HL Deb 27 April 1989 vol 506 cc1403-4WA
Lord Mowbray and Stourton

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What progress has been made on the studies into the technical feasibility of a sixth terrestrial television network at ultra high frequency.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham)

Paragraph 5.7 of the Government's White PaperBroadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality stated: In the longer term, a sixth network at UHF covering up to 50 per cent of the population might be feasible. But this has not yet been studied in detail, and the cost and interference implications could be significant. Further study is also needed of the implications for existing users of the spectrum involved. The Government has put these studies in hand". After careful consideration of the results of the technical feasibility studies carried out so far, the Government have decided not to pursue the studies further for the foreseeable future.

The studies show that the best prospects of achieving a sixth terrestrial UHF television network (Channel 6) lie in making a more intensive use of the 44 channels currently used to provide the four existing UHF services. However, if off-air reception of the four existing UHF services is to remain intact, Channel 6 would be unable to achieve more than about 17 per cent. coverage of UK households, and there would, for example, be no coverage at all of the London area. The technical studies have shown that it might be possible to extend Channel 6 coverage to as much as 40 per cent. of UK households; but the price would be that perhaps 20,000 viewers in up to 10 areas (mainly in London and the North West) would lose the ability to receive off-air one of the four existing UHF services. The Channel 6 franchisee could of course be required to restore the lost service by cable or some other means to those viewers, who would also generally be unable to receive off-air either Channel 5 or Channe16.

There would however be other adverse consequences. These would include the virtual abandonment of the programme to install some 200 further relay transmitters to bring the four existing UHF services to many of the 350,000 people who are still unable to receive them. Additionally, because the BBC and the independent television programme companies currently make as much use as they can of the remaining "spare capacity" within the 44 channels to accommodate some of their programme-making requirements, the loss of this capacity to Channel 6 would create a major problem in finding suitable alternative spectrum for the programme-making activities (including outside broadcasts) of the broadcasters, at a time when spectrum for these purposes is at a premium to meet the needs of the new wave of satellite and other broadcasters. A further disadvantage is that most viewers would need to install a third UHF aerial to receive Channel 6.

Substantial further study would now be needed to take this work further forward. The Government have taken the view on a careful analysis of the studies so far that the very considerable costs and penalties attached to TV6 on this basis are simply not justified by such a limited result, especially at a time when there is the promise of a considerable proliferation of new television networks—satellite, local cable/MVDS, and Channel 5. If we wished to preserve the options on Channel 6 until the picture on other new services have become clearer, the present moratorium on the building of additional relay transmitters, which has now been in force for some 18 months, would need to be extended for perhaps several more years. This would almost certainly spell the end of the programme to extend progressively the UHF network to cover those who are at present unserved, or inadequately served, by it. We do not regard this as an acceptable consequence, and we have agreed that the moratorium should now be lifted.