Re: [France] CSA experimenation DVB-H and T-DMB

Richard Morris wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:o5t_e.395$4Q.330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> At least you admit it. My worry for Australian radio listeners is
>> that you get your way, because just like in all other countries that
>> want to use DAB, it is the protectionism that is stopping the
>> listeners from getting the service that the listeners actually want.
>> Let's be quite clear, what listeners want is high audio quality and
>> a wide choice of radio stations covering lots of niche genres.
>
> Commercial radio stations , by definition, are commercial
> enterprises. We have to provide a service that is popular, or we
> don't make money. I understand totally how you as a consumer wishes
> to lobby for a large number of niche services. Likewise, I am sure
> you can understand why commercial broadcasters would not .


Then I hope that Australia adopts the satellite system instead of your
proposal.


>>>> Supposedly Australian broadcasters are going to provide high bit
>>>> rates. That will change as soon as they get their way that they've
>>>> blocked all the competition because it is proposed that the
>>>> broadcasters can do whatever they want with their allotted
>>>> capacity, and they'll just introduce new services and degrade the
>>>> audio quality to UK levels.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Allowing the unfettered competition that you seem to
>>> recommend (ie allow as many new entrants as want to come on) will
>>> drive bit rates down to low quality.
>>
>>
>> Erm, hold on there just a second. I'm sure you're aware by now that
>> I do not support the introduction of DAB? I support the introduction
>> of digital radio systems that can carry lots of radio stations all
>> at high audio quality.
>
> Exactly. You support unfetterred competition with as many new
> entrants as possible, as I said. O know you don't support DAB.


Yes, and that obviously allows the current commercial radio groups to
increase the number of radio stations they provide.


>> And I say that DAB will never provide this in any country it is used,
>> whereas DVB-H and DRM could obviously provide as many radio stations
>> as you can shake a stick at and all at high audio quality. For
>> example, in a 7 MHz DVB-H multiplex using 16-QAM code rate 2/3,
>> guard interval 1/4 you can fit in 68 radio stations using 128kbps
>> AAC.
>
> And do you think advertising funded local radio in a small outback
> town in rural Australia will survive 68 channels being broadcast in
> competition?


You don't have to use DVB-H everywhere. You use DRM+ for such smaller
stations.


>>> By restricting the amount of
>>> stations we ensure there is enough bandwidth for each station to
>>> broadcast in high quality if that is what the market demands. If
>>> you are correct in your belief that listeners will not stand for128
>>> Kbits MP2
>>
>>
>> No, they will stand it, but if you provide it you are a disgrace to
>> your profession.
> I would never recommend it,


You ARE recommending it.


> but my role is to provide radio stations
> what they want. I beleive the solution is to provide an open
> framework where every station can have as high a bit rate as it feels
> it needs,rtaher than be subject to th ecommercial presures that have
> driven bitrates down in the UK to very low quality levels.


DVB-H and DMB will always be superior for whatever framework you use.


>> Wrong. Broadcast quality is not a tin of baked beans, and you can't
>> apply market forces for quality. You can apply market forces to the
>> quality of content, but not for technical quality, because it is the
>> quality of content that is the main driving force for acquiring or
>> losing listeners.
>
> I agree content is the main force in acquiring listeners. But I do
> not agree that listeners do not care about quality. You are a prime
> case in point. Stations will compete against each other to steal
> listeners -- they are not bound by rigid formats as they are in the
> UK. If station A beleives it can get greater listener share by
> broadcasting the same songs but in higher quality than station B it
> will do so. If listeners demonstarte they want quality by their
> choice on the dial, then they will get it.


I'd support what you're doing if you introduced some safeguards in the
form of minimum bit rates that broadcasters are allowed to transmit at.
You don't include ANY safeguards, and therefore that leaves the door
open to a similar situation happening that's happened in the UK.


>>> This opinion is quite justified based on your experience of the UK
>>> market. It does not necessarily mean that this experience is
>>> relevant to every other country in the world.
>>
>>
>> The opinion is perfectly justified looking at Australia as well.
>> Sorry.
> You don't know what will happen in the Australian market because it
> hasn't happened yet. Sorry. You can guess at what might happen. And
> so can I.


Yes, I can guess.


>>> Volume manufacture drives prices down, and global
>>> standards produce larger markets.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. The UK DAB market alone has shown that you can get prices
>> down to £50 on the back of 200,000 sales per annum.
>
> Righ, actually.. The UK DAB market acheived this ten years after BBC
> services were launched, and seven years after Digital One was
> launched,


This is pure spin. Virtually nobody was aware of DAB before the BBC
heavily adverised it. For example, I've just read on a different DAB
forum someone say "DAB has just been released". This is a very, very,
very common view. The vast, vast, vast majority of people think DAB is
brand new because they had never heard of it before.


> and with an investment of millions of pounds, and for a
> population of 60 million people. We are a smaller market (only 20
> million people) , and we don't want to wait even two or three years
> for affordable receivers


Then pull your finger out and organise to get the receivers built...


