<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>No, I know they are slowly working towards the
inevitable DAB+, but their antithesis to it over the past 7 years is
demosntrable fact. I believe they seriously let us down by a badly
misjudged nervousness about disenfranchising early adoptors. As I said, there
were perfectly good strategies available around 2008 onwards for signalling an
intention to move towards DAB+ and to take practical steps in that direction
without causing difficulties for the existing owners.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>By not doing that they have simply set up a much
greater higher-profile problem for the inevitable switch to DAB while there are,
as you say, now millions of non-DAB+ radios out there. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>As late as last year they still had the
opportunity to start the process when the decision was taken to do an additional
roll-out of DAB to the next-to-last 10% of the UK, such as the far northwest. At
that point there were virtually zero DAB radios in these areas, and they
were terrain isolated (and still are) from existing DAB- areas, so no
issues of interference. The only likely migration of listeners and their radios
between the existing and the new DAB areas was by car users, and all prefitted
car DAB radios are DAB+ capable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>So even as late as 1-2 years ago 'they' flunked
what I feel was an evidently a perfect on-a-platter opportunity to serve the
listening public better and make a highly rational start on the switch to DAB+,
and at no significant extra cost to existing plans.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Yes, as I said before, I know DAB can work quite
well in urban areas that are attractive to commercial multiplex operators, and
can financially support the installation of more tranmitters than on FM, and I'm
sure it provides you a decent service. I think it takes 11 DAB transmitters
to serve London adequately at present, compared with typically a couple needed
for each FM service. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>In that situation DAB clearly has an advantage
with its Single Frequency Network allowing fairly unlimited on-channel relays,
and avoiding the sort of (very ingenious) technical trickery that was
needed to squeeze the Crystal Palace BBC relay into the FM band (although it
does result in Crystal Palace TX breaking engineering codes by being
deliberately slightly off-frequency).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>I must get back to the day job...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Alex</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=james@cridland.net href="mailto:james@cridland.net">James
Cridland</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=tlr@gairloch.co.uk
href="mailto:tlr@gairloch.co.uk">Two Lochs Radio</A> ; <A
title=cma-l@mailman.commedia.org.uk
href="mailto:cma-l@mailman.commedia.org.uk">The Community Media Association
Discussion List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, November 17, 2014 1:21
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [cma-l] Community &
Local Radio - the Digital Issue</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>You believe that "the authorities" are against DAB+. They're
not. <A
href="http://media.info/radio/news/dab-starts-in-the-uk-what-you-need-to-know">http://media.info/radio/news/dab-starts-in-the-uk-what-you-need-to-know</A>
shows that a trial is taking place, and that it'll (probably) be part of the
new national digital multiplex next year. The nervousness is because there are
millions of sets out there that won't pick DAB+ up. That's relatively
understandable nervousness that they don't want to force early adopters to go
out and get new sets to continue listening to the radio.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In my kitchen, incidentally, I can't get FM stations at all, but get a
good selection of DAB services. I'm in the wilds of... North London. Adequate
reception is horses for courses. I've seen other Scottish contributors saying
that DAB is a significant upgrade when in-car in comparison to FM. The moral
of the story is that no platform is perfect; so a decent radio should hide all
these platforms from audiences, and just connect them to brilliant
content.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://james.cridland.net">james.cridland.net</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>