Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

First 20 Towns/Cities for Local TV Announced


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-12-2011, 12:15
IanP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,126

First 20 locations set to receive local TV are unveiled
The first ‘pioneer areas’ are expected to be: Belfast, Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Grimsby, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth, Preston, Southampton and Swansea.
IanP is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 13-12-2011, 12:58
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,436
The full release contains some more info http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/8703.aspx

Originally Posted by dcms
A further 24 areas identified for a future round of licensing are: Aberdeen,
Ayr, Bangor, Barnstaple, Basingstoke, Bedford, Cambridge, Carlisle, Derry/Londonderry, Dundee, Guildford, Hereford, Inverness, Kidderminster, Limavady, Luton, Maidstone, Malvern, Mold, Salisbury, Sheffield, Stoke on Trent, Stratford upon Avon and York.
Originally Posted by dcms
Also today, the Government is publishing more detail of the new framework for local TV. Spectrum will be awarded through a competitive process to a multiplex operator to provide the distribution for local TV. The multiplex operator will also be able to utilise two additional videostreams with the potential to create two quasi-national channels. The competition for the multiplex licence will be open to both commercial and not-for-profit bids. A range of conditions will require the holder of the multiplex licence to promote local TV; offer good quality coverage and transmission; and recover carriage costs no greater than the costs of transmission at each location from each digital local TV service.
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 14:03
Ray Cathode
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
There's a consolidated list on my website www.10ash.info under "Charts" and then "Local_TV.pdf".
Ray Cathode is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 14:37
lf2k7
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The "dead" centre of Norfolk.
Posts: 784
Its a pity DVB-T2 isn't being mandated.

And it all seems a bit daft having a low bandwidth mux to carry menandmotors (or whatever) - its pre-DSO all over again.

Surely it'd be easier to find capacity on one of the existing muxs, for what local little content will be economic to produce?
lf2k7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 15:25
DragonQ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,224
I'd love to know how this is going to work in Guildford, where nearly all aerials point towards the Crystal Palace transmitter rather than the tiny Guildford one. How will we get any local TV?

The whole thing seems really stupid. A really inefficient coding system, which provides about 8 Mbps of bandwidth. Fine for two channels but Ofcom reckon this is good enough for three, which means there'll inevitably be four. Why not just use DVB-T2 and 16/64QAM? According to Ofcom's document, these new multiplexes are going to be at "modest" power levels compared to the 6 normal multiplexes. However, this is unlikely to be less than is currently used in pre-DSO areas (typically 10% power compared to post-DSO areas), so why is there such a need to use QPSK?

Also, the whole point of DTT is that it's regional. Freeview already has regional variations of the PSB channels depending on which transmitter your aerial is pointed at, so why can't we use the existing system for local TV? Then we could use this 7th multiplex for more HD channels on DVB-T2.
DragonQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 15:36
kev
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: South Notts (Waltham TV TX)
Posts: 19,396
The whole thing seems really stupid. A really inefficient coding system, which provides about 8 Mbps of bandwidth. Fine for two channels but it clearly won't be long until they're trying to cram 4 or 5 on there. Why not just use DVB-T2 and 16/64QAM? IIRC from the PDF they're going to be around half the power of a full transmitter, which is much more power than pre-DSO DTT transmitters use anyway, so why is this a problem?
Using DVB-T will mean the service is available to a significantly larger number of people than DVB-T.

The aerial transmitter patterns look the limiting factor - Where I live will be outside of the coverage of the predicted Nottingham service dispite me being 2km as the bird flies from the city centre, and being able to get pre-DSO Freeview on an indoor aerial with ease! Oh, and it will be available across large swathes of Lincolnshire!
kev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 18:38
Ray Cathode
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
why is there such a need to use QPSK?
The Channel M experience shows why. Using QPSK gives a small margin against high power DTT frequencies and maximises the coverage.

Using 16QAM leaves no margin against high power muxes and reduces coverage (but allows more channels). Channel M have gone this way and lost much of their audience. The margin between high power DTT and local TV, means that the local TV signal is ignored as background noise, or is beyond the capacity of the receiver.

Future receivers will have more overload capacity to protect against 4G and I assume this will help with low power local TV reception.

Using DVB-T2 would improve matters. But the local TV Cos would want the maximum audience which means DVB-T.

As local TV will only produce one channel in any area, any surplus capacity can be used to pay for the technical infrastructure. In this proposal Arqiva get two channels in a quasi national network. I think it will work as long as Arqiva aren't allowed to increase their own channels if the coding changed to DVB-T2 in the future.
Ray Cathode is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 18:42
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,358
At least we got left off it, good, people won't be asking for money to run it, as I doubt they will get enough advertising to keep it running for long.

I can't imagine a local T.v here would be that interesting, Today Hereford united loses ( Again), the weather is cloudy and there is a market in the city centre.

that will fill about half a hour
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 18:48
ProDave
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Northern Scottish Highlands
Posts: 11,303
I wonder how this will work.

