• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

UK and Ireland TV

E

e-dawg

Why does UK and Ireland only have 4 or 5 Terrestrial TV? Like US and Canada, we have at least 7 and up to 20 in large metropolitain areas.


UK
BBC 1
BBC 2
ITV/Scottish-Gramparin TV (Scotland)/UTV (Northern I.)/Channel TV (Channel Island.)
Channel 4/S4C in Wales
Channel 5 (not all areas)

IRELAND
RTE 1
NETWORK 2
TV 3
TG 4
 
In the media field the US has always been light years ahead of the rest of the world. While in most countries state-owned television was the only game in town for decades upon decades, America didn't have any public television until the 1960s (the formation of PBS).
It's not just in the UK like that - the same holds true for a lot of it's neighbors such as France, Germany, and Holland.
In Japan even the radio dial isn't all that crowded, and Tokyo FM dial pales in comparison to that of Los Angeles or New York.

What is true though of countries like Holland, Sweden, and Germany, is that almost the entire population has cable and satellite television subscription services (more then 90 percent).
 
One major reason for so few over-the-air TV channels in the UK and Ireland is geography.

With the UK, the Irish Republic, and "mainland" Europe so close together, the number of available over-the-air TV channels in each location is limited. In Northern Ireland, Southwestern Scotland, and Wales, one probably can get TV signals over-the-air from the Irish Republic, and vice-versa. And TV signals from France reach southern England, although in a different color system (SECAM) than the UK (PAL).

If the coastal regions of the UK were at least 200 miles from the nearest land point of any other country, the UK would have many more TV channels available to it.
 
> One major reason for so few over-the-air TV channels in the
> UK and Ireland is geography.

<snip>

> If the coastal regions of the UK were at least 200 miles
> from the nearest land point of any other country, the UK
> would have many more TV channels available to it.
>

Not completely true.

Geography is part of the reason. The other reason and the main one, is the choice of TV system and the network TV system the UK has.

If:

a) the BBC channels were more regional than national in nature,
b) ITV was forced to remain 15 independent companies,
c) Channel 4 and 5 had to do regional/local programming,
d) the VHF transmission system was not decommissioned entirely (UK is entirely UHF, it has Band I and III VHF TV for its 405 b/w service).
e) other licences were encouraged around the gaps of the system....

then the UK might have had more channels and choices of TV much earlier on. We would have up to eight channels for most areas (at least 6 for others) across the UK, and a lot of areas would have access to the neighbouring regions, as I did as a child. UK TV, whilst it has border considerations to make, is not a low powered network. As an example, BBC on VHF in London was 200kw on a 200 metre high stick on Ch 1, ITV on VHF in London was 400kw on a 220 metre high stick on Ch. 9. WFMY in my adopted hometown is on 100kw on a 550 metre high stick; WGHP on Ch 8 is on 337kw ERP on a 330 metre stick.

I blame the choice of channels more on the design of the network. It however works well enough that the basics of the UHF network is the basis for the DTT network - it is again a national network with companies sharing resoruces. Unfortunately since it uses the same space as the analogue network coverage is still patchy in some areas. DTT does give people 24 channels vs the 4-5 analog channels, and doesn't require as many relay stations. However, when analog goes off it will be possible to re-organize some of the stations into a single frequency network so that national stations can use the available spectrum more efficiently.

Mark.
 
> If:
>
> a) the BBC channels were more regional than national in
> nature,
> b) ITV was forced to remain 15 independent companies,
> c) Channel 4 and 5 had to do regional/local programming,
> d) the VHF transmission system was not decommissioned
> entirely (UK is entirely UHF, it has Band I and III VHF TV
> for its 405 b/w service).
> e) other licences were encouraged around the gaps of the
> system....
>
> then the UK might have had more channels and choices of TV
> much earlier on.

This is partly true, but the overwhelmingly important reason for the lack of choice is the coverage of the four main national networks - in both the UK and Ireland it is quite literally 99.9999%. To find a house in the UK where terrestrial TV cannot be received at all is very difficult, even in the Welsh Valleys (possibly the most difficult terrain for terrestrial broadcasting in Europe).

There are literally thousands of relays nationwide, each using up a set of frequencies in a local area. While in the US the obligation is generally on the viewer to put up a big enough aerial to get a signal from the main transmitter, in the UK the networks even have transmitters to infill gaps behind large buildings, for example. There are dozens and dozens of relays for each service in London alone.

