|
||||||||
Local DAB Build Out |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
Yes, but try the same via 3 or 4G while moving about (I mean from one cell area to another, to another...) and the consumption will be considerably higher
![]() This tangent started when HT said there would be howls of protest in rural areas when FM was switched off, kev said most people in rural areas would get significantly better service (more stations), and I said I didn't think many would find it particularly exciting - given a) the majority of digital listening is to the simulcasts of analogue stations, and b) people who want more choice already have it available if they want - far more choice then they'll ever get from DAB. The few who lose something will moan. The many who get more might not be that excited. If they think anything at all, they'll wonder why they had to wait so long - the world of broadcast infrastructure roll-out almost unavoidably moving more slowly than the other technology that most people use daily. Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 76
|
I notice re the Swansea and sw wales multiplex that there is only one modification planned for step 1 which is to modify Carmel transmitter. (a assuming 1 to 2 KW) There seem to be no step 2 transmitters for swansea I ses that UTV beuer have recently brought Carmarthen and mynydd sylen transmitters into service or at least on test according to ukfreetv and off com tech parameters. In the multiplexes original licence in 2004 i think i read somewhere that the multiplex owners said they would bring extra transmitters into service at carmarthen, llanelli and mynydd emroch when appropriate. I am assuming that multiplexes are now being urged to bring in any extra transmitters they promised before this roll out starts, i.e (north devon recently bringing barnstable and okhampton into service. )
It would seem that mynydd sylen is a replacement for llanelli not sure about mynydd emroch perhaps they won't bother, as reception along the M4 in that area is quite good. The main point to be seems that the transmitter improvements are all in the west of the multiplex area when none in the east like maesteg or north varteg hill or rheola. Compared to the adjoining multiplexes or mid and west wales and se wales both of which are promised several new transmitters in the case of se wales i think about 12. It seems odd that there are so few for Swansea. As others have mentioned in the original off com plans of 2011 2012 there seems far less transmitters than originally planned. Although i am assuming there may well be a step 3 to extend coverage past 90% but that this would be a long way into the future. Also agree with others it seems odd that there are virtually or very few London improvements. I suppose they do say that further planning may include more transmitters but it seems odd that they seem to have done this for some areas now and not others. |
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 76
|
Sorry re above I've noticed various typos which it wouldn't let me edit as it said i had let to long a time pass. Was just going to say in addition slight OT that there seems no definitive list available of new D1 transmitters. If you go to the D1 website there is still a future transmitter section t it still has no substantive list. I wondered if the new D1 transmitters were going to be linked practically and technically with local roll out or whether Arqiva just don't want to say exactly there are going to be new D1 transmitters
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: South Notts (Waltham TV TX)
Posts: 20,200
|
Quote:
Sorry re above I've noticed various typos which it wouldn't let me edit as it said i had let to long a time pass. Was just going to say in addition slight OT that there seems no definitive list available of new D1 transmitters. If you go to the D1 website there is still a future transmitter section t it still has no substantive list. I wondered if the new D1 transmitters were going to be linked practically and technically with local roll out or whether Arqiva just don't want to say exactly there are going to be new D1 transmitters