I see Inverness is in the second batch.

so where will it broadcast from? The Rosemarkie transmitter where 99% of people's aerials point now? or the tiny inverness relay that's only used by a handful who are in a shadow from Rosemarkie?

If the latter, then I can see the other 99% won't be bothered to go to the trouble of a second aerial just for a tiny local station.

When will that sort of detail be published?
ProDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 18:54
kev
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: South Notts (Waltham TV TX)
Posts: 19,396
I wonder how this will work.

I see Inverness is in the second batch.

so where will it broadcast from? The Rosemarkie transmitter where 99% of people's aerials point now? or the tiny inverness relay that's only used by a handful who are in a shadow from Rosemarkie?

If the latter, then I can see the other 99% won't be bothered to go to the trouble of a second aerial just for a tiny local station.

When will that sort of detail be published?
A few months ago (although it seams there has been a bit of tweaking - I'm now inside coverage of the Nottingham service!)

http://maps.ofcom.org.uk/localtv/index.html

Inverness predicted coverage map using Rosemarkie
http://ofcom.org.uk/static/maps/loca.../Inverness.png

(The licensees can to some degree change the TX site - e.g. in Nottingham they may choose to use a new site closer to the city than Waltham (in addition to Nottingham) - the aerial pattern may also differ)
kev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 18:56
jhall1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cranleigh, Surrey
Posts: 281
I'd love to know how this is going to work in Guildford, where nearly all aerials point towards the Crystal Palace transmitter rather than the tiny Guildford one. How will we get any local TV?
(snip)
Yes, I live only nine miles to the south-southeast of Guildford, but my own aerial points at the Midhurst transmitter (Meridian region), which is in a totally different direction. Most people around here use Midhurst, as it gives much better reception due to transmitter power combined with the local topography.
jhall1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 19:02
ProDave
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Northern Scottish Highlands
Posts: 11,303
A few months ago (although it seams there has been a bit of tweaking - I'm now inside coverage of the Nottingham service!)

http://maps.ofcom.org.uk/localtv/index.html

Inverness predicted coverage map using Rosemarkie
http://ofcom.org.uk/static/maps/loca.../Inverness.png

(The licensees can to some degree change the TX site - e.g. in Nottingham they may choose to use a new site closer to the city than Waltham (in addition to Nottingham) - the aerial pattern may also differ)
Thanks

I guess they can also choose the tx power, so even though I'm (just) in that coverage area, if the tx power is low, I might not receive it.
ProDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 19:22
FRANKIE RAY
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 236
In this proposal Arqiva get two channels in a quasi national network. I think it will work as long as Arqiva aren't allowed to increase their own channels if the coding changed to DVB-T2 in the future.
Yet another gross expansion of a monopoly.
FRANKIE RAY is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 19:44
Winston_1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,148
It's all been done before in analogue and died a death. Remember TV 12 on Isle of Wight, mostly relayed Sky News, failed and replaced with Solent TV which also failed. There were local stations in Southampton and Portsmouth which also failed. One planned for West London never actually happened. There were similar stories in much of the rest of the UK.
Winston_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 19:54
Ray Cathode
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
It's all been done before in analogue and died a death. Remember TV 12 on Isle of Wight, mostly relayed Sky News, failed and replaced with Solent TV which also failed. There were local stations in Southampton and Portsmouth which also failed. One planned for West London never actually happened. There were similar stories in much of the rest of the UK.
But the difference now is that the broadcasting is free onwards from the signal leaving the local TV studios. Also the BBC are paying for certain start up costs and commissioning programmes.

Plus the government has an interest in local TV succeeding, so that MPs can get on your TV.

I hope it succeeds. It has a better chance than the old days.
Ray Cathode is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 19:58
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,358
It's all been done before in analogue and died a death. Remember TV 12 on Isle of Wight, mostly relayed Sky News, failed and replaced with Solent TV which also failed. There were local stations in Southampton and Portsmouth which also failed. One planned for West London never actually happened. There were similar stories in much of the rest of the UK.

There was something a few years back on one of the BBc interactive channels before they ditched most of them. I remember a mate of mine and his singing partner was on there.

That was localish, but also died a death
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 19:59
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,358
But the difference now is that the broadcasting is free onwards from the signal leaving the local TV studios. Also the BBC are paying for certain start up costs and commissioning programmes.

Plus the government has an interest in local TV succeeding, so that MPs can get on your TV.

I hope it succeeds. It has a better chance than the old days.
so we can have our MP propaganda on T.V as well as on radio and in the local papers.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 20:17
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 16,088
this will really confuse people all over again. The big difference in signal foot print will mean a lot of people will wonder why they cant get their new local channel when they do get the rest of the freeview service. How long before we see shops selling Digital V2.0 aerials?

Plus the idea that people in 2012 will want or bother with a local tv channel that most people cant even pick up. That world doesnt exist anymore. In a Multichannel world (even with FreeviewLite) there are simply too many channel choices, and most people will (and are) be tuned to one of those.