>>>> Anybody supporting the DAB system should be ashamed of themselves.
>>>
>>> I will unashamedly support the best system available when Australia
>>> has to make it's choice.
>>
>>
>> Are you taking the piss?
> No I am not taking the piss. You beleive I am supporting DAB for evil
> nefarious reasons. I am completely honest in saying I beleive
> DAB/MP2 is the best solution unless a) we are prepared to wait a few
> years for affordable receivers,


A few years?


> or b) we invest money in receiver
> development. Option b) works, but with my experience of dealing with
> Commercial Radio networks in Australia I do not get an impression
> that they want to invest money in consumer electronics.


Have you ever actually asked them? Have you ever told them of the
benefits to them in terms of drastically lower transmission costs? Have
you bothered to think of scenarios that would be financially beneficial
to them? Have you considered that Digital One are a large shareholder in
Pure Digital, which is the market leader in DAB radios, and will be
making Digital One a tidy profit? Have you considered that it does look
like other countries will adopt DVB-H, and by producing DVB-H receivers
yourself then you get first-mover advantage and ship your products
around the world and make a tidy profit yourself? Nope, thought not.


> I will
> happily back the best solution available,


DAB can never be viewed as the best solution because it is the worst
system.


> but that has to include
> afordabel receivers. I can't recommend a system that relies on the
> philosophy "If we build it, they will come".


You're applying this ultra-conservative nonsense that no longer applies.
You're applying the most negative scenario based on the BBC's experience
in the mid-90s. It doesn't apply in the least.


>>> Currently there is no regulation enacted in
>>> Australia, so nothing is written in stone. If there is a better
>>> system than DAB with a wide range of affordable consumer radios I
>>> will support it wholeheartedly. (pocket radio, car radio, clock
>>> radio, tuner radio, boombox radio). I haven't seen a radio built
>>> for in car audio service use (ie no screen) that includes a DVB-h
>>> tuner. Its a good idea, but the consumer electronics are not there
>>> yet.
>>
>>
>> You are making a very, very long term decision based on what is
>> available this second. You are supporting the DAB system simply
>> because it is the most inefficient system out of all of the
>> prospective digital radio systems, which means that even after your
>> protectionist period of no new entrants, the number of new entrants
>> will be as low as possible.
>
> We are commercial radio companies, not public service broadcasters or
> government agencies. We can't afford to build something which may be
> technologically superior on the understanding that a range of
> affordable receivers might appear in five or ten years time.


Erm, you've just said that you can support the manufacture of receivers
yourself...


>> Don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that you would ever
>> support the best digital radio system. You've admitted above that
>> "would you expect any commercial company in any industry to act
>> against its own interests?"
>
> I am not insulting your intelligence. Please understand I am not
> supporting DAB out of any vested interest or desire to limit
> competition. We wish to present digital radio services to listeners,
> and we will use the best technology.


Do not ever suggest that DAB can ever be looked upon as being "the best
technology". It IS the WORST technology.


> If we could use DMB with AAC
> plus, we would need less ensembles, so we would save money on
> transmitter costs. If we could use extar error protection we could
> save transmitter powers. Obviously we woul duse the best technology
> available. We are not trying to use DAB as a secret conspiracy to
> keep competition out.


I think you are, because after the no new entrants thing expires it will
limit the amount of new competition. It'll backfire on you anyway as
soon as DRM+ is released. Then you'll wish you'd taken my advice.


> We have a public "No New Entrants" policy
> which we hope to obtain by regulation. Even if we were pushing radio
> over DVB-h we would still be lobbying for the same policy. I know
> you find it hard to beleive,


Don't patronise me. I know full well that you have to have receivers
available before you launch the frigging service.


> but I do beleive that available consumer
> electronics is important -- unless we are prepared to invest in
> receivers. I personally would very happily work with manufacturers to
> develop these receivers- it would be an exciting and fulfilling
> project. I at this stage do not believe the industry woul dbe
> willing to fund this.


See above. Have you bothered to sound them out?


> I know you beleive that receiver manufacturers
> do not need funding to kick start production,


I've never said that; what I say is that it's in your own hands whether
the receivers sell or not.


> but history says you
> are wrong. The BBC belived that in 1995, they built a network,
> no-one built recievers.


But you're contradicting yourself, because you're saying you could get
receivers built yourself, and then you're saying that no receivers would
be available. Basically, you could EASILY get receivers built yourself,
then once sales start the consumer electronics companies will not want
to miss out on sales.


> Digital One beleived it in 1998, the same
> thing happened. If the DMB trials or DVB-h trials in Europe suddenly
> spawn a range of affordable consumer receivers for Audio services,
> you can bet I will be interested.


They won't spawn a range of portable radios in the time before you want
to start your service.


