Local TV on Freeview - table of winners and losers
Brian Butterworth published on UK Free TV The table below details the areas covered (and not covered) by the new proposed local television on Freeview. Some of the most populous areas London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff, Southampton and Bristol already are BBC and ITV regional centres, shown "BBC" and "ITV".
I have noted "Poor coverage" for cities and towns that have a proposed "interleaved frequency" where the population covered is below two-thirds. The predicted coverage is shown as the second column.
The "no transmitter" areas of Leicester, Coventry, Bradford, Wolverhampton, Derby, Salford have large populations, but no suitable transmitter for an interleaved frequency.
| Location | % | Population | Notes | |
| London including Greater London area | 97% | 7714048 | BBC ITV | |
| Birmingham including Greater Birmingham area, part o | 100% | 2892768 | BBC ITV | |
| Leeds including Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield, Wak | 91% | 2651704 | BBC ITV | |
| Manchester including Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale | 100% | 2651704 | BBC ITV | |
| Newcastle including Gateshead, South Shields, Sund | 90% | 2410640 | BBC ITV | |
| Liverpool including St Helens, Widnes, Wigan, Wirral | 99% | 2121363 | 1st | |
| Glasgow including East Kilbride, Motherwell, Paisley | 88% | 1807980 | BBC ITV | |
| Edinburgh including Dunfermline | 48% | 1470490 | 2nd | |
| Cardiff including Newport, Bridgend | 74% | 1205320 | BBC ITV | |
| Falkirk including Stirling | 74% | 1108894 | 3rd | |
| Southampton including Eastleigh, Fareham, parts of Is | 54% | 1108894 | BBC ITV | |
| Dundee including Arbroath, Perth | 38% | 940150 | Poor coverage | |
| Bristol | 87% | 916043 | BBC ITV | |
| Reading | 39% | 867830 | Poor coverage | |
| Preston including Blackpool | 97% | 843724 | 4th | |
| Nottingham | 94% | 747298 | BBC | |
| Middlesbrough including Hartlepool, Stockton on Tees | 76% | 699086 | 5th | |
| Grimsby including Parts of Kingston upon Hull | 100% | 650873 | 6th | |
| Belfast including Lisburn | 96% | 626766 | BBC ITV | |
| Maidstone | 64% | 530341 | 7th | |
| Sheffield including parts of Rotherham | 63% | 458022 | 8th | |
| Guildford including Parts of Woking | 29% | 433915 | Poor coverage | |
| Ayr including Kilmarnock | 65% | 409809 | 9th | |
| Norwich | 96% | 373649 | BBC ITV | |
| Brighton and Hove | 65% | 361596 | 10th | |
| Stoke on Trent including Newcastle under Lyme | 80% | 361596 | 11th | |
| York | 47% | 361596 | Poor coverage | |
| Gloucester including Cheltenham | 93% | 337490 | 12th | |
| Lancaster including Morecambe, Heysham | 30% | 337490 | Poor coverage | |
| Telford | 52% | 337490 | Poor coverage | |
| Leicester | 0% | 330574 | No transmitter | |
| Aberdeen | 100% | 313383 | ITV | |
| Coventry | 0% | 303475 | No transmitter | |
| Hull | 0% | 301416 | BBC | |
| Bradford | 0% | 293717 | No transmitter | |
| Burnley including Nelson, Colne | 68% | 289277 | 13th | |
| Carlisle | 62% | 289277 | ITV | |
| Reigate including parts of Crawley | 62% | 289277 | 14th | |
| Swansea including Llanelli | 61% | 289277 | 15th | |
| Hemel Hempstead including Parts of St Albans | 34% | 265170 | 16th | |
| Oxford including Abingdon, Didcot | 100% | 265170 | BBC | |
| Wolverhampton | 0% | 251462 | No transmitter | |
| Plymouth | 0% | 243795 | BBC | |
| Derby | 0% | 229407 | No transmitter | |
| Haywards Heath including Heathfield, Uckfield | 67% | 229011 | 17th | |
| Plymouth | 106% | 226600 | 18th | |
| Salford | 0% | 221300 | No transmitter | |
| Mold including Denbigh, Ruthin | 28% | 214547 | Poor coverage | |
| Basingstoke | 73% | 212136 | 19th | |
| Cambridge | 99% | 202494 | 20th | |
| Bromsgrove | 35% | 200083 | Poor coverage | |
| Luton | 28% | 195262 | Poor coverage | |
| Keighley | 43% | 190441 | 21st | |
| Malvern | 63% | 190441 | 22nd | |
| Northampton | 0% | 189474 | No transmitter | |
| Portsmouth | 0% | 186000 | No transmitter | |
| Dudley | 0% | 184619 | No transmitter | |
| Milton Keynes | 0% | 184506 | No transmitter | |
| Sunderland | 0% | 177739 | No transmitter | |
| Inverness | 69% | 173566 | 23rd | |
| Walsall | 0% | 170994 | No transmitter | |
| Bournemouth | 0% | 167527 | No transmitter | |
| Stratford upon Avon | 43% | 163924 | Poor coverage | |
