Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400-418)
ARQIVA, NATIONAL
GRID WIRELESS
20 DECEMBER 2005
Q400 Adam Price: Returning briefly
to the issue of coverage, you mentioned the three different categories
within the 1.5%. How many people do you believe who currently
receive an acceptable analogue signal will not receive acceptable
digital terrestrial TV post the switchover?
Mr Watson: I certainly do not
have a figure to offer for that. I think one or two other people
that have given evidence here have struggled to answer that one.
I do not believe there are any accurate figures available.
Q401 Adam Price: Are we talking hundreds?
Mr Watson: My belief is it is
a relatively small number, but I would not care to be any more
specific than that.
Q402 Adam Price: So you cannot give
us an order of a figure?
Mr Watson: Not really.
Mr Ward: We have re-engineered
and replaced quite a few antenna systems in the past and in those
circumstances you do sometimes get small numbers of people affected
because we simply cannot replicate perfectly the performance of
the previous antenna, but that has always been a small number
of people and often they have been able to overcome that problem
by repositioning their antenna or improving their antenna systems
and so forth. The network plan at the moment is very much predicated
on replicating the coverage that is currently provided by the
analogue services and we believe that is pretty achievable. As
Alan says, in terms of how many would not get it, I would hope
it will be a very small number and it will be affected more by
the physics of trying to replicate what went before as opposed
to any flaw in the coverage plan.
Q403 Adam Price: This relatively
small number that you referred to, are they likely to be evenly
spread?
Mr Ward: Evenly spread in what
sense?
Q404 Adam Price: Geographically.
Mr Ward: Within the service area
of a transmitter?
Q405 Adam Price: Over the UK. Are
the digital losers going to be concentrated in particular regions?
Mr Ward: I would not say that
would be the case. Our experience has been that sometimes we have
replaced antennas and everything has worked perfectly and on other
occasions there have been some problems which we have had to overcome,
but there has certainly been no geographic correlation between
the problems.
Mr Holebrook: I think what you
find is just at the fringe areas of the coverage and pretty much
in one road you might get one house that currently receives analogue
and the next that does not, but that could reverse once the re-engineering
happens. It is pretty much where the signal is relatively weak
in the very outskirts of the coverage area where we have difficulties.
Q406 Adam Price: I can see the letters
coming in now!
Mr Ward: The kind of problem that
we have faced in the past has been where an antenna perhaps on
paper works in a perfectly way but in reality, through manufacturing
intolerances or some physics, you perhaps get a little side beam
that should not actually be there, but then over the years people
build houses or move into that area and begin to receive their
TV off this spurious transmission. We then put up an antenna that
works more like the theory. That is where problems have arisen
in the past in terms of changeover. We try as much as possible
to make sure we prevent that and try and overcome that and to
help people sort out their aerial systems by giving them advice.
Q407 Chairman: I assume anybody could
get an adequate reception if they were prepared to build masts
the size of Crystal Palace in their garden. Presumably you are
talking about people receiving off a normal rooftop aerial. What
proportion of households will be able to receive an adequate signal
off a portable set-top aerial?
Mr Ward: I am afraid I do not
have any information on that.
Mr Watson: I cannot give you a
number. I believe Ofcom has a number to offer in some of their
documents but I cannot quote it. Harking back to our 98.5% coverage,
the assumption behind that is what is described as a standard
domestic installation, which is assumed to be an aerial at 10
metres high, not something special, not the tower in the back
of the garden. Portable reception will be a subset of that but
I do not know exactly what that subset is.
Mr Ward: Chairman, we could investigate
that point and come back to you with some written information.
Chairman: That would be very helpful.
Thank you.
Q408 Paul Farrelly: I just wanted
to explore the importance to the plan of the four week or one
month simulcast period. Alan, I have read your e-mails to the
Chairman which were very helpful. When we went to Berlin the regulators
were very pleased with themselves that there had not been riots
in the streets, they had had a six month roll-out period and everything
was hunky-dory. The broadcasters in hindsight, although they cannot
prove a negative, wish, because of the costs involved, they had
had a rather shorter period. How important is the one month period
in a UK context in terms of getting the job done? How ill-advised
would it be for a bunch of politicians like us, looking at the
numbers of complaints we might get, to say why not go for three
months or six months like in Germany?
Mr Watson: The one month is about
right for what we need to do. The task we have got is to come
to a site, prepare it ready for switchover and then on the night
switch the BBC analogue transmitter off and replace it by the
first high power multiplex. Then we have got to prepare for doing
the remaining analogues. Our planning indicates a minimum of a
fortnight to do that preparation, so we would start to get very
twitchy if the month shrunk to a fortnight. If it starts to increase
substantially then it takes us to a point where in order to get
other sites that have been worked on in parallel we would have
to withdraw our engineers from that site to start preparing another
site and then bring them back again. So extending the month is
problematic to us as well. From our point of view it sits about
right.
Q409 Paul Farrelly: How problematic
would two months be?
Mr Watson: It is something we
would need to take away and look into. It would certainly put
additional risk and additional cost in the project.
Q410 Paul Farrelly: Has anybody else
got any views?
Mr Ward: The activity that will
be most prevalent during that one month period, as I am sure the
Confederation of Aerial Industries will have said to you, will
be the adjustment of viewers' existing receiving antennas and
so forth. Perhaps one way to mitigate the pressure that is going
to occur there is to make sure, through Digital UK's communication
programme, that we try and make the public as digital ready as
possible and try and help them by making sure that their installations
are capable, which in the vast majority of cases they will be
because if they can receive the existing analogue signal their
system should be capable of receiving the new high power digital
signal, and making sure that within each of the regions people
take the pressure out of that one month period. I think that would
certainly be welcomed by the aerial installers.
