The Voice of Murdoch pronounces FM radio dead

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:02:32 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

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?...

There used to be a site called Veronica FM that sold transmitters at
reasonable prices. Dunno if they're still around.

Marky P.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
Ok, smartarse. Give some comparative costs of similar coverage DAB
v
FM transmitters and any other hardware needed to Ofcom spec - and
power consumption.


It costs about £96k to transmit on a local DAB multiplex compared
to
£60k for a big local FM station, less for smaller stations - in a
Guardian article recently, it was said by someone from a small
radio
station (or maybe a group that owns small radio stations) that it
costs up to 15 times as much to transmit on DAB as on FM for
smaller
stations.

And this amount is based purely on the cost of the equipment and the
running costs of it? Ie, the transmitters cost 15 times as much and
use 15
times as much electricity? And require 15 times the maintenance?
Etc?


I was simply relaying the information I read. If you don't like it,
take it up with the person who originally said it.



--
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 ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
So why do more people listen to digital radio via DAB than via teh
Internet or via digital TV??

Perhaps because most don't live in a bedsit.

--
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

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

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
Ok, smartarse. Give some comparative costs of similar coverage DAB
v
FM transmitters and any other hardware needed to Ofcom spec - and
power consumption.


It costs about £96k to transmit on a local DAB multiplex compared
to
£60k for a big local FM station, less for smaller stations - in a
Guardian article recently, it was said by someone from a small
radio
station (or maybe a group that owns small radio stations) that it
costs up to 15 times as much to transmit on DAB as on FM for
smaller
stations.

And this amount is based purely on the cost of the equipment and the
running costs of it? Ie, the transmitters cost 15 times as much and
use 15
times as much electricity? And require 15 times the maintenance?
Etc?


I was simply relaying the information I read. If you don't like it,
take it up with the person who originally said it.

You seem good at that - publishing info without questioning the facts
behind it.

When discussing DAB *as a system* it's a nonsense to say the system itself
has extremely high transmission costs when those costs are set by a
commercial or whatever interest.

It's rather the same as saying that in principle electric cars are cheaper
to run than petrol ones - when one fuel is heavily taxed and the other
not. Which could change overnight at the stroke of a government pen.

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
Ok, smartarse. Give some comparative costs of similar coverage
DAB
v
FM transmitters and any other hardware needed to Ofcom spec -
and
power consumption.


It costs about £96k to transmit on a local DAB multiplex compared
to
£60k for a big local FM station, less for smaller stations - in a
Guardian article recently, it was said by someone from a small
radio
station (or maybe a group that owns small radio stations) that it
costs up to 15 times as much to transmit on DAB as on FM for
smaller
stations.

And this amount is based purely on the cost of the equipment and
the
running costs of it? Ie, the transmitters cost 15 times as much
and
use 15
times as much electricity? And require 15 times the maintenance?
Etc?


I was simply relaying the information I read. If you don't like it,
take it up with the person who originally said it.

You seem good at that - publishing info without questioning the
facts
behind it.


I wrote the following:

"less for smaller stations - in a
Guardian article recently, it was said by someone from a small radio
station (or maybe a group that owns small radio stations) that it
costs up to 15 times as much to transmit on DAB as on FM for smaller
stations."

I wrote "it was said". I did not write "I know for a fact".


When discussing DAB *as a system* it's a nonsense to say the system
itself
has extremely high transmission costs when those costs are set by a
commercial or whatever interest.


How do you expect the costs to be set? Shall the listeners do a spot
of DIY? Or is it reasonable to have a company sell transmission
services to radio broadcasters?

If the radio broadcasters want to go into the transmission business so
that they don't have to buy the services of a transmissino provider,
then they are free to do that. I think that's called diversification,
and it tends to be frowned upon by the City, though. I certainly
wouldn't expect the radio industry to be any good at providing its own
transmission. They adopted DAB, so they have a very poor grasp of
technology when they're merely dealing with system level decisions,
let alone the vagaries of radio transmission, which requires expensive
RF propagation simulation systems to be designed and stuff like that.
Then they'd have to design the kit. Get it built. Install it. Maintain
it. Buy new offices for the new staff. Pay the staff. The list goes on
and on, but for some reason David Plow******** seems to think that
it's only expensive because "the costs are set by a commercial or
whatever interest".

Oh dear.


It's rather the same as saying that in principle electric cars are
cheaper
to run than petrol ones - when one fuel is heavily taxed and the
other
not. Which could change overnight at the stroke of a government pen.


Your analogy breaks down due to teh fact that the radio industry could
not become their own transmissino providers overnight. Basically, that
was a terrible analogy, as is your understanding of the issue being
discussed in general.

Evening.



--
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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
So why do more people listen to digital radio via DAB than via teh
Internet or via digital TV??

Perhaps because most don't live in a bedsit.


