[cma-l] The Cost Of The DAB Trials

Fantasy Radio Office office at fantasyradio.co.uk
Fri Mar 13 08:56:59 GMT 2015 

I can't believe we're still discussing this.

A lot of people, mostly with no money to spare, are going to put in a 
lot of time and effort in an attempt to enhance our industry and PPL are 
swooping like vultures to grab any extra bit of cash on the back of it.

They should be told no.

simples!


Phil Dawson
FANTASY RADIO 97FM
Devizes
Wiltshire

On 13/03/2015 08:13, 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:  FW: The Cost Of The DAB Trials (James Cridland)
>     2. Re:  FW: The Cost Of The DAB Trials (tlr at gairloch.co.uk)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:06:09 +0000
> From: James Cridland <james at cridland.net>
> To: "tlr at gairloch.co.uk" <tlr at gairloch.co.uk>,	"Canalside's The
> 	Thread" <office at thethread.org.uk>, 	CMA-L <cma-l at commedia.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [cma-l] FW: The Cost Of The DAB Trials
> Message-ID:
> 	<CADxZ7UQjumy2iCrvXuwyV+7jU_QtoPXZwD6N0-pc=83XC0XEYA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Alex, you said:
>
>> I see no justification for any additional charge simply because you are
> available on two different types of radio.
>
> To play devil's advocate - if you paid the commercial radio rate, you don't
> pay extra for internet streaming nor for DAB simulcast.
>
> If you pay a lower amount for being a community station, you could argue
> that it is understandable that you don't get the multiplatform thrown in.
>
> I'd be interested to understand whether, if you are a community radio
> station on FM and you also stream online and broadcast on DAB, do you end
> up paying more than a commercial radio licence? I'm guessing not, but I
> don't know.
>
> (Lest you think I am backing PPL or PRS, a quick Google search will
> dissuade you of that thought)
>
> James
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:27 tlr at gairloch.co.uk <tlr at gairloch.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>    To be honest Nick, much as I loathe PPL's approach, I don't see the
>> problem with understanding the NET bit!
>>
>>   The Copyright Tribunal, who's decision underpins all this, decided that
>> copyright royalties should not be levied on a radio station's *profits*
>> (or for a non-profit body, its *surpluses*), but would be based instead
>> on its *revenue,* whether or not the station manages to turn that into a
>> profit or a loss. Otherwise no doubt big radio stations would do what big
>> corporations do, and find creative ways of making their profits shrink for
>> the purposes of taxes and royalties.
>>
>>   However, to allow for the fact that a proportion of the revenue has to be
>> spent on commission and other overheads, such as the expenses of sponsored
>> OBs, it was agreed that radio stations would actually be assessed after
>> deduction of 15% and other allowable expenses from their gross revenue.
>> After the deductions that's the NET broadcasting revenue, NBR, which is
>> then assessed for royalties.
>>
>>   Nothing complicated - it's net in that it's what's left from your gross
>> revenue after deduction of the assumed commission and allowed expenses. So
>> it doesn't matter whether or not you are a 'non-profit', either by design
>> or accident, PPL still gets its cut of your income derived from
>> broadcasting (but not from grants, donations etc). A barter deal where you
>> receive something in return for broadcasting something is also broadcast
>> revenue.
>>
>>   The DAB licence thing is of course another question. In my opinion there
>> is no justification for PPL to ask for extra money for a simulcast by DAB
>> (nor by Internet). If having the extra delivery method enhances the value
>> of your station then that will be reflected in increased revenues and they
>> will get their cut automatically under the existing NBR arrangements. I see
>> no justification for any additional charge simply because you are available
>> on two different types of radio.
>>
>>    Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 March 2015 at 16:38 Canalside's The Thread <office at thethread.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Canalside's The Thread [mailto:office at thethread.org.uk]
>> *Sent:* 12 March 2015 14:02
>> *To:* 'Geoff Rogers'
>> *Subject:* RE: [cma-l] The Cost Of The DAB Trials
>>
>>
>>
>> What I don't understand and can't get my head around with all this PPL
>> malarkey is whether someone is listening via FM, Internet or DAB there is
>> still only one of them    ie:- one person. I have never ever listened at
>> the same time to a Radio Broadcast with all three in residence. In fact,
>> there would be a milli-second delay between DAB and FM   I think ??   and
>> in our case 30 seconds out of sync on the Internet stream ..........so, unless
>> someone can tell me otherwise, the person listening is still one person
>> listening to one show via one mode. So why the extra charges anyway ????
>> sorry chaps, I don't get that one ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I repeat again ............it's a half legalised money making racket ........................
>> nothing more and nothing less
>>
>>
>>
>> I still have an issue with them   re:- reporting (contra deals)       we
>> have a contra with the local Milkman, the local Newsagent and the local
>> Printer ... my job is very intense and I am extremely busy, I do not put
>> ticking off how many milk bottles we have a day as a priority so that we
>> can work out a contra cost. It's a nonsense, as is all the reporting.
>>
>> I have said this before and I will say it again, they do not understand
>> what NET means         I'm not interested in dividing the square roooooot
>> of 24 by 85% and then taking away the number you first thought of because
>> our end result every year is ZERO      we are not for profit and all monies
>> go back in the project. Likewise, when we were ?9000 in the red four years
>> ago, I don't recall them offering a rebate.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not interested in them at all and I believe if it did go to the top we
>> may have a good case if put together correctly.
>>
>>
>>
>> To be honest I am so confused with our Internet and FM and then Phase One
>> another DAB = ?500 on top plus reporting would possibly tip me over and I'd
>> go doolally
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been trying to file our figures for the past two weeks ......the first
>> quarter is on, but quarters 2,3 and 4 won't let me as they keep saying
>> already reported, which I don''t think they have ....it's all a waste of time
>> and effort and just causes angst. I can only speak for myself of course
>> oh   and plenty of others who tell me so, but don't make their feelings
>> known.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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/20150312/5ab66c12/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:56:53 +0000 (GMT)
> From: "tlr at gairloch.co.uk" <tlr at gairloch.co.uk>
> To: CMA-L <cma-l at commedia.org.uk>, 	Canalside's The Thread
> 	<office at thethread.org.uk>, 	James Cridland <james at cridland.net>
> Subject: Re: [cma-l] FW: The Cost Of The DAB Trials
> Message-ID:
> 	<1836822438.87510.1426204613381.JavaMail.open-xchange at oxbaltgw55.schlund.de>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> James
>   
> Actually I think if we were on the Community Radio PPL licence terms (which is
> an option open to us) we might pay more than on the commercial radio terms for
> simulcasting.
> As far as I know, PPL's Community Radio licence for a station with Internet and
> DAB simulcasting is more expensive than it is for a micro commercial station,
> owing to the effect of PPL's minimum fee structure.I think CR licence holders
> would pay ?1348 for  FM + DAB + 50 streams, or ?1561 with 100 streams), compared
> with a ?1218 minimum for commercial licencees with Internet & DAB, but I'm not
> certain. Either way the difference isn't great.
>   
> I don't see any basis for the Devil's argument that multiplatform should not be
> 'thrown in'. A DAB simulcast would not serve any more people for us, and In any
> case the number of people served is not a direct  factor in PPL's licence rates.
> The principle underlying the Copyright Tribunal's ruling that forms the basis
> for the charging relies on the station's net revenue being an acceptable proxy
> for the real value of PPL's repertoire. The ruling also had no provision for a
> minimum charge to be levied.
>   
> Another niggle with PPL's licensing is that the Internet charge for CR licencees
> is based on maximum number of streams permitted by the streaming server,
> regardless of use. We used ot have a server capable of 100 streams that rarely
> had more than 5 listeners - what concern is it of PPL's if for whatever reason
> we elect to have an underutilized stream server?
>   
> Alex
>   
>
>> On 12 March 2015 at 23:06 James Cridland <james at cridland.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>   Alex, you said:
>>
>>   >I see no justification for any additional charge simply because you are
>>   >available on two different types of radio.
>>
>>   To play devil's advocate - if you paid the commercial radio rate, you don't
>> pay extra for internet streaming nor for DAB simulcast.
>>
>>   If you pay a lower amount for being a community station, you could argue that
>> it is understandable that you don't get the multiplatform thrown in.
>>
>>   I'd be interested to understand whether, if you are a community radio station
>> on FM and you also stream online and broadcast on DAB, do you end up paying
>> more than a commercial radio licence? I'm guessing not, but I don't know.
>>
>>   (Lest you think I am backing PPL or PRS, a quick Google search will dissuade
>> you of that thought)
>>
>>   James
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150312/388729ac/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> cma-l mailing list - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
>
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription please visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>
> End of cma-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 48
> *************************************

More information about the cma-l mailing list