The nearest we have is DAB coverage planning: report to Government A report to Government on an approach to DAB coverage planning. The report is a technical feasibility study produced as part of the Coverage and Spectrum Planning work set out in the Digital Radio Action Plan, published in 2010. And specifically Annex D (PDF) Of course commercial considerations and/or changes elsewhere may mean some of those sites never happen. 1.1 Proposed additional sites and improvements to existing sites Caldbeck: At the moment this site has a very directional antenna at a relatively low antenna height, this leads to poor coverage to the west and leaves transmission sites of Workington and Whitehaven ‘isolated’. The proposal would be to replace Caldbeck with transmissions similar to the BBC national service at Sandale which is omni-directional. At this time Digital One proposes an ERP in the region of 5kW. This change will have to be coordinated with the Republic of Ireland, the primary reason for the restricted antenna at Caldbeck was to protect Irish analogue TV. Darvel: At the moment Digital One uses a separate antenna to the BBC national. This antenna is lower on the structure and with a very deep null to west, which is in fact the primary target area of Ayr. The proposal is to share the BBC national antenna at the same ERP as Digital One’s current ERP. This change will have to be co-ordinated with the Republic of Ireland, the primary reason for the restricted antenna at Darvel was to protect Irish analogue TV. BT Tower: This assumes that the current 300W omni-directional is replaced with dipoles at 800W (in common with the proposal for the other London multiplexes and BBC national) List of additional sites proposed: Scotland: Glasgow Hilton, Taybridge, Mormond Hill, Redmoss and Abingdon. Northern Ireland: Divis, Londonderry (Derry), Armagh, Maddybenny More, Camlough, Carnmoney Hill. Wales: Conway, Cefn Eglwysilan, Heolgerrig, Rhonnda A England: Knott Farm (M6), Swingate, Dunkirk, Truleigh Hill, Burton Down, St Austell,Truro, Mow Cop, Clifton, High Hunsley, Eston Nab, Sunderland (Hendon), North Hessary Tor, Membury (M4), Holcombe Down. Five Movio sites in London removed and re-allocated to the above list (as per the Digital One Licence Renewal proposal) |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Sorry re above I've noticed various typos which it wouldn't let me edit as it said i had let to long a time pass. Was just going to say in addition slight OT that there seems no definitive list available of new D1 transmitters. If you go to the D1 website there is still a future transmitter section t it still has no substantive list. I wondered if the new D1 transmitters were going to be linked practically and technically with local roll out or whether Arqiva just don't want to say exactly there are going to be new D1 transmitters
For the local rollout we'll have to wait until 6 February for the announcement but some councillors in rural areas are already expressing dissatisfaction with the proposals: http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2...-radio-signal/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,719
|
Quote:
Scotland: Glasgow Hilton, Taybridge, Mormond Hill, Redmoss and Abingdon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Gorleston, Norfolk
Posts: 1,313
|
Updated local coverage information to reflect new transmitters.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bro...overage-plans/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South East England
Posts: 5,714
|
I notice: "The local radio multiplex licence for Suffolk is due to be advertised shortly."
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South Dorset
Posts: 946
|
Quote:
Updated local coverage information to reflect new transmitters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Future EU Scottish Republic
Posts: 821
|
Quote:
The maps are missing from some of them...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex / Surrey, UK.
Posts: 861
|
It looks like London I coverage is actually REDUCING! (well, boundaries changing)
I hope this isn't the case as Sussex / Kent borders will be inadequately served due to omission of East Grinstead and other changes which were originally proposed. That would effectively mean less robust coverage than now. Some buildout! What happened to London III expansion and the additional tx sites for London? |
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex / Surrey, UK.
Posts: 861
|
Double post
|
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 76
|
Following on from my above post i i contacted my local ILR station in Swansea to see if they were aware of the plan not to have any new transmitters and only modify one transmitter (carmel) I was told that that was the case that they were looking at no new transmitters beyond Carmarthen sand Mynydd sylen which they were introducing as part of as i understand it previous commitments as discussed above.
I wonder how much say the multiplexes have had in the new transmitter plans it just seems odd that some multiplexes e.g. Cornwall , south east wales are introducing significant numbers of new transmitters and multiplexes like swansea London 1 and 3 are not bringing any new transmitters forward. I see the funding is coming from DCMS and the BBC so i am assuming they have all discussed this at length. This plan is a long way from Offcoms original plan in 2011. I see the new offcom document says that this expansion will bring local dab to around 91%, I wonder will there be a further expansion to bring reception anywhere near bbc national which should be 97% at the end of this year. I might be wrong but i had thought that i had read that eventually local dab reception would be somewhere nearer FM equivalence that 91% before a switchover took place. There look to be significant gaps in a number of multiplexes that arnt t going to be solved after this. Perhaps we will just have to wait for DAB + whenever if ever that comes. Does anyone think its worth responding to the consultation, or writing to ed vaisey at DCMS. |
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South Dorset
Posts: 946
|
As suspected the over spill from Cornwall into Devon is quite significant because of NHT being used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Caerphilly, South Wales
Posts: 9,465
|
Quote:
Updated local coverage information to reflect new transmitters.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bro...overage-plans/ Oh, and if anyone from OFCOM is reading this (or any list-fans out there), on the SE Wales transmitter list, there's no 'y' (and the 'i' and the 'a' are the wrong way around) in Pontllanfraith. At least they managed to spell Mynydd Machen right this time (it had a second 'a' in it in a previous version.) |
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Norwich, Tacolneston tx
Posts: 21,898
|
It really doesn't inspire confidence that there are so many spelling errors, does it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
Updated local coverage information to reflect new transmitters.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bro...overage-plans/ Can I ask a dumb question? ![]() What defines the lines around the coverage area i.e. "the geographical area that the multiplex is intended to serve?" In most cases it makes sense, but how was it decided? Counties? Local admin boundaries? Legacy FM coverage? There are a few cases where it's just weird. I mean, this one is a complete failure. Why would you define a coverage area that you can't even half cover? Is it aspirational? If so, for when? http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...port_Jan15.pdf This one is a carefully drawn wiggly line that follows some geographical boundary, except at the top where it's just a "stick a straight line across it" job. What's that? Give up? Here be dragons?! http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...rt_Jan2015.pdf Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,597
|
Quote:
Thanks for the link.
Can I ask a dumb question? ![]() What defines the lines around the coverage area i.e. "the geographical area that the multiplex is intended to serve?" In most cases it makes sense, but how was it decided? Counties? Local admin boundaries? Legacy FM coverage? Quote:
There are a few cases where it's just weird. I mean, this one is a complete failure. Why would you define a coverage area that you can't even half cover? Is it aspirational? If so, for when? The original plans drawn up by Arqiva showed many additional transmitters to fill in these gaps. These have mysteriously disappeared in the latest roll-out plans, with no indication of when or if they will ever be added. 182 new transmitters have been approved with hundreds of the sites originally identified for expansion no longer mentioned. Many of the missing sites would have extended coverage into sparsely populated areas with difficult terrain, significantly increasing the costs of upgrading and maintaining the multiplexes.http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...port_Jan15.pdf Quote:
This one is a carefully drawn wiggly line that follows some geographical boundary, except at the top where it's just a "stick a straight line across it" job. What's that? Give up? Here be dragons?! Originally the Bradford and Huddersfield multiplex extended further north. The straight line in the sand is basically setting the boundary south of Settle, the area is a sparsely populated Pennine region. Coverage north of the line now falls into the editorial area of the North Yorkshire multiplex. Somewhat irrelevant now that the planned Settle transmitter has been removed from the North Yorkshire plans and the Skipton transmitter site has been removed from plans for both multiplexes. The area remains largely uncovered.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...rt_Jan2015.pdf Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: South Notts (Waltham TV TX)
Posts: 20,200
|
Quote:
The idea was to match legacy FM coverage and then to extend the area to fill up any gaps between adjacent multiplexes. Terrain makes it difficult to match local authority boundaries without having duplication in very large overlap areas.
The Pink line shows the original boundary http://www.localdigitalradio.co.uk/N...erageLarge.jpg Which was for a much larger area than the proposed http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...port_Jan15.pdf Coalville and Loughbourgh are the most obvious changes. Some of the "uncovered bits" at the west of the Nottingham multiplex area which lie outside the Derby bounds are covered by Derby, These plans look to be taken on a commercial coverage equivalence basis - places like Buxton, Skipton, and Settle would need to be covered for BBC LR to be switched off and presumably would come back onto the table at that point (possible being paid for, partially at least, by the cession of FM simulcasting) - the likely increase adaptation of DAB+ by that point would make it possible to have more channels on each multiplex making them more commercial viable too. There are also some obvious gaps that need addressing - Lancaster, Penrith, Carlisle are the obvious ones. |
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,597
|
Quote:
Some of the boundaries have shrunk too - see for example Nottingham where the western edges have been moved over to Derby and the southern edges to Leicester
The Pink line shows the original boundary http://www.localdigitalradio.co.uk/N...erageLarge.jpg Which was for a much larger area than the proposed http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...port_Jan15.pdf Coalville and Loughbourgh are the most obvious changes. Some of the "uncovered bits" at the west of the Nottingham multiplex area which lie outside the Derby bounds are covered by Derby, The original Arqiva DAB build out plans for Nottingham didn't envisage any changes to coverage in this area and had started to use the more realistic editorial boundary. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...m_DAB_V2_0.pdf Anyone wishing to examine changes to editorial boundaries would probably be better examining the maps at the end of this document: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...nsion_Plan.pdf where old and revised boundaries are shown on the same map. Reception to the western side of the Nottingham multiplex should be improved with the addition of the Home Farm transmitter which is still proposed in the current build out plans. Clearly, redrawing the boundaries demonstrates that there will be no attempt to maintain coverage in large overlap areas between multiplexes. As more transmitters are brought online, these overlap areas may physically reduce in size because of co-block interference. Perhaps some of the more worrying reduced editorial boundaries are where additional coverage was planned in the original multiplex application but these areas will no longer be served. Areas such as Chesterfield, now taken out of the Derbyshire editorial area and Bridlington, taken out of the North Yorkshire editorial area. As far as coverage is concerned, Chesterfield will be adequately covered by the South Yorkshire multiplex and Bridlington will be served from Humberside. Unfortunately, this reduces the likelihood of Peak FM and Yorkshire Coast Radio, Bridlington actually migrating from FM to DAB. With the Bauer local multiplexes about to take on extra services from the Yorkshire mux, there won't be room to accommodate the likes of Peak FM & YCR Bridlington which only serve a small part of the overall mux editorial area. In my opinion, reducing the chances of these smaller FM services migrating to DAB actually weakens the argument for a radio DSO. Quote:
These plans look to be taken on a commercial coverage equivalence basis - places like Buxton, Skipton, and Settle would need to be covered for BBC LR to be switched off and presumably would come back onto the table at that point (possible being paid for, partially at least, by the cession of FM simulcasting) - the likely increase adaptation of DAB+ by that point would make it possible to have more channels on each multiplex making them more commercial viable too.
Well over 300 of the additional transmitters proposed in the Arqiva build out plans haven't made it into the latest plan. The latest plan only lists a fairly limited number of sites to be added post-switchover. Pretty much all of the transmitters proposed to improve coverage in hilly regions haven't made it into the new plans, giving very poor coverage close to the Pennines, Cotswolds and large areas of Scotland and Wales.Funding will, no doubt, be a problem. It doesn't make commercial sense for the old ILRs to fund such expansion, especially if it ultimately means paying for carriage on a DAB multiplex which far exceeds their primary FM service area. In this respect, the original Arqiva plan to extend Inverness to the whole of the Highlands and the Western Isles don't seem workable. Perhaps the only solution would be for the BBC to fund any expansion outside the core commercial areas to enable BBC Radio Scotland and RnG to migrate to DAB. The limitations of DAB SFNs would, inevitably, mean that the ILRs also end up on the extended network, even if they can't reasonably be expected to fund carriage for the whole area. Quote:
There are also some obvious gaps that need addressing - Lancaster, Penrith, Carlisle are the obvious ones.
Lancaster, along with Pennine regions of Lancashire, was addressed in Arqiva's original DSO document. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin..._DAB_V1_01.pdf - Lancaster and many of the other sites have been omitted from the latest plans.It appears that areas with difficult terrain, which require many transmitters to reach relatively few people aren't being considered at the moment. So, not only does that still leave major geographical gaps within the editorial areas of the current build out plans. It means that there are several areas with no plans at all: Cumbria, Dumfies & Galloway, the Scottish Borders, the Highlands & Islands, Argyll & Bute etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#121 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,571
|
I read/heard somewhere that the only transmitters to make it into the final plan were those that added 10k homes (or population?), or a significant stretch of main road.
That's what will be funded under this plan, costed not to bankrupt the industry/BBC/govt., but bold enough to deliver workable numbers for a switchover. I guess the areas which have fallen off Arqiva's list will either keep FM tx (if they ever had it) or those broadcasters which care more about universal coverage (ie the BBC) will be left with 100pc of the bill instead of 33pc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,597
|
Quote:
I read/heard somewhere that the only transmitters to make it into the final plan were those that added 10k homes (or population?), or a significant stretch of main road.