Q411 Mr Hall: You are quite certain
about meeting the deadline for the analogue switch-off and the
analogue switch-on. In some of the evidence from Arqiva we were
alerted to a problem with the radio spectrum. A vast radio spectrum
is going to be available when the switch-off takes place but nobody
has decided what they are going to do with it yet. Is that a real
problem or is this just something where we are thinking when the
time comes the decisions will have been made already or do we
need to start making decisions now?
Mr Holebrook: We are the site
landlord for the initial sites in the Border regions and the West
Country so we have more of a time issue on our sites at the moment
than National Grid does. We really wanted to take the opportunity
to flag up that we do have to start the engineering work shortly.
In fact, in the summer of this coming year we will be starting
at Selkirk, we will start to put the antenna equipment in there
and really we would like as early an indication as possible from
the regulator of their proposed usage of the capacity going forwards
so that we can make sure we build it into the antenna designs.
That is something we are trying to do at the moment, we are trying
to second-guess what is likely to go into Selkirk and the other
sites shortly after that, but it would certainly be helpful if
we could get as firm an indication as possible so that we can
factor it in. What we do not want to do is do the engineering
work and then have to do re-engineering of the engineering work,
that just would not be acceptable.
Q412 Mr Hall: What is your view about
what spectrum should be used for?
Mr Holebrook: There is an array
of different options that can be used. This is very good spectrum.
Compared to other spectrum that is available it does give wide
coverage areas, it tends to overcome some geographic problems
and it does not shadow. It is a very attractive piece of spectrum
that can be used for more DTT services, for HDTV, which currently
is not available on the digital terrestrial platform and needs
to be planned in, for mobile TV types of applications or for other
types of applications. I have heard people talking about data
downloads and datacast into PCs and things like that and there
are plenty of opportunities there. I am pleased to note that Ofcom
has now announced their consultation on the digital dividend which
is starting to get the ball rolling and is very helpful.
Q413 Mr Hall: What would have to
be done in addition to making the spectrum available to have the
availability of high definition content on the old sets and mobile
TVs?
Mr Holebrook: To do high definition
television we probably need at least one additional multiplex
to be licensed. At the moment you have got six multiplexes that
are jam packed full of standard definition so it is very difficult,
without people sacrificing their channels, to upgrade the network
to put in the new equipment. It is pretty much essential that
an additional one multiplex at least is licensed which gives that
extra bit of breathing space to allow us to do all the necessary
engineering works and to allow the high definition to be introduced.
Q414 Mr Hall: So basically the regulator
has got a couple of jobs to do if we are going to get this right.
One is to be clearer about what the spectrum should be used for
and to licence one more multiplex. That is all that is standing
in the way of getting this thing right.
Mr Holebrook: Because this spectrum
is so attractive there are plenty of other people that are interested
in it, ie the mobile operators and the data broadcasting people.
Ofcom has got a duty to consult with all of those parties and
the broadcasters are very interested in it. I think it will be
really useful and I am glad to see they have announced this dividend
review which gives the opportunity for all parties to make their
case and for Ofcom to consider that.
Q415 Chairman: But you need a conclusion
to that relatively swiftly in order that when you start climbing
up the masts you are going to be able to fit the right equipment.
Mr Holebrook: Yes. That would
help!
Q416 Paul Farrelly: What would be
the ideal date for that from your point of view?
Mr Holebrook: We would be looking
at no later than the end of next year. The sooner we can get it
the better so that we can start planning the roll-out.
Q417 Chairman: The other factor is
the RRC. Can you say a word about possible interference particularly
between Northern Ireland and the South, or the south-west and
France, or coastal regions? Is that likely to be a serious problem?
Mr Watson: The existing spectrum
is working on a plan that was put in in Stockholm in 1960 which
has lasted extremely well. As it happens, the UK has been the
most efficient anywhere in the use of its spectrum which has been
a factor in our success but also a limiting factor in rolling
out digital so far. The RRC next year, the Regional Radio Conference,
will set the foundation for the next 40 years' use of the spectrum
and what is happening currently is that all the European countries
are submitting their plans for the future. Not surprisingly, they
are all intending to bring along digital and in every case that
means greater use of the spectrum. Greater use of the spectrum
implies greater interference problems. Yes, we can anticipate
more incoming interference. As it happens, we will be causing
more as well so it is fairly well balanced. That is one of the
factors that alters the predicted coverage for the UK. We will
experience more incoming interference on the south and east coast
and as part of the planning, in order to work out what is acceptable,
we will need to negotiate with the surrounding countries what
we can accept and what they can accept and then work out ways
on our side to mitigate it. The thing about RRC is that if all
goes well it should largely be a rubberstamping exercise. It is
not the case that everything is left to the last moment and then
an attempt is made to reach an agreement.
Q418 Chairman: So it is not like
the EU budget!
Mr Watson: I was choosing my words
very, very carefully, but absolutely not, and it is even less
like trade talks! Discussions have been going on for the last
year now between the countries to try to work out how to mesh
the individual country's plans and in general that is going quite
well. There are a few things to be sorted out but it is well on
its way.
Chairman: Can I thank you very much for
your time.
| 
