|
|
hd radio
In article ,
David Looser wrote: It must do, because it *IS* extraordinarily expensive to transmit. No it isn't, because transmission costs are not related to the modulation type used, nor to the coding used in digital syatems, nor directly to the bit rate (although clearly a lower bit-rate per audio stream allows more audio streams for a given equipment/aerial system). As it happens I do know something about how the charges for transmission are made up, they are based on the number of sites used, and indeed which sites those are. The number of aerials and their position on the tower or mast plus the size and power consumption of the transmitter equipment.. That's it, not whether it's DAB or FM. Indeed. I doubt the base costs vary by much. What the actual 'transmitter rental' is has historically been in the end a political decision. In exactly the same way as for cellular phones. Basically, a tax. -- *Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
hd radio
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:13:20 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote: There's a few different quotes I could point to that show how biased the radio industry is general against Internet radio, but it would take time to dig the various quotes up, and I don't feel that I need to justify what I say to you about this, so if you want to disagree with me that's fine, but suffice it to say that you'd be wrong. They may not approve of it. But they all do it :-) Yes, but only because they have to use it or otherwise they'd lose (primarily young) listeners. If they could have their way, audio would be banned from the Internet. Maybe. A more common criticism (of the BBC at least) is that it's embraced the Internet TOO enthusiastically, spending a lot of money in competing in an area arguably not within it's remit. |
hd radio
"David Looser" wrote in message
... "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Rubbish. The engineers thought the broadcasters would use the high bit rate levels needed to provide high audio quality, but they completely ignore the cost aspects, because DAB is extraordinarily expensive to transmit, which is one of the main reasons why such low bit rates are used in the UK Please explain why DAB is 'extraordinarily expensive to transmit'? Does it use so much extra electricity? The cost of electricity is tiny in comparison to the overall cost. Very much more expensive equipment? It must do, because it *IS* extraordinarily expensive to transmit. No it isn't, because transmission costs are not related to the modulation type used, nor to the coding used in digital syatems, nor directly to the bit rate (although clearly a lower bit-rate per audio stream allows more audio streams for a given equipment/aerial system). People who work for DAB multiplex operators have told me on the phone that the carriage costs are proportional to the number of capacity units consumed, and capacity units are either exactly or almost exactly proportional to the bit rate used. As it happens I do know something about how the charges for transmission are made up, they are based on the number of sites used, and indeed which sites those are. Gosh, he knows that a multiplex with over one hundred transmitters (e.g. the Digital One national DAB multiplex with approx transmission costs per 128k station £1m) would cost more to operate than one that has a couple of transmitters (e.g. a smallish local DAB multiplex with approx annual transmission costs per 128k station of about £90k). I must be in the presence of a genius. What I said about the transmission costs being proportional to the number of capacity units still stands irrespective of the number of transmitters: Transmission cost per station = number of capacity units x cost per capacity unit and the cost per capacity unit is obviously going to be very, very different on multiplexes that have a very different number of transmitters. The number of aerials and their position on the tower or mast plus the size and power consumption of the transmitter equipment.. That's it, not whether it's DAB or FM. Oh, so the cost of transmitting DAB and FM is the same, is it? Er, no it is not. See page 48 of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...t_spectrum.pdf FM transmission costs the BBC £16.4m per annum, whereas for DAB: "The BBC wishes to increase DAB’s population coverage to 90% of the UK population, which we understand would cost £11m per annum in total to increase the number of transmitters from the current 96 to 230. Increasing coverage further to levels similar to those of FM radio may cost the BBC up to £40m per annum, as the number of transmitters would need to be increased to approximately 1000." plus the footnote at the bottom of that page shows taht the BBC pays an additional £3.6m to transmit its local stations on DAB. So DAB will cost about £43.6m in comparison to FM costing £16.4m. Bargain. And I'm afraid that proves that your theory about transmission costs is pure drivel. -- Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report |
hd radio
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , David Looser wrote: It must do, because it *IS* extraordinarily expensive to transmit. No it isn't, because transmission costs are not related to the modulation type used, nor to the coding used in digital syatems, nor directly to the bit rate (although clearly a lower bit-rate per audio stream allows more audio streams for a given equipment/aerial system). As it happens I do know something about how the charges for transmission are made up, they are based on the number of sites used, and indeed which sites those are. The number of aerials and their position on the tower or mast plus the size and power consumption of the transmitter equipment.. That's it, not whether it's DAB or FM. Indeed. I doubt the base costs vary by much. What the actual 'transmitter rental' is has historically been in the end a political decision. In exactly the same way as for cellular phones. Basically, a tax. You haven't got the first clue what you're going on about Plowman. -- Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report. |
hd radio
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote: DRM, could be handy for medium wave I thought, if only to get rid of interference problems to some extent. I've got pretty good AM reception here - but it involves a large whip aerial on the roof with a balanced feeder into a tuner designed for an external aerial. The idea being most household etc interference radiates sort of sideways. So an aerial clear of this is a great help. But admittedly not much use with the average AM radio with an internal ferrite rod. -- *Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
hd radio
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:45:13 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote: I read all DAB-related news articles that Google News Alerts finds, I read all the relevant people's blogs, I read all the digital radio-related documents from Ofcom and the DAB industry, and I've been following this subject in this fashion (obviously Google News and blogs weren't around then, but I've comprehensively followed what's gone on throughout) since the end of 2001. I also write a website about digital radio, my "local" NG is about digital radio, I write about digital radio for a magazine, I've written articles for the national press in Scandinavia about digitla radio, and I've written consultant reports about digital radio. I also took an MSc in digital comms and DSP prior to all of this (digital comms and DSP happen to be the most relevant subjects to a digital radio system, in case you're not aware). So I don't need to explain myself to you, and I certainly don't care if you claim that I'm full of hot air about this just because I don't intend to waste time looking for the references that show just how biased the UK radio industry is against Internet radio. OK, so you make your living (I hope you get paid for all this!) by creating hot air about digital radio :-) Unless it really IS all hot air, you, of all people, must have all the source material at your fingertips? Obviously the BBC would prefer the licence fee and a monopoly. They'll argue against change until change becomes inevitable. Then they'll embrace it, and pretend it was all their idea really. At all stages, hot air will be generated in enormous quantities. I prefer to look at what they actually DO. |
hd radio
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:01:01 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote: Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report Three opinions (from people with an axe to grind) about what they suppose the industry to think. |
hd radio
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
... On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:01:01 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote: Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report Three opinions (from people with an axe to grind) about what they suppose the industry to think. I *know* what the radio industry thinks about this subject. Plowman and the other one don't, because they don't follow the subject. -- Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report |
hd radio
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: People who work for DAB multiplex operators have told me on the phone that the carriage costs are proportional to the number of capacity units consumed, and capacity units are either exactly or almost exactly proportional to the bit rate used. That could well be so. But doesn't give the *actual* costs - only how it is charged for. Surely you can see the difference? -- *I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk