Two years ago I wrote an article for Fusion under the heading ‘How many programmes?’ I ended that article by saying that it is most important that on a short-term basis everybody in the United Kingdom, wherever he may live, should be able to see the two main television programmes as soon as possible, and that, at all costs, we should avoid creating a badly planned chaos similar to that which exists in medium wave sound broadcasting.

I still believe we should aim at these two objectives. Further, I believe that if we are to succeed in avoiding technical chaos in television broadcasting, we cannot have additional programmes for another 10 years.

By international agreement the following wavebands are at present available for television broadcasting in Europe, including the United Kingdom:

(Band II – 87.5-100 mc/s – is used for VHF sound broadcasting and provides about 100 channels if used with frequency modulation).

All five channels in Band I are used to distribute one BBC television programme which is available to about 98 per cent of the population. Four of the eight available Band III channels are used to distribute the ITA programme which is available to about 95 per cent of the population. The remaining four Band III channels allocated to television are used at the moment for various communication services but are being vacated and should soon become available for television.

There has been some talk about the possible extension of Band III to give facilities for additional television channels at the expense of other communication services. Such an extension of Band III would need International agreement, the likelihood of which appears remote at present.

Band IV and Band V channels – the UHF or ultra high frequency bands – are not yet used operationally in the United Kingdom but more than 100 transmitters in Europe and the U.S.A. use channels in these bands for television broadcasting. Receivers for UHF require somewhat more expensive valves and components than VHF – Bands I and III – receivers. The additional cost is likely to be about £5-£8 [£120-£190 now, allowing for inflation] for mass-produced UHF sets. An extra UHF aerial is also required costing between £2-£6 [£48-£143]. Most manufacturers in the United Kingdom would need a year or more to get into production of UHF receivers.

The desirable improvements which prompt us to reexamine the whole of the technique of television in the United Kingdom may be summarised under the following four headings:

Better definition of picture
Greater flexibility in world television exchanges
Colour television
More channels for more programmes

The first two are inter-related. At present the United Kingdom operates on a 405-line system. If we adopted the 625-line system, programme exchanges would be possible with nearly the whole world, the main exceptions being North America and Japan (525 lines) and part of France (819 lines). Theoretically the 625-line system should give a picture with almost twice the definition of that received today in the United Kingdom. However, it must be remembered that in practice the 625-line system does not necessarily give the same improvement in quality in the home as one can get in the laboratory. This is because the higher definition system requires more careful maintenance of the transmitting and receiving equipment.

It should also be remembered when considering whether or not to adopt the 625-line system, that for the same cost in band width and at a lower capital expenditure, one could go to a 405-line colour system. Further, the adoption of 405-line colour would give a higher performance (inasmuch as colour adds to performance) while continuing to give compatible monochrome pictures at the present standard.

The addition of colour is an obvious development and would be welcome if the initial cost and the expense of maintenance can be brought down to reasonable levels.

The last point – more channels for more programmes – is an obvious requirement for a wider range and greater choice of programmes.

As things are at present it might be possible to squeeze one additional programme into Band III but this third programme would only be available to about 80 per cent of the population, mainly in thickly built-up areas, and would also limit the existing ITA programme to about 98 percent of the population, leaving about a million people with BBC programmes only.

Any additional programmes beyond the third would have to be transmitted in Band IV and V and unless these programmes are very attractive, the 80 per cent of the population who already have Band I and III receivers will not buy new sets to obtain Band IV and V facilities.

If it is thought that the required improvements in television services in the United Kingdom can be covered under the three headings of better definition, colour and more programmes, it seems quite clear that all these three are almost impossible to meet by utilising only Band I and III for television, a total of 13 channels for which sets in this country are equipped.

There are then three alternatives for future technical development:

1. That by international agreement Band III and possibly Band I can be extended to give more channels. This, however, would be a very long international operation, the success of which is doubtful. Only a relatively small addition to existing sets would be needed for reception of the extra programmes, provided the 405-line system were maintained.
2. If the extra channels under point 1 cannot be obtained, it would be necessary to use channels in Band IV and probably Band V if the three headings of better definition, colour and more programmes are to be achieved. This would necessitate new transmitters, receivers and aerials. But whether we adopt points 1 or 2 the technical effort involved in the change-over and an overlapping duplication – to enable programmes to be received on present receivers and which, therefore, would have to last for probably 10 years until they are replaced – would be so great that additional programmes would be out of the question until after the 10 years needed for this project to be completed.
3. The alternative is to develop a system where more programmes can be squeezed into the present channel space and to introduce additional programmes, colour and higher definition at the same time as such a new system is brought into use.

I think that the desirable line of development is that outlined in point 3. The way in which this development could take place is for the four vacant television channels in Band III to be used to duplicate the BBC and ITA programmes through a new system to be developed which would include colour and higher definition. The next stage would be for preparations to be made for the introduction of additional programmes to be opened in 10 years time.

If the new system to be developed allows for twice as many channels as at present, then eventually we could either have a total of six programmes with the present coverage, or four or five programmes with really 100 per cent coverage of the country.

One cannot help but observe that as our various sound and television broadcast systems have been rushed into service without sufficient planning, we have technical systems which do not result in the best utilisation of the available resources.

It is thought that rather than rush in once again with higher definition and colour developments, it would be better to start out quite deliberately for the type of development that is mentioned above.

Only after such a system is successfully developed will it be possible to provide additional programmes, higher definition and colour within the limits set by the present international channel allocations.

The Times reported on March 17 Mr Hugh Carleton Greene, Director-General of the BBC, as saying that instead of the unallocated television channels in Band III being used for a third service, they would be better employed filing the gaps in both the BBC’s and ITV’s national coverage.

He is stated to have said that this would provide television to the one per cent of the population of the United Kingdom still outside the range of any transmitter. Thus there would be no need for Parliament to make a choice between the BBC and ITV and national coverage would be completed.

The consistency of his views and those expressed in the above article is interesting. — Editor.

The post Fourth floor says… Why we cannot have more TV programmes at present appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

How many television programmes should we have? The question is often asked but very rarely answered in a logical and considered way.

It is, indeed, a difficult question to answer. The artists and technicians employed in television obviously want as many programmes as possible because the greater the number of programmes, the greater the demand for artists and technicians, and it is thought that as a consequence their remuneration might be greater.

Those responsible for the operation of television systems do not necessarily agree. They realise how difficult it is to operate even the limited number of services which now exist because of limitations of available skill both in the artistic and technical worlds.

Again, it can be argued by those who would like to see lots of programmes that if many programmes were available the demand for personnel would increase and this would result in more people going in for television careers and the general level of skill would be likely to be raised.

Whether this is true or not, it happens to be a basic fact that all television programmes have to be paid for whether by licences, advertising or subscription systems as now proposed.

The total funds available for these purposes are limited and relate to the economy of the country as a whole. If more than one Station depending on advertising revenue operates in the same area, the available advertising funds in that area have to be shared between them. This may result in reduction of standards if ends are to be met unless, of course, numbers of programmes are kept sufficiently small so that sufficient funds are available for each programme. The same would apply if the BBC were to operate a second programme: their licence revenue would have to be shared between the two operations. In the opinion of this writer the total profits of the independent programme companies throughout the United Kingdom would not be sufficient to run a good extra programme. It is assumed that all companies are run reasonably efficiently and, therefore, the very most that would be available for any additional programme supported by advertising would be the profits of the existing companies.

People who talk light-heartedly about additional programmes should first consider the economic facts and the technical problems involved.

Plans have been prepared to fit a third television programme into Band III and, indeed, it has even been suggested that in the thickly populated areas like London, Manchester, Birmingham, etc., a total of four programmes might be provided, but this would have to be done at the expense of other areas which might be left with no programme or only one programme from Band I and Band III.

It seems basically right that before third, fourth or subsequent programmes are dealt with the existing two programmes, i.c., BBC and ITA, should be made available to 100 per cent., or nearly 100 per cent., of the population. It is not good enough to say that 98 per cent, coverage should be satisfactory, as the remaining 2 per cent. represents a million people. These people mostly live in outlying areas with difficult access to the benefits of civilisation as regards information, entertainment and education. They are the people who deserve television more than anybody else and for whom television can do the most.

Because of technical limitations of channels on which television can be transmitted only thirteen channels are available in Bands I and III, which are the two Bands allocated by international regulation for television transmission. Although there are international arguments going on between broadcasting and other communication interests for two more channels to be added to the thirteen, it is unlikely that this will happen for some years to come.

We, therefore, have to plan on the basis of what is at present available and while wishful thinking has indicated that an additional programme might be squeezed into Band III, this would have to be done at the expense of no programme or only one programme being available to a million people to whom television should be of the greatest benefit.

This docs not mean that additional programmes are not possible. Indeed, several additional programmes could be introduced by making use of Band IV or even Band V. Incidentally, transmission in these Bands in this country have shown, and practical operation of some one hundred such stations in America have clearly indicated that these Bands are quite suitable for television broadcasting. Admittedly, additional receiving cost is involved as Bands IV and V, being in the ultra high frequency bands, require additional receiving equipment and, of course, a further aerial. However, if people want three, four or more programmes in the thickly populated areas then it is right that they should pay for the receiving facilities to get such programmes rather than that people in outlying areas should have to be put to extra cost. There are further benefits in using Bands IV and V for additional programmes. Relatively inexpensive low-powered transmitters could be used and, for example, in the London area there might be three or four additional low-powered transmitters covering different parts of London with a common programme but with separate advertising for each area, and in this manner it would be possible to attract additional revenue for low-priced advertising from sources for which the present large coverage commercial television stations are too expensive.

This type of operation on Bands IV and V also opens up further possibilities. For example, many more localised urban or rural programmes relating to local social and sporting happenings and special local educational programmes could be provided.

There is a long-term development which may make it possible for additional channels on Bands I and III to become available. It is well-known that the mosaic of a television picture is completely reconstructed from scratch every twenty-fifth of a second. This is in spite of the fact that probably 90 per cent, of the information in each picture was already there in the previous picture. If, therefore, basic information from one picture to another could be “stored’’ and “repeated”, and only the new information transmitted, considerable saving in band width might be possible. If such saving should be only half of each channel, obviously the present number of channels could be doubled. There would be technical difficulties on quick fades in and fades out; however, the work in hand gives considerable promise of success. Whatever long-term improvements may come along it is most important that on a short-term basis everybody in the United Kingdom wherever he may live should be able to see the two main television programmes as soon as possible, and that at all costs we should avoid creating a badly planned chaos similar to that which exists in medium wave sound broadcasting.

The post Floor Four says… How many programmes? appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.