<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18852"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>> Subject: [cma-l] Local radio stations frozen out of
digital switchover debate, says MP<BR>> <BR>> Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/13/local-radio-digital-switchover</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=transplanfm@hotmail.com href="mailto:transplanfm@hotmail.com">Ian
Hickling, transplan UK</A> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>This is yet another example of the uninformed misleading the
unaware.<BR>There is no "Digital Switchover" for radio.<BR>There is no need
for "Digital Switchover" for radio.<BR>There is little demand from
smaller operators for "Digital Switchover" for radio.<BR> <BR>Why
don't these people talk to those in the know before they sound
off?<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Well, that strikes me as a remarkably simplistic and
complacent stance. I for one think Mr Carmichael was right on the ball, and
that as typical newspaper reporting goes, the Guardian piece was a
pretty fair and reasonably accurate summing up of the
situation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>All MPs have been bombarded by radio groups and the
RadioCentre with communications about the Digital Economy Bill's provisions
for radio, and the voice of community radio and small independent commercial
licencees (such as ourselves) are in danger of going completely unheard. But it
is no good ignoring it - if the 'players' get their way, it <EM>will</EM> have a
long term impact on small stations, and not necessarily a positive one. As
one of the unique band of Highlands & Islands stations with a foot in
each camp (community and commercial), we have protested vigorously to
RadioCentre about aspects of the lobbying of MPs that they have been doing
ostensibly on our behalf as members, and the impression they have sought to give
that a majority of RadioCentre members support a rapid migration to
DAB.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>There may be no current switchover date or timetable set,
but make no mistake, a key purpose of the Bill's provisions is to put in place
the framework for just such a switchover timetable by the issue of
regulations and orders, and to allow significant deregulation of local radio for
commercial benefit, with no further primary legislation being
required.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The largest radio groups would still like to see the
process start in 2015, but even if they don't have it their way (it seems
unlikely), there is still a very strong drive to a phased changeover as soon as
possible based on minimal criteria for digital listening and penetration of DAB
radios that will leave hundreds of thousands of listeners and small radio
stations disenfranchised.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>About the only positive aspects of this are that
there <EM>should</EM> be more spectrum and power available for the stations
remaining on Band II (though this will be trimmed back), and Ofcom will have the
power to award longer licences.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The huge negative possibility, which could creep up
on you much faster than you think, is that there will be highly publicized
and promoted digital switchover, and the listening public will rapidly come to
regard FM as an inconvenient 'uncool' backwater not worth the bother of tuning
in. We have the lesson of AM history in this: first with short-wave and then
with long-wave and now pretty much with medium wave. <FONT face=Arial>AM is
already perceived by many (at least many of those who are aware of
it!) as a second-class service to be avoided when possible. </FONT>By and
large only those with no alternative, and willing to tolerate poorer quality
reception/awkward tuning, to get the service they want will use AM. (And
please don't base an argument against this on the few exception cases -
it's manifestly true in general terms). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>When digital switchover comes, as it will for the larger
stations and most populated areas, FM will be on the same slippery slope,
putting up yet another barrier for community and small-scale FM stations. Ask
Celtic Music Radio in Glasgow what it means to them to be on AM, or Forest of
Dean Radio what it meant to them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>A lot will depend on how the criteria for digital
switchover are set and measured. Simply measuring the number of DAB
sets sold is not a very useful guide, nor even the fact that they are being
used for, say, 50% of listening by time. To achieve a switchover even in heavily
DAB covered areas with a high level of DAB listening within the next decade
there will still have to be a mass disenfranchising of owners of millions of
small cheap radios and embedded tuners (in hi-fis, cars, radio alarm clocks,
mobile phones, MP3 players...). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If Ofcom and the industry had been serious about
a smooth migration to a mixed digital/analogue radio future, as they
profess, then they should have mandated DAB/FM radio chipsets that gave the same
main facilties to FM reception as to DAB - eg tuning by name, track names
and Internet links, live pause and rewind as a minimum. There is no technical
difficulty in doing this, the RDS system already provides the bulk of the
support needed for the tuning information, and the chipset needs only a simple
encoder included to allow live pause and replay. Indeed several cheapy
old MP3 players and the latest iPod already offer live pause and rewind on
FM.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>To release real digital benefit for the UK economy the
should also have set up a common carrier, not-for-profit transmission network,
rather than allowing very profit-driven corporations to become monopoly digital
gatekeepers. Or, if that were unpalatable in the modern 'market knows best'
climate, we could at least have introduced a regulatory requirement as per
the USA's SHVA regulations for satellite TV networks, which require the big
carriers to relay any local services existing in the areas to which they are
bring shining new, potentially exclusive, broadcasting technology. Not the sort
of state intervention you would expect of the USA unless it was seen as vital
to facilitating a healthy market, and it's not too late for this to go into
the Digital Economy Bill, but I doubt any influential group has written to
MPs suggesting it!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>DAB was not designed for local broadcasting, and will
never be optimal for it. Indeed in the early days of its development some
in the BBC referred to it as their 'ILR killer'. DAB+ has the potential to
be much more appropriate to our geographical and radio landscape, but only
if the economics of entry and carriage are sorted out. Ofcom and the 'industry'
seem desperately keen to avoid DAB+ until the investment in DAB has been
milked for all it can be. The Highlands & Islands of Scotland would of
course be a strong candidate for phased UK introduction of DAB+ as there is zero
installed base of old DAB accross a huge geographical area.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Of course the national and big local players are
mostly in favour of DAB - it is technically far better suited to their coverage
aspirations, and it raises higher barriers against entry and participation
by pesky and independent-minded and non-profit-driven small players. They
are even more in favour of the local radio deregulation promised by the
bill, which will allow Ofcom to give commercial radio stations
the freedom to move in directions that are mostly an anathema to the objectives
of community and non-profit local stations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><hobbyhorse:mount> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I'd be quite happy to have a DAB receiver or two if there
were any service in this region (there isn't) but I would not want to
lose the flexibility and convenience of the array of current receivers in use by
the family either. A quick count round the house and phones found 15 FM tuners
in my house, 13 of which are in at least weekly, mostly
daily, use. I'm not too keen to have external dongle tuners plugged
into the hi-fis, nor, irony of ironies, little FM transmitters plugged into DAB
receivers' earphone sockets to relay them onto old FM receivers, as I have
seen suggested! </FONT><FONT face=Arial>Does Apple plan to include DAB as well
as FM in the next iPod? I doubt it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><hobbyhorse:dismount></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Better stop there. I made my main point in the first few
paragraphs!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Alex</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Two Lochs Radio</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Gairloch, Wester Ross</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>(The UK's smallest commercial radio station!)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>cc Highlands & Islands
MPs/MSPs</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>