| Southend-on-sea | 0% | 160257 | No transmitter | |
| Swindon | 0% | 155432 | No transmitter | |
| Bedford including Sandy | 100% | 154281 | 24th | |
| Tonbridge including Parts of Tunbridge Wells | 73% | 149460 | 25th | |
| Bolton | 0% | 139403 | No transmitter | |
| Ipswich | 0% | 138718 | No transmitter | |
| West Bromwich | 0% | 136940 | No transmitter | |
| Peterborough | 0% | 136292 | No transmitter | |
| Stockport | 0% | 136082 | No transmitter | |
| Limavady including Parts of Ballymoney, parts of Cole | 65% | 132585 | 26th | |
| Slough | 0% | 126276 | No transmitter | |
| Dover including Parts of Folkestone | 81% | 125353 | 27th | |
| Gloucester | 0% | 123205 | No transmitter | |
| Carmarthen | 78% | 122943 | 28th | |
| Poole | 41% | 122943 | Poor coverage | |
| Watford | 0% | 120960 | No transmitter | |
| Elgin | 58% | 120532 | Poor coverage | |
| Chester | 0% | 118000 | No transmitter | |
| Rotherham | 0% | 117262 | No transmitter | |
| Newport | 0% | 116143 | No transmitter | |
| Greenock including Dunoon | 74% | 110889 | 29th | |
| Shrewsbury | 96% | 110889 | 30th | |
| Lisburn | 0% | 110000 | No transmitter | |
| Chichester | 0% | 108000 | No transmitter | |
| Winchester | 0% | 108000 | No transmitter | |
| Exeter | 0% | 106772 | No transmitter | |
| Eastbourne | 0% | 106562 | No transmitter | |
| Hereford | 98% | 106068 | 31st | |
| Scarborough | 75% | 106068 | 32nd | |
| Blackburn | 0% | 105085 | No transmitter | |
| Colchester | 0% | 104390 | No transmitter | |
| St. Helens | 0% | 102629 | No transmitter | |
| Salisbury | 74% | 101247 | 33rd | |
| Crawley | 0% | 100547 | No transmitter | |
| Derry / Londonderry | 90% | 96426 | 34th | |
| Worcester | 0% | 93000 | No transmitter | |
| Bath | 0% | 90000 | No transmitter | |
| Kidderminster | 63% | 84372 | 35th | |
| Barnstaple | 94% | 81962 | 36th | |
| Haverfordwest | 96% | 60266 | 37th | |
| Bangor | 77% | 53034 | 38th |
Help with TV/radio stations?
In this section
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
David: The position of the Idle transmitter means that there are no frequencies available for an interleave. Also, most homes in Bradford will use Emley Moor as their primary transmitter.
The whole point of the exercise is to have local television, and Leeds and Bradford are different cities.
| link to this comment |
Mike Dimmick: The Ofcom document, http://maps.ofcom.org.uk/.pdf provides the figure of 360,000 households for Reading on page 11. This multiplied by 2.41 gives the population figure. If it wrong, then Ofcom are wrong.
Mind you, the same table says there are 94,000 households in Plymouth and 100,000 of them use Freeview..
| link to this comment |
D
Daniel10:53 PM
Cambridge
Cambridge is listed twice. Brian, please could you clarify which areas of Cambridge/Cambs are served by Madingley - population 202k and 'no transmitter' of a population of 113k.
Is the ranking of 1st -> 38th a ranking from the most dense to most sparsely populated areas served by GI multiplexes from relay transmitters? There are an additional 12 areas with poor coverage, for example Luton, covering the town centre, but poor coverage serving North Luton and villages.
To summarise, 50% of the population will receive local TV via GI multiplexes. An additional 16% will receive local TV via GI multiplexes from main transmitters, which means a larger area receiving local TV which isn't really local - unless the BBC, ITV Tx's such as Crystal Palace takes into account 'petalled' directional multiplexes?
| link to this comment |
Daniel's: mapD's Freeview map terrainD's terrain plot wavesD's frequency data D's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Daniel: Sorry, my error. I merged two sheets together and as Cambridge wasn't covered in plan A... You can see the coverage map on the Local TV on Freeview - new Ofcom maps | ukfree.tv - independent free digital TV advice page.
The rankings are of places that have a workable local TV service - more than 66% coverage and not already a regional hub.
I suspect that with less than 50% coverage a local channel will not be a workable proposition in a locality.
As for percentages:
63.8% of the population will get a local TV service. That's 42% who already are in a city that has a BBC or ITV regional news hub. 21.8% will be in areas that don't have an existing hub.