?



--
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

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
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!....


I never said it couldn't be second hand.

Veronica used to do a 30W transmitter for about £200, but they seem to have
stopped trading since last time I looked at their site.

http://www.veronica-kits.co.uk/30wtx.htm

This exciter can be had for $115 new.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1000mw-FM-Broadc...em390026985029

You can get a 30W amplifier kit for $95 or a 15W kit for $65.

http://shop.ebay.com/sis/_W0QQ_kwZTu...hzQ20NoQ2dtune

If you don't want to build it yourself this can be had for $140

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tugicom-25W-FM-B...em170299060829

Any combination of the above will add up to less than £200 quid even at
current ****ty exchange rates.

The following stereo exciter can be had for $299. That's used to be £200
before the exchange rate went down the toilet. Pre-emphasis can be set to
either UK or US time constants.

http://cgi.ebay.com/FM-Broadcast-Ste...em180314434297

The transmitters below should comply with Ofcom standards.

http://www.transmittersrus.com/fmtransmitters.htm

You should be able to get a 25W model second hand for £200.


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...

So you're a rip off merchant.

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
Ok, smartarse. Give some comparative costs of similar coverage
DAB
v
FM transmitters and any other hardware needed to Ofcom spec -
and
power consumption.


It costs about £96k to transmit on a local DAB multiplex compared
to
£60k for a big local FM station, less for smaller stations - in a
Guardian article recently, it was said by someone from a small
radio
station (or maybe a group that owns small radio stations) that it
costs up to 15 times as much to transmit on DAB as on FM for
smaller
stations.

And this amount is based purely on the cost of the equipment and
the
running costs of it? Ie, the transmitters cost 15 times as much
and
use 15
times as much electricity? And require 15 times the maintenance?
Etc?


I was simply relaying the information I read. If you don't like it,
take it up with the person who originally said it.

You seem good at that - publishing info without questioning the
facts
behind it.


I wrote the following:

"less for smaller stations - in a
Guardian article recently, it was said by someone from a small radio
station (or maybe a group that owns small radio stations) that it
costs up to 15 times as much to transmit on DAB as on FM for smaller
stations."

I wrote "it was said". I did not write "I know for a fact".

Ah - right. So you just print anything which suits your arguments
regardless of whether it is accurate or pertinent?


When discussing DAB *as a system* it's a nonsense to say the system
itself
has extremely high transmission costs when those costs are set by a
commercial or whatever interest.


How do you expect the costs to be set? Shall the listeners do a spot
of DIY? Or is it reasonable to have a company sell transmission
services to radio broadcasters?

Sigh. I didn't think even you could be this thick.

If the radio broadcasters want to go into the transmission business so
that they don't have to buy the services of a transmissino provider,
then they are free to do that.

Are they? I'd suggest you do some research on that matter. Or perhaps
you've been reading what pirate broadcasters would want you to believe.

I think that's called diversification, and it tends to be frowned upon
by the City, though. I certainly wouldn't expect the radio industry to
be any good at providing its own transmission.

Good grief. You should read some history.

They adopted DAB, so they have a very poor grasp of
technology when they're merely dealing with system level decisions,
let alone the vagaries of radio transmission, which requires expensive
RF propagation simulation systems to be designed and stuff like that.
Then they'd have to design the kit. Get it built. Install it. Maintain
it. Buy new offices for the new staff. Pay the staff. The list goes on
and on, but for some reason David Plow******** seems to think that
it's only expensive because "the costs are set by a commercial or
whatever interest".

Oh dear.

Think you should stick to kbps. At least that can be read off a meter.
Doesn't require any thought.

It's rather the same as saying that in principle electric cars are
cheaper
to run than petrol ones - when one fuel is heavily taxed and the
other
not. Which could change overnight at the stroke of a government pen.


Your analogy breaks down due to teh fact that the radio industry could
not become their own transmissino providers overnight.

Ok - make it a few months. Or years.

Basically, that was a terrible analogy, as is your understanding of the
issue being discussed in general.

I'm utterly amazed given the time you obviously devote to this subject how
little you actually understand.

Evening.

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

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

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is highly dishonest wrote:
So why do more people listen to digital radio via DAB than via teh
Internet or via digital TV??

Perhaps because most don't live in a bedsit.

?

To listen to internet radio requires a computer. How many of those with
reasonable quality sound systems are likely to be used in the kitchen
while having breakfast, etc? Or in the bathroom? Or anywhere else most
might use a portable radio?

I do wonder if you actually ever listen to radio in the way most do.

I'll give you a clue. Most want to just switch on a radio to instantly
hear what they want - not faff about for several minutes minimum with a
computer to get the same thing.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

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

Uncompressed digital radio has via satellite and cable has been around
long before DAB.

I think he must be Aggy's long lost German relative;!...

--
Tony Sayer