I'm struck by the broad similarity of the minimux draft licence application to a CR licence form. The inclusion in the application instructions of wording along the lines of "...do not at this stage include letters of support..." implies that this might be necessary at a later stage, just like CR applications.

If minimuxes make it out of the 10-location experimental stage to some kind of widespread deployment, I'd expect the structuring of their WTA (and maybe BA) licences to mirror Community Radio i.e. heavily locked down against ownership by any individual or body that is even remotely commercial. This would make them immune to the consolidation, co-location and networking that did for the heritage ILRs, at the unfortunate expense of making them vulnerable to all of the problems that beset community radio groups.

An important difference would be that the minimux is a licence to broadcast not just one but a number of services; so in theory there would be nothing preventing a Bauer or Global from offering a considerable fee to carry one or more "mainstream" services. This would, essentially, be free money and go straight to the bottom line. All the investment in getting the minimux and transmission sites up and running would already have been made by the group, and the contract terms would be that $LARGE_RADIO_GROUP provide the lines and the audio to the location where the minimux is assembled.

Global seems more interested in exposure on Digital One, with Bauer using Digital One and using their digital channels to fill up their own local multiplexes. There's no indication that Global & Bauer would want to expand onto the small scale multiplexes, they don't even seem interested in the smaller existing multiplexes.


I would say they have back-tracked quite substantially from the initial plans. Composite coverage maps of ILR and BBC LR coverage areas were drawn up to show how FM equivalence could be achieved.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/con...planning/maps/

Now we have the strange situation of the local multiplexes only expanding coverage to give ILR FM equivalence but, simultaneously, requesting enlarged editorial licence areas to cover the composite area.

That depends how you view Ofcom's own impression of what it had set out to do. In its wrap-up of the 2011 consultation that started the ball rolling, it stated:

But went on to comment:

Which seems to have been exactly what has happened, albeit via a DCMS rather than Ofcom cop-out.

The muxcos' attempts to make what appear to be mostly trivial changes to their editorial boundaries could be an attempt formally to cement the hitherto informal Ofcom assignments of composite DAB+FM boundaries. Alternatively (and less likely) there could be an element of trying to snuff out ad-carrying CR stations that might otherwise have been established eventually in larger towns just outside the periphery of the previous Ofcom-assigned editorial areas.

BBC Radio Cymru effectively replaces Radio 4 on FM in Wales - i.e. the coverage matches that of Radio 2.

On DAB, it's carried on local muxes.

That means, at FM switch off, coverage will go from this...
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...st_Cheshi1.pdf
...to this...
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...port_Jan15.pdf
(see final page for least-bad prediction)

Isn't this a bit of a problem?!

Cheers,
David.

No. It's another classic Digital Spy storm in a tea-cup.
Expansion of coverage has to start somewhere, and this is the first phase of local DAB expansion. The starting point - you have to start somewhere - is to match coverage of the largest commercial radio station for the area. The 2nd maps are what coverage may look like 12 months after a date has been set (not necessarily the DSO date itself).

Nowhere has Ofcom or the DCMS, Digital Radio UK or any other broadcaster said that this expansion is the final ever expansion before Radio DSO.

Remember - this expansion is 3-way funded. BBC/DCMS/Commercial.

Why would commercial radio pay to cover parts of Wales it doesn't broadcast to?

The BBC will probably have to fund transmitters to cover these areas, but as the next licence fee settlement hasn't been agreed on, it may be too early to say,

Agreed, I doubt that Arqiva are able to build more than 182 sites by September 2016 even if they are added to the list. They have the BBC national rollout and (potentially) D2 as well. Ofcom's initial document suggested 699 transmitters for matching FM indoor coverage in the UK, the latest rollout takes the number to around 350.

On the point of Radio Cymru, its FM coverage of Wales is currently 96% (Radio 2 is 98%). The proposed local DAB rollout will bring indoor coverage in Wales to 86%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we...-wales-2013-14

R1,2,3,4, and Cymru all have parity in Wales on FM.

It's Radio Wales that lags behind

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/reception...Walestrans.pdf

I think it was fairly clear if you quote the more appropriate paragraph:


It's fairly clear that the original plan was to also take into account "the relevant BBC local or nations’ service" as "listeners could reasonably expect to be served by one or both of these services".


I would agree with the point you raised from paragraph 2.20 regarding expansion over and above existing FM coverage. Additional coverage isn't really a matter for DSO but minor changes to editorial boundaries to fill in small white areas is reasonable.

My point about editorial areas was regarding mux operators applying to extend the licensed area into regions where they, apparently, have no plans to actually provide coverage. E.g. West Wilts extending into South Wilts, Norwich extending into North and West Norfolk. If the multiplex operators have no intention of covering these regions, it might have been better to draw up additional editorial areas rather than extending existing ones.

The problem is more that nowhere has Ofcom or the DCMS, Digital Radio UK or any other broadcaster indicated what happens next. The current DCMS proposal only takes build out to 12 months before a nominated DSO date and fails to mention any possible expansion after that point.


The dilemma is that there is a limited number of DAB blocks allocated to the local multiplexes. The mux operators are applying to extend their licensed/editorial areas beyond the area where they plan to extend coverage.

So, the logistics of extending coverage becomes a problem for the BBC.

1) Why should the BBC fund expansion of a commercial multiplex into areas it isn't prepared to fund itself? The commercial channels would gain additional revenue from the larger reach.

2) Should the BBC decide to set up separate, licence fee funded multiplexes, additional DAB blocks would probably be needed, outside the current 10B-12D range.

Bear in mind that the review pre-dates the current DCMS proposals. Earlier build out plans for Wales had significantly higher coverage than what is currently proposed.

Until a few weeks ago there was no timetable at all for anything.

Until this announcement, there was no announcement as to when these new sites were going to come online.

We now have that announcement.

So yes, there's no announcement as to the future completion of local DAB coverage. But then there's no date announced on Radio DSO either. As I said earlier, we already know what sites will be needed.


You think commercial radio will gain additional revenue? They'll probably gain next to nothing extra.

These are sparsely populated communities. They are uncommercial. If they were commercially viable, the commercial broadcasters would already be broadcasting there. But they aren't.


I don't think you get it.

The cost of multiplexing is expensive business. The cost of setting up and running a new multiplexer is a significant cost. Don't forget that the local commercial stations on DAB will already be contributing to the cost of the multiplexing.

The best value for the BBC will be to fund additional transmitters for the local DAB multiplexes. No waste of spectrum for additional frequency blocks. Best value for money for the licence fee payer. Negligable - if any - gain for commercial stations.

I think that's all true. But, being true, a savvy commercial station no longer has to pay to roll out to all the areas that will be commercially viable after switch over. It can join in to pay for what makes commercial sense right now, and let the BBC or government (i.e. licence-fee payers or tax payers!) pay for the rest.


I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. It's just interesting how it's worked out. The result is quite good for listeners, and for commercial radio. It wouldn't pass a cost benefit analysis (but then DAB itself doesn't!). I'll laugh if a Conservative government has to do it - it's about as un free market as you can get.

It's a bit hard on the smaller stations that don't make it onto DAB, or only make it on to their "own" small scale DAB mux. They miss out on what is effectively a subsidy that most other local broadcasters get, and they don't get the opportunity to be competitive in unserved areas, because all areas are served.

OTOH, if better reception makes the platform more attractive, it might raise the fortunes of all broadcasters.

Cheers,
David.

The process has been ongoing for quite some time without needing a formal timetable. Now Digital and MuxCo had already brought several multiplexes online which had been mothballed for many years. Multiplex operators had already started bringing extra sites online: Ardsley & Chesterfield sites extending the South Yorks Mux, Emley Moor extending Leeds, extra sites for the London multiplexes, more sites for Welsh multiplexes, to name but a few. This announcement hasn't actually set a timetable either just a basic target set for step 1 sites and an ambiguous target of 12 months prior to a yet to be disclosed DSO date. The agreement is basically about funding rather than timetabling and, it should be noted, it isn't legally binding.


Advertising income is based on advertising reach. If the audience increases significantly, then advertising income will also increase. The increase in revenue may not be enough to fund the expansion but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to contribute anything at all.

Not all of the areas involved are "sparsely populated communities", often these areas are already served by commercial radio.


Clearly you haven't read my previous posts in the thread where I have already pointed out costs and the fact that there is a limit to how far commercial businesses will be prepared to fund further expansion.

Your point about wasting spectrum is ridiculous, a DAB block is only 1.7 MHz wide, and the lower blocks have already been proposed for some multiplexes. There is very little else that this spectrum could be used for.

The BBC funding further expansion in areas such as South Wilts and West Norfolk would increase the reach of the West Wilts and the Norwich ILR stations into these locations. Global would potentially gain by the increased audience from the expansion, but the likes of Spire FM, KLFM and North Norfolk Radio would lose out by not being available on DAB. Using the licence fee would not be acceptable in situations such as this, where it would have a detrimental effect on any commercial FM stations operating in that area.

