Ofcom consultation - Programme-making and special events: future spectrum access - BECTU comments

29 August 2007

1. The Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph, and Theatre Union (BECTU) is the independent trade union representing 27,000 members working in TV, film, and entertainment in the UK.
2. Hundreds of our members operate radio microphones and other devices in the spectrum affected by the Digital Switchover initiative, either employed directly, or as freelancers.
3. Thousands of other members are routinely engaged in programme-making, film production, theatre shows, and events, where radio mics, in-ear monitoring devices, and talkback sets, are an intrinsic part of their activities.
4. In our submission to the earlier consultation on Digital Dividend Review we emphasised the significant economic, cultural, and social contribution that the PMSE sector makes to UK society. We also outlined our view that the PMSE sector, because of its disparate nature, is unlikely to bid for spectrum, or take lead responsibility for managing access to spectrum for its own purposes.
5. We therefore welcome this second opportunity to comment on the specific needs of PMSE, and acknowledge that the regulator has taken heed of the many submissions to the earlier consultative paper from practitioners, employers, production companies, equipment hire providers, manufacturers, and representative bodies.
6. Our overall view remains, however, that low-cost access to Channel 69, and the available digital interleave channels, will remain necessary for PMSE activity to continue in its current form for the foreseeable future. We therefore support the recommendations made by the PMSE Pro User Group in its response to this consultation dated August 28th 2007.
7. We have specific views on a number of issues raised by the PMSE spectrum access consultation, and in detailing them offer answers to some of the formal questions listed.

Ofcom's economic approach

8. The research commissioned into use of the various frequencies available for PMSE usage appears to have led Ofcom to two conclusions: current usage is, in some way, profligate and inflexible; and that pricing of access above the current cost-recovery level is desirable, and implicitly capable of changing behaviour.
9. On behalf of our members we cannot support either of these conclusions. Several factors influence the prevailing selection of frequencies for PMSE usage, which Ofcom has correctly noted favours channels 67,68,and 69.
   1. Most available equipment in the UK is tuned tofrequencies in these bands, and inter-operability of transmitters and receivers sourced from different suppliers is increased by selecting frequencies in this group. Little use is made of frequencies below 630MHz (see below).
   2. Interference problems in channels 67-69 are modest and well understood, and in most geographic areas many assignments can be carried out in analogue interleave space using only those channels. To avoid interference and propagation problems, operators have come to prefer the higher-frequency channels, with very little activity between 470 MHz and 630MHz (Channels 21-40).
   3. Interleave space in channels at lower frequencies is often used, more commonly at large events where multiple devices need to operate in the same area - typically several dozen, but on some occasions in excess of 200.
   4. Operators are not in a position to experiment with equipment operating at frequencies outside the TV interleave domain. For example, our freelance members are, in the words of an old industry adage, "only as good as their last job", and the incentive to avoid failure is high. Understandably, they therefore choose to employ equipment and techniques which are known to work well, leading to the predominant use of analogue devices in channels 67-69. In many situations, sound operators are trying to capture material at one-off, never to be repeated events, and they equally want equipment that works first time, especially on live TV and news.
   5. With little demand for equipment operating on frequencies outside those covered by the DDR, there is no incentive for manufacturers to develop new technology, nor is there any reason to conduct the detailed investigations necessary into the interference and health and safety issues posed by operating higher in the spectrum.
10. Given these constraints, and the value of the existing capital base of PMSE radio equipment with a long life-span, we do not believe that incentive pricing alone will lead to an orderly migration of users from channels 21-69. It is worth noting that equipment can be in use for as long as 20 years, being passed down through second or third-hand owners. If Ofcom is of the view that the user community should move elsewhere, a clear intervention is necessary to achieve the change, and adequate time must be allowed for it to take place.
11. Whatever parts of the overall spectrum Ofcom deems appropriate for PMSE usage, we believe the same basic principles of gifted bandwidth, with a single user-oriented band manager, should apply, as we advocate here for the TV interleave space.
12. Without intervention, and a clear signal from Ofcom that users should move, we do not foresee any rush by manufacturers to invest time and money in developing equipment for other frequencies, nor do we predict any confidence on behalf of purchasers, both commercial and individual, to begin building up stocks of devices for new frequencies.

Spectrum requirements of PMSE sector

13. As noted in our earlier submission, a significant proportion of PMSE radio operations, particularly in the feature film industry, can be conducted in channel 69 without risk of mutual interference. This however obtains only while the channel is adequately regulated, and we do not support its de-regulation.
14. On major events, news locations, and in many live theatre situations, the limited number of devices that can be accommodated within channel 69 is hopelessly inadequate, and as a result other frequencies are often employed. Channel 70 is not one of them (Question 3) due to its unlicensed nature, and the consequent anarchic use by non-professional operators.
15. Ideally, to allow use of radio devices in large-scale PMSE situations to continue as at present, the entire interleave capacity of the DTT frequency plan should remain available for low-power, short range, radio devices. As an example of demand on larger events, this year's Live8 concert saw the allocation of 206 spot frequencies to the many users involved, all within the DDR spectrum. In London's West End theatre sector, large-scale musical productions typically use 40-50 devices, often in close proximity to other houses with similar demands on spectrum.
16. While analogue equipment prevails, with scope to operate up to 10 devices per UHF channel, this implies that only a single, all-encompassing, package of interleave channels (as posited in Question 2) will suffice.

Band management

17. BECTU has already advocated a status-quo solution, on the lines of the JFMG, with charges based solely on cost recovery, rather than the incentive pricing outlined in Ofcom's consultative paper. Our members report high levels of satisfaction when dealing with JFMG, and would be content for the current arrangements to be extended indefinitely. We remain of the view that a single entity, with the interests of the PMSE sector at heart, is essential, regardless of the manner in which spectrum is disposed of. We support the proposal of the PMSE Pro User Group for the appointment of a single Band Manager, with a sufficiently long mandate to allow an orderly migration of users from UHF 21-68 to other parts of the spectrum.
18. A long timescale running to 2026 would allow owners of radio equipment, many of whom are lone operators, to fully depreciate their current stock of devices, and would also provide an adequate period for a new generation of devices to be developed by manufacturers.

Auction of spectrum

19. BECTU remains opposed to any "highest bidder takes all" auction of the digital interleave spectrum, preferring that this bandwidth should be gifted to the PMSE sector. We accept that a pricing structure is necessary and appropriate, but would be concerned if the Band Manager engaged in aggressive charging. In some instances we believe that the extra cost of spectrum access for radio devices over the rates charged currently by JFMG would simply re-appear elsewhere in the value chain of the broadcasting, entertainment, and film industries, as higher ticket prices or subscription costs.
20. In other situations higher costs may be impossible to pass on - our lone operator freelancers may not be able to bargain up the rates they charge for equipment and labour simply because spectrum costs have increased. In the worst case, a significant increase in costs may encourage "pirate" operation, making it impossible for the band manager to organise orderly allocation of spot frequencies. As noted already, if migration elsewhere is an Ofcom objective, it should be promoted through intervention, not by incentive pricing.

Summary

21. BECTU believes that continuing access by PMSE users to UHF spectrum is vital to the activities of the cultural industries affected by the DDR.
22. If Ofcom believes that the best long-term outcome of the DDR is that PMSE users migrate away from UHF 21-68, it should adopt this as a stated policy objective, and allow a sufficiently long timescale for manufacturers, owners, and operators to adapt.
23. Until such time as an orderly migration can be achieved, users continue to require access to both analogue and digital interleave space. The analogue domain should be available until DSO is completed.
24. Spectrum designated for PMSE use should be gifted to a single Band Manager, with a constitutional responsibility to meet the demands of users.
25. Channel 69 should remain fully regulated as at present, while channel 70 is not seen to be useable by professional sound operators.