When ever I turn it on in the evening it always seems to be two people being interviewed on a sofa, effectively local radio with a picture. Think the start time is 5pm.
They are currently on Virgin only in a few parts of Oxford.
Maybe Virgin are telling them that they are available?
Mind you they (or predecessor) wrote a letter to me to advise that they were going to dig a cable across my verge in 6 months time. Twenty-two years later they still haven't.
I'm happy to give all of these channels a bit of leeway when it comes to quality and organisation. But these 'That's' stations appear to be utterly shambolic. So much so, they're actually giving the other Local TV licensees a bad name.
On screen and in the media, Mr. Cass appears to very confident and capable. But in reality, he seems to be all mouth and no trousers.
I'm happy to give all of these channels a bit of leeway when it comes to quality and organisation. But these 'That's' stations appear to be utterly shambolic. So much so, they're actually giving the other Local TV licensees a bad name.
On screen and in the media, Mr. Cass appears to very confident and capable. But in reality, he seems to be all mouth and no trousers.
You must give a little time for local TV to get all technical issues right.
Other local TV stations in the past had loads of technical issues unresolved .
It's easy to be critical ,but the obstacles in setting up a TV station are huge..
You only need to see the constant screw ups on outside broadcasts at the BBC to see there is a shortage of competent talent..
A lot of this in the past and relatively recently with the consolidation of IBA and the ITV regions into large company's run by bean counters ,who retired early a considerable amount of engineering talent .
This also happened at the BBC with the outsourcing policy they adopted .
Other licensees managed to launch without 'stumbling on air' with a soft launch. As a Manchester resident, I"m deeply disappointed with what's being offered here. But with dozens of hours content having to be created every day by them, any chance of quality has been thrown out of the window. I'd rather have a couple of hours of decent new content every day instead what's being cranked out now.
The engineering 'talent' being laid off that you speak of unfortunately aren't used to working with the vastly restricted budgets these stations operate on. I know plenty of people who believe you can't spend less than £75k on a vision mixer.
Other licensees managed to launch without 'stumbling on air' with a soft launch. As a Manchester resident, I"m deeply disappointed with what's being offered here. But with dozens of hours content having to be created every day by them, any chance of quality has been thrown out of the window. I'd rather have a couple of hours of decent new content every day instead what's being cranked out now.
The engineering 'talent' being laid off that you speak of unfortunately aren't used to working with the vastly restricted budgets these stations operate on. I know plenty of people who believe you can't spend less than £75k on a vision mixer.
The key is the budget.
Revenue needs to support the talent and creative skills needed to produce quality content.
The lack of understanding by senior managment in the past of all the key issues in sustaining revinue to meet operating and fixed costs , in particular if those costs are far too high.
What is evolving now is the lessons learnt in the past and that is you cannot spend what you don't earn .
Other local TV stations in the past had loads of technical issues unresolved .
Some have managed with hardly any making it on screen - in all it's time on air I've seen a grand total of three on Notts TV (1. Virgin managed to get the launch date wrong and added them late, 2. some video on day 1 was rather juddery, 3. an STV Glasgow news slate ended up on screen at the start of one days broadcasts) and they stand out as they are so few and far between,
Yes the programmes are not quite a slick as prime time BBC one, but comparing with East Midlands Today there's little difference* in quality of what comes out the screen - the most noticeable thing is/was the lack of experience evident at times (however no worse than those new ones that make it to EMT**), however they have got slicker and better in the first year on air.
* Apart from the really noticeable way Notts TV seems to get out across more of Nottingham unlike EMT which seems to stick to within a mile of the BBC Island.
** And of course with the likes of EMT a new presenter gets to be carried by the more experienced members of the team for a while as they tend to be in lesser roles, with year one of Local TV they didn't have that crutch.
(It has to be said I still find it funny that Notts TV has way more, strong, northern accents on screen than North West Tonight ever did while I was growing up!)
I know Manchester and Preston have been hit with delays thanks to the owner changing rather late in the day, but better can be done than it sounds like they are achieving up in Manchester.
You must give a little time for local TV to get all technical issues right.
Other local TV stations in the past had loads of technical issues unresolved .
As have the previous Oxford local TV stations. Oxford first had local TV 16 years ago...
As have the previous Oxford local TV stations. Oxford first had local TV 16 years ago...
It's the numbers game in a multichannel environment .
To obtain a realistic revinue stream the viewer numbers have to add up.
