hd radio
 

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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.

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?

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

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

hd radio
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
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?


I could find plenty of quotes if I wanted to, yes. I don't want to,
though, because it would involve searching for the quotes - some of
the relevant quotes I only posted on Usenet and didn't write articles
about them, so they would take quite a long time to actually find,
even though I know what was said in the quotes. I could find other
quotes more quickly, but I happen to have other things to do, and I
don't feel the need to back up what I say just because a couple of DAB
supporters like Plowman and Looser want to dispute what I say. If they
don't want to believe me, fine, but they're wrong.


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.


There's lots of information about what the BBC has done on my website,
for example:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/20...io_streams.php

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/20...as_towards_DAB

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/20...net_killed.php


--
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
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:06:43 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

I *know* what the radio industry thinks about this subject. Plowman
and the other one don't, because they don't follow the subject.


If you are labouring under the misapprehension that "the radio
industry" is one body with one opinion, you are sadly mistaken.

I have had to respond to many Ofcom consultations and studied all of
the other replies in great detail. One overwhelming conclusion I have
come to is that every respondent came at the questions from an
entirely different direction.

d

hd radio
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
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.


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).


--
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
 

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

I *know* what the radio industry thinks about this subject.

********!. It's *people* who "think", not industries. And people are not all
of the same mind on any subject, even if they work in the same industry. The
idea, for example, that the BBC is "terrified" of internet radio is palpable
nonesense. Who supplies most of the internet radio (in terms of listener
hours) in the UK?, the BBC does that's who. It matters little to the BBC
whether people are listening via broadcast radio or the internet. As for
serious competition for the BBC in this area, where is it?

David.

hd radio
 

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"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.

That's a laugh. All you ever do is give one side of any discussion - your
tunnel view.

--
*The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

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

hd radio
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

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?


Judging by what Seve said earlier I think by "carriage costs" is meant the
cost of getting the signal to the transmitter site, rather than the cost of
broadcasting it; this would be why units of 64kb/s were mentioned. There is
nothing to stop a broadcaster using a more modern audio compression
algorithm on the link and thus cutting carriage costs.

David.

hd radio
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

The quote is a highly accurate portrayal of the radio industry's view of
Internet radio.

As if there was a thing called "the radio industry's view".


Okay then, "the radio industry's conensus view", or if you want to narrow
it down further, "the consensus view of the bigger UK radio broadcasting
groups, including the BBC".


Oh yes? Care to offer evidence that there is such a "consensus"?


Individuals have their own views. Some commercial radio stations may feel
threatened, but then those aren't worth much anyway.


Your view of them is irrelevant.


If you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about.

As if you were the great expert that you pretend to be.


Compared to you I'm definitely an expert on this, so I can safely ignore
any doubts you have about my expertise.


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!..
--
Tony Sayer

hd radio
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote

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.


Yet another assertion backed up by nothing at all. Face it Steve, you are
just a load of hot air!

David.



You may not like his style but he's absolutely right on a lot of what's
wrong with the implementation of UK DAB
--
Tony Sayer

hd radio
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
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? Very much more expensive equipment?


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