Give me local TV over shopping and porn anyday.

Lets at least give it a go!!

Well it's not supposed to be just news on them - the other programmes proposed by certain operators (obviously nothing finalised yet!) look interesting - it may give the opportunity for niche sports to get an airing on tv (e.g. Ice Hockey, Rugby (outside the towns with huge clubs) etc) and will also give future talent a chance to demonstrate there talent.

Naturally there will be a lot of dross that I won't be interested in, but then again ITV manage to make four channels of dross that do have an appeal to someone, but there are sure to be gems there - and it might finally gives us a chance to find out about some positives in our towns which the press seam to be barred from reporting on.


Ray Cathode - moving average LCNs are never really going to work now are they? - The broadcasters wouldn't want a constant change, and as a viewer I wouldn't too - not to mention what on earth happens with new channels and ones re-branded. Moving LCNs is about the only way you could make the Freeview EPG any worse short of cloning the Sky one.


Not too bad an idea that!

In reality they only hope for a sane resolution is for the shopping/encrypted channels to be moved out the way then for something along the following lines to be adopted :-

6 - Local TV / BBC Alba / Channel 4 Wales / RTÉ TG4
7 - Local TV Scotland / Wales / Northern Ireland / ITV-2 England
8 - BBC Three
9 - BBC Four
10 - ITV 2 (ITV1+1 in England)
11 - ITV 3
12 - Pick TV
13 - Yesterday
14 - Channel 4+1
15 - More 4
16 - Film 4
17 - E4
18 - E4+1 (then 4 Music on 28)
19+ As present

Although quite frankly a full reshuffle is needed.

Hi


Give me better quality SD and HD for that matter rather than local TV or porn any day

What a state UK TV has become, once our 3 or 4 channels were the envy of the world, now it's no different to all the other dross in other countries, I guess some call it progress, and someone must be ordering that rubbish on the 'gems' channels

Come on, £80,000 down to £199.00 plus P&P for some gem stone you've never heard of, who falls for it, and who allows it? Presumably the customers are those people getting pay-day loans to buy them. I

Regards

Phil

No, our TV is streets ahead of anything I've seen abroad, and in fact the best of our TV is sold to just about every other country.

Sure we produce dross, but if you're selective there's always an hour or two a night of something worthwhile.

Ever seen BBC 4 ?

Phil, I'm not sure local TV will make the other channels any better or any worse program wise. I agree about the Gems channels by the way.

I think the problem is that some people think we'll have the sort of things American public access TV was like and could still be like, been years since I last saw it, which was niche shows that had minimual money and gave you 30-60mins of very little.

I think if done properly and if money can come in from right sources (namely a sponsor like in the good old days of American radio when all sorts of firms sponsored slots in their local area, it might get a bit odd sometimes but it would be different) you might get a few shows worth the trouble and it may also highlight the postives of some towns and cities that get a bad press.

BBC warns on MuxCo subleasing



The documents alluded to are attached to the Ofcom consultation. Lots of reading there!

9 Mbps can only accommodate 3 SD streams (in fact, 2 would be more ideal). Let's hope they don't try to squeeze in any more than that!

Not according to Channel M

Three is what the mux is (will be) limited to by licence.

That probably won't stop them squeezing three streams into 90% of the mux and cramming as much data and radio as they can into the other 10% (IIRC 10% is the max space additional services can take up), but at least we know they won't be carrying anything the BBC finds objectionable, as they won't risk passing up the bags of free money being handed out.

The reality is to ensure the transmission is robust enough and get reasonable coverage due to the low power ,risk of CCI , the guard interval needed and because the interleaved spectrum is used only one high quality SD TV program will in most locations be possible.

The architects of this idea I believe know this .

If its is Ofcoms policy to limit the coverage and the amount of TV programs carried by a local telly mux . I have no problem at all with that .

But if these restrictions are being imposed because the planners are spinning this to Ofcom ,that is in my view totally wrong and smacks of the same ethical standards currently in the media about newspapers.

