[cma-l] FW: MiniDAB

Wed Mar 9 18:45:14 GMT 2016

Fully agree your comments about the limits of small-scale DAB as presently constituted, but there is a middle ground possible where a larger higher power networks were operated on a not-for-profit basis with the costs shared. Higher power DAB does not have to be as expensive as it currently is – that’s a result of the commercial near-monopolies and national scale operations that are the current operating model. But that’s an easier model for governments and regulators to implement of course.

SSDAB may be in technical terms a bit wasteful, but in the more remote and less densely populated areas the spectrum is available and the commercial operators have no interest in filling it, so I see no harm in using it in a way that may be technically inefficient. In most of Scotland there is just one BBC and one commercial multiples, and in the entire north-west (an area larger than Wales) there is only the sparse BBC and overloaded BBC multiplex, with no commercial operators at all. I can’t see the harm in permitting localized ‘underused’ networks in these areas.

That said, if you take, for example the north-west coast, we have six community stations and three regional BBC channels (missing from their multiplex because of the decision to stick with old DAB), so that would be nine services to go on a new non-commercial multiplex for starters. It could usefully be supplement by relevant out-of-area community of interest stations such as Celtic Music Radio as well.

We can but dream…

Alex

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of Associated Broadcast Consultants
Sent: 09 March 2016 17:46
To: The Community Media Association Discussion List <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [cma-l] FW: MiniDAB

Thanks for the clarification Alex!   Although technically possible, I personally I doubt whether Ofcom would want to get into the complexities of managing such things for small scale DAB! 

I agree SSDAB seems great for small cities and large towns where a suitable high site is available.   For small towns it starts to become wasteful of spectrum - ie: are there sufficient community services in a small area to fill the mux?  If not, then spectrum is wasted, and FM is more suitable (and with some more creative planning approaches to avoid the "no frequencies available mantra).

For big cities, the arbitrary 100w (now tending towards 200w) limit for SSDAB is having the perverse impact of increasing costs.  In the case of large cities there should be the option (with suitable safeguards) of more power and less sites (ultimately just one) to minimise costs - just like the incumbents.   But it will probably never happen for all the obvious reasons!

Glyn

On 9 March 2016 at 17:28, Alex Gray, Two Lochs Radio <tlr at gairloch.co.uk <mailto:tlr at gairloch.co.uk> > wrote:

No Glyn (and Ian), no ‘old thinking’ going on, quite the reverse, so maybe you were as you say missing my points! 

I’m familiar with the workings of DAB multiplexes and SFNs, but I apologise for any confusion I caused you by my very careless use of the word ‘channels’ (in the sense of programme channels, not spectrum channels), when I should have written ‘programme services’.

I too was envisaging an SFN with perhaps 3 or 4 relays for covering a large city.  As you say, a single DAB+ multiplex (ie one using AAC+) could provide 30 services, but that would imply services averaging 32kbps each, which I would regard as adequate quality for general service, which is why I suggested 24 channels. I think 48kbps should be the minimum target except perhaps for mono or speech-only services, but that is to an extent a subjective matter of course, and it also depends on the quality/price of the encoders used.

You mention the common misconception that an SFN requires all transmitters to contain the same MUX content. Certainly that is the simplest and most conventional arrangement, and what would in almost all circumstances be the practice, but in appropriate situations some regional variation is possible within careful design (which Ofcom has the people to do) . Practical experiments carried out some years ago in Germany showed that it is a possible even within an SFN to have some local variation in programmes service, subject to careful design and suitable topography. 

That is where my comment about interference arose – if alternative audio services are put in the same time slot on different relays there are significant regions of mutual digital interference where there is no usable reception of that slot. But that was all just a possible extra worth investigating as a side issue in areas of particularly high demand, not something to get hung up on. 

The most obvious starting point would be a dedicated multiplex with 24 (or your 30) slots for community-based services across a wide area.

Alex

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] On Behalf Of Associated Broadcast Consultants
Sent: 09 March 2016 14:25
To: 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] MiniDAB

I don't understand these comments about number of channels and interference.  I wonder if there is some old analogue/FM thinking going on?

DAB has the capability to transmit on the same channel without causing interference (in fact delivering a significant gain in the overlap area).  It's called SFN - but it requires all the transmitters to carry the same Mux content.

So for large metropolitan areas you could have one mux covering the centre, and three or four relays in the suburbs - all on the same channel.  Use AAC+ coding and it could easily deliver 30 services with pretty good audio quality.   The alternative is not worth considering - 5 transmitters on separate channels would deliver far too much capacity (150+ programme services), and 5 separate muxes on same channel would deliver far too much interference rendering it unusable.

Unless I'm missing your points...?

Glyn

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com 

_______________________________________________

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
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

-- 

Glyn Roylance - Principal Consultant 

Associated Broadcast Consultants <http://www.a-bc.co.uk/> 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20160309/e7155578/attachment.html>