Re: First AAC/AAC+ radio services launched on T-DMB?

Kristoff Bonne wrote:
If nine services can be provided on a multiplex at 128 kbps MP2 (PL3),
or 18 at 64 kbps AAC, which one do you think is more economical?

To the radio-station?

Yes.

Well, I'm not that sure that you will have to pay less for 64 Kbps AAC
space on a multiplex is the network-operator is able to sell otherwize
to a subscription-radio provider; then what he pays now for 128 Kbps (mp2).

One way to get reasonable pricing would be to introduce a maximum number of slots one operator can hire on a multiplex/the set of multiplexes available. Several companies could operate a few stations and nobody could dominate a the scene.

Another senario:

Say that 10 of the slots (concidering AAC+) on a the multiplex are
already taken by a large media-company (e.g. RTLgroup) which has put a
whole bunch of stations on it attracting large numbers of listeners,
this will greatly increase the value of the remaining slots.
This will undoubtably drive up the price.

Very simple to rule this one out. Let one authority run all multiplexes and sell capacity based on overall price levels for the transmissions, feeders, multiplexers, coders etc. That would have the added benefit that quality could be controlled.

As I already explained to Steve, the price of a product (especially
immaterial goods) is for the largest part set by the perception of the
value of the good, not really be the real cost of things.
A customer very seldon has any idea of the real cost of a multiplex
anyway, nor does he know what other customers (like the RTL-group buying
up half the multiplex) is paying.

A scenario where multiplexes are sold to the highest bidder is obviously a very bad way to get a wide range of stations providing services to different target groups.

In essence, there are two issues:
- Digital broacast as -compaired to analog broadcasting- a lot more
"knobs" you can tune, but .. doing so a much larger direct economic
impact on the cost of the service.

That is why I would like regulations. On all issues regarding broadcast
quality.


The thing is that regulators very seldon regulate "quality".

They should. By using measurable rules like "no transcoding" etcetera.

From a regulator point of view, the issue in making sure that there is
sufficient and fair competition. Usually, this is enough "so that the
market can do its job".

I think the UK situation shows it isn't. There is not enough capacity to get all analog stations on DAB. The multiplexes are run by companies, not an independent body. And major radio groups have very profound grip on the market.

The issue of quality and bitrates will -in the end- be descided by the
market and the interaction between the radio-stations and the listeners.

Until now this has not happened. Sound quality is going down across the board and millions are spent to tell listeners that digital is better!

On the other hand, the way I see it, the digitalisation of radio will
-in the end- result in a "reorganisation" of the radio
broadcasting-industry (probably along the lines we've already seen for
TV) and for this to succeed, the new groups must also be able to "grow".

Then there's the issue of the small and local radio-stations that want
to be protected from all this (as they do have a certain public value
which most people -including most politicians I guess- probably do not
want to see to them disappear).

And -finally- there's also the public broadcast which will demand to be
allowed to grow to be able to compete efficiently against the
subscription-service providers and the large (international) mediagroups
controlling the large national commercial broadcasters.

I do not agree, and your own opinion that the market can only take a limited number of stations is a major argument against this. The more public stations, the less private stations. Public radio is not meant as a replacement for private services. And the trend among public broadcasters to supply jukeboxes with popular music (like Top2000 in the Netherlands and Hitbits in Belgium) is just another way to drive the private competition out. I think this is the real drive to support DAB for public broadcasters. And it explains why promoters of public radio are in favour of DAB.

Not an easy job!

It is. Public broadcasters budgets are high.

Now, it may be possible to reduce the transmission-cost for a station by
using digital technology, but that does not turn to be enough to
compensate for the loss of revenue.
(because advertisements represent almost the complete revenue-source for
a station while transmission-cost only represents a part of the costs of
a radio-station).

AAC is a way to lower transmission cost. Digital radio will bring no
extra revenue for years after starting it up.


It may not bring in new revenue if your goal is just to move an existing
station from FM to digital; but it will eat in your revenues if a
competiting radio-groups starts a new station or descides to use it to
expand the "reach" of an existing station outside its current FM-area.

This too can be overcome by carefully licensing new services.

Actually, you make it worse, as the sollution you propose (more
efficient codecs) actually amplify the effect of issue 2 (more stations
-> more competition -> less revenue per station).

An efficient codec could be used to provide more services, but it could
also be used to provide higher quality, or anything in between.
Transmitting at 128 kbps AAC would cost the same as broadcasting at 128
kbps MP2.

Well, even if you just follow the logic of "cost = total bandwidth /
used bitrate", this does not escape the same economic logic that has
driven down the bitrates on DAB now.

128 Kbps AAC+ may cost the same thing then 128 Kbps mp2, but it still
costs twice as much as 64 Kbps AAC+ and 3 times as much as 40 Kbps AAC+

If staying at 128 Kbps AAC+ does not really bring in more listeners (and
hence more revenue), this will put you at a weaker position compaired to
a competing station running at 64 KBps AAC+, or somebody running 3
stations at 40 Kbps AAC+.

It's as simple as that!

I don't see why more stations bring more listeners. This can only happen in the UK, with its powerful radio groups. In the Netherlands analog radio has strics regulations on the number of stations a group can have (with analog licences). Regulation again!

I agree that you can come in with regulation saying "you need to use at
least 96 Kbps AAC+ per station", but then the broadcasters will say "why?
- We see that broadcasting at 96 Kbps AAC+ does not bring in new
listeners compaired to somebody broadcasting at 48 Kbps.
- You are reducing our ability to start a second station (i.e. 2
stations running at 48 Kbps instead of one station at 96 Kbps), out
ability to better compete with the subscription-radio and -therefor- the
choice of the listener".

And rightly so! This would prevent radio groups to get a dominant market share, or start up stations simply to stop others getting a larger piece of the cake. Just listen to the countless DAB stations in the UK that are in fact just PC's playing the same 200 hits in another order than the competition. What a choice (not).

gr, hwh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: First AAC/AAC+ radio services launched on T-DMB?
    ... Several companies could operate a few stations and nobody ... Say that 10 of the slots on a the multiplex are ... Leave broadcasting to the broadcasters, that's what they are for and ... costs twice as much as 64 Kbps AAC+ and 3 times as much as 40 Kbps AAC+ ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: DAB radio sets Display
    ... DAB+: 24 stations at 64 kbps AAC+. ... without degrading audio quality is better than with the old system. ... That would leave mainstream stations like BBC R2 or Virgin at say 128 kbps AAC and could leave 48 kbps AAC+ for Caroline or Paradise. ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)
  • Re: DAB radio sets Display
    ... DAB+: 24 stations at 64 kbps AAC+. ... Of course you need more than the equivalent of 128 kbps MP2, ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)
  • Re: Expert tears DAB to pieces in Norwegian newspaper
    ... in on 96 Kbps AAC+ and ... ... Another option would be to fill it up with mobile TV. TV stations use ... a few hundred kbps so that the rest of the capacity will quickly run ... Or they could use 5 MHz DVB-H channels in Band III instead of 7 or ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Transmitter intermittent
    ... I Suspect that not all radio stations do this. ... you have redundant encoders at the radio station and a backup link ... to the multiplex operator. ... > data line between studio and multiplex site. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)