Re: ofcom and L-Band

Hans,


hwh schreef:
Indeed! In Denmark Sky Radio closed after huge financial losses. Although I agree that mp2 128 kbps is insufficient - in the real world resistance against dab is generated by existing broadcasters not favouring the added competition. Technical devaluation of dab is only a thin hypocritical cover for the financial concerns in some circles.

Another reason is that DAB gets them no extra listeners (in the short to medium term), but does get them extra cost.

The same applies for any digital radio standard.

Yes, but that is no excuse. The problem should be solved.

The problem cannot be solved. Digital radio is like the introduction of cable-TV. In allows for competition, be it more FTA-stations, subscription-radio, mobile podcasting possibilities, ad-hoc stations, ...

As FTA-broadcasting is a low-profit sector, they stand to lose anyway.



So I really do not understand the argument of "let's wait for this new technology as it allows for 40 stations instead of 20", if your market is not even able to support 10 of them.
Indeed! More spectrum efficiency would only mean financial disaster.

It could mean better sound quality. The point every DAB-promotor "forgets".

Mind the word "could".

And why not? You only need an agency that does not give out multiplexes but slots on multiplexes. And while the're at it, it should operate all multiplexes, so the cost of running them would come down.

Until that agencies says "hey, we are giving out 96 Kbps of AAC capacity for every station; if we give them 64 or 48 Kbps, nobody will hear the difference and we can use the capacity for mobile TV or subscription-radio. There are organisations now asking for a means to be able to compete with the European satellite subscription-system so why not?"

And there is another organisation asking if they cannot lease certain parts of the network for datacasting-applications. Why not? They bring in a lot more money then FTA-broadcasters who do not make a profit anyway".






And what makes you think that other digital radio-stations will not have the same end-result?
If a broadcaster can broadcast three times as much stations in AAC then on mp2, why wouldn't he?

Because it is not economically viable? Because it is important for excisting stations to reduce their numbers? Private stations want market share, so high bitrates are actually to their advantage! They would want to fill up the multiplexes with excisting stations.

See above.

If you create a system which allows for more space, you can bet there will be users wanting to use the extra capacity for other applications and if the business-models of these applications make more money then FTA-broadcasting, FTA-broadcasting is in problems.


The same applies to any digital radio-standard.
Yes. But still: no excuse to introduce DAB.

But it's not an excuse to slack DAB for that neither.


(But, did we discuss this a zillion times before?)

Yes, but you keep stating the same pro-DAB arguments. I'm sceptical because DAB in the current implementation (low quality) has little advantage over FM. So is the Dutch parliament.

But you know very well why the 128 Kbps-stations are there, and you know that -if you come up with a system with AAC- they will just be replaced by stations running at 48 Kbps AAC, or 40 Kbps, or 32, ...

It's the nature of the beast.


The only reason some people say "wait for the next technology" is that the hope it never materializes.
What reason would the Dutch parliament have to hope that new technology never materialises?
Good question. Why did they chose to stop to chose for a technology which does not exist and will not exist for three years to come?

Perhaps because the cost does not add up to the advantages?
Waiting another year should bring down both transmission costs and receiver prices.

And it will take down of DAB-receivers too; and much faster then receivers of other technologies as they are years ahead and being sold in large quantities worldwide.




... The Netherlands certainly does not have a reputation for lagging behind in technology. It has got one of the highest percentage of broadband connected households, for example.
So does Belgium; but we have got some 80 % DAB-coverage in Flanders, 160 Kbps per station and 3 new stations; this in only one of the three or four frequencies

Yes, Belgium does better than the Netherlands on DAB. Better reception and better audio quality. But: no private stations in Belgium as well as in the Netherlands.

That's planned for after RRC06. The VMMa has said they want to operate an ensemble by themselfs.

As there currently are only 2 nationwide FM-stations; even a single DAB-network will tripple the number of nationwide commercial radio-stations.

(that does not include the provincial DAB-networks which well become possible as the VRT needs them for their "provincial" version of radio2; as do the commercial provincial stations).



The broadband-penetration of broadband in Denmark is (AFAIK) even higher and they"ve got some 6 new stations in DAB as good as nationwide.

Erm, I don't get it?

Denmark has now some 6 (if not more) new stations in DAB -which where not available before on FM- and their DAB-network is as good as national



In that case, they didn't hear the DAB-broadcasts of dbEurope in Amsterdam at 192Kbps (where frequencies do are available, as will be the case after RRC06), or compaired the reception of "klara" on FM and in DAB here in Brussels.

Well, we know that FM can give reception problems, but these are replaced by strange distortions on DAB called "artefacts". Even at 160 kbps. In practice, very few stations use 192 kbps.

