Co-location, in this particular context, is the term used to mean locating the transmitting setups of various broadcasters of a particular city in the same premises and sharing the common tower. This term gathers more significance in the situations of lesser frequency separation between the channels allotted for the same city. The basic idea behind co-location is that the Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of all the channels would be nearly the same and since they are located at the same site, they will be attenuated similarly with the distance thus maintaining the same protection between the channels.

In this context, following observations are made:

(i) Co-location in metro cities was mandatory in Phase-I. The objective was to increase the availability of frequencies by spacing them 400 kHz instead of 800 kHz.

(ii) Most of the representations received by the Committee have opposed co-location due to the following reasons:

(a) For co-location purpose, it is necessary for private broadcasters to form a consortium.
(b) It is very difficult to form a consortium of private broadcasters competing with each other.
(c) If a Private broadcaster backs out, his share of cost on common infrastructure would have to be borne by the remaining ones.
(d) Private broadcasters have to bear substantial cost on studio-transmitter link as in co-location case; the studio setup would mostly be at a different location.
(e) There are number of other operational difficulties.

In view of the above difficulties expressed by the private broadcasters, it is recommended that co-location may not be made mandatory in Phase-II.