The current announcement is not a realistic proposal for DSO, especially as far as it relates to BBC local radio.

Given that you don't make deals with your friends, but instead with your enemies, could this not be construed as just that? So in order to get a Beeb local onto DAB at all in an area (and eliminate the expense of FM) the Beeb has to pay Arqiva to put in extra TXs around the edges of an editorial area. As stated above $LARGE_ILR benefits from the expansion, but not sufficiently to have defrayed the extra CAPEX/OPEX that is now borne by the Beeb.

All of this is fine for districts and towns within the borders of an editorial area and currently in the 'white bits'. What happens in areas like mine, that are rather shocked to discover themselves not only outside any muxes' editorial area, but now very unlikely ever to be inside one? Luckily I've kept my Morse at about 12 w.p.m. so am able otherwise to while away the winter months when FM conks out in the Hebrides...


Incoming interference protection ends for France this summer, so presumably also for Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands? So that should make it open season on pretty much any block that the majority of the UK DAB receiver parc can scan. It's odd that you have to dig around for references to this, particularly given how severly it's influenced coverage patterns that could be achieved in the south-east.


OK, so if it's not a realistic DSO proposal, what is it a proposal for? Apart from on the face of it being a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose settlement in favour of the large ILR groups.

In England at least BBC Local Radio doesn't have as good as coverage as the nationals so in many cases the lack of transmitters isn't a huge deal.

Taking Lancashire for instance the most obvious bit that's missing is the Morcambe Bay / Lancaster area which was supposed to be a separate multiplex (IIRC there's always been better FM coverage than MW here). This one jumps out as being the sort of area that will become commercially viable once a final FM Switchover is announced and the dual-illumination period is short, and also general costs for DAB are lower. The likely adaptation of DAB+ to one level or another will also leave a lower cost window open for stations in this area - e,g, The Bay, Lakeland Radio, 2BR - on a simple extension of the existing multiplex (Bauer reducing there own costs by switching some of there services to DAB+ too, and having more stations come in) - although this may be one of those areas where a separate frequency is a good idea (e.g. The Bee, and 2BR in the south, The Bay and Lakeland in the north)

In the Derbyshire example (looking at FM equivalence) then the likes of Buxton could easily be served with the "low cost community" style licences Ofcom are currently trialling (e.g. BBC Radio Derby and High Peak Radio got on a multiplex between them) rather than extending the current multiplexes which reduces the commercial subsiding otherwise present.

I guess the biggest problem with the current proposals is they don't make it clear what the next step is.


Which is rather wasteful considering that FM stations are only 0.4MHz wide and those "blocks" can overlap at the fringes in a way DAB can't.

There's certainly stuff using the lower frequencies (particularly block 9 and 10 round here) as you can see with the signal strength indicators being rather strong on my DAB radios... (SDR scans confirms something digital is going on in those bands).

I don't think that there is a simple one fits all solution with so many different scenarios. I suspect that this is the reason that the build out plans appear to have stalled at ILR FM equivalence. Each BBC LR station needs to be looked at individually.

For example, the BBC used Holme Moss for the FM services of Radios Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester which gave reasonable coverage up to the Pennines. As this site wasn't used for the local multiplexes, coverage around Pennine towns and villages is poor or non-existent. Use of Holme Moss would, most likely, lead to massive coverage overlaps outside the existing editorial boundaries and cause co-block interference to more distant multiplexes. This is mitigated for the Leeds multiplex by using the new site at Emley Moor but, again, this extends coverage well into North Yorkshire and Humberside, beyond the editorial boundary. Bradford has a new, fairly low power, site at Holme Moss in the latest proposals. This should improve reception in the south of the editorial area and, interestingly, wasn't proposed in the earlier build-out plans. This still leaves coverage gaps for the BBC on the Manchester and Sheffield multiplexes. As far as Sheffield goes, an extra site at Stocksbridge would have, largely, plugged the gap. There are no other commercial radio stations in Stocksbridge and the site would only cover 2.5% of the population of the editorial area, so licence fee funding would be reasonable in this case, allowing the Radio Sheffield FM transmitter at Holme Moss to be turned off.

As another example, take Central Lancashire. The four sites giving ILR FM equivalence cover slightly more than 75% of the editorial area. Adding Lancaster, Haslingden, Whalley and Barnoldswick to give BBC LR FM equivalence would cover an additional 20% of the editorial area. It would be unreasonable to expect the licence fee to wholly fund an additional 26% reach for Bauer's Rock FM and other commercial stations on the multiplex. Not to mention being unfair to the likes of The Bay in Lancaster, which largely falls outside of Rock FM's analogue coverage.