In a car or on a small receiver (as 90 % of the DAB-radios which exist now), you do not hear the difference between 160 and 192 Kbps. I can compaire, klara and klara continuo are at 160 Kbps, musiq3 uses 192 Kbps.

If you want the VRT stations in a higher bitrate, get them from DVB-T. The only place where you really hear the difference between 160 and 192 Kbps is at home where DVB-T (or DVB-C) is possible. The dutch stations on satellite are 192 Kbps too.


Do you really think that you will be able to hear the difference between 160 Kbps or 192 Kbps in a car with 60 to 80 db of background noice? No way, you don't!!!!



So, DAB even in its curreny form and at the current bitrates can resolve the issues of FM and -at the same time- increase the choice. (concidering a 3-layer band III national coverage).




Mind you: I'm not against digital radio in itself, but I do not like digital radio at low quality. That is: low bitrates or bad reception. The latter could be improved upon by the RRC. The first can only be improved upon by lots of allocations and regulations (!).

Well, we both seams to agree then.

The problem is not DAB, it's digital radio in general.


Digital radio will always increase the competition for the radio-stations. At first, they will try to keep it back as much as possible; but then the competition for "external" systems (DRM/MW, satellite, podcasting, internet-streaming, ...) will force them to move to digital too; as that is the only way they can do that is by setting up new stations by themselfs and -any system you find- this will drive down the bitrate of the stations.


Look at IBOC; which was a system especially designed to be a duplication of the current FM-offering:

Look what CC is doing with their local stations. To be able to compete with the satellite subscription-radio systems, they are now broadcasting two different programs-streams at half the bitrate instead of one at "full" bitrate: one is a copy of the analog radio-station; the second one is a new radio-station.

Are we going to guess what will happen when the analog broadcast is turned off and the radio-spectrum now used for FM becomes available for digital.
Will they increase the bitrate of the two then-existing stations or will they have asked the FCC to be allowed to broadcast 4 or 5 stations in a "full digital" IBOC-channel?

Or, even better, will they use that bandwidth to sell datacasting-applications for thirth parties?




The way I see it; it is more logical to go for a fast developement of digital radio now, to be ready before the competition arrives.

And if all band III spectrum is already taken up by DAB; this means that subscription-radio will have to move to other parts of spectrum, like UHF or L-band.
It's called "occuping the band"!




And, instead of a technology where receivers are available, works and where chipsets are cheap, they opt to wait for a technology which is not available and where it is not know if chipsets will become available, in what quantities and at what price.

They do. So they are not convinced of the advantages that DAB would bring, versus the cost.

But the cost will be there for any digital radio-system; and even more for the other technologies then for DAB.



Anycase, let's see what happens what RRC06 brings for the netherlands and what happens afterwards.

If RRC06 brings a three-layer national DAB-coverage plus one or two regional or local networks allowing (say) *at least* 20 to 30 stations nationwide and 10 to 15 stations regionally (and more if you add additional band III and L-band spectrum); it will be interested if the "DAB is not good enough" argument will hold.





gr, hwh
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: First AAC/AAC+ radio services launched on T-DMB?
    ... Australia and New Zealand plan to use DAB+ with AAC+ with FTA radio. ... 96 Kbps subscription-service. ... perhaps less for technical broadcasters to full ... 50 FM stations in Paris. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: RRC-06 Maps
    ... have bought a DAB radio and the 600.000 who bought additional ones are ... * 98% of music stations use 128 kbps all providing low audio quality ... All music-stations run 160 Kbps or higher ... I know that the only TV-station currently broadcasting in ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: BBC Radio 4 - You and yours
    ... To be honest though, their bullshit never changes, and there's more important things to do at the moment, such as killing off the old DAB system internationally! ... BTW, the 112 kbps issue is very odd, because we've not seen a single 112 kbps station yet even though Ofcom agreed to abolish the minimum bit rates months and months ago now, so I'm wondering whether they've changed their minds on the issue. ... What you will get with DAB+ is more space for mobile TV and more automated jukebox stations, and the increased competition will mean that your beloved Radio 1 shows will get increasingly marginalized, I'm really looking forward to this... ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: First AAC/AAC+ radio services launched on T-DMB?
    ... and if there's 10 stations on a multiplex you're ... talking about bit rates of about 112 kbps - 128 kbps, ... Subscription-services differ in at least four ways from FTA-radio: ... these for simply simulcasting a FM-station on DAB. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Digital broadcasting: Industry answers
    ... survey and waffle about a greater amount of choice on DAB. ... "Were DAB stations to broadcast at CD quality levels, there would only be enough spectrum for a handful of stations". ...
    (alt.radio.digital)