<div dir="ltr"><div>Shame - I was all ready to jack-in the day job and take-up a £70-80k a year community radio job ;-)</div><div><br></div>I wouldn't write-off Small Scale DAB so readily. Yes, the maximum power for the trials is a fraction of what the incumbents use, but it could still provide useful coverage at a "local radio" level. Take for example the map on <a href="http://a-bc.co.uk/dab-coverage-maps/">this page</a> that shows coverage from a 50w Small Scale DAB transmitter on a tall building in the town centre of Swindon - using standard Ofcom levels. Other DAB coverage map suppliers are available.<div><br></div><div>Of course the incumbent mux in the area (which uses 3 transmitters, probably all with much higher power) covers a <a href="http://www.localdigitalradio.co.uk/SwindonTX.png">larger area</a>, but I've spoken to many a station manager who is more interested in density of coverage in the populated area than "covering sheep" (their words).</div><div><br></div><div>An additional consideration for Community radio is that generally (I'm not saying always) it is easier for them to raise funds for "one-off" capital investments (eg: purchase of a transmission chain) than to raise funds for an ongoing (and relatively high) ongoing operational cost like leasing capacity from an incumbent Mux. It's to do with the way grants-giving bodies typically operate. Yes yes, maybe they could capitalise on bigger revenue from a bigger coverage area, but that is a risky game to play - if it were that easy all the incumbent Muxes would be full to capacity.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Horses for courses I say. If SSD muxes are licenced it can only be a good thing because it widens choice for smaller stations, which will widen listener choice (Ian will like that quote!)</div><div><br></div><div>Glyn</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Glyn Roylance - Principal Consultant<div><a href="http://www.a-bc.co.uk/" target="_blank">Associated Broadcast Consultants</a></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 May 2015 at 14:52, James Cridland <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:james@cridland.net" target="_blank">james@cridland.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">For clarification, cost of someone's salary is the cost to the business, not the equivalent money that person earns. For new employees, I've always doubled the salary as the total cost to the business for that employee, and am assuming the same here.<br><br><span style="font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:19.7999992370605px">But yes, DAB's expensive. Small-scale DAB might not be as pricey; but with the sort of transmission coverage levels being talked about, it also sounds as if small-scale DAB will be mostly un-listenable anyway, remembering that DAB doesn't degrade gracefully into hiss but instead squelches into abrupt silence.</span><div><br>The question is - could being on DAB earn you enough money as a business to cover the cost? DAB would give you much more broadcast area, and wouldn't have any restrictions on advertising (assuming you were to split your output somehow). Would you think of yourself as an FM station with a DAB addition, or a DAB station with a cheap FM marketing opportunity? Would you use FM to do worthy community broadcasting and training, and your DAB to produce something that is less self-indulgent and more consistent to listen to, using the same resources and same studios? Great broadcasters graduate from FM to DAB only when ready?</div><div><br></div><div><div>There's an opportunity here if you'd like to take it. Depending on why you're in this game, this glass is half-full from where I see it.</div></div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span></div></blockquote></div>
</div></div>