I actually think that the nations are in a better position than England. It is more reasonable for the BBC to operate regional multiplexes carrying 2 services outside the locations with commercial coverage, possibly with extra funding from the devolved administrations.

Also something along the lines of the BBC B tv multiplex could work in England. A multiplex to operate outside areas with commercial coverage, bringing BBC LR to the masses and also not for profit independent / community stations. Or it could be operated by, say, BBC Worldwide and operate commercially with smaller ILR able to pay for carriage. Probably taking speculation a little too far at this stage...


Yes and some of the additional blocks will also probably be needed for small scale DAB coverage.


Probably just another compromise and a failure to agree on how any further expansion will be funded.

Assuming that Bauer wants to add the smaller stations... perhaps these should be given "must carry" status. With over 12% of the population of the Lancs mux editorial area, and being poorly served by the Preston based ILR service, Lancaster and Morecambe could be a good site for a mini-mux, breaking away from the main Lancashire mux and also carrying BBC Radio Lancs in that area. Maybe BBC Radio Cumbria too because of the overlap.


Indeed, I was also thinking along those lines for Buxton.

Taking Chesterfield out of the editorial area of the Derbyshire mux seems to have killed off the main DSO route for Peak FM, which is unfortunate. Perhaps another suitable location for small scale DAB with Peak FM and BBC Radio Derby.


More than that, if you look at the latest Ofcom DAB coverage plans. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bro...overage-plans/

The fact that these are now described as "Final Reports" could be taken as an indication that there isn't a next step...


Any wastefulness is debatable as DAB allows multiple services on the multiplex with further space savings from the use of SFNs. I don't see the logic of replacing a small, local, FM station with a single station DAB "multiplex", if that is what you are suggesting.

UK usage of any frequencies also used for DAB blocks is largely limited to PMSE licences. These licences are generally issued for a 1 year period, so it wouldn't be a major problem for Arqiva to issue a PMSE licence for a different frequency at renewal, if the original frequency is needed for a local DAB block.

Anyone know which transmitter is first to be upgraded? Was meant to start in March 2015. Is there anyone who knows which is being done first?

Thanks

Looks like Coventry is the first area for expansion.

Ed Vaizey's press conference formally kicked off the process: http://radiotoday.co.uk/2015/03/vaiz...xpansion-plan/

Shame there doesn't seem to be a timetable, but I doubt there would be - plans change constantly and often delays are due to scheduling backhaul installations rather than timing of riggers etc.

However, if anyone does find a log of what has been done (a bit like how the BBC publish a list of Phase 4 transmitter 'switch-ons' then please let us know!

I guess it's down to the individual operators to post this on their websites... I can see MuxCo being considerably more communicative around new sites than Now Digital!

Pleased to confirm that the Bincombe Hill extension to the Bournemouth MUX came on air today covering Weymouth, Dorchester and surrounding areas in Dorset.

Any improvement to D1 reception? That TX site is listed as having a power increase. Wonder if it got done at the same time.

Excellent news that there is finally some sort of progress, must be a planners nightmare!

D1 coverage already improved a month or two ago. I'm guessing all three services now using the BBC aerial. I'll have a look at the parameters when they are updated by Ofcom.
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/bincombe-hill2.php

Digital 1 should do something about Derbyshire , as it's very poor reception .

We've ended up with a strange situation now, Radio Solent on the Bournemouth (Dorset) MUX is the 96.1 variant, whereas on 103.8 it's the Dorset opt out version. Of course if they switched it over, listeners in the east of the county would have a different version of FM and DAB. Not sure what the solution is apart from the never implemented FM TX on 95.7 for the east of the county.

I didn't know that, I had always assumed that the Bournemouth mux already took the Dorset feed, and I probably thought this because according to the DAB Ensembles Worldwide website, Solent on the South Hampshire and Bournemouth muxes have different SID codes.

I think the Bournemouth mix should carry the Dorset feed anyway; the present 103.8 service is in no way sufficient to give Radio Solent for Dorset decent coverage of the county (and, being an opt-out, it isn't on iPlayer either). It would also give listeners in the east of the county a choice between the two versions on FM and DAB.

Incidentally, Solent also has a MW transmitter on 1359 for Bournemouth, does this take the 96.1 or 103.8 version?

On a wider note, this build-out seems to be progressing very slowly. They started in March with 182 transmitters to switch on, and so far have switched on, how many, four? Unless there are any others we haven't heard about?