Quote:
That's what will be funded under this plan, costed not to bankrupt the industry/BBC/govt., but bold enough to deliver workable numbers for a switchover. It's either a switchover or it isn't. If vast geographical areas have to retain analogue transmitters, it would be a failed switchover. The BBC supports analogue networks with multiple relays, so there's no real reason why they can't switch the funding to DAB if switchover is to be a success.I guess the areas which have fallen off Arqiva's list will either keep FM tx (if they ever had it) or those broadcasters which care more about universal coverage (ie the BBC) will be left with 100pc of the bill instead of 33pc. Unfortunately, only adding sites which would cover more than 10k homes would be a disaster for the BBC national radio stations in Scotland and Wales. As you say, funding for that would have to be largely from the licence fee. The commercial radio stations aren't going to be interested in that level of investment for so little return. |
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Swindon
Posts: 34
|
Swindon area new DAB plans
Looking through the extensions to local services mentioned there are a few improvements that could be made:.
1) Oxfordshire, why nothing for Faringdon and South West Oxfordshire. Berkshire will be extended Westwards using Membury, Witlshire already uses it. Why not use Membury for South West Oxfordshire to? 2) Gloucestershire, worried to still see nothing for Forest of Dean area. Surely at least a transmitter for Cinderford area should be included. 3) Wilts, why not include Radio Wiltshire on nearby Bristol and Bath transmitters and also Radio Bristol on West Wilts, would help coverage gaps of both. |
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex / Surrey, UK.
Posts: 861
|
Quote:
Looking through the extensions to local services mentioned there are a few improvements that could be made:.
1) Oxfordshire, why nothing for Faringdon and South West Oxfordshire. Berkshire will be extended Westwards using Membury, Witlshire already uses it. Why not use Membury for South West Oxfordshire to? 2) Gloucestershire, worried to still see nothing for Forest of Dean area. Surely at least a transmitter for Cinderford area should be included. 3) Wilts, why not include Radio Wiltshire on nearby Bristol and Bath transmitters and also Radio Bristol on West Wilts, would help coverage gaps of both. There were many transmitters which were in the original expansion plan which disappointingly haven't made it in to a Step 2 or 3 phase as part of the final plan. Matching FM with this rollout is how it was sold, it's not what will be delivered. Perhaps a letter to Mr Jeremy Hunt? |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Looking through the extensions to local services mentioned there are a few improvements that could be made:.
1) Oxfordshire, why nothing for Faringdon and South West Oxfordshire. Berkshire will be extended Westwards using Membury, Witlshire already uses it. Why not use Membury for South West Oxfordshire to? 2) Gloucestershire, worried to still see nothing for Forest of Dean area. Surely at least a transmitter for Cinderford area should be included. 3) Wilts, why not include Radio Wiltshire on nearby Bristol and Bath transmitters and also Radio Bristol on West Wilts, would help coverage gaps of both. The "Expansion Plan" is a three-way funding agreement (around £7 million each) between the BBC, DCMS & Global/Bauer/UTV to match DAB coverage of the main FM heritage stations in each multiplex area. Most of the FM heritage stations are owned by one of these three companies, although there are a few exceptions (e.g. Cornwall, North Yorkshire & Mid and West wales). Smaller commercial groups like UKRD are not signatories to the agreement and it's unsurprising that Global/Bauer/UTV are not prepared to fund transmitters in west Norfolk, south Wiltshire or other areas where they don't have FM stations. Any further rollout beyond this plan will probably need to be funded by an increase in the licence fee, or from Government directly. Even if further transmitters are added to the list I'm not sure if it would be possible for Arqiva to build more than 182 sites by September 2016 anyway. A further rollout would probably happen in 2017. 3) The BBC would have to pay extra for this carriage and they don't have the funds under the current licence fee settlement. Quote:
Perhaps a letter to Mr Jeremy Hunt?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:08.