The major channells take the bulk of the advertising revinue available .
Local TV has the option of attracting local businesses .
But to do this the number of potential viewers reached has to be viable.
What has happened in the past and is also happening today , in some areas the coverage is extremely poor .
This in my opinion is through lack of technical knowledge or another agenda .
What ever the cause the net effect is the same and that is reduced income.
Consequently attracting investors and advertisers is a up hill task .
Ofcom have chosen to ignore this and apart from one individule it seems have done nothing about it .
It's the numbers game in a multichannel environment .
To obtain a realistic revinue stream the viewer numbers have to add up.
The major channells take the bulk of the advertising revinue available .
Local TV has the option of attracting local businesses .
But to do this the number of potential viewers reached has to be viable.
What has happened in the past and is also happening today , in some areas the coverage is extremely poor .
This in my opinion is through lack of technical knowledge or another agenda .
What ever the cause the net effect is the same and that is reduced income.
Consequently attracting investors and advertisers is a up hill task .
Ofcom have chosen to ignore this and apart from one individule it seems have done nothing about it .
Give some specific examples rather than just throwing this out as a convenient argument.
Local TV elsewhere thrives because local or regional stations are generally affiliated to the main national networks and have greater revenue potential as a result.
In the UK there is the question of whether the current model for Local TV is financially viable (other than where operated on a low cost, low quality model). The stations do not have programming that can generate revenue sufficient to fund a quality local news operation. Some have small potential markets in the first place, and it is also questionable as to whether "local" businesses can provide a sustainable revenue base on their own.
It remains a political vanity project in my view - it may find a niche in some markets but it is unlikely to ever be a commercially sustainable model other than on a community level. The best stations appear to be those tied to an existing broadcaster (STV) or the more genuinely community based stations.
The difficulties experienced in Manchester (a large market) by the initial licensee and the current incumbent (first in Solent & Oxford, and still no sign of the Preston & Blackpool station or of an Ofcom award to them of the Carlisle licence) are indicative of some of the problems. It seems unlikely at the moment that any licences will be advertised beyond those already granted, and it remains to be seen what happens if any existing incumbent goes bust.
Give some specific examples rather than just throwing this out as a convenient argument.
Local TV elsewhere thrives because local or regional stations are generally affiliated to the main national networks and have greater revenue potential as a result.
In the UK there is the question of whether the current model for Local TV is financially viable (other than where operated on a low cost, low quality model). The stations do not have programming that can generate revenue sufficient to fund a quality local news operation. Some have small potential markets in the first place, and it is also questionable as to whether "local" businesses can provide a sustainable revenue base on their own.
It remains a political vanity project in my view - it may find a niche in some markets but it is unlikely to ever be a commercially sustainable model other than on a community level. The best stations appear to be those tied to an existing broadcaster (STV) or the more genuinely community based stations.
The difficulties experienced in Manchester (a large market) by the initial licensee and the current incumbent (first in Solent & Oxford, and still no sign of the Preston & Blackpool station or of an Ofcom award to them of the Carlisle licence) are indicative of some of the problems. It seems unlikely at the moment that any licences will be advertised beyond those already granted, and it remains to be seen what happens if any existing incumbent goes bust.
First of all coverage is poor in many locations and this does need to be resolved to increase revinue.
Their is no reasons why the old IBA model cannot be implemented to pool resources accross most of the local TV stations to create quality programs .
Ch 4 has been successfull in improving drama quality to be shown in the 9pm slot ,in particular when ITV and BBC are broadcasting sport at these times.
What areas? Why aren't the broadcasters themselves kicking up a fuss about this poor coverage and the alleged impact it's having on their revenue?
Very simple .
With the odd exception they do not understand the technical issues .
By they ,I mean the station operators .
What hasn't been done in the majority of cases is a test to establish the actual coverage.
Plus no attempt to improve coverage when the solutions can be very simple indeed .
This lack of understanding and consequently not prioritising to resolve this has in my opinion contributed to a large extent to the comercial failure of local TV in the past and will do in the future unless it is resolved .
What hasn't been done in the majority of cases is a test to establish the actual coverage.
Plus no attempt to improve coverage when the solutions can be very simple indeed .
The coverage maps are accurate enough and somewhat pessimistic compared to actual coverage in a number of cases. The local TV channels are well aware of any coverage issues and improvements have been negotiated where it has been deemed to be a problem - however it should be noted that they applied for the licences based on the coverage maps.