Well it's a local mux and should be used as such but presumably most places will only have a single SD channel anyway. There's no point leaving ~6 Mbps space wasted, even if the multiplex isn't picked up by as many people as the main 6.

With respect , you do not understand the trade off between capacity and how robust the signal is if only one TV program is carried in the mux.
It is equivalent to at least double the transmitter power and also improved coverage in hilly areas depending on how much guard interval is needed..
This is necessary when low power is used and or there is a very restrictive broadcast antenna pattern that is the case with ch M's transmitter and on other RSL,s proposed DVB-T transmitter sites.

You must know that a margin of almost 30dB is being applied for the main transmitters after DSO.

This is to allow for building ,vegetation and terrain clutter

If a 30dB margin was applied to ch M;s very low power 1kW ERP this equivalent to only 1W ERP for any viewer in direct line of sight.

So it is clear the planners are by a very large margin applying double standards and also in particular double standards with protection to relays from interference .

This has resulted in excessive restrictions to RSL,s that are simply not applied to the main six muxes being broadcast.

I can give examples of dozens of instances.

But if the QPSK mode being used can provide 9 Mbps, how is the quality of the signal affected by having 3x 3 Mbps services on it rather than 1x 3 Mbps and 6 Mbps of null data?

I know you have an axe to grind on behalf of Channel M but you are misleading us. The primary network of DTT transmitters is not be be compromised and certain interference levels have been set for very good reason (although 4G will be a European problem).

Local TV is using interleaved spectrum which by definition must be low powered to avoid causing interference to the primary network. Local TV is secondary in importance to the main DTT network. Why should the viewers of Biddulph (a small DTT relay) be compromised by Channel M's desire to broadcast to the whole of Manchester?

I rechecked the proposed technical characteristics for the Manchester local TV mux which looks as though it will be competing with Channel M. Arqiva have suggested 2kW ERP with the antenna about half way up the mast (144m) which is estimated to produce a gross coverage of 1.1 million households at QPSK FEC 2/3.

Assuming similar arrangements surely Channel M would be satisfied with that sort of coverage? I can't see them getting it with an antenna less than 50m high and operating a single channel in 16QAM even if 4kW ERP was allowed. This is local TV and it is not leading the dance; it is following it. I wonder if Channel M will last much longer. It would be better if GMG sold the licence to an organisation that will invest; if it exists. Seeing as the Cardiff local TV licence has never issued a single beep, it may be that the whole idea of Channel M is unviable and will be put down as a failed experiment leading to today's local TV proposals.

If it is Ofcoms intention due to specific instructions from Government that local TV is of secondary importance then I accept some of your argument.

Ofcom is the regulator and they take instruction from government

I believe ch M.s current licence doesn’t restrict them to QPSK .

The only restriction is interference to other areas .

The planners should not be dictating coverage policy , that is Ofcoms responsibility they should doing the planning to a competent standard with no other considerations.

As far as Biddulph is concerned there is no justification whatsoever in restricting power in this direction.

I have done the calculations and even using the most pessimistic formulas it simply will not interfere.

You are also wrong about the TX antenna height.

All increasing the height will do is increase the risk of CCI ,it will not improve coverage in the required coverage area .

I believe I am technically competent enough to understand the interference issues with using the interleaved spectrum .

The existing coverage within the Manchester area is compromised by a large degree with the low ERP of 1kW and as I have mentioned before the extremely unnecessary
radiation pattern of the TX antenna that has been imposed on ch M that causes severe problems with ch 58 broadcasting at 100kW ERP.

The ch 56 proposal at 2kW is a different argument and something I have no opinion at the moment.

I do not know what you have against ch M but you are entitled to your opinion and your opinion doesn’t have any bearing on your integrity.

By the same standard I am entitled to my opinion

I am only pressing my opinions on this forum because I sincerely believe local telly has been getting a very raw deal from the planners.

