[cma-l] DAB trial

Sat Mar 7 19:57:11 GMT 2015

As I understand it, this new pilot is supposed to be about small-scale DAB
(which means low-cost but that isn't the point). The issue with DAB as
currently legislated in this country is that "local" means "the size of the
heritage commercial FM", or (in some cases), " the size of the heritage
regional ITV". That means that the mux areas are simply too big for many
local radio services.

So, you can't get on DAB in Bradford without the expense of Halifax and
Huddersfield as well. If you know the area, you'll know that those three
places are almost entirely sealed-off from each other, and it's really hard
to do a decent local service for all three disparate areas. Because
Bradford/Halifax/Huddersfield is one heritage FM licence, Pulse 1's, it
meant that the DAB multiplex is similar. So, a Halifax station has to end
up spending cash on covering the entire area, over 65% of which would be an
entire irrelevant waste.

The right solution is actually to have a mix of DAB and DRM+ in Bands II
and III. DRM+ is essentially "DAB without the multiplex", and means you
could happily sling a very low-cost transmitter up for just one station. It
would then mean, with the right hardware, that your DRM+ station appears in
the same list as the national DAB ones. Two issues with this - first, the
two organisations in charge of these hate each other; and second, there
aren't any receivers that deal with DRM+ in the shops and even if there
were nobody would buy a new radio just to get a few new services anyway.

So, given we can't use the right solution, the other solution is a set of
smaller DAB multiplexes - in the above case, you'd sling one up in Halifax.
If priced right, it ought to be no more expensive than an (additional) FM
stick; and that fixes the issue of small stations not having access to DAB.
And that is what this is trying to fix.

If there is a big Chinese community in Halifax, you could then sell a bit
of space on that multiplex to a Chinese broadcaster. It's likely that it
would be much better for them to be on a small, targeted multiplex than one
covering most of West Yorkshire. However, once you include complications
like getting their signal in the first place and invoicing and etc etc,
it's less of a bargain than it seems. I'd caution that this probably isn't
the best plan.

I hope what falls out of the trial is a relaxation of the 100W maximum; an
understanding of any issues around co-channel interference (and
interference from other small muxes); and a realisation by the regulator
that most of these DAB muxes will have only one or two stations on them,
not a full bouquet of channels. It should also result in community radio
stations appearing all over the place, since it wouldn't be driven by FM
spectrum availability.

For me, it'll also result in trialling these new services. I listen
exclusively on DAB at home - London pirates make the FM band relatively
unpleasant - and as a result I rarely get the chance to hear some of the
FM-only stations. I simply never flick back to FM: why should I? One of the
best discoveries for me in my newish car (which doesn't have a decent DAB
set in it) is to find Radio Jackie, which is a brilliant listen, but isn't
on DAB.

Hope that's of interest

J

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:29 tlr at gairloch.co.uk <tlr at gairloch.co.uk> wrote:

>   David, surely we already have 'local DAB' - there are local DAB
> multiplexes all over the country (though none within 50 miles of me!).
> Isn't the new DAB pilot supposed to be all about "low cost DAB" - ie in the
> reach of micro commercial and community stations? The localness is
> incidental, except that only local stations are likely to be especially
> interested in low power sytems.
>
>  If Ofcom is serious that there is no guarantee of the DAB service
> continuing after 9 months, then the spectre of luring listeners onto DAB
> during the trial and then having them decide 'not to bother' to revert to
> FM when the trial ends is a serious one. A small station could spend a lot
> of time and effort on an experiement whose upshot is to transfer a chunk of
> its audience to competitiors on DAB.
>
>  For the DAB platform to become affordable to low-budget stations, and to
> remain affordable, the multiplex is likely to have to be under the control
> of such a station, or a third-party constituted with similar aims.
> Otherwise what will differentiate it from the existing local DAB
> multiplexes?*
>
>  If the multiplex is not in social/public ownership Ofcom would have to
> control commercial aspects of the market  in ways it has always seemed
> reluctant to do. Otherwise there would be nothing to stop access and
> carriage charges becoming unaffordable to small players as they have been
> until now. The current multiplex fees are not closely related to the cost
> of the systems, they are charging 'what the market will swallow'. It's not
> hard to imagine RadioCentre's likely reaction if Ofcom were to invite
> applications for multiplex operator licences open only to
> not-for-profit/community-owned applicants, or allowing them low-cost access
> while denying it to 'big' stations.
>
>  I guess one feasible approach would be to open up licensing of a new tier
> of multiplexes that have a strict low power limit, to make them less
> attractive to big commercial stations. But that would just generate and
> propagate more of all the angst and inconsistencies that have been
> generated by the present 25W guideline limit for community radio.
>
>  Again, none of these crucial issues is addressed nor affected by the
> trial. They should be under public discussion and consultation now, not
> waiting until after the trial - we all know that the systems being trialled
> will work technically - the trial will only provide information around the
> edges as to how well they work and a little more information as to their
> limitations.
>
>  Alex
>
>  *Of course, unlike Band II FM, there also huge swathes of the UK where
> there is no shortage of Band III frequencies for  DAB, and not likely to be
> any shortage for decades. There is no reason why multiplexes as such should
> be mandated in these areas anyway - the one station, one transmitter FM
> model would work perfectly well in all the less densely populated parts of
> the UK, such as my own in the Highlands. Indeed that was how the first
> licensed trial in Brighton operated. Ofcom could have started legal and
> regulatory moves to licence these areas with simple one station simulcasts
> already if it had a mind to do so, but decided it would not consider
> licensing low-cost SDR-based DAB until it had also extended and proved its
> ability to support single-frequency multiplex networks.
>
> > On 07 March 2015 at 15:41 David Duffy <david at theradiopeople.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Phil
> >
> > I hear what you say. Towards the end you wrote 'as we invite other
> (competing) stations to come on our 'transmitter''. I believe what we need
> to be mindful of is that in a future that is 'localDAB' you may not own the
> multiplex. That's fine if you don't want to be on DAB or don't mind paying
> to be on someone else's mux. Without wishing to misattribute, I believe it
> was William Rogers of UKRD who first to signalled his concern that, with
> digital switchover, FM could become a neglected backwater for radio
> stations. He was highlighting the need for a digital future which embraces
> all broadcasters. And that should not be forgotten even though the vast
> majority of stations will not be participating in this trial.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see the proportion of community to commercial
> broadcasters in the trial.
> >
> > David
> > www.localDAB.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7 Mar 2015, at 14:47, Fantasy Radio Office <office at fantasyradio.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Alex and Andy.
> >
> > I've tried - believe me I've tried, to understand the sense in this 37
> page document - plus application forms.
> > We - and others, carrying out these technical tests on behalf of Ofcom,
> with no guarantee of acquiring full time DAB status?
> > It will cost us money and valuable time, gain no significant increase in
> listenership (nor income) as we invite other (competing) stations to come
> on our 'transmitter'
> >
> > DAB is a poor alternative to our FM and online broadcasts. As they say
> on Dragon's Den, I think ... I'm out.
> >
> > Phil Dawson
> > FANTASY RADIO 97FM
> >
> > Devizes and Mid Wiltshire
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 07/03/2015 14:32, cma-l-request at mailman.commedia.org.uk wrote:
> > > Send cma-l mailing list submissions to
> > > cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > cma-l-request at mailman.commedia.org.uk
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > cma-l-owner at mailman.commedia.org.uk
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of cma-l digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > > 1. Re: Small Scale DAB (Tony Bailey)
> > > 2. Re: Small Scale DAB (David Duffy)
> > > 3. Re: Small Scale DAB (Two Lochs Radio)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:25:45 +0000
> > > From: Tony Bailey <ravensound at pilgrimsound.co.uk>
> > > To: cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk
> > > Subject: Re: [cma-l] Small Scale DAB
> > > Message-ID: <54FAD229.9080709 at pilgrimsound.co.uk>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> > >
> > > Actually, it can be turned off at any time if technical issues arise -
> > > having said that, we were in Sheffield when similar statements were
> made
> > > about Access Radio...
> > >
> > > Tony Bailey
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 07/03/15 09:25, Andy -Bay FM Radio wrote:
> > >> I agree with Alex.
> > >>
> > >> All this expense to drive your listeners to DAB for 9/12 months with
> > >> no future guarantees and then have it turned off ?
> > >> Sorry but, i don't think it's a good business plan.
> > >>
> > >> Andy.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sent from Samsung Mobile
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------- Original message --------
> > >> From: tlr at gairloch.co.uk
> > >> Date:06/03/2015 2:28 PM (GMT+00:00)
> > >> To: David Duffy ,Alan Coote
> > >> Cc: CMA-L
> > >> Subject: Re: [cma-l] Small Scale DAB
> > >>
> > >> Also bear in mind the fact that these are time limited trials with a
> > >> 9-month *maximum* and explicitly no guarantee of continuation or
> > >> future relicensing. Isn't that the biggest business risk to any long
> > >> term agreements?
> > >> Alex
> > >>> On 06 March 2015 at 14:03 David Duffy <david at theradiopeople.co.uk>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Great advice. I would further recommend that as a multiplex operator
> > >>> you should build your business plan on the assumption that any other
> > >>> services you carry may go bust and, if you are charging them for
> > >>> carriage, take payment monthly in advance. That's why we're creating
> > >>> a list of content providers/service www.localDAB.co.uk/brokering
> > >>> <http://www.localDAB.co.uk/brokering> that are DSPS-approved and
> > >>> ready, at a moment's notice, to replace any services that fail.
> > >>> Regards
> > >>> David
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 6 Mar 2015, at 12:04, Alan Coote < alan.coote at 5digital.co.uk
> > >>>> <mailto:alan.coote at 5digital.co.uk>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We were approached a while ago by 2 content producers about teaming
> > >>>> up and sharing airtime on a multiplex.
> > >>>> After a lot of phone calls, Ofcom confirmed that DSPS licenses are
> > >>>> required by each service provider, even if they are sharing air
> time.
> > >>>> However, in our case the multiplex owner wanted a single contract
> > >>>> with a holding company rather than deal with individual DSPS
> > >>>> holders. They felt it gave them better security.
> > >>>> This highlighted several issues of working with other companies on
> a
> > >>>> DAB multiplex whose financial stability we had to rely on.
> > >>>> I'd suggest that stations should carefully consider what happens if
> > >>>> the partner companies don't pay their way or go out of business.
> > >>>> And, it may be worth getting professional advise about setting up a
> > >>>> limited liability broadcast company to protect the underlying
> > >>>> community station.
> > >>>> Kind Regards
> > >>>> Alan
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>
> > >> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
> > >>
> > >> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the
> Community Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> > >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> > >> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> > >> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>
> > >> Mailing list guidelines:
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please
> visit:
> > >> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
> >
> > The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community
> Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> > http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> > Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Mailing list guidelines:
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please
> visit:
> > http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
> >
> > The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community
> Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> > http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> > Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Mailing list guidelines:
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please
> visit:
> > http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
> _______________________________________________
>
> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
>
> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community
> Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
>
> Mailing list guidelines: http://www.commedia.org.uk/
> about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150307/127346da/attachment.html>