The coverage maps are accurate enough and somewhat pessimistic compared to actual coverage in a number of cases. The local TV channels are well aware of any coverage issues and improvements have been negotiated where it has been deemed to be a problem - however it should be noted that they applied for the licences based on the coverage maps.
With respect it is my opinion that some coverage maps are not accurate .
If you are saying that the coverage maps produced have been corrobirated by accurate tests in the coverage areas , I will accept your argument.
But I believe the coverage shown in some cases is not accurate for variouse reasons .
If you wish me to explain my conclusions ,I can do this .
However if you are indicating that you have a open mind and where coverage doesn't provide what is indicated ,you would accept suggestions on what is needed to resolve the problem..
I presume you are employed in the planning of UK terrestrial coverage.
With respect it is my opinion that some coverage maps are not accurate .
If you are saying that the coverage maps produced have been corrobirated by accurate tests in the coverage areas , I will accept your argument.
But I believe the coverage shown in some cases is not accurate for variouse reasons .
If you wish me to explain my conclusions ,I can do this .
However if you are indicating that you have a open mind and where coverage doesn't provide what is indicated ,you would accept suggestions on what is needed to resolve the problem..
I presume you are employed in the planning of UK terrestrial coverage.
The trouble is that it is just your opinion - it is not supported by any specific evidence, whether from yourself or by reference to any third parties. You make general statements as if they were proven fact.
You state that the coverage is not accurate for various reasons - go on then explain your conclusions - if, as you say, you can.
Why do you presume that someone who disagrees with you must be employed in the planning of UK terrestrial coverage? You are happy to give your own opinions as if they were fact so what "expertise" is that based upon?
And how do you know, in answer to an earlier post, that station operators do not understand technical issues.
What has Channel 4 drama got to do with anything and what on earth makes you think that a disparate group of local TV operators could come remotely close to recreating "the old IBA model" on anything approaching a sustainable scale in the modern era.
Just endlessly restating an opinion or belief, without any supporting evidence to support same, doesn't make that opinion or belief justifiable or true or valid.
The trouble is that it is just your opinion - it is not supported by any specific evidence, whether from yourself or by reference to any third parties. You make general statements as if they were proven fact.
You state that the coverage is not accurate for various reasons - go on then explain your conclusions - if, as you say, you can.
Why do you presume that someone who disagrees with you must be employed in the planning of UK terrestrial coverage? You are happy to give your own opinions as if they were fact so what "expertise" is that based upon?
And how do you know, in answer to an earlier post, that station operators do not understand technical issues.
What has Channel 4 drama got to do with anything and what on earth makes you think that a disparate group of local TV operators could come remotely close to recreating "the old IBA model" on anything approaching a sustainable scale in the modern era.
Just endlessly restating an opinion or belief, without any supporting evidence to support same, doesn't make that opinion or belief justifiable or true or valid.
A example is the Manchester petal.
The practical antenna shown , in the Arqiva planning done on behalf of Ofcom should be the actual radiation pattern of the antennas installed .
The coverage map doesn't appear to show the reduction in power of +/- 10deg,20deg 40deg etc.
The other issue that doesn't seem to have been considered is if the main muxes are a specific ERP then the local TV modulated at QPSK shouldn't be any lower than 9dB .
The simple reason is the relative much higher power would result in terrestrial viewers installing antennas,splitters etc ,sometimes in roof spaces due to the strong RF power of the main muxes in some area's
In such instances if the extra loss due to viewers installing loft antennas ect ,the local TV will not work where the main muxes are working, including those viewers with greater than 10dB of terrain or building clutter,attenuation.
Another issue is on CATV systems .
You cannot have in large systems a multiplex 20 dB lower on adjacent channells were a amplifier is near its maximum output capability as this will drop the local TV mux into the noise and or the IP products generated in the CATV amp.
The solution in such installations is a relatively expensive fix as the off air muxes each have to be processed individualy via a IF SAW filter .
I do not think many terrestrial viewers will go to the expense of upgrading their antenna system for local TV .
Therefore it is a responsibility of the planners to consider these issues in the design .
What those planning should be doing is to make every effort to not impede the coverage of local TV and have a open mind to any suggestions that can be economically utilised to improve coverage .
As far as the Manchester petal is concerned what is needed is a increase in power ,but if this is not within budget at least broaden the radiation pattern of the four log antennas used .
But at the risk of sounding like a broken record , competent testing of the coverage area is needed , to confirm the intended coverage and also so advertisers can have some realistic figuire on viewer numbers,.
