Tag: radio

Small local stations & the Digital Economy Bill: debated in the House of Lords

The issue of the potential impact on small, local radio stations of the government’s proposed ‘Digital Radio Upgrade’ was first raised in this blog in July 2009, which stated:

“… the potential losers from Digital Radio Upgrade would seem to be:
• commercial stations presently carried on local DAB multiplexes who might have to be bumped because there is no longer the capacity after amalgamation
• local commercial stations presently carried on their local DAB multiplex who will have to quit DAB because they do not wish to serve the enlarged geographical area after amalgamation of multiplexes (for example, the cost of DAB carriage for Kent/Sussex/Surrey is likely to be considerably higher than Kent alone)
• new entrants

In the rush to frame proposals in Digital Britain that respond to the circumstances of the large radio players with substantial investments in DAB infrastructure, it might appear that the voices of the smaller local commercial radio stations have got lost in the stampede of lobbying. These stations might be small in number but many of them remain standalone, so they will not benefit financially from the relaxation of co-location rules. Digital Britain is condemning many of them to remain on FM (or AM), leaving the large radio groups to dominate the DAB platform.

Although the proposals in Digital Britain have been framed to ‘help’ local commercial radio, overwhelmingly they will reduce the financial burden of group radio owners with local station operations in adjacent areas, and of group owners who have invested in DAB infrastructure. There is little in the way of financial benefits for independent local commercial stations, or for potential new entrants, both of whom face being crowded out of the DAB platform.”

Last night, the House of Lords debated three amendments, amongst several, to the Digital Economy Bill which proposed that the voices of small, local FM radio stations and their listeners should be considered before the government commits the UK to digital radio switchover.

These amendments were eventually withdrawn after debate (see below) during which the government minister, Lord Young, made vague assurances that the views of listeners and others would be canvassed.

RadioCentre, the commercial radio trade body, subsequently commented: “Clause 30 (which relates to the switchover powers) was debated in detail, with proposed amendments withdrawn following debate and assurances from Government.”

Amendments 236 & 237
Moved by Lord Howard of Rising

236: Clause 30, page 33, line 17, after “to” insert “ — (a)”
237: Page 33, line 19, at end insert “; and
( ) the needs of local and community radio stations; and
( ) the needs of analogue radio listeners.”

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment 237. The amendments are designed to ensure that attention is paid to the local and community radio sectors and the many millions of analogue radio listeners — to which I should add the providers of satellite systems about which the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, spoke. They should all be listened to before any decision is taken about switchover. We on these Benches have not hidden the fact that we remain unconvinced that the Government’s plans to switchover in 2015 are realistic. We do not believe that audiences will be ready by then. The audience must remain at the forefront of all our considerations when we debate these parts of the Bill. As drafted, the Secretary of State will have to pay heed only to Ofcom and the BBC. Despite the BBC’s dominance in the radio industry, there is a strong argument that it would be helpful for community and local radio stations to be consulted. Indeed, the whole commercial radio sector should be included. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the Secretary of State consult the other parts of the industry that will be affected. It would also seem both reasonable and important for the Secretary of State to consider the needs of those who listen to analogue radio. The Government stated in their final Digital Britain report that they would start the countdown to switchover once digital listening made up 50 per cent of radio listening. That seems far too low. It would still mean that there were millions of listeners not using digital. Our amendment would ensure that the needs of those listeners were taken into account before the Secretary of State could nominate a switchover date. The amendment is simply an attempt to ensure that all who will be affected by switchover are considered before the Secretary of State nominates a date. As I have said, it does not seem unreasonable to ensure that listeners are placed at the forefront of these considerations. I hope that the Committee will agree. I beg to move.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I think that I can offer some reassurance to the noble Lord opposite. Unless all those targets were going to be met, virtually the entire commercial radio industry would not support the clause, which it does, with one minor exception. The feeling is that this is an empowering clause that does not oblige the Secretary of State to set a date. Indeed, he can set a date and then withdraw it if precisely those targets mentioned by the noble Lord are not met. The radio industry seems to feel that the Government have got it right. I hope that that reassures him.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, I recall that in an earlier debate this evening, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, expressed deep disappointment that I was not supporting an amendment that stood in the names of the noble Lords. I hope that they will now feel slightly happier, because I support this particular amendment. I do so because the Bill as it stands provides very little safeguard for those who are living in remote areas, some of them perhaps still relying on long wave, let alone FM, for their radio reception. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made about the Digital Britain report. If I recall correctly the point was made at Second Reading that, when 90 per cent has been reached, there will still be one in 10 people — some of whom would presumably lose access via their radio to all the national, BBC and commercial radio stations — for whom we really ought to have the greatest concern. Short of listening via the internet — which I know the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, though no longer in his place, would be urging us to do — or Freeview, there is nothing that the 10 per cent would be able to do until the DAB signal catches up with the FM one. Through this and other similar amendments, I hope the Government will come to recognise that there are some very serious reservations about giving the Secretary of State the power to set the switchover date without proper statutory consideration of the wider impact of that decision on those communities who are often disconnected from British society physically, and those small stations that serve them. I am much in sympathy with the amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, we shall come to rather more detail about this aspect shortly. I, too, support the amendment and the basis on which it is being put forward. We spent this morning taking evidence from the commercial radio stations, both from those which disagreed with the main grouping and those which had done some amount of research over time. The more one looks at this whole area, it is quite clear that there is a big problem about when this is going to happen, stretching into the future, causing a considerable number of problems. At the very least, this amendment requires others — those concerned and those involved — to be consulted. So, like the right reverend Prelate, I certainly support the amendment.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, Clause 30 states that before nominating a switchover date, the Secretary of State must have regard to any reports submitted by Ofcom or the BBC under the terms of Section 67(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1996. The purpose of these reports is to review how long it would be appropriate for radio services to continue to be broadcast in analogue form. These reports should have regard to the provision of digital radio multiplexes, availability of digital radio services and the ownership of digital receivers. In order to produce these reports, Ofcom is required to consult multiplex licence holders and digital radio service providers. In addition — here I address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester — the Secretary of State must, on requiring these reports, consult such persons representing listeners and such other persons as he thinks fit, as provided in Section 67(4). The noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about plans to switchover in 2015. That is a target that we have set, not a precise date, as I hope he will recognise. The experience that we had with the TV switchover, which in some ways was even more fraught with difficulty, has been an outstanding success so far. One of the largest switchovers, in the Manchester area, recently went over without a hitch. We had a lot of preparation, help and assistance. We want to adopt a similar approach. It is not just about the 50 per cent of listeners. We have also talked about DAB achieving the same coverage as FM, which is something like 95 per cent these days. We are well aware of the importance of that. I also point out another factor which I think is important. The prices of reasonable quality DAB radios have been coming further and further down. That is important for less advantaged parts of our population. We are aware of the concerns expressed. We believe that the clauses have got it right. We understand the concerns, which is why I have taken time to give some further assurance. Given the breadth of the requirements to consult already proposed in the draft Bill and our commitment to consult widely before setting a date, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. With the explicit assurances I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Howard of Rising: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for their support for the amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, for his reassurance. All I am doing is asking the Government to pay attention to and listen to the listeners before they take too drastic an action and leave a lot of people very unhappy. From his remarks this would appear to be the case, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 236 withdrawn.
Amendment 237 not moved.

Amendment 239A
Moved by The Lord Bishop of Manchester

239A: Clause 30, page 33, line 21, after “services,” insert “while retaining the use of the FM Band for those local and community radio services, including special interest services, for which digital transmission using DAB is not a suitable method due to —
(i) the size of local DAB multiplex areas, or
(ii) the unavailability of capacity on the local DAB multiplex,”

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: This amendment pursues further the issue about retaining the use of the FM band for local and community radio services. I invite your Lordships to put yourselves in the shoes of someone running a small FM radio station, serving a population of 100,000 people in and around, let us say, King’s Lynn. As it stands, that station’s future seems to be to bid for a space on a local multiplex. That would mean that it would begin broadcasting to almost 600,000 people. Such a shift would significantly change the character of that station. Listeners from a much wider area would start to phone in to programmes and would, for instance, start to demand their own slice of news output. The station manager would be forgiven for wishing to stay on the FM band as long as possible, until a better solution was found for smaller stations to find a home on the digital spectrum. Consider then the prospect of the only way of going digital to be to join an even larger regional multiplex which covers the whole of East Anglia and serves well over 1 million listeners. That is the kind of situation that is faced by a number of small commercial radio stations if digital rollout continues as planned. Their pathway towards a digital future seems shrouded in a kind of fog, partly because of the large size of DAB multiplex areas and the lack of capacity on some multiplexes .Forcing those small-scale stations to broadcast to much larger areas than their current coverage would alter their feel and alter their connection with their audience. It would undermine the integrity that they hold as local broadcasters and potentially damage their ability to service platforms which stimulate and reflect local democracy and social action. There is also a danger that counter-intuitively such stations would struggle to attract advertising spend from local businesses which do not wish to market themselves to audiences up to 100 miles away. So, socially and commercially, beaming local stations to regional audiences is, frankly, not in anyone’s interests. As for the lack of space on DAB in some areas of the country, take, for example, the multiplexes currently covering Humberside or, in my own area, of Manchester where there is virtually no space available. Even with just the larger stations currently on board, capacity is running out in some areas. I understand that some stations that gain access are broadcasting in mono rather than in stereo in order to preserve bandwidth. The limitations of DAB for local and community stations are well acknowledged by Ofcom. Indeed, it is already planning for small-scale commercial and community stations to stay on FM in the medium term as the most appropriate technology for those stations in terms of both coverage and cost. The vacation of FM band space by the removal of national and large local stations would free up more capacity for smaller stations. Ofcom sees this as a natural staging post in radio’s digital evolution. Nowhere, however, is this halfway house given a firm legal footing. In case my amendment is misinterpreted as a luddite attempt to hold back the march of progress, let me make clear that it is intended as a temporary but crucial platform to support the transition to digital of small-scale local stations, which not only serve geographically defined areas, but also identity-defined and interest-defined groups. Your Lordships may remember the furore caused when in 1992, BBC Radio 4 proposed to transfer use f its long-wave frequency to a rolling news service. The BBC reckoned that FM reception was good enough and the vast majority of the country could pick it up without a problem. But those living in remote parts of the United Kingdom, and even in exceptionally hilly inland parts, knew different. The determination to push ahead with cutting Radio 4 from the long wave was met with purposeful if well-mannered resistance, as one might expect from Radio 4 listeners. In fact, I am told that the sight of 200 protestors in tweed and twinsets marching down Upper Regent Street was enough to help the BBC to see the error of its ways. Let us not make a similar mistake. After all, FM had at that point been around for almost 40 years. We have had DAB for less than a decade. The future of local radio — which is so crucial to forging community cohesion and identity, and promoting local social action and democracy — should not be left to chance. That must mean embracing a multi-platform ecology which creates a pathway towards digital broadcasting for local radio, retaining space for them on FM until such time as a digital platform offers them the right environment to continue what they do best. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has said so much of huge value — an absolute tour de force on behalf of ultra-local radio. Of course from the remarks made in the previous amendment, I not only put my name to this amendment, but fully endorse what he said. It is that kind of certainty which is crucial, and this is a very elegant way of keeping it in the Bill. I hope consideration will be given to that, because — and this is not intended as a pun — a signal is needed in this area. We need a very strong signal — not just a digital or political signal — to FM radio, to ultra-local radio, that they have a future which is secure. That is exactly what the right reverend Prelate, whom nobody could accuse of being a luddite, has advocated.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has put it beautifully: “multi-platform ecology”. I like that and it sets the pattern for the future rather well. Clearly, this amendment hits on the crucial area of what will happen in the mean time and what is to be done concerning FM. We need some reassurance on this point; I think the Minister said that it would be around indefinitely. At the moment, we know that Ofcom grants only short licences. There have been quite a number of complaints from the radio stations that not to have the certainty granted to them by, say, a 10-year licence means that their likelihood of failure is considerable. That side of things would be helped if the Minister could confirm that FM will definitely be there, and that licences can be given as people gradually go over to digital and more space on FM becomes available. We know that there are minimal alternative uses for the FM spectrum besides transmitting radio. It is not therefore likely that the Treasury will want to make vast sums out of it, as it clearly did when it realised its potential. It has already had its fair share from that — or unfair share, depending on how you look at it. Please can we therefore have two assurances from the Minister? We should all try to move as fast as possible and with all encouragement towards the digital switchover, because we can see the disadvantages in having that laggard time that many seem to envisage. Indeed, one person giving us evidence today said that, concerning radio, there was really no possibility of a digital switchover; he was as dispirited as anyone could have been about the process. Any form of encouragement that the Minister can give would be welcome, certainly on the future use of FM and on longer licences. Those two things were very much endorsed by the people who gave evidence this morning to the Select Committee on Communications.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, it is late and I shall be brief, but when we finally switch over to digital transmission it is important to be sure that the Government stay true to their promise that the FM spectrum will remain available for use by local and community radio stations. The Digital Britain report said that that was the Government’s plan, but it would give a great deal more reassurance if such a promise was contained in the legislation.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Mauley, for his brevity. It is not as if I am not paying attention, or giving this less than its due, but we have already travelled over some of this terrain. However, I shall endeavour to reiterate the assurances. For small, local commercial and community stations, both the coverage area of a digital multiplex and the cost of its carriage are too great at present. That is one reason why we believe that those stations are best served by continuing to broadcast on FM. We have also committed to retaining FM for radio after the digital radio switchover. Of course, the Government will not stop any station that wants to and can move to digital, but we will reserve capacity on FM for those which have no obvious route there. I want to address a couple of the concerns that the right reverend Prelate expressed. How will we support those stations which remain on FM? In order to ensure that stations on FM can operate and compete with services on digital after switchover, the Government have already said that we are committed to establishing a combined electronic programme guide for radio. That will allow listeners to access stations via the station name, irrespective of the platform carrying the service. Listeners will therefore move seamlessly between bands, selecting stations simply by name; that is currently not the case when listening to FM and AM stations on an analogue radio receiver. We are working with the industry on that issue and encouraging its development.

Lord Clement-Jones: We have been given that assurance on a number of occasions. The Minister in the Commons, who recently announced his resignation, sadly, has given that assurance about the electronic programme, but no date was put on it. It is simply that they are working on it. This is a crucial aspect in retaining people’s ability to tune in to FM.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: I will see whether I can find any further information. This is a genuine commitment. It is all part of the backdrop against which this debate is taking place. We have set 2015 as a target, but there is not a headlong rush to it. We are trying to ensure a number of things, and this is one of them. I can give a progress report on where we are: it is a clear commitment. The right reverend Prelate asked about making FM continue to be attractive to advertisers and listeners. The key to the switchover of radio will be establishing three distinct tiers of radio — local, regional and national — which will provide unique content and are sustainable in their markets. The services that will populate FM will have a distinct role in providing very local material and reflecting the communities they cover. Due to the very local nature of their content and the refocusing of the large regional stations, these services will benefit from less competition for local advertising funding. I hope that is of some help. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked whether Ofcom will offer analogue licences for longer than five years. The duration of analogue licences is a matter for Ofcom. However, it has suggested that, subject to the outcome of the Bill, it will consult on this issue. We support this process as there is clearly a strong argument for allowing analogue licences over a longer licence period. I, too, rather like the elegant phrase “multi-platform ecology”. I wish I had thought of it myself. We have not included in the legislation a commitment to retain FM because the Bill is not intended to set out all the details of the digital radio switchover but to enable a switchover to take place how and when that is appropriate. We agree with the right reverend Prelate’s phrase “a multi-platform ecology” — imitation will soon be the sincerest form of flattery on this one. To do this, Clause 30 provides for changes in the licensing terms of those services for which it will no longer be appropriate to continue on analogue once the switchover date is nominated. For those licences where analogue broadcasting is the most appropriate or only means of broadcasting, these powers need not apply and their terms will be unaffected, including the right to broadcast on an analogue frequency. The continuation of FM is therefore already provided for in this legislation and should be read alongside the commitments in Digital Britain. In the interests of time, I shall not say any more. I have tried to give as many assurances as I can. We share noble Lords’ concerns. We want this to be successful. We should take heart from how successfully we have handled the switchover to digital TV. That has been a success story. Lots of concerns were expressed at the beginning, and we had to work to ensure that people who had fears about handling the new technology were assisted. We got it right. I am not saying that that should be a blanket assurance for everything, but we should not forget how well we handled that. It gives us a good background of experience upon which we can build. I thank the right reverend Prelate for this part of the debate. I trust that the assurances that I have given will enable him to withdraw the amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I thank the Minister for his response to this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who made very helpful comments. I welcome the Minister’s assurances about the continued provision for local stations to use the FM band. He said that we had been over this ground several times, but we have done so partly because of the seriousness of the issue and partly, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said later in the debate, because of the need to pin the Government down to get the precise assurance that people need. I am sure that those who run and who listen to these media services will feel encouraged by the general direction in which all this is going. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was absolutely right to say — it may have been a parlance, but it is a very good way of saying it — that these people really do need a clear signal from the Government that is very much along the lines of what the Minister has said. Having said that, I suspect that this needs to be repeated and to be made even clearer. As those of us who have the privilege of sitting on the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications know, there is a huge difference between the switchover to digital television — this has indeed gone very smoothly, although it is not without its teething problems — and the digitalisation of radio. It has been made very clear to us in the evidence that we have received that the whole business of the digitalisation of radio is much more complex. While the Government and all the digital facilitators need to be congratulated on what they have done in the switchover to digital television, let us not think that because that went so easily it will be the same for radio. There are some very different and deeper issues that we must look at. That said, I utterly agree with the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate that we want to keep up the momentum. We really do want to go along with what the Digital Britain report has said and get ourselves going in the technological direction in which we are set. Unnecessary delays are certainly not welcome. Finally — I think the Minister alluded to this in an earlier debate — there is the issue of manufacturers moving towards products that use a combined station guide, rather as Freeview and satellite television do for television, so that people can choose stations by name, whatever the band they are using. This kind of mixed economy of stations, both analogue and digital, will be the simplest way of getting through the many complexities that are on our path. I am most grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 239A withdrawn.

[For the purpose of transparency, I was one of the parties invited to offer evidence before the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications yesterday morning.]

SWEDEN: transmission company proposes DAB radio re-launch in 2010/11

DAB radio in Sweden could be re-launched to the public in 2010 or 2011, argues radio transmission company Teracom, interviewed in Radio World. Although Swedish state radio has been broadcasting on the DAB platform since 1995, the signal still only reaches 35% of the population. No DAB licences for commercial radio have yet been issued. In 2005, the Swedish government halted any further public investment in DAB radio due to poor consumer response.

Despite these setbacks, Teracom is attempting to stimulate Swedish interest in an upgraded DAB+ transmission system. It started DAB+ trial broadcasts in May 2009 and is conducting market research with the 500 people to whom it has supplied DAB+ receivers. The trial stations on DAB+ comprise four from state radio, eight from commercial radio and three community broadcasters.

Teracom pilot project manager Per Werner said one of the aims of the pilot is “to demonstrate to decision makers that the Swedish radio industry is ready for digital radio and that there is demand for new regulations allowing the industry to enter the digital era.” He explained: “If a decision is made to build a DAB+ network on a larger scale, a natural consequence would be to migrate the current DAB network to a DAB+ network. This is a decision for Sveriges [state] Radio, which is currently using the DAB network in a limited coverage area.”

Werner advised: “There is consensus in the industry that a wide range of programmes from public service and commercial radio, as well as community radio, will be necessary to provide a compelling offer to listeners.”

Government: agreement to finance DAB radio upgrade “not expected until late 2010”

Recent government correspondence (see below) has confirmed that:
• DAB upgrade is “unlikely to be an easy task”
• DAB upgrade is unlikely “to be resolved quickly”
• DAB upgrade requires agreement about the current levels of FM coverage
• DAB upgrade requires agreement of a plan for building out DAB
• DAB upgrade still requires agreement on the level of investment required
• the government “hopes to have a comprehensive plan by the end of 2010”
• the DAB upgrade funding issue still has to be agreed between the BBC and the commercial radio sector, which is not expected until late 2010.