Even if you give the channel its own web site, the problem of "choice" is still there - even more so. Why would people bother with that site compared with the other few million sites out there. Many (most if you look this stuff up) towns have a local web site, and the content is not the issue - the problem is gettng enough people to use the site. From what I have seen, some have hardly any user activity.
David (2) is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 20:19
marria01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 323
In this proposal Arqiva get two channels in a quasi national network.
Jumping the gun a bit there aren't you? MuxCo will get any additional channels. The awards will be a beauty pageant, it's also thought that a non-profit organisation will be preferred. Would Arqiva want to run it as a non-profit? Highly unlikely.

But don't worry, they'll still build and run it all, but they'll only be making a profit on service contracts for the transmitters, not the carriage, as that will be used to fund MuxCo, who will in turn, pay Arqiva. So Arqiva wins, again.

The licensees will have to make do with advertising revenue, which the government have said they can do nothing to help sort out. So left to themselves they'll generate next to nothing and fold within months.

I'd rather they'd have spent the £40 million from the beeb actually on the beeb, as opposed to just pissing it up the wall, lining Arqiva's pockets and providing a sub-par TV offering to the handful of homes that will be able to receive it.
marria01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 20:24
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 16,088
give the money back to the beeb and maybe they would not have needed to sell 50% of the 2012 F1 races to Sky. Food for thought.
David (2) is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 21:12
kev
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: South Notts (Waltham TV TX)
Posts: 19,396
Jumping the gun a bit there aren't you? MuxCo will get any additional channels. The awards will be a beauty pageant, it's also thought that a non-profit organisation will be preferred. Would Arqiva want to run it as a non-profit? Highly unlikely.
Whoever wins it is going to need to pay Arqiva anyway - seams likely they would be able to mount the cheapest bid (as they can leverage there existing equipment and personnel and won't need to spend too much time gaining access to sites) - the last thing we want is to end up with local TV coming from "Bolton Water Tower" and the like.

I'd rather they'd have spent the £40 million from the beeb actually on the beeb, as opposed to just pissing it up the wall, lining Arqiva's pockets and providing a sub-par TV offering to the handful of homes that will be able to receive it.
Spot on - shame the BBC or perhaps Channel 4 wasn't allowed to continue with their local tv trial - seams rather wasteful to have a whole multiplex for what will effectively be 90 minutes or so of programming a day on a loop.

Heck this would be the ideal sort of thing to fit around some channels - imagine BBC Knowledge being resurrected and having Nottingham TV news and local programming at set times, More 4 + and having Derby TV news and local programming at the same set times, and PBS UK with Leicester news and local programming at set times.

You'd end up with some channels showing quality documentaries and drama from the BBC, Channel 4 and American tv archives mixed with more recent material - and a way of giving more visibility to local tv!

The capacity could then be "gifted" on a beauty contest basis - i.e. Nottingham TV would only pay production costs and the costs of getting the programming to the BBC East Midlands studios, and the BBC would the be responsible for getting it to air
kev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 22:56
marria01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 323
Whoever wins it is going to need to pay Arqiva anyway - seams likely they would be able to mount the cheapest bid (as they can leverage there existing equipment and personnel and won't need to spend too much time gaining access to sites) - the last thing we want is to end up with local TV coming from "Bolton Water Tower" and the like.
The MuxCo award will be a 'beauty pageant', so I'm not sure it's as simple as bidding the least. That said, I don't think they'd be the cheapest. Like any large company, they're likely to have massive overheads.

To be fair, the water tower was actually a very good site for Channel M's analogue service. However, it too was an Arqiva site.
marria01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2011, 23:58
Ray Cathode
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
The licensees will have to make do with advertising revenue, which the government have said they can do nothing to help sort out. So left to themselves they'll generate next to nothing and fold within months.
I think we will see a lot of "sponsored by" banks, flower shops, car sales etc.
Ray Cathode is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2011, 00:12
marria01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 323
I think we will see a lot of "sponsored by" banks, flower shops, car sales etc.
That's assuming they can persuade anyone to part with their cash to pay for it. Without credible viewing figures or advertising 'currency', they could have a massively tough sell on their hands.

If I were the type of business person to buy advertising on a service like that, I'd want to see viewing figures. Same as if I was buying radio advertising, I'd want to see RAJAR results for the station I was buying from.
marria01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2011, 07:31
kev
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: South Notts (Waltham TV TX)
Posts: 19,396
The MuxCo award will be a 'beauty pageant', so I'm not sure it's as simple as bidding the least. That said, I don't think they'd be the cheapest. Like any large company, they're likely to have massive overheads.

To be fair, the water tower was actually a very good site for Channel M's analogue service. However, it too was an Arqiva site.
Surely part of that beauty pageant is going to be how much it costs the local tv licensee to gain access to the multiplex - which is where Arqiva will have the upper hand.
kev is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:59.