Local TV must get the coverage needed to make them comercially viable.
TV must get the coverage needed to make it commercially viable.
With respect it is my opinion that some coverage maps are not accurate .
If you are saying that the coverage maps produced have been corrobirated by accurate tests in the coverage areas , I will accept your argument.
But I believe the coverage shown in some cases is not accurate for variouse reasons .
Despite your well documented grievances with Arqiva, the procedures they use for modelling are well tested and the coverage maps they produce are largely accurate. This is easily verified by reading reception reports from viewers in the relevant areas, and there are more people picking these channels up who are supposed to be outside the coverage area, than there are people in the predicted coverage area who have been unable to tune in.
Unless you can provide some documentary evidence that the coverage is not as good as predicted then my input on this ends here.
...in some areas the coverage is extremely poor .
This in my opinion is through lack of technical knowledge or another agenda.
Technically, I am not in the editorial coverage area of Sheffield Live. I could quite easily install an aerial and point it at the Sheffield transmitter. The problem is that I have seen the dire editorial/production quality of the programmes produced by this station. Even if I could receive it, I wouldn't watch it. Until the stations actually produce something worth watching, it doesn't really matter if they have excellent or poor coverage, nobody will be watching either way.
Despite your well documented grievances with Arqiva, the procedures they use for modelling are well tested and the coverage maps they produce are largely accurate.
From what I have seen, the maps have been largely accurate. I would agree that this is just another example of Mike 2E0MEQ falsely laying any blame at Arqiva's door.
Despite your well documented grievances with Arqiva, the procedures they use for modelling are well tested and the coverage maps they produce are largely accurate. This is easily verified by reading reception reports from viewers in the relevant areas, and there are more people picking these channels up who are supposed to be outside the coverage area, than there are people in the predicted coverage area who have been unable to tune in.
Unless you can provide some documentary evidence that the coverage is not as good as predicted then my input on this ends here.
Of course some viewers outside the coverage area are going to get reception .
The variables in reception conditions are considerable.
This doesn't mean however that 90% of freeview viewers within the proposed coverage area will get reception
As I stated what is needed is not the odd viewer outside the coverage area stating they can receive local TV ,but a accurate audit of the actual coverage and if it is not as it should be it then needs to be fixed.
My doubts would then be proved wrong and the coverage plan published proved correct .
I have no problem in providing some more technical input to support my concerns ,but I do not wish to alianate others on this forum ,it is not my intention.
As for Arqiva on reflection I have no gripe with them ,it is any monopoly I have issues with , but this is something we have to live with in society and it is the elected politicians who decide if monopolies are in the public interest , not some grumpy old sod like me.
My input on this forum is purly to support local TV and if any input I have provides some
usefull input to others that if nothing else provokes those responsible to look at alternative options to improve coverage ,this is my only motive.
Comments
They are currently on Virgin only in a few parts of Oxford.
You are on a VM headend - or you are not.
Mind you they (or predecessor) wrote a letter to me to advise that they were going to dig a cable across my verge in 6 months time. Twenty-two years later they still haven't.
That have done the same in Southampton - saying they are but they are not.
Although it doesn't seem to match the actual programmes.
On screen and in the media, Mr. Cass appears to very confident and capable. But in reality, he seems to be all mouth and no trousers.
You must give a little time for local TV to get all technical issues right.
Other local TV stations in the past had loads of technical issues unresolved .
It's easy to be critical ,but the obstacles in setting up a TV station are huge..
You only need to see the constant screw ups on outside broadcasts at the BBC to see there is a shortage of competent talent..
A lot of this in the past and relatively recently with the consolidation of IBA and the ITV regions into large company's run by bean counters ,who retired early a considerable amount of engineering talent .
This also happened at the BBC with the outsourcing policy they adopted .
The engineering 'talent' being laid off that you speak of unfortunately aren't used to working with the vastly restricted budgets these stations operate on. I know plenty of people who believe you can't spend less than £75k on a vision mixer.
The key is the budget.
Revenue needs to support the talent and creative skills needed to produce quality content.
The lack of understanding by senior managment in the past of all the key issues in sustaining revinue to meet operating and fixed costs , in particular if those costs are far too high.
What is evolving now is the lessons learnt in the past and that is you cannot spend what you don't earn .