House of Lords
Delegated Powers & Regulatory Reform Committee
Second Report of Session 2009-10 [excerpt]
re: Digital Economy Bill
17 December 2009

Clause 36
20. Section 58 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 makes provision for the duration and renewal of national and local radio multiplex licences, and in particular specifies the grounds on which an application may be refused. Section 58 is in Part 2 of the 1996 Act.
21. Clause 36 inserts a new section 58A into the 1996 Act enabling the Secretary of State by regulations subject to affirmative procedure to “amend section 58 and make further provision about the renewal of radio multiplex licences” and for that purpose to amend other provisions of Part 2 of the 1996 Act. There is a “sunset” provision preventing the power being exercised after 31 December 2015.
22. It is impossible to tell from the Bill whether the policy is that the licences should or should not be renewable at all, let alone for what period or on what grounds. Indeed, paragraph 56 of the memorandum candidly admits that the relevant policy decision has yet to be made. We draw attention to the skeletal nature of the power in clause 36, to enable the House to examine it further and determine whether it is justifiable in this context.

Attached is the Memorandum by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills which explained:

Clause 36: Renewal of radio multiplex licences: Amendment of Broadcasting Act 1996
Powers conferred on: Secretary of State
Power exercised by: Regulations
Parliamentary procedure: Affirmative resolution

Clause 36 adds a new section 58A into the Broadcasting Act 1996. That provision contains a power to amend Part 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (and in particular section 58) by regulations for the purpose of making further provision about the renewal of radio multiplex licences. In particular, regulations made under this power may make provision about the circumstances in which OFCOM may renew a licence, the period of such renewal, the information that OFCOM may require from an applicant, the requirements that an applicant must meet, the grounds for refusal of an application, payments to be made and further conditions that may be included in a renewed licence.
The reason for providing for a power to amend Part 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 by order in this way, rather than making amendments in the Bill, is that the decisions about whether or not to extend radio multiplex licences are dependent on an agreed industry wide plan for rolling-out DAB to match FM coverage. This planning process can only begin when (a) OFCOM have the power to allow multiplexes to merge, which requires the new powers to change the frequencies allocated to multiplexes set out elsewhere in the Digital Economy Bill, and (b) when funding issues between the BBC and the commercial sector are agreed; which is not expected until late next year. The power conferred on the Secretary of State will be subject to a sunset provision, so that it cannot be exercised after 31 December 2015.
Given that the power provides for amendment of primary legislation relating to the regime for renewals of licences, we consider it appropriate that any order made under this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Letter from the Rt Hon Lord Mandelson, Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Chairman of the Delegated Powers & Regulatory Reform Committee [excerpts]
January 2010

1. I am writing in response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2009-10 published on 17 December which addresses the Digital Economy Bill…….

Independent radio services
Report paragraph 22: clause 36: Renewal of radio multiplex licences

22. The Committee considers that it is impossible from the Bill to determine whether the policy is for licences to be renewable and, if so, for what period and on what grounds. The Committee draws attention to the “skeletal nature of the power in clause 36, to enable the House to examine it further and determine whether it is justifiable in this context”.
23. The Department notes that the Committee does not recommend removal or amendment of this provision. The Government intends to further explain the rationale for the clause during the Committee stage of the Bill.
24. It is the Government’s aim to work with broadcasters and multiplex operators to agree how to build out the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) infrastructure to meet FM coverage levels, one of the criterium that needs to be met in setting a date for digital switchover for radio. This is unlikely to be an easy task, or indeed to be resolved quickly. Among other things, it will require agreement about the current levels of FM coverage, the plan for building out DAB and the level of investment required. The Government hopes to have a comprehensive plan by the end of 2010.
25. The Government believes that a key component of this planning will be the ability to alter the terms of multiplex licence renewals. The existing section 58 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 allows OFCOM to renew radio multiplex licences granted prior to 30 September 2006 for periods of 12 or 8 years (depending on when the licence was granted). However, the Government recognises the need to reduce, as much as possible, the impact of infrastructure build-out on digital stations.
26. One way this can be achieved is to allow multiplex operators to spread the cost of any new investment over a longer licence period. This is why the Government has proposed new powers in section 58A to amend the provisions about the renewal of multiplex licences. The reason that the power is not more specific is because it will not be clear exactly how it will be most appropriately applied until the plan for the build-out of DAB is developed.
27. Exercise of the power will, in any event, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny due to the fact that any regulations will require resolutions of both Houses before being made.

FRANCE: “2010 will be the last chance” to launch digital radio

“2010 will be the last chance for digital terrestrial radio” to launch in France, said Alain Mear, vice chairman of the CSA [media regulator] digital radio working group. “If digital radio does not start in 2010, there will be no digital radio.” He was speaking at a roundtable meeting held 15 January at the Senate to discuss the future of radio, according to RadioActu. Mear argued that the government needed to set a deadline for the ending of radio broadcasting on FM and AM. “This is the moment of truth”, he said.

However, the view of some radio groups represented at the meeting was that radio in future would be delivered to listeners via a mix of platforms. Concern was also expressed about the financial cost of launching a new digital broadcast platform. Michel Cacouault, representing the commercial radio trade body Bureau de la Radio, predicted that there could be “no development without an economic assessment”. He stressed that the sector’s declining advertising revenues in 2009, resulting from the global economic crisis, had required “all the big groups to face re-organisation and downsizing.”

Arnaud Decker, director of corporate relations at media group Lagardere Active, said that “the authorities must ask themselves how the competitiveness of the national music radio networks can be maintained” when the launch of digital radio would increase broadcasters’ costs.

Jacques Donat-Bouillud, director of radio at transmission provider TDF, said that the cost of providing digital terrestrial radio to a population of 40m would be around 500m Euros per annum. For a single station requiring national coverage in France, he said that digital transmission would cost 3m Euros per annum, compared to 6m Euros per annum for FM transmission.

Pierre Bellanger, CEO of commercial station Skyrock, pointed out that “60% of mobile handsets are internet enabled” and cautioned that “there is no single correct answer to the question about the future of radio. The solution is a hybrid and, ultimately, the listener will be the winner.”

Bruno Patino, director of state radio station France Culture, agreed: “[State] Radio France must participate in the digitalisation of broadcasting. Digital radio delivered by IP will be there, but that will not kill the broadcast platform.”

Government admits: no assessment of impact on small FM commercial radio stations of Digital Economy Bill

House of Commons
21 January 2010
Written Answers to Questions

Digital Broadcasting: Radio

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the likely effects of digital switchover under the provisions of the Digital Economy Bill on the ability of local commercial radio stations without a digital path to continue to broadcast on the analogue spectrum.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Siôn Simon): No specific assessment has been made of the impact of the radio provisions set out in the draft Digital Economy Bill on local commercial stations remaining on FM after the digital radio switchover. However, these provisions, and the proposals in the Digital Britain White Paper, were made following 18 months of consultation with the radio industry, which included representatives of small local commercial stations.

I am continuing this dialogue with the industry with the specific purpose of ensuring that local radio can continue to thrive on FM after the digital radio switchover.

Digital Broadcasting: Scotland

Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of Scottish households are able to receive digital radio services; what plans his Department has to increase coverage for digital radio in Scotland before 2015; what the cost of implementing those plans will be; and who will pay for the implementation.

Mr. Simon: The Spectrum Planning Group, which formed part of the Digital Radio Working Group, reported in November 2008 that 77.8 per cent. of the population in Scotland had access to indoor Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB).

Coverage of digital radio broadcasting in the UK continues to increase and both the commercial and the BBC’s national multiplexes now reach about 90 per cent. of the UK population. The Digital Radio Upgrade programme will require new investment in building and improving DAB coverage and reception. To this end we will be working with the BBC and commercial operators to ensure coverage of DAB is comparable to FM by the end of 2014.

The Digital Britain White Paper was clear that the investment need to increase coverage will need to come from both commercial operators and the BBC.

Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of households in Scotland receive (a) digital commercial radio and (b) BBC digital radio services.

Mr. Simon: The Spectrum Planning Group, which formed part of the Digital Radio Working Group, reported in November 2008 that 76.2 per cent. of the population in Scotland had access to digital commercial radio services, while 77.8 per cent. of the population in Scotland has access to BBC digital radio services. Figures are based on indoor coverage.

GERMANY: “FM is and will continue to be the most important means of transmission for radio,” say commercial broadcasters

Commercial radio broadcasters in Germany have published a policy paper emphasising that FM will continue to be the main broadcast platform for radio. The VPRT, a trade association of 160 commercial broadcasters (70 of whom are active in radio), this week responded to the draft Work Programme for 2010 set out by the Radio Spectrum Group [RSPG] of the European Commission. One of its proposed work streams had been “to discuss the pros and cons of indicating a target date for analogue radio broadcasting (FM) switch-off.”

The formal response from VPRT sets out powerful arguments why current FM spectrum (referred to as ‘Band II’) will continue to be radio’s most important platform for broadcasting:

The future development in the different frequency bands (especially Band II) is of utmost importance to our radio service members. Therefore, we are seriously concerned about the fact that RSPG is considering a target date for analogue radio broadcasting (FM) switch-off.

Nevertheless, we see the need to think about future developments and possible usages of Band II which comply with the provisions of the GE84 [Geneva radio conference of 1984] agreement and ensure FM services which are able to operate free of any interference. At the same time, we would like to stress the necessity of adapting and developing those GE84 provisions to ensure the continuity of Frequency Modulation (FM) and the future usages in Band II. However, this needs to be achieved without further co-ordination at international level.

1. Band II with FM is and will continue to be the most important means of transmission for radio
Band II with FM is the most important means of transmission for VPRT’s radio service members. Also, in the foreseeable future, Band II with FM will remain the basis of commercial activities for private radio stations. This is grounded by two reasons: firstly, the heavy usage by listeners and, secondly, the very high market penetration of FM receivers. Currently, more and more new Band II FM receivers are establishing in the market. As a consequence, the receiver basis is modernised constantly. Modern communication devices, such as mobile phones, smart phones and media players, integrate Band II FM receivers and ensure an even wider availability of FM. Switching off FM transmission is therefore neither realistic, nor can it be crowned with success.

2. FM in Band II is of utmost importance in the case of catastrophe
Due to the extremely high penetration of FM devices in Europe and its heavy usage, Band II is the only reliable way to inform the public in the case of catastrophe or need of contacting citizens in an emergency. This was recently proven when a blizzard hit Germany at the beginning of January. This is also valid in case of a regional power cut, as many devices are powered by batteries. For the time being, no digital receiver (DAB, etc.) has been developed for the operation with battery.

3. Band II is a small but efficiently used frequency range
The so-called Band II is the frequency range between 87.5 and 108 MHz and only represents 20.5 MHz. Nearly every single frequency is used in this bandwidth. Together with the broad receiver penetration and very high usage by the listeners, this small bandwidth is very efficiently used. In the last few years, receivers have been significantly developed which today results in an enormous improvement of their reception quality. Millions of listeners are convinced by the characteristics of FM. Even under very difficult circumstances for receiving a signal, a very good reception is possible. On the other hand, other (digital) systems are disconnected in a very early stage, which is rather disadvantageous. The usage of Band II is still “state of the art”.

4. No migration or partial migration of the services in other frequency spectrum
VPRT rejects any proposals which include the shifting of the current usage from Band II to other frequencies. This would bring the intensive and effective use of Band II to an end. Due to the lack of digital receivers, as well as of the absence of consumer demand for change and migration, a restart of a digital system would mean inefficiency and un-sustainability for a very long period of time. In other bands, there is enough space to introduce new systems. Band III (174 to 230 MHz, channels 5 to 12) and therewith corresponds to 56 MHz – is available.

5. Consideration of future developments of FM transmission after GE84
Since the Geneva conference of 1984 (GE84), different parameters of the FM usage in Band II have changed. In the meanwhile, different and changed sources of signals are available (music), the signal processing was adapted and a compression of the signals was introduced. The processing of the FM signals in the receivers is completely digital. 25 years after G84, the provision from the Geneva plan should be adapted and developed according to recent technical developments.

6. There is a chance for new standards with unlimited parallel FM operation
In the medium term, there are different options to develop the use of Band II. The use of FM has to remain, due to the heavy use described in point 1.4. An unlimited parallel FM operation offers the opportunity of financing additional engagements from the remaining FM transmission. Further developments with new standards based, on additional unlimited parallel operation of FM, is a chance for economical efficiency. Therefore, it is necessary to adapt the ETSI spectrum mask ITU-BS.412-9, as well as other ITU-R recommendations, by keeping the guidelines for aeronautical services (VOR and ILS). In this way, the “envelope concept” which was already used in the GE06 plan could be kept. Therewith, new standards under an adapted ETSI spectrum mask would be possible without interfering with the existing FM transmission and conditions. In this case, a new planning conference would not be necessary.

We support a conversion to digital assignments if the FM transmission can be maintained without any limitation. In this case, a switch from single FM transmission into a digital transmission would be possible, without discriminating other FM transmissions.

We do not see a future for technologies which are linked to a switch-off of the FM transmission.

7. Interference with FM through new standards have to be avoided
As already mentioned in point 6, it must be avoided that future technology developments cause any interference to the existing FM transmissions. A reduction of the current coverage caused by future developments is not acceptable for VPRT members. Some aspects of the technical developments are promising but, due to a lack of information, a full evaluation is not possible.

8. No international re-planning of Band II or of parts of it
Due to the very intensive and effective use of Band II, we do not see any need for a long and very costly international re-planning. The GE84 plan should be supported in its principles and adapted as mentioned in point 6. Even a re-planning of certain parts of the Band II would not lead to any benefit, as the complete Band II is used and needed in the future.

9. Re-adjustment of Band II at national level is necessary
However, we always have been calling for a re-adjustment of Band II at national level in order to balance the relation between public broadcasters and private broadcasters. At the moment, we face an imbalance with regard to the amount of frequencies, as well as the frequency capacity, held by public broadcasters on the one hand and by private broadcasters on the other hand. We therefore ask for a readjustment which takes the actual demands into account. The introduction of new standards would carry forward the current imbalance.

10. Further research and economical comparison are necessary
Next to the research and comparison, with respect to the technical characteristics and parameters of the available standards, further research is needed to complete a substantial evaluation. For the time being, an evaluation of the economical and financial factors is still missing. We therefore ask to also take those aspects into consideration.

Summary of VPRT comments
• Band II with FM is and will continue to be the most important means of transmission for radio
• FM in Band II is of utmost importance in the case of catastrophe
• Band II is a small but efficiently used frequency range
• No migration or partial migration of the services in other frequency spectrum
• Consideration of future developments of FM transmission after GE84
• There is a chance for new standards with unlimited parallel FM operation
• Interference with FM through new standards have to be avoided
• No international re-planning of Band II or of parts of it
• Re-adjustment of Band II at national level is necessary
• Further research and economical comparison are necessary

Berlin, January 2010

[this is VPRT’s own English translation]

CANADA: DAB radio “is no longer a replacement for analogue AM and FM services”

The Canadian government has published a consultation that proposes to re-allocate radio spectrum previously used for DAB radio to fixed and mobile wireless devices. The consultation document narrates the story of the failure of DAB radio in Canada.

In 1996, the [Industry Canada] Department published an allotment plan to accommodate all existing and some new FM and AM radio stations by providing each with a DAB assignment. The dedication of the sub-band 1452-1492 MHz for DAB was justified on the expectation that DAB would replace analogue FM and AM stations, and that the associated spectrum would be released for new wireless services. Canada adopted the Eureka 147 standard for DAB, which was widely accepted by European countries and others. In response to the interest of broadcasters to offer some non-broadcasting services using DAB broadcasting facilities, the Canadian Radio-television Television Commission (CRTC, 1996) and the Department (1997) made provisions to permit a limited amount of non-programming services.

Starting in the late 1990s, the CRTC licensed 76 DAB stations in Toronto, Windsor, Montréal, Vancouver, Victoria and Ottawa. In addition, the CRTC approved a stand-alone ethnic commercial radio station. After a promising start, the roll-out of DAB has virtually come to a stop and some stations have ceased operation. The marginal development of DAB services in Canada can be attributed to several factors.
• First, consumers have only had limited access to high-priced DAB receivers.
• Secondly, the United States, with its influential market, is implementing HD digital technologies on the shoulders of the analogue FM and AM channels.
• Most European countries have implemented DAB services in the VHF band III (174-230 MHz) instead of the anticipated L-band. Only a few countries have pursued DAB in the L-band. The success in such countries has been quite limited.
• Furthermore, Canada used a different channelling system that required the few receivers imported to Canada to be customized for this small market.

An ongoing concern of Canadian broadcasters has been the inability to broadcast a significant level of new programming on DAB stations in order to attract subscribers during the transition phase. Moreover, as digital radio was implemented in only a few cities, without contiguous coverage over major transport corridors, car manufacturers are not installing DAB receivers in new vehicles for sale in Canada. Since then, with the availability of two subscription digital radio satellite services, the Canadian automobile manufacturers have proceeded to install satellite digital radio receivers in new vehicles.

In 2006, the CRTC launched a public review of its commercial radio policy, which included a review of the L-band DAB transition policy. It culminated in a new licensing model being adopted for digital radio broadcasting (Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-160). Some of the findings related to digital broadcasting and to the decision aspects with respect to this spectrum review are as follows:
• the offering of new and innovative program content may raise consumer interest for DAB services, but technical quality alone will not drive demand;
• the FM and AM frequency bands will be needed in the future for radio broadcasting, and HD radio digital broadcasting could further enhance the importance of this spectrum for over-the-air radio broadcasting;
• the transition model of replacing analogue FM and AM stations with L-band DAB is no longer a tenable objective.

In summary, several impediments will continue to affect the implementation of DAB services under the new licensing model, such as:
• the lack of affordable L-band DAB receivers;
• the lack of factory-installed DAB receivers in new vehicles;
• the U.S. market influence of digital radio services using HD radio technology on existing analogue FM and AM channels; and
• the European market influence of having adopted DAB service in the VHF Band III (174-230 MHz) and their review of the L-band spectrum for a variety of technologies and service applications.

The Canadian government’s policy that DAB radio “is no longer a replacement for analogue AM and FM services” follows on from US policy in debate that FM radio will be the universal radio platform to be included in all mobile phone handsets. There is an important lesson for the UK market in the Canadian conclusion that “the offering of new and innovative program content may raise consumer interest for DAB services, but technical quality alone will not drive demand.”

DAB radio’s death in Canada is demonstrated by World DMB’s country page for Canada not having been updated since September 2008, while the last news entry on Canada’s own digital radio website was posted in 2007. The world map has lost the largest country to have implemented DAB and the only country in the Americas.

Labour MP says government's analogue radio switch-off "is absolutely potty”

House of Commons
18 January 2010
Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Labour): My understanding is that the Government currently propose that analogue radio be switched off in 2013. If that is the case, it is absolutely potty. Will the Government reconsider?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Siôn Simon): My hon. Friend is, for once, slightly wrong on the detail. The policy is that we move to digital in 2015, but not that analogue radio be switched off. Most big radio stations will move to digital, but smaller commercial and community radio stations will stay on FM and will be, as I have said, on the same dial as the big digital stations.

House of Commons
18 January 2010
Written Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Conservative): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport with reference to the answer to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire of 23 June 2009, Official Report, column 768W, on motorways, what assessment he has made of the effects on the level of motorway congestion of the DAB radio service Traffic Radio since its introduction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport (Chris Mole, Ipswich) (Labour): Traffic Radio is one of a suite of Highways Agency information services designed to provide road users with access to the very latest traffic information.
Research has shown that awareness and usage of information services can influence levels of motorway congestion. It is not possible to directly correlate the impact of Traffic Radio to motorway congestion due to the complexity of assessing one information service in isolation from the others. In addition, information is only one of a series of measures that can contribute towards congestion reduction.
The Highways Agency is undertaking a piece of research to evaluate whether the anticipated benefits of Traffic Radio, as outlined in its original specification, have been realised. This work is due to be completed by April 2010 and will be supplemented by information from the agency’s annual Measuring Improvements in Network Information Services survey.

Parliamentary debate on local radio: Minister reads from the government DAB script

“The Future Of Local Radio” [excerpts]
Private Members’ Debate
Westminster Hall, House of Commons
12 January 2010 @ 1330

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Siôn Simon): Local radio is, without question, important to the Government and to communities, playing an important role in binding together the social fabric. We take it very seriously.

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (Liberal Democrat): On the point about the importance the Government place on local radio, it seems that local radio stations, and certainly those in my constituency, Pirate FM and Atlantic FM, do not necessarily feel that they have had the opportunity to get their points across at an early stage. That is why they are now contacting local Members to look at some of the issues when the Digital Economy Bill is debated on the Floor of the House. What sort of consultations are taking place with local radio stations?

Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; there is undoubtedly some concern in the industry. There has been a bit of a campaign, led by UTV. I recently met, at RadioCentre, representatives of many local commercial local radio stations from across the country, and some of them will have been those he mentioned from his constituency. There was extensive consultation when the Bill was drafted, so we do take it seriously. During my remarks, I hope to allay some of the fears which may have emerged through misunderstanding.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Independent): There are genuine fears that the Bill will lead to a two-tier system, so would the Minister address a couple of those fears? Will Clause 34 genuinely lead to deregulation for smaller local radio? Will digital be affordable for smaller local radio, and how can we achieve that? Will smaller local radio get more access to higher-quality FM while it is still around?

Mr. Simon: I am pretty confident that I shall address all those points in my brief remarks. Let me make some progress before I take any more questions. Digital switchover provides new opportunities and increases functionality. It is an essential part of securing the long-term future. The total revenue of the commercial sector has fallen from £750 million in 2000 to £560 million now. At the same time, transmission costs have gone up, with stations now bearing the cost of carriage on FM, DAB, online and digital TV. A market facing such rising costs and falling revenue is unsustainable and puts the health of the entire sector under threat. Although the path to digital may not be easy, we are convinced that it is the only route for securing the long-term future of radio, and that is a view shared by the vast majority of the sector, notwithstanding some of the reservations raised by hon. Members. Therefore, rather than a catalyst for decline, the changes set out in the Digital Economy Bill are essential to secure the survival of local radio. For the first time, we will have three distinct tiers. First, there will be a tier of national services, both commercial and BBC, with a wide range of content. It will allow the commercial sector to compete more effectively with the BBC, employ high-profile presenters and attract high value national advertising and sponsorship. Secondly, a regional or large local tier, again comprising commercial and BBC services, will provide a wide range of programmes, including regional news, traffic and travel. The tier will increase the coverage size and potential revenue of many large local stations which, in turn, will increase the opportunity for linked advertising between regions so that regional commercial operators can benefit from quasi-national advertising. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the issue of advertising being badly commissioned by the Scottish Government, which I understand. None the less, the benefits of linked advertising for regional radio can be very great if commissioned sensitively. Most important in the context of today’s debate, there will be a tier of local and community radio stations with the specific focus of informing and reflecting the communities they serve. They will be distinct from the national and regional tiers because of the very local nature of their content and they will benefit from less competition for local advertising funding.

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Conservative): People in my constituency and elsewhere who depend on radios will not be able to get local radio if it is purely digitised.

Mr. Simon: Local radio will not be purely digitised. That tier will stay on FM for the foreseeable future, but it will not be an FM ghetto; it will be an accessible FM, as I shall explain.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Labour): Given the time constraints, will the Minister agree to meet Members who are interested in the subject?

Mr. Simon: Yes, I am happy to meet Members who are interested. I have another meeting scheduled with local radio operators from all over the country, which will be under the same auspices as my recent meeting with them. (I am not sure whether I have enough time to continue. I do.) So, let me be clear: we see a digital future for all radio eventually. However, with more than 50 BBC services, nearly 350 commercial stations, 200 licensed community stations, the current infrastructure will not support a move to digital for everybody. For small commercial and community stations, the coverage area and the cost of carriage of a digital multiplex are too great. That is one reason why, for the time being, we believe that those stations are best served by continuing to broadcast on FM.

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (Liberal Democrat) rose —

Mr. Simon: I am nearly coming to my point, but I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Malcolm Bruce: Some of the small stations have already invested in being on digital. Are they not in danger of being kicked off to FM, having made that investment, and would that be a fair outcome?

Mr. Simon: No, small stations are not in such danger. Stations that are already on digital are not in danger of being kicked off digital, but they are suffering the extra cost of running on two platforms. That is one of the reasons why we need an orderly, managed and reasonably speedy transition to an affordable single platform for as many people as can afford to be on it. The idea of stations on more than one platform is not new, which moves us to a key point that has not been widely understood — it is really important. Listeners have for decades moved between FM and Medium Wave, and historically also to Long Wave. The current generation of DAB sets has tended to make that move a rather sharp distinction, which has led to the fear that FM will end up being a second-class ghetto tier. To avoid that, we are committed to ensuring the implementation of a combined station guide, which is similar to an electronic programme guide, that will allow listeners to access all sets will simply have a list of station names. The listener will not distinguish between FM and digital stations, but will simply select the station by name. We are already working with the industry on that system and encouraging its development and introduction as quickly as possible. That is a crucial difference that has not been widely promulgated or understood. It means that people can stay on FM and the new sets can service the same market. Only 5 per cent of the digital radio receivers currently on sale cannot receive FM. It is our intention that all digital receivers should be able to receive FM as well as complying with the World DMB profile, which will ensure that they can support other technologies to accommodate future changes. That crucial distinction has not been widely understood. When I explained it to people in the industry, it made a big difference. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked whether we could upgrade to DAB+ from the beginning. I understand why he says that, but we are not right at the beginning. There are 10 million DAB sets out there for which people have laid out large amounts of money. The BBC completed a study into the issue last year, and concluded that, on balance, it was not worth writing off that technology because of the impact on the 10 million people who had bought DAB sets. We have said that all new technology should be DAB+ and future compatible so that further change is future-proofed and DAB+ is not excluded. As for the switchover date of 2015, the hon. Gentleman asked whether it was the only way we would get things moving. The Government believe that 2015 is an achievable date. The actual date that switchover happens will depend on the criteria for listenership and coverage being satisfied. We think it can be done by 2015, and that it is important to set a challenging target. The issue of £20 sets was raised. There are already some £30 sets. We have five years to go until 2015, so we remain confident that we will have £20 sets by then.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Labour): I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says about the 2015 date. Can I take it from what he said this morning that 2015 is an aspiration to encourage the industry to move towards digital — to put their house in order and get things ready? However, if the coverage is not there in places such as the constituencies of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) where there are a lot of hills, will the Government look at the date again? That date is not already fixed.

Mr. Simon: As I said, we believe it is an achievable date. If more than 50 per cent of listeners are not on digital by then, and if coverage is not similar to FM — 98.5 per cent — it will not happen on that date. If for any other unforeseen reason, we are not, as a nation, in good shape to do it by then, we will not do it. We will not switch over at an inappropriate time, but we believe that it can and should be done in 2015. As time ticks on, let me say that a relatively small and cheap piece of hardware will be available to convert in-car sets to something that works in the future as well as the present.

[Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).]

Criteria and a date for digital radio switchover: where'd they go?

When will the UK government’s proposed ‘digital radio switchover’ happen? For a long time, we had always been told that the pre-requisites were:
• market criteria that had to be reached before switchover could be announced;
• a fixed, single date for switchover to happen.

So both of these must be in the Digital Economy Bill somewhere, surely? Well, it seems that everything (except the Bill itself) points to 2015 as the switchover date. But as for the criteria?

The government’s press release of 20 November 2009 announcing the Digital Economy Bill stated:
• “Digital radio: update the regulatory framework to prepare for moves to digital switchover for radio by 2015”.

The government’s accompanying Factsheet of 20 November 2009 stated:
• “At the centre of our ambition is the delivery of a Digital Radio Upgrade programme by the end of 2015.”

The government’s accompanying Impact Assessments of 20 November 2009 referred to:
• “a switchover to digital radio by 2015”
• “a switchover to digital only radio by 2015”
• “a Digital Radio Upgrade programme, which should be completed by the end of 2015”.

However, the government’s Explanatory Notes to the Digital Economy Bill said:
• nothing about criteria that have to be met;
• nothing explicitly about a switchover date.

Published on 20 November 2009, the Digital Economy Bill itself contained nothing about:
• criteria that have to be met;
• an explicit date for digital radio switchover.

What? Is this not strange? Somewhere along the way, it seems as if the agreed criteria and the switchover date just vanished into thin air. So what happened? Let’s go back and follow the timeline of how we got to where we are now.

JUNE 2008
The Interim Report of the government’s Digital Radio Working Group recommended:
• “Government should agree a set of criteria and timetable for the migration to digital.
• These criteria should include an assessment of:
      * The percentage of listening to DAB enabled devices;
      * Current and planned coverage of DAB and FM; and
• In considering the case for migration we expect the Government will also want to consider the take-up of digital radio in cars, affordability, functionality, and an environmental impact plan.”

DECEMBER 2008
The Final Report of the Digital Radio Working Group recommended:
• “Three broad criteria that must be met in order to trigger the digital migration process:
     * That at least 50% of total radio listening is to digital platforms;
     * That national multiplex coverage will be comparable to FM coverage by time of digital migration;
     * That local multiplexes will cover at least 90% of the population and, where practical, all major roads ….”
• “Government should announce a date for digital migration, ideally two years after the criteria have been met”.

JANUARY 2009
The Interim Report of the government’s Digital Britain recommended:
• “We will create a plan for digital migration of radio, which the Government intends to put in place once the following criteria have been met:
     * When 50% of radio listening is digital;
     * When national DAB coverage is comparable to FM coverage, and local DAB reaches 90% of population and all major roads.”

JUNE 2009
The Final Report of Digital Britain recommended:
• “The delivery of a Digital Radio Upgrade programme by 2015”
• “Included within the Digital Radio Upgrade timetable is our intention that the criteria should be met by the end of 2013”:
     * “When 50% of listening is to digital; and
     * When national DAB coverage is comparable to FM coverage, and local DAB reaches 90% of the population and all major roads”

This Report also included a critically important graph (see below) which, it said, “shows the projected digital share of listening under two scenarios: organic growth and with a concerted drive to digital”.

Shockingly, the historical data in this graph had been ‘doctored’ to make it look as if the faster growth path advocated by Digital Britain was easily achievable [confusingly, the key on this graph labels the lines round the wrong way]. When I queried the source of this false data, the government told me it had been supplied by another party, which I later found to be a report produced by the Digital Radio Development Bureau, but not made public.

Digital Britain’s graph sought to demonstrate that continuation of the current growth trend in digital listening would lead to the 50% criterion being achieved in early 2015, whereas the actual data (from RAJAR) in my graph shows the 50% criterion not being reached until the end of 2018 [the trend line here is automatically generated by Microsoft Excel from all available quarterly data].

Digital Britain proposed policies to accelerate DAB take-up which, it said, would ensure that the 50% criterion would be achieved by year-end 2013, a gain of a little over one year from its natural trend. However, in my graph that uses RAJAR data, the acceleration necessary is shown to be five years, not one year, which would prove an almost impossible task to achieve [I wrote about the false data in June 2009].

JUNE TO DECEMBER 2009
Between the publication of the Digital Britain final report in June 2009 and today, it has slowly dawned on some of radio’s stakeholders that the agreed criteria necessary for digital radio switchover stand zero chance of being achieved by 2013. Neither do they stand a chance of being achieved by 2014 or 2015, nor probably by 2016. It always was pie in the sky, wishful thinking, fiction rather than fact. The manipulation of key data in a significant government report only demonstrates the duplicity.

So, what to do about it now? Admit you were wrong? Admit your culpability? Best to simply pretend that the criteria and the proposed switchover date never really mattered. Botched data – ignore it. Unrealistic targets – lose them. Perhaps nobody will notice the whole, sorry deception.

In the here and now, Digital Radio UK (the new organisation responsible for implementing DAB) explains the current thinking:
• “The [Digital Economy] Bill does not set a definite date for digital radio switchover …”
• “The Government has stated that switchover will not happen until the majority of radio listening is to digital, and until anyone who can currently receive FM is able to receive digital radio” [but fails to address why these criteria are not included in the Bill].

In the here and now, RadioCentre (the commercial radio trade body) explains:
• “[Digital Economy Bill Clause 30] allows the Secretary of State to set a [digital switchover] date, but does not require one to be set, or indicate when the date might be”.
• “The objective that switchover should not occur until certain thresholds have been reached for listening … appears sensible on first reading. However, RadioCentre does not believe it is appropriate for the industry to be tied to any figures in primary legislation. This is a very inflexible mechanism against which to manage our industry going forwards”.

Figures. Numbers. Dates. Criteria. This kind of factual evidence or hard data might obstruct a future decision to force consumers to switch to DAB radio.

So to answer the original question – the criteria and the switchover date that had been agreed upon by stakeholders, over two years of deliberations, have now quietly been relegated to oblivion.

When would digital radio switchover have happened if the agreed criteria had been implemented in law? Probably never.

When will digital radio switchover happen now? Whenever those in power want it to.