impact of that decision on those
communities who are often disconnected from British society physically, and
those small stations that serve them. I am much in sympathy with the
amendment.

*Baroness Howe of Idlicote:* My Lords, we shall come to rather more detail
about this aspect shortly. I, too, support the amendment and the basis on
which it is being put forward. We spent this morning taking evidence from
the commercial radio stations, both from those which disagreed with the main
grouping and those which had done some amount of research over time. The
more one looks at this whole area, it is quite clear that there is a big
problem about when this is going to happen, stretching into the future,
causing a considerable number of problems. At the very least, this amendment
requires others — those concerned and those involved — to be consulted. So,
like the right reverend Prelate, I certainly support the amendment.

*Lord Young of Norwood Green:* My Lords, Clause 30 states that before
nominating a switchover date, the Secretary of State must have regard to any
reports submitted by Ofcom or the BBC under the terms of Section 67(1)(b) of
the Broadcasting Act 1996. The purpose of these reports is to review how
long it would be appropriate for radio services to continue to be broadcast
in analogue form. These reports should have regard to the provision of
digital radio multiplexes, availability of digital radio services and the
ownership of digital receivers. In order to produce these reports, Ofcom is
required to consult multiplex licence holders and digital radio service
providers. In addition — here I address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord
Howard, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the right reverend Prelate the
Bishop of Manchester — the Secretary of State must, on requiring these
reports, consult such persons representing listeners and such other persons
as he thinks fit, as provided in Section 67(4). The noble Lord, Lord Howard,
talked about plans to switchover in 2015. That is a target that we have set,
not a precise date, as I hope he will recognise. The experience that we had
with the TV switchover, which in some ways was even more fraught with
difficulty, has been an outstanding success so far. One of the largest
switchovers, in the Manchester area, recently went over without a hitch. We
had a lot of preparation, help and assistance. We want to adopt a similar
approach. It is not just about the 50 per cent of listeners. We have also
talked about DAB achieving the same coverage as FM, which is something like
95 per cent these days. We are well aware of the importance of that. I also
point out another factor which I think is important. The prices of
reasonable quality DAB radios have been coming further and further down.
That is important for less advantaged parts of our population. We are aware
of the concerns expressed. We believe that the clauses have got it right. We
understand the concerns, which is why I have taken time to give some further
assurance. Given the breadth of the requirements to consult already proposed
in the draft Bill and our commitment to consult widely before setting a
date, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. With the explicit
assurances I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to
withdraw the amendment.

*Lord Howard of Rising:* I thank the Minister for his remarks. I am grateful
to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and to the noble
Baroness, Lady Howe, for their support for the amendment and to the noble
Lord, Lord Gordon, for his reassurance. All I am doing is asking the
Government to pay attention to and listen to the listeners before they take
too drastic an action and leave a lot of people very unhappy. From his
remarks this would appear to be the case, so I beg leave to withdraw the
amendment.

Amendment 236 withdrawn.
Amendment 237 not moved.

*Amendment 239A*
*Moved by The Lord Bishop of Manchester*

*239A:* Clause 30, page 33, line 21, after “services,” insert “while
retaining the use of the FM Band for those local and community radio
services, including special interest services, for which digital
transmission using DAB is not a suitable method due to —
(i) the size of local DAB multiplex areas, or
(ii) the unavailability of capacity on the local DAB multiplex,”

