[cma-l] The DAB issue
David Duffy
david at theradiopeople.co.uk
Mon Sep 7 17:01:47 BST 2015
Hi Phil,
I was, until very recently, sceptical about DAB. But then, I told myself, it’s only another platform. What’s important is the content.
So it’s not FM v DAB just as it’s not broadcast vs online. I haven’t heard of anybody not streaming their output on the internet because they’re already on FM. 25% of listening is currently on DAB. If you see no value in chasing that then that’s fine. You are comfortably swimming in a pool with 75% of all listening already.
What Ofcom’s small scale DAB trial offers, subject to the right regulatory framework, could be a low cost entry point for all sorts of new and interesting content providers to start broadcasting. I deliberately avoided the word ‘radio’. I see it adding to and extending the choice of services available - not duplicating current FM services or providing a platform for them to simulcast their existing content.
David
www.niocast.com <http://www.niocast.com/> - small scale DAB multiplex Manchester.
> On 7 Sep 2015, at 15:48, fantasy office <office at fantasyradio.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
>
> I get very frustrated with DAB. I don't think, as a simple platform for broadcasting (to local audiences) DAB compares to FM in terms of simplicity and ease of use for listener and broadcaster alike. In my quite considerable years experience, DAB has not really worked well. The main problem has been down to poor marketing. As a medium, it was, once, ahead of its time - but now it isn't. And when Digital listening figures are quoted, DAB is always included with all other forms of digital listening. No-one ever seems to give us the ACTUAL DAB figures. And I mean LISTENING, not just DAB ownership. Even digital listening as a whole hasn't yet reached 50% - which means OVER 50% of listening is analogue. And remember - DAB is over twenty years old now!
>
> As far as cost to the broadcaster is concerned, DAB is completely outpriced. Why would we want to spend money on a local multiplex, either as an owner, or as a client? when our FM signal is very good. It's in Stereo and the audio quality is not compromised by reduced bit rates. As for any additional PRS or PPL, or even OFCOM costs for DAB, I've asked the question before... Where does anyone think the money will come from? We can't attract more listeners, and even if we could, I doubt if our advertisers would be keen to pay additional rates because we're on DAB. I think the DAB thing, even with the fine efforts made by the technical people within OFCOM is an unnecessary compication.
>
> We also do fine with digital broadcasting - online listening on computer, ipad, smartphone. Stereo, reasonable bit rate, etc.
>
> Sorry this has turned into a rant, but quite clearly, we're in danger of missing the point.
>
> Phil Dawson,
> FANTASY RADIO 97FM
> Devizes,
> Wiltshire
>
>
>
>
> On 9/6/2015 5:43 PM, cma-l-request at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-request at mailman.commedia.org.uk> wrote:
>> Send cma-l mailing list submissions to
>> cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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: DAB & FM (Canalside's The Thread)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:18:09 +0100
>> From: "Canalside's The Thread" <office at thethread.org.uk> <mailto:office at thethread.org.uk>
>> To: "'Ian Hickling'" <transplanfm at hotmail.com> <mailto:transplanfm at hotmail.com>, "'The Community Media
>> Association Discussion List'" <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk> <mailto:cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [cma-l] DAB & FM
>> Message-ID:
>> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJdWVmK8n0ZDnFrnt7yKPuLCgAAAEAAAAP25RFK4ppRBvAB1l2AjCm8BAAAAAA==@thethread.org.uk> <mailto:!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJdWVmK8n0ZDnFrnt7yKPuLCgAAAEAAAAP25RFK4ppRBvAB1l2AjCm8BAAAAAA==@thethread.org.uk>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Brilliant
>>
>>
>>
>> ????. So it is possible, and it is within budget, but all the tecky stuff
>> needs to be sorted out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: Ian Hickling [mailto:transplanfm at hotmail.com <mailto:transplanfm at hotmail.com>]
>> Sent: 06 September 2015 16:53
>> To: The Community Media Association Discussion List; office at thethread.org.uk <mailto:office at thethread.org.uk>
>> Subject: DAB & FM
>>
>>
>>
>> The simple answer at the moment Nick is - no-one knows.
>>
>> In maybe a few months' time, to duplicate the kit being used in the trial
>> would cost no more that an FM system - say ?3500 I would suggest.
>>
>> But there is no route to anyone being able to apply for or obtain a licence
>> - so the question of how much it will or would cost is, I suggest, a bit
>> academic.
>> I'm sticking however to my point that DAB as we have it now is up against a
>> brick wall - as its capability to expand to accommodate a lot more stations
>> is very limited.
>> To progress with any degree of positive certainty we have to adopt a
>> different format which isn't specifically "DAB" - but probably will get
>> called that by everyone else out there.
>>
>> Ian Hickling
>>
>> Partner
>>
>> <http://www.transplanuk.com/> <http://www.transplanuk.com/>
>>
>> Office: 01635 578435 (7am-11pm UK time)
>>
>> Carphone: 07530 980115 (only responds when driving)
>>
>> 6 Horn Street, Compton, NEWBURY, RG20 6QS
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: office at thethread.org.uk <mailto:office at thethread.org.uk>
>> To: cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
>> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:08:46 +0100
>> Subject: Re: [cma-l] Eddie on DAB v FM new discussion DAB & FM
>>
>> Chaps
>>
>>
>>
>> All this technical Radio jargon is very interesting indeed and very
>> educational ?. I have to confess I don?t understand all of it but I?m
>> getting to learn about 40% of it with a couple of our tecky chaps hovering
>> around 70% ?.you guys are clearly experts (re :- James / Ian / Alex /
>> Glynn et al) however chaps, we never seem to manage to get to the nitty
>> gritty, and I would imagine at least half of the folk on the message board
>> are slightly more interested in how much money does each Community Radio
>> Station need to save in its Piggy Bank to get itself on small scale DAB &
>> FM, as opposed to learning about algorithms ?.. (this is a tongue in-cheek
>> joke chaps merely asking what I feel the more important question, so don?t
>> shoot the messenger)
>>
>>
>>
>> I have already asked the question and I would imagine that the likes of Ian
>> being in his field of work (for example) would be able to come up with a
>> ball-park figure) I know DAB trials are taking place but surely whether
>> successful or not the end result is can it be afforded ? if it can?t be
>> afforded then the whole exercise is pointless anyway isn?t it ???
>>
>>
>>
>> I am merely picking up on James?s observations and Glynn (I think) who
>> pointed out that possibly this DAB malarkey is one of those situations
>> whereby we some of us may end being dragged kicking and screaming as failure
>> to hook into it would mean the big boys clear up completely.
>>
>>
>>
>> We all understand what Community Radio is about, but regardless of the whys,
>> whats and wherefores we still have to compete at some kind of level or we
>> wither and die (unless of course we win the lottery or receive grants
>> that don?t exist)(re my post earlier this week)
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you gentlemen of great Community Radio loveliness please flop a ball
>> park figure on this message board for all to see re the cost of medium
>> priced equipment, set up and running for DAB ?? on top of what I have
>> roughly worked out to be and ongoing cost of around = ?5000 quid for those
>> already broadcasting (new additions of course would have their initial set
>> up ? transmitters / aerials / installation etc)
>>
>>
>>
>> This five grand figure allows for maintainance and includes
>> PPL/PRS/Canstream/other licences/Internet/Ofcom licence ?.. I have kept it
>> top side as opposed to lower end.
>>
>> Assuming that PPL/PRS will be hovering, circling and then charging
>> additionally for something that technically is already covered, would the
>> figure be roughly the same? as I have to admit reading all the posts we seem
>> to have gone from DAB being really expensive to it not being quite as
>> expensive as we first thought, to it being rather cheap and then back to
>> reasonably expensive again and for us to do it we would be doing it because
>> we simply ?had to? ?or else? as opposed to wanting to do it in
>> otherwords the ?getting left behind discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope you have followed my thread and got the gist of it, apologies if it
>> is in laymans terms.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let?s us call the discussion not ???versus??? but DAB & FM
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
>> [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk <mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>] On Behalf Of James Cridland
>> Sent: 05 September 2015 20:47
>> To: Two Lochs Radio; cma-l
>> Subject: Re: [cma-l] Eddie on DAB v FM
>>
>>
>>
>> I use TuneIn's app too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Radioplayer provides:
>>
>> 1. A web player that actually works, and that lets people find your station
>> from BBC Radio 2!
