1
+
-2-
3.
4.
5.
6.
་
In the Hong Kong Government's announcement of 18th April 1972 it was stated : "It has also been decided that all three stations should share transmitter site and common transmitter masts.". (The use of plural "masts" was probably unintentional in that one communally used transmitter mast is perfectly practical and obviously cheaper; alternatively, the use of plural "masts" may have been a means of referring to both transmitter structures and transposer structures by the use of one word). Clarification subsequently given by Government of this part of the announcement showed the Government expected the next licensed broadcaster to erect a communal main transmitter mast which would be used to carry all the individual aerial arrays of all present and future broadcasters meaning in effect a possible total of six transmitting aerials. The construction and erection of such a mast is a relatively simple matter. As the most suitable type of mast would be enclosed in a fibre glass sheet, the only variable in the construction equation would be the size and weight of foundations, and these would depend upon the number of aerial arrays actually intended to be used. However, it is no problem to calculate and provide foundations sufficient to meet optimum requirements.
-
It was apparently a part of the Government's thinking that the communal mast would be erected in the null of the emmision from TVB's existing transmitter mast and, of course, would carry the aerials of the second broadcaster. To avoid switch-over delays to TVB, it would be necessary for new aerial arrays to be erected on the communal mast to carry TVB's transmissions and it is understood that Government would foot the bill for any extra expenses that TVB would be put to by reason of this plan. Each broadcaster would have his own transmitters in separate transmitter housing on the transmitter site.
J
We have always fully expected and have made provision accordingly in our forecasts that we would have to make some capital contribution to TVB towards the transmitter and transposer site costs and construction of the access road. Similarly we had expected TVB and others to share the relatively modest cost (i.e. £10 of providing, installing and maintaining the communal mast.
—
12,000)
*All the above proposals seem to make good sense to us and we had
no objections in principle but from the very beginning we have been well aware of the possibility that TVB would be obstructive as it is in TVB's interests to delay the advent of the next broadcaster for as long as possible. However, we have always expected, not only because it was obvious, but because of things said to us by
/...