Options
4 PSB MUXs on relay transmitters
Now I know this is more a what if, but I want to see what people think and if people know about how it would have turned out if the SDN MUX had become a full PSB MUX at all relay transmitters.
What got me thinking was a discussion in the broadcasting forum about channel 5 and the fact they have gifted capacity on there.
It was mentioned that they had the option, when DTT launched, to co run the MUX that became known as SDN and that they turned it down, but still have a legacy rightto be the first in line to rent space on there.
Anyway it got me thinking that if C5 had decided to co run with SDN and they were both still running it with their channels on (and renting spare space to C4 and ITV) at switchover.
Then BBC had still acquired what is now known as BBC B MUX when they did and they planned on making that availible to all relays at switchover just as they in fact did.
So we would have then had:
BBC A (MUX A): PSB 1
D3&4 (MUX
: PSB 2
DS4C&5 (MUX 1): PSB 3 (what actually became SDN, but Im renaming it in this example because of the idea that it would have been owned by C5 too.)
BBC B (MUX 2): PSB 4
and OFCOM had decided that as MUX B and MUX 1 both carrying PSB type commercial channels should be availible from all relays.
What transmitters would have still been able to carry the other 2 COM MUXs, would they have been able to be at all 80 relays or not? and would there still been spaces to squeeze in COMs 7 and 8 for HD?
Could we have got 4 PSBs at all relays and say 4 COM MUXs from the 30 sites that COMs 7 and 8 are now on?
What got me thinking was a discussion in the broadcasting forum about channel 5 and the fact they have gifted capacity on there.
It was mentioned that they had the option, when DTT launched, to co run the MUX that became known as SDN and that they turned it down, but still have a legacy rightto be the first in line to rent space on there.
Anyway it got me thinking that if C5 had decided to co run with SDN and they were both still running it with their channels on (and renting spare space to C4 and ITV) at switchover.
Then BBC had still acquired what is now known as BBC B MUX when they did and they planned on making that availible to all relays at switchover just as they in fact did.
So we would have then had:
BBC A (MUX A): PSB 1
D3&4 (MUX
: PSB 2DS4C&5 (MUX 1): PSB 3 (what actually became SDN, but Im renaming it in this example because of the idea that it would have been owned by C5 too.)
BBC B (MUX 2): PSB 4
and OFCOM had decided that as MUX B and MUX 1 both carrying PSB type commercial channels should be availible from all relays.
What transmitters would have still been able to carry the other 2 COM MUXs, would they have been able to be at all 80 relays or not? and would there still been spaces to squeeze in COMs 7 and 8 for HD?
Could we have got 4 PSBs at all relays and say 4 COM MUXs from the 30 sites that COMs 7 and 8 are now on?
0
Comments
The 11 multiplex theory might well appeal to someone collecting multiplexes like a stamp collection but in practice, pre switchover power levels would have limited the audience reach. It would have been possible to increase power levels for some but not without reducing the overall number of multiplexes. The number of multiplexes would have had to be reduced even further with spectrum being sold off to mobile operators, which would have probably reduced the number of all site PSB multiplexes down to 3, with a further reduction in the number of COM multiplexes. Basically arriving at the situation we have today.
Anyway, we would never have had four muxes at relays, it would have been muxes 1, 2, A instead of 1, 2, B. I wonder whether SDN would have even stumped up the cash for full coverage. I suppose if C5 and S4C were forced to remain on that mux they would have had no choice.
Well 11 would maybe be too many, but 8 from each main TX and 4 PSB at each relay with no mobile sell off idea as that was only decided later during switchover and if switchover was already on its way with 4 PSB MUXs at relays (replacing the analogue channels), it would already have been decided.
Imagine OFCOM forced to say no spectrum sell off as it had been filled up?
Then as there would say only be about 8 channels on each COM MUX, about half way though switchover, OFCOM decide that one COM (or 2) go DVB-T2 and the ones that remain DVB-T1 squeeze up or some channels switch to DVB-T2 and MPEG 4.
So we could have had 2-3 DVB-T2 MUXs early (thats if we include BBC B as a T2 MUX still as it became anyway), that would have led to more people buying DVB-T2 kit and it becoming more affordable quicker.
Then OFCOM could have planned to get people over to DVB-T2 by 2015 and bring the MUXs down to 6 in the config we have now and sell off the extra specturm just a bit later on!
Why not?
If S4C and Channel 5 had stayed on SDN and BBC had also acquired BBC B and OFCOM had decided that D3&4 and SDN (due to both carrying PSB channels) had to join the BBC's 2 MUXs (that would have always gone to all relays obviously) that would have meant 4 PSB MUXs at all relays!
Because the reason C5 and S4C didn't stay on SDN was because they couldn't carry four muxes on all relays!
If the BBC hadn't ended up with mux B, the three muxes would have been 1,2,A. However, there would have been no wriggle-room for converting a mux to DVB-T2 (unless SDN were up for it, in which case we'd be in almost exactly the same situation we are now), so we'd probably have no HD channels (except ones on the 600MHz band).
The only scenario resulting in four muxes on relays would have been one with no sell-off of spectrum.
So two SD muxes take these easily and most but not all BBC also fit in an HD mux ....
And come DSO 2 all can fit in three HD muxes,
Remember that the comm muxes were offered in a 200 site basis but the transmission costs were deemed too high to pay by the non PSB broadcasters.... Hence the 84 or so we have fir93% population coverage.
Obviously, with the level of interest in DTT at the time, most would have been empty. It was simply an example of what could have been achieved by re-using the pre-existing analogue and digital spectrum allocation with no sale of spectrum.
Which parent company did you have in mind?
SDN Ltd was the sole applicant for the multiplex, "a jointly owned company in which NTL, S4C and United News and Media hold equal shares".
http://www.onhistory.co.uk/timeline/1998/05/26/itc-grants-multiplex-licence-sdn
Subsequently, S4C and UBM (the successor to United News & Media) bought out NTL and then sold SDN to ITV.
http://www.onhistory.co.uk/timeline/2005/04/27/itv-plc-acquires-sdn-limited
Indeed.
Take a look at the original analogue four channel UHF allocations, in the case of
Grp A and C/D stations one of the four allocations falls into the so called 800 or 500 MHz bands (aka E61-68 and E31-37) that were to be sold off.
Although it might have been possible to compress the 88 MHz/10 channel spread,
analogue services were spaced at 3 or 4 UHF channels (24 or 32 MHz), DTT allows for (and uses at some sites) adjacent channel (8 MHz spacing) working.
The problem there, is that existing analogue allocations would not have been possible
for all four DTT allocations, and communal aerial filtering would have been required to be adjusted on (and not before or after) DSO day (something not required for the PSB muxes in the scheme that was used)
In fairness, if you refer back to the original thread where this scenario originated, the OP is referring to a situation where 4 PSB multiplexes would have been created prior to DSO and possibly used to avoid selling off spectrum. Somewhat unrealistic, as it doesn't consider that these decisions are taken, not by Ofcom in isolation, but at a global/regional level but, nevertheless, that was the scenario.
So going on the idea that having 4 PSB MUXs at all relays, forcing OFCOM into a very difficult position regarding the spectrum sell off, one where TV broadcasters make it impossible to sell off spectrum altogether, it would have forced the global agreements to be different as OFCOM would have informed them it was impossibe to change allocations in the UK!
However, it could be argued the primary driving force behind DSO, was to sell spectrum off, not to provide more viewer choice (that's just a fortunate side effect of DVB !)
They could certainly have informed the ITU that it would be difficult for the UK but ultimately, the UK has to allocate spectrum in accordance with international agreements. If the rest of the ITU region voted to reallocate spectrum to mobile operators, the UK would have had to comply.
lol so there would never have say been a situation where say C5 and S4C were contractually entitled to MUX A (like D3&4 being entitled to MUX 2 and BBC being entitled to MUX 1) and then BBC acquiring MUX B and so entitled to make that availible to all?
Just think if C5 and S4C had had that MUX with a permanent status that just lasted (from very early on) and BBC acquiring MUX B meaning that status was also fixed.
Then by DSO between D3&4 and C5's & S4C's MUX there was ITV, ITV +1, ITV 2, ITV 3, C4, C4 +1, E4 More 4 on D3&4 and C5, 5*, 5USA, S4C (or E4 +1 in rest of UK), S4C +1 (or ITV 2 in rest of UK), ITV 4, CITV/The Store and Film 4 on C5's and S4C's MUX with both MUXs only being in the 8 SD channel config at full 720x576 res.
So then OFCOM would have had no choice but to give all 4 MUXs PSB status at all relays, as if couldnt then contractually move the channels around on the 4 PSB MUXs (except for getting the BBC to shift all its SD channels and radio stations onto MUX A in 64QAM and getting them to use MUX B for HD).
I wonder if in that instance they would have decided that having the COM MUXs was stopping them from selling off spectrum and would have tried to close them, or get any channels that would have been on the old two COM MUXs to just go on the 1 MUX as DVB-T2 and AVC/MPEG 4 (that would have instantly made Top Up TV close several years early though! unless the change from 2 COM MUXs to 1 in DVB-T2 was delayed till the end of switchover?)
The government would have had to get DVB-T2 boxes out as the main standard earlier though and get people on the help scheme those boxes, as the only official way to get all channels!
I thought the UK was autonomous over its own frequencies baring making sure that it doesnt interferer with other countries allocations.
The only thing that stopping interference with other countries would have done is making sure that areas like Dover, Wales, NI ect werent using frequencies in the 800Mhz band so it didnt interfere with the rest of Europe using that space for mobiles.
It would have meant phone manufactures would have had to use none standard frequencies for 4G in the UK though, but that already happens with EE network, so I cant see that being a big issue!
Not really, the allocations are agreed internationally and a mutual agreement has to be reached. It's not like the UK has a magic veto and a spectrum shield to lock signals within the UK or block signals from outside.
In the unlikely event that our neighbours were to agree to that they would want something back in return. Not only would they require that the 800MHz spectrum wasn't used in border regions, they would also demand that extra spectrum from outside the 800MHz range was also cleared in our border transmitters. They could then use the full spectrum outside the 800MHz range in their own border regions. That, in turn, would cause a severe shortage of frequencies in our border regions, making it almost impossible to provide a service there. Negotiations seldom result in getting something for nothing.
EE had spare spectrum available as it reduced duplication on the Orange and T-Mobile networks. Other providers didn't have that option.
Yes, I know this but it doesn't really answer the question.
A 35.4% stake didn't make United News & Media the parent company of Channel 5, simply a shareholder. As owners of Meridian Broadcasting, Anglia Television and with a shareholding in Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees (at various points in time), United News and Media also having a controlling interest in Channel 5 would have raised several competition issues.
The link with Desmond is even more tenuous. Northern and Shell purchased Express Newspapers from UBM in 2000, prior to selling their share of SDN to ITV in 2005. So Northern and Shell never actually had a shareholding in SDN. In any event, Channel 5 wasn't purchased by Northern & Shell until 2010 by which time SDN had already been owned by ITV for a number of years.
Unfortunately, yes. If agreement isn't reached then reception in border areas would be impossible. I totally agree that things were more flexible in times gone by, when there was less demand for the spectrum. But this was largely also agreed and included in the ITU's spectrum plans. Bear in mind that Region 1 covers all of Europe and the former Soviet Union, Africa, the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula and Mongolia. There have always been anomalies across the region, such as the different allocation for the FM band in eastern Europe. Another anomaly being the provision of 8MHz VHF TV channel spacing in the Irish Republic, allowed because it didn't share a border with any territory using the international standard, 7MHz VHF TV channel spacing.