The Voice of Murdoch pronounces FM radio dead

In article , Agamemnon
scribeth thus

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:46:34 -0000, "Agamemnon"
wrote:

Oh, right, so they can afford £1000 quid's worth of DJ gear and an
expensive
Computer and unlimited bandwidth internet connection, but not a £200 quid
transmitter.

Plus the cost of a mast or site rental, aerial installation, studio
link etc...

That would be zero then for the majority of stations. Most masts are erected
on property owned by one of the station volunteers. Studio links are just
another cheep UHF or Microwave transmitter. You'd have to be paying rent for
the studio anyway.


Not always. Have you any idea how much some sites rent out for?.

And the costs of microwave links and all the associated equipment?..

And where do we get those 200 quid transmitters from?...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Agamemnon
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Agamemnon
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Agamemnon
scribeth thus

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Ian Jackson
writes

Worth a Listen Again, BBC R4 PM Programme, 29 Jan, 9 minutes in. DAB
'quality' isn't mentioned. 'More local services' is (!).

More bull**** then. There are no community radio stations broadcasting
on
DAB and community radio is the fastest growing sector.

Indeed!, most of them can hardly afford to transmit on FM even owning
their equipment and mast!.

What are you raving on about. A 25W transmitter which complies with Ofcom
standards can be had for less than £200 quid.


Umm.. Aggy when in a pit I do suggest you stop digging...



Now can you show me -where- I can get a Transmitter and all the other
bits required for it to come up to what the Inspectors from Ofcom would
pass please?..

Ofcom provides plenty of links to retailers and manufactures sites. A
transmitter which more than meets Ofcom's specifications can be had for no
more than £200.

Right show me one and one that would meet the Ofcom code of practice.

A new one mind .. not one thats been pinched and is now on flea bay!....


The biggest costs for a community radio station are rent and wages, as with
most other businesses.


Till then I suggest you pass your time of day keeping your fingers off
the keyboard!...

Stop making a fool of yourself. I work for a community radio station.

I engineer transmission systems...

What do you do other then spin a few disks;?




For digital they prefer and can afford the Internet..

Oh, right, so they can afford £1000 quid's worth of DJ gear and an
expensive
Computer and unlimited bandwidth internet connection, but not a £200 quid
transmitter.

Once again I suggest you comment on something you know about rather then
what you have sod all idea on;!...

Stop making a fool of yourself. You don't have even the remotest clue about
the subject.

No its you that haven't much idea if at all..

--
Tony Sayer

"charles" wrote in message

In article ,
The BBC is dishonest wrote:

No, it's possible to have poor FM reception - of course it is. But
the
thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that DAB is meant to
replace
FM, and the BBC and the government are specifically going to push
*everyone* towards DAB. That means that literally tens of millions
of
people will end up getting DAB, which provides lower quality than
FM.

If DAB was also broadcast on Band II, there would room for more
multiplexes.


DAB isn't broadcast in Band II, and nor is it every likely to, because
DAB receivers are not designed to support it.


This could mean fewer services per muliplex and a
corresponding incease in data rates.


That's never going to happen. The transmission costs on DAB are
ridiculously expensive.

It's estimated that the BBC national DAB multiplex is going to cost
between £40m and £70m per annum once it's been rolled out to FM
coverage levels. Is the BBC going to want to double that by
broadcasting two DAB multiplexes so that it can increase the bit rate
levels?

The BBC is a national disgrace.



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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
scribeth thus
"The BBC is dishonest" wrote in
:

Basically, Charles, DAB was supposed to be a system that would
eventually replace FM. They had to get it right first time. But what
actually happened was that they couldn't have screwed it up more!
That's the BBC for ya, I'm afraid.

The UK is the only country in Europe where DAB has any mass market
acceptance, even though it's broadcasting in most countries, but
largely without any audience. The BBC must be doing something right.