>>
>> 2. A capable app that surfaces your station - first - for people in your
>> transmission area on iOS and Android, Amazon and Windows.
>>
>> 3. Logos, schedules and broadcast details for your station for a variety of
>> uses including Radioplayer Car, RadioDNS-enabled tuners, and other things
>>
>> 4. A Chrome app (which I wrote <- disclosure) that puts your station onto
>> everyone's desktop
>>
>> 5. An app that puts your station onto Ford Sync, Apple CarPlay and Android
>> Auto (and lets you control it from Apple Watch and Android Wear)
>>
>> 6. Liason on behalf of the entire radio industry to set-top box
>> manufacturers, car manufacturers and other organisations that you don't talk
>> to nor have the clout to
>>
>> 7. Usage data
>>
>> ....and is run on behalf of the radio industry with your goals in mind.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even for #1 on that list, it's worth the ?99. I appreciate it isn't free;
>> but then, it isn't slotting ads in front of your streams or making you
>> compete with 100,000 other stations, either.
>>
>>
>>
>> //j
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 8:32 PM Two Lochs Radio <tlr at gairloch.co.uk> <mailto:tlr at gairloch.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Your fee for Radioplayer is ?99. ?A more proportionate fee??!
>>
>>
>> Just so, but Michael originally asked ?300, which we negotiated down to ?90
>> (that was at launch, it has increased 10% since).
>>
>> TuneIn's app provides more advanced facilities than Radioplayer and the
>> service is entirely free to originating stations. They also provide a
>> schedule and 'On now' without us having to lift a finger - they scrape our
>> own published schedule periodically (I must ask them to update it as it
>> seems to be slightly out of date).
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05 September 2015 at 20:03 James Cridland <james at cridland.net> <mailto:james at cridland.net> wrote:
>>
>> Your fee for Radioplayer is ?99. "A more proportionate fee"?!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:47 Two Lochs Radio <tlr at gairloch.co.uk> <mailto:tlr at gairloch.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, of course I'm aware of the other variants of FM, my point was that
>> there seems ot be alarge enough market for RDS for set makers, even
>> portables and some phones, such as HTC, to judge it worthwhile supporting
>> RDS.
>>
>>
>> And you need to be continuously scanning the FM and DAB bands to populate
>> this station list name, otherwise when travelling you'll never find local
>> radio.
>>
>>
>> The radio does that for itself unbidden. I routinely use the radio's station
>> list to see what stations are in range.
>>
>>
>> Incidentally, I cannot comprehend why anyone wouldn't be on Radioplayer, I
>> must say: its the R&D department for the whole of UK radio.
>>
>>
>> The main reason for not being on RadioPlayer would be the cost and the fact
>> that ithey won't allow you to be on mobiles if you don't provide a low-rate
>> bitstream. We joined it when the BBC was on it and didn't have its own
>> radioplayer which rather undermined UK Radioplayer's proposition. But we
>> did first have to negotiate a more proportionate fee!
>>
>> As a user, I still prefer to use TuneIn. It has far more facilities.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05 September 2015 at 18:45 James Cridland <james at cridland.net> <mailto:james at cridland.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Alex,
>> The UK market is a tiny and inconsequential one to most manufacturers. The
>> Digital Radio tickmark thing is actually deliberately set to mirror similar
>> accreditation systems in Europe and Australia. Further, the radio industry
>> is uninterested in how radio sets operate, and not big or united enough to
>> talk to most manufacturers in a coherent manner.
>> Really, we have a "North America vs rest-of-world" thing going on in radio
>> receivers. You are correct that AM is different - so is FM, in fact, with
>> different deemphasis values used as well as different frequency spacing.
>> Pedants: Japan's different still, with FM from 76 to 108MHz. And parts of ex
>> Soviet countries use something different again.
>> "Animated and dynamic RDS names do not break tuning by name" - I bow to your
>> obvious knowledge. I'd only observe that scrolling now-playing info, in
>> place in many parts of the world, means that you end up with station names
>> like "TY PERRY" or even "LE NOW O" which really isn't the sort of user
>> experience any one wants to give, and certainly isn't recognisable.
>> Tuning by station name doesn't work on AM - but I'd argue that AM isn't part
>> of radio's future anyway. (Pedants: it does, if you use AMSS, a kind of RDS
>> for AM. Nobody does).
>> Further, the ideal is tuning by station name irrespective of waveband - so
>> you'd get "BBC 6 Music" in the same list as "TwoLochs". (You want that,
>> right?) The issue here is that de-duping the list isn't simple; "BBC R Scot"
>> on FM in your part of the world could be different to "BBC Radio Scotland"
>> on an available local multiplex, because of local optouts. The BBC have
>> deliberately broken service-following between FM and DAB, which has the side
>> effect of also breaking any way that your radio can de-dupe Radio 4 FM from
>> Radio 4 DAB. And so on.
>> And you need to be continuously scanning the FM and DAB bands to populate
>> this station list name, otherwise when travelling you'll never find local
>> radio.
>> The "Radioplayer Car" unit, currently in test, does all you have asked for
>> and more - linking to IP as well (and more importantly linking back), and
>> letting you tune by station name and logo.
>> https://media.info/radio/stations/two-lochs-radio <https://media.info/radio/stations/two-lochs-radio> tells me that you are on
>> Radioplayer, so you'll benefit when that is available for sale later this
>> year.
>> Incidentally, I cannot comprehend why anyone wouldn't be on Radioplayer, I
>> must say: its the R&D department for the whole of UK radio.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 18:17 Two Lochs Radio <tlr at gairloch.co.uk> <mailto:tlr at gairloch.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The reason RDS names aren't used as a method of tuning is that RDS isn't
>> ubiquitous in the US, and in Europe many stations use animated and dynamic
>> RDS names, which breaks this stuff.
>>
>>
>> I can't see any great force in that as a reason for not using station name
>> tuning by default. The RDS radio market is clearly big enough to support it
>> as an option perfectly economically in the rest of world without needing to
>> work in the US. More to the point, I don't think DAB is exactly ubiquitous
>> in the US either is it? And yet we have a market full of DAB sets!
>>
>> Same sort of thing applies to push button tuning on AM - the US uses 10kHz
>> channel spacing and we use 9kHz, so radio circuits/chipsets in portables
>> have to support both. Anyway, a radio that can tune by station list can
>> still be operated by frequency if it finds itself in a non-RDS region, so it
>> can only be a gain or neutral, not negative.
>>
>> Animated and dynamic RDS names do not break tuning by name - as I said, my
>> car can tune by station list, and it works perfectly well in continental
>> countries that use more advanced techniques - the station list shows a
>> static shot of the 8 character name which is usually perfectly recognizable.
>> And again, if not, you can fall back to frequency tuning. Tuning by station
>> name doesn't have to be the only mode available, but it should (IMO) be
>> available and the default option for a radio to get the tick mark.
>>
>> The IP stuff is a further argument, and perfectly fine, but no bearing on my
>> suggestion that for DAB/FM radios sold for the UK market should have been
>> required to offer tuning by station name across FM & DAB.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05 September 2015 at 15:59 James Cridland <james at cridland.net> <mailto:james at cridland.net> wrote:
>>
>> The reason RDS names aren't used as a method of tuning is that RDS isn't
>> ubiquitous in the US, and in Europe many stations use animated and dynamic
>> RDS names, which breaks this stuff.
>> Neither RDS nor DAB offer handoff to IP, nor direct links to other IP-based
>> resources either, so they're not, by themselves, future-proof.
>> RadioDNS provides that mapping, which makes radio receivers significantly
>> more user friendly.
>> IP is four times smaller than DAB use here in the UK, and is growing slower
>> as well. (Indeed, growth appears to have stagnated for most.)
>> The future is multi-platform, and better sets. Sadly, existing broadcasters
>> aren't entirely on-board.
>> James
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk <mailto: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 <http://www.commedia.org.uk/>
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media <http://twitter.com/community_media>
>> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation <http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation>
>> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/ <http://www.canstream.co.uk/>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Mailing list guidelines:
>> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-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 <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/20150907/2bca847b/attachment.html>
More information about the cma-l
mailing list