I have voiced strong views about what I perceive as the wrong doings towards local TV, that I have witnessed for approx ten years with regards
to very restrictive coverage imposed , that in my opinion has had a serious effect on the commercial viability of local TV .

There is probably a handful of engineers in the UK who have the experience other than in Arqiva who can question the technical aspects of planning policy.


There is even less of us who are prepared to voice a opinion on what I believe is an injustice.

It won't be wasted. Capacity is reserved only for one local channel, the mux operator is free to do what they want with the rest (although I think extra local channels is prohibited). Effectively it's the carrot to prop up the mux, as running only one local channel is likely to be loss-making, whereas adding two pseudo-national channels will pay for the bus fare home (and gives them an incentive to roll out to more of the locations Ofcom have identified)

Exactly. So what was FRANKIE RAY on about?

Although I think that having a separate mux operator is totally unnecessary as any local telly station can easily operate its own multiplex that includes combining the EPG into the transport stream .

It is extremely simple to do this for any competent studio engineer , and the cost of the kit , statistical multiplexer, MPEG 2 encoders , microwave STL link is a fraction of what it used to cost.

I remember the very first Cisco multiplexer when On Digital commenced and the cost was I was told by my friend a senior engineer at ITV was in the region of £250K .

These days an all singing/dancing mux including codecs is the price of a second hand Mondeo .

Anyhow I agree with you if it is Ofcoms policy to have two national telly programs and one local program from each local TV transmitter site to generate the revenue to support the on going transmission cost I have no gripe with that at all.

But this was not the case with others currently owning a DVB-T local telly licence and is my understanding not the case with ch M,s current licence.

It was made clear to me by Ofcom that ch M could configure their mux as they pleased and the only relevant issue with regards to coverage in and around Greater Manchester was their broadcast mustn’t interfere with others,

So this is why I have been belly aching about the coverage issue for some time as the low power and poor antenna radiation pattern imposed on ch M by the planners doesn’t provide a satisfactory margin for coverage within Greater Manchester.
Certainly a margin that any competent planner would allow and not what is currently being provided on the main muxes.

As I have commented previously double technical standards are being applied by the planners that results in unsatisfactory coverage and I have also stated on several posts that the restrictions do not stand up to technical scrutiny and this includes applying Ofcoms technical standards and also the European standards agreed as what is called the Chester agreement.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record since local telly first started the coverage on many transmitter sites has been extremely poor.
For example ch M.s first transmitter site was planned by the planners to be sited at Salford University.
A total stupid idea as the majority of viewers would have needed an additional roof top antenna pointing anything up to 180 deg reference to Winter Hil

The transmitter was then re sited to Bolton Water Tower and this ensured most viewers existing rooftop antenna was in the same direction.

But yet again a very miserable and extremely restrictive antenna radiation pattern was imposed by the planners ,something I that I kept coming across on local telly TX sites over the years.

When I did the calculations there simply was no technical justification whatsoever for such restrictions and this included allowing for rare occasions of tropo scatter and ducting.

Moving back to local TV, and Canis Media's CoMuxUK is in the bidding for the multiplex operators' licence.

See also: www.canismedia.co.uk, or my blogspot http://a516.blogspot.com/2012/02/can...-local-tv.html

Intriguing... since they already act as a broker for channel slots, I wonder how well they'd do as MuxCo?


(Also, adding your blog to my RSS feeds, looks very detailed )

Arqiva have published more details of local TV costings and target dates. Very expensive.

http://www.arqiva.com/corporate/pdf/...ce%20Offer.pdf

Yes very expensive indeed, I do not think they can afford it in this day and age, not without government money anyway

Does anyone actually think this Local TV service will be financially viable?

I think that's why they need 2 commercial channels. Guildford looks a bargain compared to others. Also it puts Channel M's costs into perspective. I can see why they couldn't afford the whole Arqiva solution. After initial costs it's not too bad though. Local TV will never make money though.