Some have managed with hardly any making it on screen - in all it's time on air I've seen a grand total of three on Notts TV (1. Virgin managed to get the launch date wrong and added them late, 2. some video on day 1 was rather juddery, 3. an STV Glasgow news slate ended up on screen at the start of one days broadcasts) and they stand out as they are so few and far between,
Yes the programmes are not quite a slick as prime time BBC one, but comparing with East Midlands Today there's little difference* in quality of what comes out the screen - the most noticeable thing is/was the lack of experience evident at times (however no worse than those new ones that make it to EMT**), however they have got slicker and better in the first year on air.
* Apart from the really noticeable way Notts TV seems to get out across more of Nottingham unlike EMT which seems to stick to within a mile of the BBC Island.
** And of course with the likes of EMT a new presenter gets to be carried by the more experienced members of the team for a while as they tend to be in lesser roles, with year one of Local TV they didn't have that crutch.
(It has to be said I still find it funny that Notts TV has way more, strong, northern accents on screen than North West Tonight ever did while I was growing up!)
I know Manchester and Preston have been hit with delays thanks to the owner changing rather late in the day, but better can be done than it sounds like they are achieving up in Manchester.
As have the previous Oxford local TV stations. Oxford first had local TV 16 years ago...
I don't see too many technical issues, the problems really revolve around appalling editorial and production values
You seem obsessed with major technical problems, that actually don't exist
It's the numbers game in a multichannel environment .
To obtain a realistic revinue stream the viewer numbers have to add up.
The major channells take the bulk of the advertising revinue available .
Local TV has the option of attracting local businesses .
But to do this the number of potential viewers reached has to be viable.
What has happened in the past and is also happening today , in some areas the coverage is extremely poor .
This in my opinion is through lack of technical knowledge or another agenda .
What ever the cause the net effect is the same and that is reduced income.
Consequently attracting investors and advertisers is a up hill task .
Ofcom have chosen to ignore this and apart from one individule it seems have done nothing about it .
Give some specific examples rather than just throwing this out as a convenient argument.
Local TV elsewhere thrives because local or regional stations are generally affiliated to the main national networks and have greater revenue potential as a result.
In the UK there is the question of whether the current model for Local TV is financially viable (other than where operated on a low cost, low quality model). The stations do not have programming that can generate revenue sufficient to fund a quality local news operation. Some have small potential markets in the first place, and it is also questionable as to whether "local" businesses can provide a sustainable revenue base on their own.
It remains a political vanity project in my view - it may find a niche in some markets but it is unlikely to ever be a commercially sustainable model other than on a community level. The best stations appear to be those tied to an existing broadcaster (STV) or the more genuinely community based stations.
The difficulties experienced in Manchester (a large market) by the initial licensee and the current incumbent (first in Solent & Oxford, and still no sign of the Preston & Blackpool station or of an Ofcom award to them of the Carlisle licence) are indicative of some of the problems. It seems unlikely at the moment that any licences will be advertised beyond those already granted, and it remains to be seen what happens if any existing incumbent goes bust.
First of all coverage is poor in many locations and this does need to be resolved to increase revinue.
Their is no reasons why the old IBA model cannot be implemented to pool resources accross most of the local TV stations to create quality programs .
Ch 4 has been successfull in improving drama quality to be shown in the 9pm slot ,in particular when ITV and BBC are broadcasting sport at these times.
What areas? Why aren't the broadcasters themselves kicking up a fuss about this poor coverage and the alleged impact it's having on their revenue?
Very simple .
With the odd exception they do not understand the technical issues .
By they ,I mean the station operators .
What hasn't been done in the majority of cases is a test to establish the actual coverage.
Plus no attempt to improve coverage when the solutions can be very simple indeed .
This lack of understanding and consequently not prioritising to resolve this has in my opinion contributed to a large extent to the comercial failure of local TV in the past and will do in the future unless it is resolved .
The coverage maps are accurate enough and somewhat pessimistic compared to actual coverage in a number of cases. The local TV channels are well aware of any coverage issues and improvements have been negotiated where it has been deemed to be a problem - however it should be noted that they applied for the licences based on the coverage maps.
If you are saying that the coverage maps produced have been corrobirated by accurate tests in the coverage areas , I will accept your argument.
But I believe the coverage shown in some cases is not accurate for variouse reasons .
If you wish me to explain my conclusions ,I can do this .
However if you are indicating that you have a open mind and where coverage doesn't provide what is indicated ,you would accept suggestions on what is needed to resolve the problem..
I presume you are employed in the planning of UK terrestrial coverage.