6.9% are in areas with "poor" coverage and probably will not have a viable local service.
29.2% of the population live in places that stand no change of having a local TV service.
| link to this comment |
Thursday, 11 August 2011
D
Daniel7:07 AM
Cambridge
Thanks Brian. For 29.2% of the population, should new transmitters or new antenna equipment to existing DAB/FM transmitters be put up to ensure that local TV is available to all by DTT?
Of course, it is up to the market to decide. But, when providing cities such as Coventry, Leicester and Peterborough, surely there is a case for a transmitter to suit the local population. The mux only needs to be ~500W/1kW, directional and at best in group and same polarisation as the current transmitter.
However, iPTV, and other platforms probably will take up the opportunity for 29.2% population.
| link to this comment |
Daniel's: mapD's Freeview map terrainD's terrain plot wavesD's frequency data D's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Daniel: Quite a lot of the population in the 29.2% is in places that local TV just won't cover, in particular where the population density is very low.
The problems for Coventry, Leicester and Peterborough (and others) is not a transmitter site, but that people in these places do not share a common transmitter. The local TV service has to be an add-on to the current Freeview service, most people won't want to pay £100 to have another aerial installed and a diplexers just to get one extra channel.
Another issue is that the interleaved frequencies occur because they are slotted into the DTT transmitter plan. If you start trying to add in other transmitters, the chances of having an interleaved frequency reduce.
It should also be noted that money is not being thrown at this project, so the assumption that existing masts will be used.
| link to this comment |
M
Mike Dimmick2:21 PM
Briantist: £25m is about what Arqiva and NGW said they would be charging a PSB for transmission from all 1,100 site, in 2005 money.
As far as population goes, re-read page 2 of 3 of Ofcom's document for the definitions of 'Gross Population' and 'DPSA Population':
"Gross population represents the total number of households that could receive the local multiplex if their aerials are pointing towards the appropriate transmitter.
"DPSA is an attempt to provide a more realistic estimate of the number of households that might be able to receive the local multiplex than gross population. The DPSA (Digital Preferred Service Area) is a prediction of the areas where a particular transmitter is likely to provide better signals than other transmitters. In those areas, it is reasonable to expect that households have aerials pointing at the transmitter in question and could therefore receive the local multiplex broadcast from that transmitter."
Where more than one transmitter is used, the 'gross' figure is the largest from any *one* transmitter, but the 'DPSA' figure comes from the sum of *all* transmitters. That has led to a few anomalies where the DPSA figure is larger than the gross figure.
If you're trying to represent the actual populations of those areas, might I suggest using List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or List of urban areas in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - however, that is people, not households. If you're going to adjust a population figure to get approximate count of households, using a figure for average occupancy, you need to *divide* by 2.41, not multiply.
On that basis I reckon you get 369,804 / 2.41 = 153,445 households in the Reading/Wokingham urban area, and therefore the proposed local multiplex would cover 235% of them on a gross coverage basis, 91.2% in DPSA.
| link to this comment |
Mike Dimmick: Jeremy Hunt, speaking on the Media Show, said that the cost per local TV station would be about £500,000 per year. This could be covered by £10,000 a week of advertising (or other) income.
The cost of the transmitters is being bankrolled by the £25m a year "earmarked" BBC money - see BBC licence fee held at 145.50 until 2016 | ukfree.tv - independent free digital TV advice .
The Ofcom figures - where there is a single transmitter in the proposed scheme, "gross" in the households in the "target" area and DPSA is the number of those households using that single transmitter.
Where there is more than one transmitter in the proposed scheme, "gross" is still the number of households in the "target" area, households are not counted twice if they are in the reception area of transmitter A and transmitter B. It's not the coverage area of the "biggest transmitter". In this configuration the DPSA is the households that use transmitter A or transmitter B, and will be less than if there is another transmitter than is used by the households in the target area.
I get 2.41 from the UK population -
http://www.google.co.uk/p…tion - divided by 25652174 which is the Ofcom figure for "total UK homes".
So, Ofcom document page 11, "Reading gross population (households)" 360,000 multiplied by 2.41 gives 867600.
I think you have missed the "hh" standing for Households. I sense checked this with the London figure which is 3.2m households x 2.41 = 7712000 which is almost the figure of 7,753,600 on Greater London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
| link to this comment |
S
Stuart5:07 PM
I notice the disparity between the Gross and DPSA figures for the Dundee area, and having read the Ofcom document and looked at the map, I don't think it equates to poor coverage.
Given that the coverage area shown on the map extends to the Edinburgh area, I presume households in the Lothians are being included in the Gross figure, but that is irrelevant if the target area is Dundee and Angus (I think Perth may be stretching it)
:-).
| link to this comment |
Select more comments
Your comment please