>>> I am not sure such a radio will be built, because all the DVB-h
>>> trials launched so far have been primarily video services.
>>
>>
>> What do you think they will use in France if they adopt DVB-H for
>> digital radio? Do you think they will make all radio listeners
>> listen on mobile phones? What kind of fool do you take me for?
>
> I expect that the publicity will be for video services, and I expect
> a range of receivers will be built which allow consumers to use the
> video services or the audio services. If you can show me a range of
> audio only receivers tha can listen to DVB-h I will be very
> interested.


Right, you get a receiver, you shove an antenna on the top, put a DVB-H
chip in it. And hey presto, you've got a DVB-H receiver. Oh, you want
one before everybody else? Nope, you won't be getting one unless you
build it yourself.


>>> I also have not
>>> seen a DVB-h trial on band III, which is our frequency of choice for
>>> propogation, building penetration and antenna efficiency.
>>
>>
>> Just like the case for DMB, I have absolutely no sympathy for
>> someone like yourself that has absolutely no intention of looking
>> into getting receivers built for the superior systems.
>
> Its not a question of intention. I genuinley beleive its a question
> of funds.


What is the market capitalisation of the commercial radio industry in
Australia? If it's worth less than £10m, I'll let you off. I somehow
doubt they'd find it difficult to put together a couple of million.


>> You have never had any intention of using anything other than DAB,
>> because DAB is the most inefficient system available, which is just
>> what you want and screw the listeners.
>
> I know you firmly beleive this, and that nothing I can say will shake
> you from this opinion. It isn't true.


You've not done anything though.


>> It is far cheaper to build and run a DVB-H network than it is to use
>> DAB. See:.....
>
> I don't doubt this. Where are the Audio only receivers?


They won't fall into your lap. You will have to get them built if you
want to be the first country to use DVB-H.


> How many
> years should we be prepared to wait for them to be built?


Wait? On the one hand you're saying you could make receivers yourself,
and then you're saying you have to wait for receivers to be built.


> DAB is not
> a new system, Llike FM radio it is a mature, working system supported
> by a wide range of consumer electronics.


DAB is an ancient mobile digital communication system that is only fit
for the knackers yard.


>> Basically, the way I look at this subject is, as I'm sure you know
>> by now, if you wanted to provide a good service to radio listeners
>> in Australia then you would choose to use DVB-H or DMB, and you
>> would underwrite the money needed to get receivers built.
>
> Steve, you are assuming that a) it will be my decision,


What's your job title again?


> and b) I have
> control of the funds involved. Neither is true. The industry
> position for the Commercial Radio Networks decisions will be made by
> the CEOs and owners of commecial radio networks. They will decide
> whether they want to go for the technically superior solution or the
> solution with cheap readily available consumer electronics. The
> technically superior solution doesn't always win. (Betamax versus
> VHS,


Yawn.


> BSB v Sky,


Takeover.


> 3G v GSM


3G is just starting off. 3G will take over from GSM over time.


>). (OK 3G might take off,


There's no might about it; 3G will take off because the mobile phone
companies have invested too many billions into it.


>> So, the fact that you don't want to do the above shows that you want
>> to use the dreadful DAB system so that the radio listeners in
>> Australia don't get what they want.
> I am not pushing for unfettered competition, as you would like. I do
> push for quality. The average bit rate for our services in Sydney is
> far higher than the UK, and I will oppose any attempt to change that
> state. I am, however keen for a range of audio qualities to be
> broadcast. Here in Sydney we have Classical music at 224 kbit/sec
> stereo, news radio at 64 Kbit/s mono, and the majority of staions at
> about 192 Kbit/s.


192kbps is not high enough to provide high audio quality, as you know.


> The reason I started posting is you
> wanted to know why broadcasters would even think of considering DAB. I
> have told you. You might not like my answers, and if you don't
> want to hear them, fair enough, keep the insults flying and I will
> stop posting.


I saw an interview on BBC4 last night with Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor
of the World Wide Web, and he said that Europeans were a lot more
cautious than Americans. Europeans had to have all the business plans
thoroughly worked out prior to doing anything whatsoever, whereas the
Americans try something first to see if it works. Microsoft, Google and
Intel are all from America.

You seem to fit the bill of the ultra-conservative European very well.
That's not an insult, it's an observation.

You say that the commercial radio groups wouldn't be interested in using
new technology. You're looking at it the wrong way. You have to appeal
to what they're interested in: making money. They could make a shitload
of money from it. Just look at Pure Digital for a blueprint of a
broadcaster getting involved in consumer electronics. It's not like
there's a shortage of partners in your side of the world because you've
got South East Asia on your doorstep.

And once sales start you will get all the big consumer electronics
companies making products. End of story. What else do you expect
consumer electronics companies to do? They see a market of 20 million
people that are all going to replace their FM radios with shiny new
digital radios. The technology has already been developed, so they can
adapt their current DAB receivers easily. They WILL NOT say no. Not a
chance.

Just look at Canada as an example. The terrestrial-based system was
going to use a proprietary system FFS.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm


.