With Freeview (our digital system) - which is actually an excellent system, in my experience - many of the relays can theoretically be on the same frequency as the main transmitter, although so far only some of the main transmitters carry digital.
 
Mark suggested that (among several ideas):

> d) the VHF transmission system was not decommissioned
> entirely (UK is entirely UHF, it had Band I and III VHF TV
> for its 405 b/w service).
> e) other licences were encouraged around the gaps of the
> system....
>
> then the UK might have had more channels and choices of TV
> much earlier on. We would have up to eight channels for
> most areas (at least 6 for others) across the UK, and a lot
> of areas would have access to the neighbouring regions......

Mark:

I don't know how "technical" you are, but your comments made me wonder: Could the VHF band have been converted from 405-line monochrome to 625-line colo(u)r while staying within the bandwidths of each Band I and Band III VHF channel??

Had it been possible to do so, it's conceivable that BBC-1 and ITV could have moved back to VHF, in 625-line color, which would have opened-up the way for Five to have "full" penetration of the UK (I believe at present, Five's transmitters cover about 85% of the British population), one other fully-national network, and either a terrestrial (over-the-air)-TV network covering 85% of the population (live Five does in real life), or perhaps non-network "independent" stations in large cities where additional channels would become available.
 
> Mark:
>
> I don't know how "technical" you are, but your comments made
> me wonder: Could the VHF band have been converted from
> 405-line monochrome to 625-line colo(u)r while staying
> within the bandwidths of each Band I and Band III VHF
> channel??

Joseph, I'm not that technical, but I know that the Republic of Ireland uses 625 Colour PAL to this day, broadcasting RTE1 and Network 2. So it is possible for 625 line colour to be done on VHF.

The reason why Ireland has this is because RTE started in 1961. The BBC TV service on 405 lines started in 1936. So when RTE started, it had the luxury of being the only channel, and could have a dual standard VHF network. And so it did: 625 lines covering the country on VHF, and 405 lines in the north and east where 405 BBC/ITA services could be received (made no sense to offer 405 in the south and west where there were no border tv services).

The BBC did experiment with 405 line NTSC colour transmissions from Alexandra Palace in the 1950's but because Europe was going to 625 lines and it was superior to 405, so the UK government dictated that UK broadcasts were to be going 625 lines and that's when the switch was made. Because VHF only had space for two networks, there was no space to put in a third 625 line service, and the British government had already advocated for 405 to go in favour of a 625 line standard on UHF. So 405 and VHF had to go.


> Had it been possible to do so, it's conceivable that BBC-1
> and ITV could have moved back to VHF, in 625-line color,
> which would have opened-up the way for Five to have "full"
> penetration of the UK (I believe at present, Five's
> transmitters cover about 85% of the British population), one
> other fully-national network, and either a terrestrial
> (over-the-air)-TV network covering 85% of the population
> (live Five does in real life), or perhaps non-network
> "independent" stations in large cities where additional
> channels would become available.

Joseph, your vision could well have been possible. However it would have meant persuading TV manufacturers to put back in VHF tuners to pick up a new 625 line colour tv service and new TV sets.
 
> There are literally thousands of relays nationwide, each
> using up a set of frequencies in a local area. While in the
> US the obligation is generally on the viewer to put up a big
> enough aerial to get a signal from the main transmitter, in
> the UK the networks even have transmitters to infill gaps
> behind large buildings, for example. There are dozens and
> dozens of relays for each service in London alone.

Do you remember the old IBA start-up sequences? In the days before breakfast television, ITV contractors had captions put up listing their transmitters and relay stations. I wonder what it was like for HTV Wales/Cymru and Grampian?

I agree with you, the relay network is one reason why there was a lack of choice. Freeview (which I agree with you is a great system and I wish we had it here Stateside but they decided to go HD-TV instead) overcomes that lack of choice and will be the 'basic' service of the future.

Mark.
 
> In the media field the US has always been light years ahead
> of the rest of the world. While in most countries
> state-owned television was the only game in town for decades
> upon decades, America didn't have any public television
> until the 1960s (the formation of PBS).