The trouble is that it is just your opinion - it is not supported by any specific evidence, whether from yourself or by reference to any third parties. You make general statements as if they were proven fact.
You state that the coverage is not accurate for various reasons - go on then explain your conclusions - if, as you say, you can.
Why do you presume that someone who disagrees with you must be employed in the planning of UK terrestrial coverage? You are happy to give your own opinions as if they were fact so what "expertise" is that based upon?
And how do you know, in answer to an earlier post, that station operators do not understand technical issues.
What has Channel 4 drama got to do with anything and what on earth makes you think that a disparate group of local TV operators could come remotely close to recreating "the old IBA model" on anything approaching a sustainable scale in the modern era.
Just endlessly restating an opinion or belief, without any supporting evidence to support same, doesn't make that opinion or belief justifiable or true or valid.
A example is the Manchester petal.
The practical antenna shown , in the Arqiva planning done on behalf of Ofcom should be the actual radiation pattern of the antennas installed .
The coverage map doesn't appear to show the reduction in power of +/- 10deg,20deg 40deg etc.
The other issue that doesn't seem to have been considered is if the main muxes are a specific ERP then the local TV modulated at QPSK shouldn't be any lower than 9dB .
The simple reason is the relative much higher power would result in terrestrial viewers installing antennas,splitters etc ,sometimes in roof spaces due to the strong RF power of the main muxes in some area's
In such instances if the extra loss due to viewers installing loft antennas ect ,the local TV will not work where the main muxes are working, including those viewers with greater than 10dB of terrain or building clutter,attenuation.
Another issue is on CATV systems .
You cannot have in large systems a multiplex 20 dB lower on adjacent channells were a amplifier is near its maximum output capability as this will drop the local TV mux into the noise and or the IP products generated in the CATV amp.
The solution in such installations is a relatively expensive fix as the off air muxes each have to be processed individualy via a IF SAW filter .
I do not think many terrestrial viewers will go to the expense of upgrading their antenna system for local TV .
Therefore it is a responsibility of the planners to consider these issues in the design .
What those planning should be doing is to make every effort to not impede the coverage of local TV and have a open mind to any suggestions that can be economically utilised to improve coverage .
As far as the Manchester petal is concerned what is needed is a increase in power ,but if this is not within budget at least broaden the radiation pattern of the four log antennas used .
But at the risk of sounding like a broken record , competent testing of the coverage area is needed , to confirm the intended coverage and also so advertisers can have some realistic figuire on viewer numbers,.
Local TV must get the coverage needed to make them comercially viable.
TV must get the coverage needed to make it commercially viable.
Despite your well documented grievances with Arqiva, the procedures they use for modelling are well tested and the coverage maps they produce are largely accurate. This is easily verified by reading reception reports from viewers in the relevant areas, and there are more people picking these channels up who are supposed to be outside the coverage area, than there are people in the predicted coverage area who have been unable to tune in.
Unless you can provide some documentary evidence that the coverage is not as good as predicted then my input on this ends here.
Technically, I am not in the editorial coverage area of Sheffield Live. I could quite easily install an aerial and point it at the Sheffield transmitter. The problem is that I have seen the dire editorial/production quality of the programmes produced by this station. Even if I could receive it, I wouldn't watch it. Until the stations actually produce something worth watching, it doesn't really matter if they have excellent or poor coverage, nobody will be watching either way.
From what I have seen, the maps have been largely accurate. I would agree that this is just another example of Mike 2E0MEQ falsely laying any blame at Arqiva's door.
Of course some viewers outside the coverage area are going to get reception .
The variables in reception conditions are considerable.
This doesn't mean however that 90% of freeview viewers within the proposed coverage area will get reception
As I stated what is needed is not the odd viewer outside the coverage area stating they can receive local TV ,but a accurate audit of the actual coverage and if it is not as it should be it then needs to be fixed.
My doubts would then be proved wrong and the coverage plan published proved correct .
I have no problem in providing some more technical input to support my concerns ,but I do not wish to alianate others on this forum ,it is not my intention.
As for Arqiva on reflection I have no gripe with them ,it is any monopoly I have issues with , but this is something we have to live with in society and it is the elected politicians who decide if monopolies are in the public interest , not some grumpy old sod like me.
My input on this forum is purly to support local TV and if any input I have provides some
usefull input to others that if nothing else provokes those responsible to look at alternative options to improve coverage ,this is my only motive.