Right?.. Define what's Right;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
"charles" wrote in message

In article ,
The BBC is dishonest wrote:

No, it's possible to have poor FM reception - of course it is. But
the
thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that DAB is meant to
replace
FM, and the BBC and the government are specifically going to push
*everyone* towards DAB. That means that literally tens of millions
of
people will end up getting DAB, which provides lower quality than
FM.

If DAB was also broadcast on Band II, there would room for more
multiplexes.


DAB isn't broadcast in Band II, and nor is it every likely to,

it was in the original concept.

because DAB receivers are not designed to support it.

chicken or egg? 15 years ago, no receivers were designed to receive DAB.


The BBC is a national disgrace.

probably

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
The BBC is dishonest wrote:

No, it's possible to have poor FM reception - of course it is. But the
thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that DAB is meant to replace
FM, and the BBC and the government are specifically going to push
*everyone* towards DAB. That means that literally tens of millions of
people will end up getting DAB, which provides lower quality than FM.

If DAB was also broadcast on Band II, there would room for more
multiplexes. This could mean fewer services per muliplex and a
corresponding incease in data rates.


If a digital system which was more akin to the 21st century was to be
implemented then perhaps.

And cost no more than FM and sounded something more akin to FM then
perhaps...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Andy Champ
scribeth thus
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:46:34 -0000, "Agamemnon"
wrote:

Oh, right, so they can afford £1000 quid's worth of DJ gear and an expensive
Computer and unlimited bandwidth internet connection, but not a £200 quid
transmitter.

Plus the cost of a mast or site rental, aerial installation, studio
link etc...

Aren't those costs pretty similar for DAB and FM?

Andy

No they are not due to the nature of the digital multiplex where several
services are multiplexed into the one transmission.

Which means that the MUX is owned by someone who might not what you if
your a competing broadcaster and they will prolly change you a lot to be
on there.

And there is a monopoly situation with DAB broadcasting dominated by
Arqiva..

A lot of MUX operators make their money by having to carry BBC local
radio;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
scribeth thus
"The BBC is dishonest" wrote in
:

Stick to the subjects that you know about, because you know nothing
about digital radio. The first DAB receiver didn't go on sale until
2000, so if you're suggesting that they couldn't have upgraded DAB to
include AAC when development of AAC began in 1994, and it was
standardised in 1997, then I'm afraid you're wrong.

When you define a standard to be implemented in hundreds of radio
stations and millions of home appliances, you have to define it with
what's possible at the time of conception. You may later regret that it
misses the latest advanced in technology, but you gain the fact that
radio sets don't become obsolete over night every couple of months and
that people actually buy the stuff. Always wanting to have "the latest
technology" as standard makes it a moving target and would result in it
never being finalised. Because in the time between conception and
implementation of a standard, new developments would arise ..


The BBC execs making the decisions simply ignored what the R&D people
were telling them. BBC R&D took part in listening tests in 1996 that
showed that AAC was twice as efficient as MP2 that's used on DAB. The
R&D guys knew, but the execs ignored them.

The rest of Europe has been settled on DAB since the mid-90s. Maybe the
BBC could have pushed a separate standard for Britain, but in the long
run it wouldn't do any good. There's a long history of countries who
opted for "isolate" broadcasting standards, and none of them is a
success story.


A few countries have hardly settled on at standard. And if they had why
don't they standard fit DAB radios in vehicles?..

And as to success stories I hardly think UK DAB is a success story;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:


A few countries have hardly settled on at standard. And if they had why
don't they standard fit DAB radios in vehicles?..

it took over 30 years for FM radios to become standard in British cars and
even then UK car manufacturers couldn't work out that a roof aerial was a
'good thing'. The stylist thought it out to go on the wing - according to
BL.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article ,
The BBC is dishonest wrote:
The BBC has shown 21 high-impact TV advertising campaigns for DAB.
I've calculated that those advertising campaigns would have cost
around £150 million if they had been shown on commercial TV.

Crikey. Most would have better things to do.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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