Digital UK manages the EPG and would coordinate any reshuffle required.

As suggested on their website, http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/industry under 'Channel Updates' in the last couple of weeks, that they are due to announce in the autumn the arrangement for a channel to be slotted on LCN 48 and channels available on a 'geographically shared' basis.

Other than in NI and Manchester, viewers see gaps between LCN 51-53, 56, 60, 62 because they are allocated in Manchester and the first three in NI. Perhaps to reserve LCNs for 'geographically shared' areas between LCN 51 and 60 and any national channels such as BT Sport, True Entertainment, 5 Later are to be moved down beyond LCN 61? Or to move the current 'geographically shared' channels down the list and the national ones up towards LCN 51.

As previous posters have said, only a couple of more channels slotted when LCN 65 has been allocated to trigger a 16 week scheduled change for the childrens' and news sections to start from 121 and 131 respectively.

Other than a potential shuffle up for LCN 48, changes when TUTV closes on November 1 for LCN 26 & 54 and changes to the childrens' and news sections as outlined above; there will be no foreseeable major reshuffles. Where channels would continue to be added at the end of the channel sections as when they are launched including placeholders reserved.

To explain further.

Firstly, let me quote Digital UK from that page you linked just for clarity of my post:


Section 8.2 of the LCN policy defines the order of how a vacant LCN is offered to other broadcasters. It's generally associated channels to those nearest the vacant LCN.

However as it stands at the moment (pre-TUTV close), the LCN is close enough that Movies4Men (Manchester) is actually the closest franchise of channels on a lower LCN. This is what the consultation is to be about.

Changing local LCNs has issues - as they are shared. So would, in this example, a M4M channel move on it's own? If so, that creates more gaps unnecessarily. The current regionalised system works at the moment because the LCNs are shared - so there is no wastage.

To take this further, when TUTV closes and there is opertunity of reshuffling of national channels (generally Channel 5) per Section 8.2, it will open up more gaps in the EPG near the regional channels. The same question applies then - can, and how, do they move?

I think the outcome of this consultation will be what appears (at least to me) to be the most practical: Section 8.2 does not apply to regional channels (or at least those sharing LCNs).

However, I think an ulterior reason behind this consultation is Digital UK trying to get the elusive LCN 65 filled as fast as possible.

Unfortunately when the last consultation and mini-reshuffle happened, the shopping and gaming channels were not moved to their own section which was a huge mistake and should be something that is done ASAP. Whilst some of the broadcasters won't like it, it would also be much better if the channels were re-ordered completely and arranged by channel family like they are on Freesat. More logical numbering would be a lot less hassle for people. Common sense sadly never prevails in these cases.

I totally agree with you a shopping channel section and channels arranged by family are two great ideas for freeview.
The best and I mean the real best would be for all platforms to use the same LCNs for the same channels on all the different platforms. It would be just like the main 5 PSBs in that they all have the same numbers on all platforms (except of course freeview where they are 100 LCNs down).
It would be a master UK EPG that works across all platforms! freeview and freesat may have quite a few gaps, but it would be a lot clearer and maybe it could be force though that all FTA channels get the best LCNs anyway (except shopping channels of course!).

It's all controlled by Digital UK. They have a consultation about it every year or so and then do something completely different

No, it's all the other platforms that have them 100 LCNs up

One thing that puzzles me is why people refer to the 5 Main PSB
- why not ALL PSB channels .. after all the legislation makes no difference between types of PSB....

But do we want a PSB Ghetto ???
Each platform has different rules of operation of the EPG - which reflect their different business model ..
and thus need from their stakeholders.
for instance the UK digital EPG has no explicit Genre classifications unlike other EPGS
( Because it has no control over the STB/TV) while all the others have this ...
But in the future how much is a numeric EPG going to matter?

I think it matters now and it will be useful in the future.

Genres are useful and tidy and EPG positions are also tidy but gives grouping

Linking your numbering system to another EPG has its advantages too using maybe 3 digit numbers may work better.

Being different or individual is better maybe when it works and it's uniqueness adds value but a hindrance in the case of the system Freeview is using.

Just having ITV 2/3/4 next to each other makes sense and likewise for other group lot helps people too.

Because they (well, certainly the first four) are still in the public physic as the 'proper telly' channels, and that will take a while to filter away

Others laugh at the notion that BBC 3 is PSB, and quite honestly I mentally stick it in the same junk box as C5 and ITV 2

I know someone that has reordered his channels as follows

BBC1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, C5, ITV 1, ITV 2, ITV 3, ITV 4, C4, E4, M4, F4

odd you mention those as the first is a PSB and the is currently not!

ITV3+1 has today moved from LCN 63 to LCN 34 (Crystal Palace).

Coincidentally ITV3 was originally on 34.

That's right, it moved to 10 when Teletext moved from 9 to 100, and BBC Four moved from 10 to 9.