Tories propose 80 local TV stations

"Chris" wrote in message
...
According to today's Times, the tories would introduce local TV stations
to 80 towns and cities after 2012.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6715236.ece

I assume the 2012 date is something to do with the end of digital
switchover but I still don't see how it would work. Terrestrial TV will
still come from a limited number if sites that are not city-specific. I
guess you could add some new local transmitters but they would need to
transmit their own local multiplex on an additional frequency and nobody's
aerial would be pointing at them anyway.

Maybe the new service would be internet based and we would use media
players and mobile phones to watch.

Is this just another example of politicians spouting with no knowledge of
the subject?
Chris


As usual

Solent TV on Astra/eurobird 28e was as local as it gets
If you are going to have local TV, 28e is the place to put them

local terrestrial muxs would cost a fortune

Steve Terry

"Chris" wrote in message
...
Mark Carver wrote:
Chris wrote:
According to today's Times, the tories would introduce local TV stations
to 80 towns and cities after 2012.

The above envisages terrestrial broadcasting, but...
About a year ago the CEO of Eutelsat was interviewed on some Italian
satellite TV channel or other. Describing future developments he said
they were working towards being able to so tightly focus a transponder that
it could be focussed on a single city.

Not heard anything more on this development - so far.

Roger

In article , Roger R
wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
...
Mark Carver wrote:
Chris wrote:
According to today's Times, the tories would introduce local TV
stations to 80 towns and cities after 2012.

The above envisages terrestrial broadcasting, but... About a year ago the
CEO of Eutelsat was interviewed on some Italian satellite TV channel or
other. Describing future developments he said they were working towards
being able to so tightly focus a transponder that it could be focussed on
a single city.

Not heard anything more on this development - so far.

It wouldn't be just having very narrow beam width, it would mean keeping
the position of the satellite to a very tight accuracy. Imagine a fraction
of a degree variation giving Derby signals meant for Nottingham - the riots
that would ensue ....

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
According to today's Times, the tories would introduce local TV stations
to 80 towns and cities after 2012.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6715236.ece I
assume the 2012 date is something to do with the end of digital
switchover but I still don't see how it would work. Terrestrial TV will
still come from a limited number if sites that are not city-specific. I
guess you could add some new local transmitters but they would need to
transmit their own local multiplex on an additional frequency and
nobody's aerial would be pointing at them anyway.

Ofcom have wasted (IMHO) loads of our money devising frequency plans to
cater for this mad (IMHO) plan.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...eaved/summary/



depends what they do with the channel i suppose - i kind of like the idea of
a local channel that lets local people present bits on subjects that they
think are important even if they are bizarre to us.
a bit like the american local access cable channels.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

In article , The dog from that film you
saw wrote:

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
According to today's Times, the tories would introduce local TV
stations to 80 towns and cities after 2012.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6715236.ece
I assume the 2012 date is something to do with the end of digital
switchover but I still don't see how it would work. Terrestrial TV
will still come from a limited number if sites that are not
city-specific. I guess you could add some new local transmitters but
they would need to transmit their own local multiplex on an
additional frequency and nobody's aerial would be pointing at them
anyway.

Ofcom have wasted (IMHO) loads of our money devising frequency plans to
cater for this mad (IMHO) plan.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...eaved/summary/



depends what they do with the channel i suppose - i kind of like the idea
of a local channel that lets local people present bits on subjects that
they think are important even if they are bizarre to us. a bit like the
american local access cable channels.

or even Channel tv ;-)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:
In article , The dog from that film you

depends what they do with the channel i suppose - i kind of like the idea
of a local channel that lets local people present bits on subjects that
they think are important even if they are bizarre to us. a bit like the
american local access cable channels.

or even Channel tv ;-)

Which only survives because it has ITV 1 network programming to sustain the
other 23 hours a day of its output. That network programming is supplied at
very cheap rate, because Channel's potential audience is tiny. National
advertising is also sold on their behalf by ITV Ltd. All of that is a
remaining legacy from the IBA regulator days. I'm surprised Ofcom haven't
waded in yet, and destroyed that rather quaint arrangement.

Stations like the IOW's Solent TV failed partly because they could only
sustain output by rebroadcasting Sky News and QVC, or repeating their own
local programmes ad infinitum, and had to sell all advertising space by
themselves.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

Mark Carver wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , The dog from that
film you

depends what they do with the channel i suppose - i kind of like the
idea
of a local channel that lets local people present bits on subjects that
they think are important even if they are bizarre to us. a bit like the
american local access cable channels.

or even Channel tv ;-)

Which only survives because it has ITV 1 network programming to sustain
the other 23 hours a day of its output. That network programming is
supplied at very cheap rate, because Channel's potential audience is
tiny. National advertising is also sold on their behalf by ITV Ltd. All
of that is a remaining legacy from the IBA regulator days. I'm surprised
Ofcom haven't waded in yet, and destroyed that rather quaint arrangement.

Stations like the IOW's Solent TV failed partly because they could only
sustain output by rebroadcasting Sky News and QVC, or repeating their
own local programmes ad infinitum, and had to sell all advertising space
by themselves.



Would a consortium of 80 channels have enough resources to make a go of it?

--

Chris

"Chris Youlden" wrote in message
...


Would a consortium of 80 channels have enough resources to make a go of
it?




maybe they would be government funded, one small studio with 5 staff
affairs.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

In article ,
The dog from that film you saw wrote:
Would a consortium of 80 channels have enough resources to make a go
of it?


maybe they would be government funded, one small studio with 5 staff
affairs.

Think the taxi bill for interviewing local dignitaries might be quite
large...

--
Is the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Chris Youlden wrote:


Would a consortium of 80 channels have enough resources to make a go of it?

That in effect would be like reinventing the ITV network, but in 80 rather
than 15 areas. The problem as I see it, is that Ofcom/government have created
a broadcasting environment where the regional ITV of old is no longer
sustainable. I don't think ITV have helped themselves by making some rather
poor decisions in recent years, but the fact remains that commercially funded
local broadcasting doesn't seem to work any more (look at what's happened to
radio as well).


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk