Here's another fine mess you got me into!
That's the signoff line made famous by Oliver Hardy, whose autocratic ways
inevitably get him into a pickle, which he promptly blames on Stan Laurel, his
unassuming partner in rib-tickling.
I wonder which other technologically advanced country would call for 'opinions'
from stakeholders without even so much as publishing some meaningful data on
the basis of which suggestions can be made.
Here are some of the things I would like to know: 1. the precise geospatial
distribution of transmitters. 2. the tested reach (averaged out over time, from
inception till today) of each station. 3. the reported incidents of overlap, ie
interference, from persons located within overlap areas (as defined by 2). 4.
ditto, from competing stations in the same geographical area.
Without this most basic of information, the past years of growth of FM
broadcasting are simply made irresponsibly useless in terms of being able to
project with any degree of accuracy the likely consequence of decreasing the
channel separation limits, which were in the first place completely arbitrary.
This Session of Parliament may debate or pass (let's not have any illusions) a
Right to Services Bill, which amongst other clauses mandates that any
government department offering a service to the public must upfront declare
what that serviced comprises, and its deliverables. Between WPC and TRAI, I
think we are not being greedy to wonder about how scientifically the so-called
'scarce' spectrum is being parcelled out and utilised in India. While this
forum is not particularly concerned about 2-way communication channels, the
reality is that there is an inevitable movement worldwide towards the use of
smart signalling technologies, that hugely increase the efficiency of
utilisation of radio frequency signalling.
The question is therefore not totally irrelevant: to what extent is the
community mediascape being encouraged or discouraged by the growth of other
signalling applications? Within the current technology, what is the impact* of
revenue earning vs non-revenue centric licensing in audio community media? What
is the spread of broadcast languages between rural and urban stations,
commercial and non-commercial, and between commercial and non-commercial
stations in general.
*The impact could be measured in terms of direct revenues generated, and in
terms of change in reported income distribution in the areas under coverage of
community radio stations, for instance. More suitable measures could evolve
over time, once a beginning is made.
Listmembers probably have a wishlist of things that would help smoothen the
process by which radio stations are allowed to go on air - specific things that
would improve transparency and also optimise the time it takes to get broadcast
approval. What would it look like? What role should WPC play, and what role
TRAI? Is there any other way the occasionally conflicting but always
interlinking fields of spectrum, media and general growth of wellness could be
or should be coordinated?
Vickram
http://communicall.wordpress.com
http://vvcrishna.wordpress.com
>________________________________
> From: sajan venniyoor <venniy...@gmail.com>
>To: CR India <cr-india@sarai.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011, 11:57
>Subject: [cr-india] "TRAI issues consultation paper for FM Radio"
>
>
>TRAI's consultation paper is titled, with admirable brevity, "Issues related
>to prescribing Minimum Channel Spacing, within a License Service Area, in FM
>Radio Sector in India".
>As Vickram has pointed out, cities like New York and Paris have 60-70 FM radio
>stations "as against the dozen or so frequencies grudgingly permitted for use
>in Indian cities". This is because of a channel separation of 800 Khz that the
>Telecom Ministry insists on. Under pressure from stakeholders (read:
>commercial FM networks), the Telecom ministry is rethinking their strategy and
>asking whether a channel separation of 400 Khz could work just as well, which
>would presumably double the number of channels one could pack into the FM
>band.
>
>
>Now, how will this affect community radio? Would a larger number of FM
>frequencies in cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore give us a larger share
>of the pie? Or would it crowd low-power CR channels off the dial? Would a 20KW
>commercial FM channel broadcasting on, say, 91.1 MHz have any effect on a 50W
>CR station at 90.8 MHz, given that commercial FM stations have a habit of
>leaking into adjacent channels and our radio receivers are not the best in the
>world. (Those, incidentally, are the frequencies assigned to Radio City and
>IGNOU CR respectively in Delhi).
>
>
>We should respond to TRAI's consultation paper. Our 'valuable comments' are
>requested by 26 Dec, and counter-comments by 2 Jan.
>
>
>Sajan
>
>
>Trai issues consultation paper for FM Radio 09 Dec 11, Radioandmusic.com
>http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/trai-issues-consultation-paper-fm-radio
>
>NEW DELHI: With A and A+ cities demanding more FM channel even after the
>announcement of the Phase III guidelines, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of
>India (Trai) has sought the opinion of stakeholders whether it would be
>acceptable if the minimum channel spacing within a license service area can
>reduced from the current level of 800 KHz.
>
>It has said that if it can be reduced, then stakeholders should suggest what
>the minimum level should be, justifying their answers with reasoning.
>
>Issues such as the viability and desirability of having more number of
>channels in the interest of the stakeholders, selectivity of FM receivers
>available with the consumers (such as mobile handsets, car radios, and other
>receivers), transmission from a single or multiple transmission setups may
>please be factored in should also be considered.
>
>In a consultation paper on “Issues related to prescribing minimum Channel
>spacing, within a license service area, in FM Radio sector in India”, Trai has
>asked stakeholders to consider the implications of reducing/not-reducing the
>minimum channel spacing within a license service area. Furthermore, should the
>reduction of minimum channel spacing be confined to A+ and A category cities
>or should it be reduced across the country, and how should funding for the
>modification of transmitting setups be funded.
>
>Stakeholders have been asked to send in their written comments by 26 December
>and counter-comments by 2 January 2012.
>
>The Paper says that a second solution suggested by the operators requires a
>separate common transmission infrastructure (CTI) which includes transmitting
>tower, combiners, feeder cable, transmitting antenna etc. Effectively there
>would be two CTIs, one existing and another new one.
>
>The combiner designed for 800 KHz spacing could be used as the channel
>separation within a CTI would remain 800 KHz. However, suitably choosing the
>new channel frequencies (having channel separation of 800 KHz) in between the
>existing channel frequencies radiated from the existing CTI (also having
>channel separation of 800 KHz), would effectively result in channels spaced
>at 400 KHz for the license area for which these two CTIs are meant.
>
>Trai has pointed out that after the policy for Phase III was declared for 839
>new private FM channels in 294 cities in July, the Information and
>Broadcasting Ministry had asked the regulator to study the issue of reducing
>channel spacing in view of the demand from operators in A+ and A cities which
>have already been covered in the first two phases.
>
>The consultation paper analyses the issue of minimum channel spacing among the
>FM channels in light of the factors such as selectivity of the FM radio
>receivers, capability of combiners to effectively combine closely spaced
>channels, multiplicity of transmitting sites within the service area, mode of
>funding in case of up-gradation/creation of transmission setups is required.
>
>Join the Community Radio Forum. For membership details, please go to
>www.crforum.in
>
>
Join the Community Radio Forum. For membership details, please go to
www.crforum.in
