"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote


I heard it said a while back that no DAB radio sold to date would have
made a profit if the real costs of the endless advertising were taken
out?


I calculated based on real advertising costs on ITV that the BBC's 20 TV
advertising campaigns for DAB up to a year or two ago would have cost
£155m for them to have been shown on ITV.

Something like 9.5m DAB radios have been sold to date, so the BBC has
effectively been pseudo-subsidising each and every DAB radio sold to the
tune of £155m / 9.5m = £16.32, which is a lot more than the average profit
made on a DAB radio, so UK DAB should by rights have gone bankrupt years
ago.


Don't know if that is actually true, but I'm sure some *blow off* will be
along shortly to put us all right...???


I did the calculations as accurately as I could, for example by taking
into consideration actual audience figures on different channels and how
much it costs to advertise to that size of audience, and how many TV
adverts the BBC was showing per day and when they were shown and so on,
but the figures were always only ballpark estimates.

Having said that, given the low profit margins on consumer electronics
products I think it's pretty certain that even though the figures are just
ballpark estimates DAB radios would not be profitable if the BBC's TV
advertising had to be paid for.


There you go - that's certainly in line with what I've been led to believe!

I don't know what's involved with the transmission of different systems or
of the relative costs involved, but I do know that the 'best system' at
whatever cost would/will come right in time and is the one that should used,
no matter what exists today.

Free radio (with/without ads) is an essential part of life and, I also
understand, on the increase - no?

In article , DAB sounds worse than FM
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


The BBC obviously has different views on whether it wants people to
use its website (it does) to whether it wants people to listen to
live radio via the Internet (it very much does not).

"obviously"?

Why did the BBC setup the Coyopa system if it ("very much") doesn't
want anyone to listen to it? I'm afraid that isn't obvious to me at
this point.


The BBC is specifically biased against live Internet radio, and they're
not biased against people listening on-demand via the iPlayer. Coyopa's
main job is to encode and do whatever else needs to be done to generate
the on-demand streams - the live streams are much easier to generate in
comparison.

Afraid I don't see how the assertion in your first statement comes from the
one in your second. And AIUI the same aac/acc+ streams are used for both
'live' and 'listen again'. I thought Coyopa provides them both. Is your
definition of 'internet radio' specifically one that excludes 'listen
again'? And can you say why you feel the BBC "very much" don't want us to
listen, yet provide these services, *both* live and listen again?


As chance would have it, I'm 'listening again' to the Last Night of
the Proms as I write this. (Trumpet Concerto, excellent!) From the
results I can't detect any obvious signs that the BBC don't want me to
do this. Thoroughly enjoyable.


As I say, they're not biased against the on-demand streams - they
consider the on-demand streams to complement live listening, but they
are blatantly biased against the live Internet streams. They originally
intended to deliver the live streams at lower quality (64 kbps AAC+ is
what I was told by the person in charge of them) than the on-demand
streams (probably 96 kbps AAC+),

Which "person in charge" was that? You can tell us now since the two I have
in mind as people you may mean have both moved on to other things. So
there's just the two of us here. :-)

So far as I know, the BBC and Siemens went through quite a long 'lab' phase
where they experimented with bitrates and other settings. AIUI The purpose
was to obtain practical evidence to decide what they should settle on.

However as I understand it, the BBC are streaming aac/aac+ at 192 for R3
and 128 for most of their other radio stations. For both live and listen
again. Not the values you assert they "intended". I'd have thought you
would regard that as comparing favourably with DAB and DTTV.

So how does that show that they are "biased" against internet radio?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
You reckon?, when you claimed that transmission costs are proportional to
bit rate? give me a break!

David.


David they are.. I've seen how much it will cost one of our local ILR
stations to go on DAB and they simply can't afford it with the way the
DAB system works. They can afford the FM system they use but not DAB at
any bitrate let alone 192 K!..

Yes - but that's just down to how the supplier charges to make their
profit. You're not seriously suggesting it costs more to transmit at a
higher rate? Ie, uses more electricity?

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Please explain why DAB is 'extraordinarily expensive to transmit'?
Does it use so much extra electricity? Very much more expensive equipment?


Simply the way the system works with the multiplex concept and the
monopolistic transmission provider!..

Oh I quite understand the principle of being charged for bandwidth used.
But that's not the same thing. Obvious example is how this has changed
dramatically over the years with broadband.

--
*The statement below is true.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
More of a clue than you, apparently. Get your head out of your arse and do
some proper research. You're supposed to have some form of engineering
qualification. Do you really think the bitrate makes much difference to
the *real* costs of transmission?


The transmission costs Dave are very real and are bitrate dependant or
as Steve has explained on Capacity units.

Sigh. I'm not concerned with what Arqiva charge for the service. That has
little to do with the cost running of the transmitters. You might as well
say the ITV levy - when it existed - was purely a transmission cost.

If you ran a small ILR station who wanted to go DAB you'd see very soon
that you couldn't afford it"!..

Totally different matter

Let alone all the MUX's around the UK which have been licensed but have
not as yet started up!..

So they're charging 'extra' for bandwidth while there's plenty spare.
Thank you.

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The Studio to Transmitter link is more to do with where the multiplexer
unit is located and more often than not a bloody long way from where the
station is located!.

Just one of the component costs of Dabble.

How is that different from having a line to an FM transmitter? Of course a
small local station could just have the transmitting aerial on its roof -
but this is unlikely to be satisfactory everywhere.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Jan Wysocki wrote:
So it would have nothing to do with a monopoly supplier charging what it
wants? Of course it has to pay the governnmint for those rights.


I have always inferred that it costs a lot more from the fact that I
haven't noticed any pirates using DAB. I notice that they do
bear the extra cost of broadcasting on FM rather than AM.

You can buy non broadcast spec FM transmitters made in China etc for
pennies. Not so DAB. But the real comparison would be between a broadcast
quality FM and DAB one of similar coverage area.

--
*Don't squat with your spurs on *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I really don't know why I bother replying to you or your ilk, because
it should be so incredibly obvious that the transmission costs will be
highly dependent on the bit rate used.

Just think about it for a few seconds. If a DAB multiplex costs
£900,000 per annum to transmit in total, if the multiplex operator can
fit 9 stations at 128 kbps on the multiplex then ignoring profit the
cost would be £100,000 per station per annum. If instead of carrying 9
x 128 kbps stereo stations the multiplex carried 18 x 64 kbps mono
stations then the transmission costs per station would be £50,000.

Is this maths a little bit difficult for you, David?

Sigh. So explain why an FM TX of the same coverage is cheaper? After all,
you'd need 9 of them...

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Dear Kitty - always having to add your words of wisdom it being your
own personal newsgroup?

You know ****-all about HD anything it appears....

Sadly, of course, like so often, you have nothing to contribute to the
subject.



You also know ****-all about the cost of DAB transmission it appears....

....but it doesn't stop you *blowing off* and trying to own every thread
that starts in this group....

Try having some original thoughts, Kitty, instead of just repeating mine.

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The transmission costs Dave are very real and are bitrate dependant or
as Steve has explained on Capacity units.

If you ran a small ILR station who wanted to go DAB you'd see very soon
that you couldn't afford it"!..

Your point being that a complete DAB MUX would cost more than one FM
channel? If so, is that why the government seem to have presumed FM can
be vacated for 'local' uses, etc? i.e. for users who only want one
station/channel?

That's another way of putting it. Mr DAB and his friends seem to think
transmitting one DAB multiplex costs more than 9 FM stations. Now I know
digital can be power hungry, but that beggars belief.

--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.