*The Lord Bishop of Manchester:* This amendment pursues further the issue
about retaining the use of the FM band for local and community radio
services. I invite your Lordships to put yourselves in the shoes of someone
running a small FM radio station, serving a population of 100,000 people in
and around, let us say, King’s Lynn. As it stands, that station’s future
seems to be to bid for a space on a local multiplex. That would mean that it
would begin broadcasting to almost 600,000 people. Such a shift would
significantly change the character of that station. Listeners from a much
wider area would start to phone in to programmes and would, for instance,
start to demand their own slice of news output. The station manager would be
forgiven for wishing to stay on the FM band as long as possible, until a
better solution was found for smaller stations to find a home on the digital
spectrum. Consider then the prospect of the only way of going digital to be
to join an even larger regional multiplex which covers the whole of East
Anglia and serves well over 1 million listeners. That is the kind of
situation that is faced by a number of small commercial radio stations if
digital rollout continues as planned. Their pathway towards a digital future
seems shrouded in a kind of fog, partly because of the large size of DAB
multiplex areas and the lack of capacity on some multiplexes .Forcing those
small-scale stations to broadcast to much larger areas than their current
coverage would alter their feel and alter their connection with their
audience. It would undermine the integrity that they hold as local
broadcasters and potentially damage their ability to service platforms which
stimulate and reflect local democracy and social action. There is also a
danger that counter-intuitively such stations would struggle to attract
advertising spend from local businesses which do not wish to market
themselves to audiences up to 100 miles away. So, socially and commercially,
beaming local stations to regional audiences is, frankly, not in anyone’s
interests. As for the lack of space on DAB in some areas of the country,
take, for example, the multiplexes currently covering Humberside or, in my
own area, of Manchester where there is virtually no space available. Even
with just the larger stations currently on board, capacity is running out in
some areas. I understand that some stations that gain access are
broadcasting in mono rather than in stereo in order to preserve bandwidth.
The limitations of DAB for local and community stations are well
acknowledged by Ofcom. Indeed, it is already planning for small-scale
commercial and community stations to stay on FM in the medium term as the
most appropriate technology for those stations in terms of both coverage and
cost. The vacation of FM band space by the removal of national and large
local stations would free up more capacity for smaller stations. Ofcom sees
this as a natural staging post in radio’s digital evolution. Nowhere,
however, is this halfway house given a firm legal footing. In case my
amendment is misinterpreted as a luddite attempt to hold back the march of
progress, let me make clear that it is intended as a temporary but crucial
platform to support the transition to digital of small-scale local stations,
which not only serve geographically defined areas, but also identity-defined
and interest-defined groups. Your Lordships may remember the furore caused
when in 1992, BBC Radio 4 proposed to transfer use f its long-wave frequency
to a rolling news service. The BBC reckoned that FM reception was good
enough and the vast majority of the country could pick it up without a
problem. But those living in remote parts of the United Kingdom, and even in
exceptionally hilly inland parts, knew different. The determination to push
ahead with cutting Radio 4 from the long wave was met with purposeful if
well-mannered resistance, as one might expect from Radio 4 listeners. In
fact, I am told that the sight of 200 protestors in tweed and twinsets
marching down Upper Regent Street was enough to help the BBC to see the
error of its ways. Let us not make a similar mistake. After all, FM had at
that point been around for almost 40 years. We have had DAB for less than a
decade. The future of local radio — which is so crucial to forging community
cohesion and identity, and promoting local social action and democracy —
should not be left to chance. That must mean embracing a multi-platform
ecology which creates a pathway towards digital broadcasting for local
radio, retaining space for them on FM until such time as a digital platform
offers them the right environment to continue what they do best. I beg to
move.

*Lord Clement-Jones:* My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has said so much
of huge value — an absolute tour de force on behalf of ultra-local radio. Of
course from the remarks made in the previous amendment, I not only put my
name to this amendment, but fully endorse what he said. It is that kind of
certainty which is crucial, and this is a very elegant way of keeping it in
the Bill. I hope consideration will be given to that, because — and this is
not intended as a pun — a signal is needed in this area. We need a very
strong signal — not just a digital or political signal — to FM radio, to
ultra-local radio, that they have a future which is secure. That is exactly
what the right reverend Prelate, whom nobody could accuse of being a
luddite, has advocated.

*Baroness Howe of Idlicote:* My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has put it
beautifully: “multi-platform ecology”. I like that and it sets the pattern
for the future rather well. Clearly, this amendment hits on the crucial area
of what will happen in the mean time and what is to be done concerning FM.
We need some reassurance on this point; I think the Minister said that it
would be around indefinitely. At the moment, we know that Ofcom grants only
short licences. There have been quite a number of complaints from the radio
stations that not to have the certainty granted to them by, say, a 10-year
licence means that their likelihood of failure is considerable. That side of
things would be helped if the Minister could confirm that FM will definitely
be there, and that licences can be given as people gradually go over to
digital and more space on FM becomes available. We know that there are
minimal alternative uses for the FM spectrum besides transmitting radio. It
is not therefore likely that the Treasury will want to make vast sums out of
it, as it clearly did when it realised its potential. It has already had its
fair share from that — or unfair share, depending on how you look at it.
Please can we therefore have two assurances from the Minister? We should all
try to move as fast as possible and with all encouragement towards the
digital switchover, because we can see the disadvantages in having that
laggard time that many seem to envisage. Indeed, one person giving us
evidence today said that, concerning radio, there was really no possibility
of a digital switchover; he was as dispirited as anyone could have been
about the process. Any form of encouragement that the Minister can give
would be welcome, certainly on the future use of FM and on longer licences.
Those two things were very much endorsed by the people who gave evidence
this morning to the Select Committee on Communications.

*Lord De Mauley:* My Lords, it is late and I shall be brief, but when we
finally switch over to digital transmission it is important to be sure that
the Government stay true to their promise that the FM spectrum will remain
available for use by local and community radio stations. The Digital Britain
report said that that was the Government’s plan, but it would give a great
deal more reassurance if such a promise was contained in the legislation.

*Lord Young of Norwood Green:* I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Mauley, for
his brevity. It is not as if I am not paying attention, or giving this less
than its due, but we have already travelled over some of this terrain.
However, I shall endeavour to reiterate the assurances. For small, local
commercial and community stations, both the coverage area of a digital
multiplex and the cost of its carriage are too great at present. That is one
reason why we believe that those stations are best served by continuing to
broadcast on FM. We have also committed to retaining FM for radio after the
digital radio switchover. Of course, the Government will not stop any
station that wants to and can move to digital, but we will reserve capacity
on FM for those which have no obvious route there. I want to address a
couple of the concerns that the right reverend Prelate expressed. How will
we support those stations which remain on FM? In order to ensure that
stations on FM can operate and compete with services on digital after
switchover, the Government have already said that we are committed to
establishing a combined electronic programme guide for radio. That will
allow listeners to access stations via the station name, irrespective of the
platform carrying the service. Listeners will therefore move seamlessly
between bands, selecting stations simply by name; that is currently not the
case when listening to FM and AM stations on an analogue radio receiver. We
are working with the industry on that issue and encouraging its development.

*Lord Clement-Jones:* We have been given that assurance on a number of
occasions. The Minister in the Commons, who recently announced his
resignation, sadly, has given that assurance about the electronic programme,
but no date was put on it. It is simply that they are working on it. This is
a crucial aspect in retaining people’s ability to tune in to FM.

*Lord Young of Norwood Green:* I will see whether I can find any further
information. This is a genuine commitment. It is all part of the backdrop
against which this debate is taking place. We have set 2015 as a target, but
there is not a headlong rush to it. We are trying to ensure a number of
things, and this is one of them. I can give a progress report on where we
are: it is a clear commitment. The right reverend Prelate asked about making
FM continue to be attractive to advertisers and listeners. The key to the
switchover of radio will be establishing three distinct tiers of radio —
local, regional and national — which will provide unique content and are
sustainable in their markets. The services that will populate FM will have a
distinct role in providing very local material and reflecting the
communities they cover. Due to the very local nature of their content and
the refocusing of the large regional stations, these services will benefit
from less competition for local advertising funding. I hope that is of some
help. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked whether Ofcom will offer analogue
licences for longer than five years. The duration of analogue licences is a
matter for Ofcom. However, it has suggested that, subject to the outcome of
the Bill, it will consult on this issue. We support this process as there is
clearly a strong argument for allowing analogue licences over a longer
licence period. I, too, rather like the elegant phrase “multi-platform
ecology”. I wish I had thought of it myself. We have not included in the
legislation a commitment to retain FM because the Bill is not intended to
set out all the details of the digital radio switchover but to enable a
switchover to take place how and when that is appropriate. We agree with the
right reverend Prelate’s phrase “a multi-platform ecology” — imitation will
soon be the sincerest form of flattery on this one. To do this, Clause 30
provides for changes in the licensing terms of those services for which it
will no longer be appropriate to continue on analogue once the switchover
date is nominated. For those licences where analogue broadcasting is the
most appropriate or only means of broadcasting, these powers need not apply
and their terms will be unaffected, including the right to broadcast on an
analogue frequency. The continuation of FM is therefore already provided for
in this legislation and should be read alongside the commitments in Digital
Britain. In the interests of time, I shall not say any more. I have tried to
give as many assurances as I can. We share noble Lords’ concerns. We want
this to be successful. We should take heart from how successfully we have
handled the switchover to digital TV. That has been a success story. Lots of
concerns were expressed at the beginning, and we had to work to ensure that
people who had fears about handling the new technology were assisted. We got
it right. I am not saying that that should be a blanket assurance for
everything, but we should not forget how well we handled that. It gives us a
good background of experience upon which we can build. I thank the right
reverend Prelate for this part of the debate. I trust that the assurances
that I have given will enable him to withdraw the amendment.

*The Lord Bishop of Manchester:* I thank the Minister for his response to
this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and
Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who made very helpful
comments. I welcome the Minister’s assurances about the continued provision
for local stations to use the FM band. He said that we had been over this
ground several times, but we have done so partly because of the seriousness
of the issue and partly, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said later
in the debate, because of the need to pin the Government down to get the
precise assurance that people need. I am sure that those who run and who
listen to these media services will feel encouraged by the general direction
in which all this is going. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was
absolutely right to say — it may have been a parlance, but it is a very good
way of saying it — that these people really do need a clear signal from the
Government that is very much along the lines of what the Minister has said.
Having said that, I suspect that this needs to be repeated and to be made
even clearer. As those of us who have the privilege of sitting on the House
of Lords Select Committee on Communications know, there is a huge difference
between the switchover to digital television — this has indeed gone very
smoothly, although it is not without its teething problems — and the
digitalisation of radio. It has been made very clear to us in the evidence
that we have received that the whole business of the digitalisation of radio
is much more complex. While the Government and all the digital facilitators
need to be congratulated on what they have done in the switchover to digital
television, let us not think that because that went so easily it will be the
same for radio. There are some very different and deeper issues that we must
look at. That said, I utterly agree with the Minister and all noble Lords
who have contributed to the debate that we want to keep up the momentum. We
really do want to go along with what the Digital Britain report has said and
get ourselves going in the technological direction in which we are set.
Unnecessary delays are certainly not welcome. Finally — I think the Minister
alluded to this in an earlier debate — there is the issue of manufacturers
moving towards products that use a combined station guide, rather as
Freeview and satellite television do for television, so that people can
choose stations by name, whatever the band they are using. This kind of
mixed economy of stations, both analogue and digital, will be the simplest
way of getting through the many complexities that are on our path. I am most
grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 239A withdrawn.

*[For the purpose of transparency, I was one of the parties invited to offer
evidence before the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications
yesterday morning.]*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/comradio-l/attachments/20100205/44acae9f/attachment-0001.html