Response to the document: Licensing Local Television

March 19th 2012

The University of would like to make the following points in response to the Ofcom proposals for licensing Local TV in the UK – as outlined in its December 2011 consultation document.

Question A4.2: “Are the 20 proposed locations in our minimum roll-out list the right ones?”

The University has argued that should have a Local TV channel – and that such a channel would have many positive benefits (as listed in our reply to A4.3).

We were disappointed that Luton was not included in the first phase. However, we regard this as a long term project, and can see advantages in being included in the second phase – in terms of the extra time it gives us to look at the various points involved, including content, transmitter, and business modelling issues.

Question A4.3: “Consultation question: are the 24 locations the ones, from our list of 65 sites where local TV is technically possible, where there is a demand from local service operators? Should any locations be added to, or subtracted from, this list?”

With reference to Question A4.3, we would argue that Luton should continue to be included in the second phase list of 24 locations. We would also argue that serious consideration needs to be given to extending the definition of Luton to include and since both in public administration terms and at a social level these are part of the Luton community. It is anticipated that the Boundary Commission will shortly be redrawing the boundaries of Luton’s Parliamentary constituencies to reflect this.

To support this argument, we would like to summarise the key points of our submission to DCMS last year:

a) Luton would benefit enormously from the focal point that local television would bring.

Luton-based ‘local’ radio, for instance, is in fact regional. BBC Three Counties Radio, and its commercial counterpart, Heart, both serve Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

b) Luton already has an active community media sector.

1

This sector includes two radio stations, a community local radio station Diverse FM and one of which is run by this University called Radio LaB, and a web operation called local-news.tv. c) Luton is a very ‘newsy’ area.

It has big employers – the University, Vauxhall and Northern and Shell publishers of the Express newspaper.

It has strong communications – including the London .

And it also has a rich diversity of ethnic groups, ranging from the Scots and Irish who came to work at Vauxhall in the thirties to the Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities who moved to the area in the sixties and seventies. d) There is widespread support in the Luton community for Local TV.

Support for local TV in Luton has come from many areas.

In our response to DCMS last year, we included messages of support from the Managing Director of Luton Airport, Glyn Jones, the CEO of the Bedfordshire Chamber of Commerce, Cheryl Smart, and the two Luton MPs, Kelvin Hopkins and Gavin Shuker.

And in a 2011 survey of 105 people in Luton, 90% of 40-60's and 81% of all age groups said they would like a local Freeview TV channel. e) Luton offers a financially stable base.

Luton has a thriving commercial centre mixing the headquarters of companies like Vauxhall and Easyjet with a wealth of service companies, retail outlets and a football club.

The University of Bedfordshire would like to support Local TV and is interested in it being sited at its new Campus Centre building, which opened in 2010 in the centre of Luton.

The University of Bedfordshire is in a strong financial position, having increased income in recent years from £82 million in 2006, to £120 million in 2010. Of this income, about £20 million per year in each of the last four years has been invested for the future of the University. Indeed, a new building for postgraduate and continuing professional development is currently being built on the Luton campus, for completion in 2013 – and this will further enhance our engagement with the media industry.

The University is also experienced in joint venture and commercial projects, currently working with more than 5,000 companies, mostly local to the region.

2

f) Involvement of the University of Bedfordshire.

The University, situated in the centre of Luton, has invested more than £5 million in its current state-of-the-art TV studios and its academic and technical staff. This could provide the core facility of a new TV station.

We also believe that Bedford would make an interesting and lively place for a Local TV channel. It is a newsworthy location, has a definable character and history, and has a number of well-established community organisations.

The University has a large campus in Bedford and plays a major role in the life of the local community. The University of Bedfordshire Theatre (with 280 seats) is the largest theatre in Bedford, and hosts many larger productions as well as projects from the university.

4.40: “We would particularly like to hear from those who might wish to apply for an L-DTPS licence to provide a local television service for any of the areas listed. Any such expressions of interest would be non-binding and may be submitted in confidence”

With reference to Paragraph 4.37 and 4.40, the University of Bedfordshire continues to be interested in the proposals for Local TV – and is in discussion with a number of organisations about possibly forming a consortium to bid for an L-DTPS licence for Luton. It is also examining the option of applying for a licence for Bedford (see below).

Detailed discussions have so far been held with the following Luton and Bedford organisations:

a) Diverse 102.8 FM - a Luton based community radio station, broadcasting with an Ofcom radio licence for 5 years, with advertising on the station. http://diversefm.com/dance-and-rnb-radio-online/

b) local-news.tv – a community TV station for Luton and Bedford. www.local-news.tv

c) Radio LaB 97.1FM – a community radio station based at the University of Bedfordshire. Radio LaB obtained a community radio licence in 2010, and had approximately 13 years experience of broadcasting with an RSL prior to 2010. http://www.beds.ac.uk/radiolab

There is clearly a lot of work to do before applying for a licence: compiling detailed content proposals, developing a long term business model, and creating a formal legal and commercial framework for a possible consortium.

We would also need to meet the multiplex company to discuss the particular DTT transmitter issues facing Luton.

A further issue for us to examine, as mentioned above, is whether we should be involved in a bid for the Bedford licence.

3

The University has an internationally recognised department of Performing Arts and English at its Bedford campus, which provides major input to the cultural life of Bedford and the surrounding district.

In conclusion, we are keen that Luton and Bedford are kept on the phase two list, and we are actively investigating whether to be part of a bid for a Local TV licence.

A4.4: “Do you agree with our approach to selecting sites for the second phase of local service licensing: inviting the multiplex applicants to select from the further list of locations where there is demand from potential service providers?”

As Luton and Bedford have been included in the second phase list, the University has concerns about the system for selecting cities and towns to be finally included in that list.

We understand that Muxco needs to take into account a range of complex technical and commercial factors – but we would argue that there needs to be:

a) A clear, transparent and regulated system for finalising the second phase locations.

b) A fair and regulated system for allowing appeals or challenges to those decisions.

We believe that Ofcom should have a role in both of these areas – and that the decision should not purely be a commercial one.

We also note in 4.42 that, “The list of 24 such locations … is subject to consultation, which is to say both the inclusion of the specific locations on the list, and the length of the list itself, will be confirmed following responses to this consultation, and may change”.

And that in 4.43, it states that, “We would anticipate that potential multiplex operators will have their own conversations with potential local service providers”.

Given this uncertainty, we would also like to argue that the decisions on the second phase list should be made as quickly as possible.

It would be unfortunate if organisations are allowed to spend time, resources, and money on continuing to investigate whether to apply for licences for areas which are then taken off the second list.

A4.5: “Do you agree with our proposed approach to building out and substituting further areas, in the second phase of licensing?”

We note in 4.45 that, “The technical plan proposed by the successful multiplex licence applicant will include a commitment to build out a further number of locations on top of the minimum 20. The multiplex licensee will be held to this further commitment, and these additional locations will be advertised in a second round of L-DTPS licensing.”

4

As with A4.4, the University is concerned about there being a transparent, fair and regulated method of challenging a decision by the successful multiplex licence applicant to leave a particular city or town off the phase two list.

A4.7: “Is our proposed approach to multiplex roll-out timetable the right one?”

Please note the concerns raised in our response to A4.4.

A4.9: “Do you agree with our approach to technical standards? Do you have any views on the choice of transmission mode or encoding standards?”

The University would argue that the BBC funds should also cover the costs of delivering the TV signal from the Local TV production centre to the DTT transmitter – rather than the current proposal of asking the Local TV licence operators to organise and pay for that.

We agree with the second point in 4.93 that the multiplex licence, “must not charge the local service operator more than sufficient to cover the operating costs of carrying the service”.

And we welcome, as described in 4.96, the setting up “an industry body comprising all L- DTPS licence holders”.

We would argue, however, that this body, during the first year or so, should have some kind of representation from potential phase two cities and towns – to ensure that the needs and views of phase two applicants are fully represented.

A4.10: “Do you agree with the criteria for assessing proposals from applicants for the multiplex licence?”

The University would argue that the criteria should take into account our responses to earlier questions arguing that applications for the multiplex licence should include explanations of how the applicant would behave in a clear, fair and accountable way – and what proposals they have for dealing with appeals and challenges.

A4.11: “Do you agree with our proposed localness requirement?”

The University broadly agrees with the point in 6.6 that, “the studio from which the service will be broadcast, and/or the main production base of the service, should be located within the licensed area”.

We can see that there may be exceptions to that, so we also agree with point 6.8 that Ofcom would “be open to representations making the case otherwise, and would be prepared to enter into written agreement to exempt local services from this requirement, where a good case had been made”. For example, we could see a scenario in which a Local TV operation in Bedford could make use of the University studio facilities in Luton.

A4.12: “Do you agree with our proposed approach of securing programming output that meets the statutory requirements by inviting applicants to draft Programming Commitments to be written into their licences?”

5

The University agrees with the approach of having Programming Commitments written into licences.

And we would endorse the licensing criteria for licence applicants to have to describe their programming output in terms of the nature of the service they wish to provide, how the service would serve the tastes and interests of the target community, and how the service would broaden the range of local services available in the area. We have two suggestions:

1) That licensees are allowed to phase the commitments – to allow for a different level of output in Year One (when net revenue is likely to be low) than in the following years.

2) That the proposal for hours of proposed coverage distinguishes between weekdays and weekends.

A4.13: “Is our proposed approach to service roll-out timetable the right one?”

Please note the concerns raised in our response to A4.4.

A4.15: “Do you agree with our proposed guidance around Programming Commitments, including our guidance on news and current affairs?”

We agree that the there are likely to be a wide range of “creative visions’ for local TV services, and that Ofcom should not be overly prescriptive. We support the statement in 7.8 that news is highly important. And as an HE organisation, we very much agree that Local TV should, as outlined in 7.18, set out to facilitate civic understanding, include fair and well-informed debate, reflect the lives and concerns of communities, and provide programming that informs and educates as well entertains.

We have a concern, though, that the wording in 7.9, seems to be over-prescriptive in its definition of news (for example, the implication in section 7.8 that sports news should not be included in the one hour of broadcast news a day). And we would argue that the one hour a day should be for weekdays not weekends.

A4.16: “Do you agree with our approach to assessing L-DTPS applicants’ ability to maintain service?”

The University broadly agrees with the proposal for assessing the applicants’ ability to establish and maintain the service.

We support the view that the application form should include, “questions on what broadcasting and other activities are planned, the cost and resources required, how the applicant intends to fund these, and what human resources are involved, as well as information on key staff and the management structure, including the group’s and individual members’ relevant experience”.

6

And we endorse the requirement that applicants need to have a clear business plan – and agree that, “without a well thought-through business plan it is unlikely that an applicant will be able to demonstrate its ability to maintain the proposed service”.

The University is currently discussing the issues relating to BARB and other revenue measurement issues – and we look forward to seeing how the local TV industry as a whole can develop innovative ways of measuring audience responses to local advertising.

7