It really is breathtaking how few TV outlets one sees in
Europe vs. North America, where major cities have more than
a dozen TV stations. Even Mexico City has about 10 TV
stations (and many of them are on translators around
Mexico plus some cities have local TV stations too).

It must be the reluctance to give the government owned
broadcasters any competition. In a thread below, someone
mentions how small and close most European nations are,
limiting their TV outlets. But Boston, NYC, Baltimore
Philadelphia and Washington are all pretty close with
smaller markets in and around them. And they figured
out how to distribute many TV stations among them.
Buffalo and Toronto or San Diego and Tijuana are very
close, yet each city has plenty of TV signals, crossing
over the international borders.

Can you imagine that there are only FIVE TV stations in
London over the air? No minority broadcaster, no station
owned by a university, no PBS. The BBC might put some
high-level shows in some dayparts but it also runs shows
of dubious quality because they worry about the ratings.

Yet I have to applaud British TV for such high quality
soaps as Coronation Street and Eastenders, and such
intelligent game shows as Who Wants to Be A Millionaire
and Weakest Link.

I was amazed when visiting London that virtually everyone
has cable or satellite. The two places I stayed when I
was there in 2003 were both plugged into cable, even
though the first place carried only the five over-the-air
channels and the second place added ITV 2 for a sixth
channel. There's no dial on TVs. You just advance the
channel selector up or down and get BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Ch.
4, Ch. 5 (and in the second location, someone's apartment,
ITV 2). He told me the building supplies those six
channels for free to everyone. If you want other channels
from the cable, then you pay a cable bill.




Gregg
[email protected]
 
> It must be the reluctance to give the government owned
> broadcasters any competition.

This has been true for many years in most of Europe. I believe that to this day the state has a monopoly on free-to-air analogue TV in the Netherlands, and in a number of other places, with commercial TV being left on digital and cable platforms only - with the result that analogue terrestrial TV is a pretty minor player in these countries, unlike in the UK where there is at least some competition.

> In a thread below, someone
> mentions how small and close most European nations are,
> limiting their TV outlets. But Boston, NYC, Baltimore
> Philadelphia and Washington are all pretty close with
> smaller markets in and around them. And they figured
> out how to distribute many TV stations among them.
> Buffalo and Toronto or San Diego and Tijuana are very
> close, yet each city has plenty of TV signals, crossing
> over the international borders.

On the other hand, there are genuine "lack of space" issues, largely caused by the fact that every station has hundreds of tiny relays, in addition to the main transmitter. The Crystal Palace transmitter alone (covering the London region) has 50 relays for all four channels. That's where most of the frequency space goes.

In the US I imagine people who live in the bottom of a steep-sided valley are expected to go get a satellite dish.

> Can you imagine that there are only FIVE TV stations in
> London over the air? No minority broadcaster, no station
> owned by a university, no PBS. The BBC might put some
> high-level shows in some dayparts but it also runs shows
> of dubious quality because they worry about the ratings.

This is true, if you have an analogue TV. These days, an ever larger proportion of people are getting Freeview - terrestrial digital TV - which has led to an explosion in available commercial channels in the last few years. Five years ago, ITV was one station. Now they have ITV1, ITV2, ITV3 and new this month ITV4. Channel 4 similarly has spawned a number of digital-only channels. New national free-to-air channels seem to be launching right now at the rate of about one every two months.

In many other European countries the situation is similar.

> channel. There's no dial on TVs. You just advance the
> channel selector up or down and get BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Ch.
> 4, Ch. 5 (and in the second location, someone's apartment,
> ITV 2). He told me the building supplies those six
> channels for free to everyone. If you want other channels
> from the cable, then you pay a cable bill.

European TVs are actually tunable, you just use the preset buttons normally, after tuning it in when you buy it!

Once Freeview is rolled out beyond the major urban areas - although there are many issues with that, not least that some analogue channels will have to be switched off first - almost everyone nationally will be able to get 20+ free-to-air digital channels (no subscription), through a standard UHF aerial. TVs with built in digital tuners are now available.

If your friend is in London, chances are that he could plug in an indoor aerial and a cheap Freeview box and avoid paying that cable bill, unless he wants to buy premium sport/movie channels.
 
Is there a website somewhere that lists the over the air channle numbers like which station is on channle 36 for example, in other countries like The U K, France, etc. I'm interested in knowing strange things like that. I've tried searching but cannot find anything.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom