Ditgital in the UK...

[clouseau]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7564692/Say-goodbye-to-your-transistor-radio-digital-switchover-is-coming.html

And you thought you got "rolled" with digital as an "option".

No Commment on the wisdom of this decision.

Clouseau

 

[radioskeptic]

Nice try, Clouseau, but this little puff piece won’t fool anybody who follows the situation in Britain closely.

First, the author obviously has little or no understanding of radio. When he writes of “FM, AM and Long Wave radio transmissions” as three distinct categories, we can surmise that he doesn’t understand that European long wave (153-279) stations, like medium wave (540-1700) stations, use AM. (What mode does he think they use? SSB? Or maybe CW? No, of course not. He probably doesn’t even know what those letters stand for!)

Note that in the very last paragraph, he reports–-accurately–-that no “analogue” switch off date will be set until (1) the government determines that digital services are getting more than 50 percent of the audience–-though I can think of many inventive ways they could fudge that figure!—and (2) digital signal availability nationwide is “comparable” to that of FM.

Want an example of the kind of chicanery they’ll use to make marketplace acceptance of DAB look greater than it is? See Grant Goddard’s blog post of March 27: “When is an FM radio not a radio? When it’s in a portable media player, says digital switchover group.” (http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-is-fm-radio-not-radio-when-its-in.html)

In fact, if you want to know just how big a failure DAB has been not only in Britain but all over Europe, Grant’s blog is the best source you can find.

 

[BRNout]

Well put radioskeptic. The British government is pushing hard (in ways not seen here yet) to turn off the AM and FM bands; unfortunately the public knows better and isn't cooperating. Despite DAB being a system that's far better than our own HD system, and having far superior range to ours, many of digital's failings still exist. That includes the cost of the equipment (expensive to replace your trusty LW/MW/FM radio with a DAB one) and the way in which digital signals cut out whenever the signal is compromised.

And, look at the equipment that the British consumer is expected to replace their existing radios with. Most of it is rather expensive and none of it is "flat" for ease of portable use. Even the smallest personal radio is called "the Cube" because of it's dimensions. All in all, the Brits are not happy with being forced to adopt DAB and they are being forced because they are not going willingly.

Again, I must add, this is a system that is far more well developed than our HD system and it's a system that actually works far better than our system. And still the issues remain. For ease of use, cost and simplicity, analog is better.

 

[pab]

I still think that DAB would have a future in the US if anyone would just give it a chance. It's a better format, better sound quality, most of which come from no need for backwards compatibility (the main thrust behind IBOC).

 

[R.F. Burns]

I still think that DAB would have a future in the US if anyone would just give it a chance. It's a better format, better sound quality, most of which come from no need for backwards compatibility (the main thrust behind IBOC).

When digital radio ws first considered in the United States two considerations were required by the FCC. First, because the commisskion would not assign any more spectrum for radio broadcasting the new system wold have to be compatible with existing analog transmissions and two, the system had to work on both AM & FM. IBOC in whatever form does do that. The European DAB does not. FM XTra doesn't work on AM and the Cam D system isn't FM compatible. Hope this helps explain why we are where we are.

 

[Savage]

Indeed. Putting it another way:

The engineer-free, lawyer-and-politician-infested FCC decreed in connivance with lobby-assisted self-interested "innovators" (which would be Big Radio, iBiquity and the hapless NAB) that when it comes to digital radio in the USA, we shall turn straw into gold.

Alchemy works about as well these days as it ever has. "Which explains why we are where we are."

 

[R.F. Burns]

This is the free market some people have been wishing for. Everything goes to the highest bidder. Now they want to sell off TV spectrum. Anything less would be called socialist in today's world I suppose. Be careful what you wish for because it could come back to bite you in the a**.

 

[pocket-radio]

And this from the article:

"Recent statistics show that the vast majority - 94 per cent - of radio listeners are satisfied with the service they currently receive and that less than a third of radios sold in the UK are digital."

We know what you want, better than you do!

 

[BRNout]

This is the free market some people have been wishing for. Everything goes to the highest bidder. Now they want to sell off TV spectrum. Anything less would be called socialist in today's world I suppose. Be careful what you wish for because it could come back to bite you in the a**.

I must disagree with your interpretation of 'socialism', Mr. Burns. Socialist governments tend to do things to enhance their own power at the expense of everyone else. They do so by exercising control over the media in a heavy-handed way.

The current plans that the FCC has for spectrum are more representative of a socialist/oligarchical government than one of a free republic where the citizen's ownership of national resources (such as broadcast bands) is respected. Now one could argue that this FCC's management of the spectrum is more "corporatist" than 'socialist'. Ron Paul used that word to describe the administration's behavior and - though I am not a huge fan of his - I would also say that the man has a point.

The entire plan is a power grab - and that's true whether it's GWB's FCC or BHO's FCC.

 

[radioskeptic]

It seems I was grossly understating the case when I used the word “chicanery” in Reply #1 (above). In an email message this morning, Grant Goddard told me about the fanciful criterion Ofcom will use for defining “digital listening.”

In addition to listening to DAB, that term will also include: (1) listening to radio stations carried on digital TV (OTA or cable), (2) internet radio (including streaming of analog-only stations), and (3) all radio listening via mobile phones.

“Bizarrely,” he wrote, “listening to radio via mobiles is all categorized here as ‘digital,’ even when it is just the [analog] FM chip in the phone being used. Makes no sense at all!”

This is really playing fast and loose with the definition of “digital listening.” The only thing that could make it any more absurd would be to define as “digital listening” any listening through a boombox that includes a CD player, too — simply because there’s digital circuitry in CD section, though that circuitry is obviously not used for FM listening.

But that’s exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty we’ve come to expect from proponents of digital radio on both sides of the Atlantic!

Grant is, however, rather sanguine about the survival of analog radio, especially FM, in the UK. He doesn’t believe that “digital listening,” even by Ofcom’s elastic definition, will reach that 50 percent threshold in our lifetime, because “broadcast radio is just too easy to use for the consumer.”

 

[R.F. Burns]

This is the free market some people have been wishing for. Everything goes to the highest bidder. Now they want to sell off TV spectrum. Anything less would be called socialist in today's world I suppose. Be careful what you wish for because it could come back to bite you in the a**.

I must disagree with your interpretation of 'socialism', Mr. Burns. Socialist governments tend to do things to enhance their own power at the expense of everyone else. They do so by exercising control over the media in a heavy-handed way.

The current plans that the FCC has for spectrum are more representative of a socialist/oligarchical government than one of a free republic where the citizen's ownership of national resources (such as broadcast bands) is respected. Now one could argue that this FCC's management of the spectrum is more "corporatist" than 'socialist'. Ron Paul used that word to describe the administration's behavior and - though I am not a huge fan of his - I would also say that the man has a point.

The entire plan is a power grab - and that's true whether it's GWB's FCC or BHO's FCC.

And I disagree with you sir. A socialist government would keep control of all spectrum for the people's good". In the real free market people are of no importance. It's all about what is good for the marketplace and the selling of spectrum to the highest bidder is in the grand tradition of free market capitalism. I'm by no means anti capitalist but most things aren't good 100% of the time. What I am saying is that the FCC in charge of our spectrum (Every country has a board governing spectrum use otherwise you'd have anarchy) and they have given permission for broadcasters to use Ibiquitie's IBOC system. The government isn't forcing them to use it. It's their free market decision to go digital using that system. That's the point I was making. The government licensing agency has not demanded that anyone broadcast digitally.

 

[BRNout]

And I disagree with you sir. A socialist government would keep control of all spectrum for the people's good". In the real free market people are of no importance. It's all about what is good for the marketplace and the selling of spectrum to the highest bidder is in the grand tradition of free market capitalism. I'm by no means anti capitalist but most things aren't good 100% of the time. What I am saying is that the FCC in charge of our spectrum (Every country has a board governing spectrum use otherwise you'd have anarchy) and they have given permission for broadcasters to use Ibiquitie's IBOC system. The government isn't forcing them to use it. It's their free market decision to go digital using that system. That's the point I was making. The government licensing agency has not demanded that anyone broadcast digitally.

Then please explain why Britain's Ofcom is attempting to force broadcasters off of the AM and FM bands. What is proposed for those portions of the spectrum? The UK is increasingly being run as a socialist state and this heavy-handed behavior is an example of that.

A better example is Venezuela where the government exercises increasingly oppressive levels of control on station licenses, editorial content and on the spectrum itself. And, they would absolutely sell off chunks of it if it enriches them AND enhances their political power in some way. Expropriation is a hallmark of socialism/communism and when you use the example of the government grabbing up entire swaths of spectrum and using it for their own benefit, you are talking about expropriation.

Perhaps, in a theoretical context, your comment about "socialism" in this discussion is fairly accurate. Unfortunately, in the real world, theoretical socialism doesn't exist. Socialism, in practice, does not handle things in the manner that you describe and tends to be all about power and control. I maintain that's exactly the direction in which the FCC is headed (or would like to). Which is why we will probably have to agree to disagree here.

 

[R.F. Burns]

In the UK new spectrum has been assigned to broadcasters for digital radio. The same is not true here in the United States. In the UK they pay a receiver licencing fee which we do not here in America. This country is hardly a socialist mecca nor is it headed in that direction, unless of course you are talking about Social Security, Public roads, Medicare, Public schools, libraries etc. I'm not a states rights guy. I'm a middle class working broadcast engineer. I also realize that if the so called states rights anti union folk had their way we'd do away with the forty hour work week, the 5 day work wek and all benefits which the average worker enjoys whether they are members of unions or not, thanks to unions. If that's socialism than maybe I am one. The point I brought up was that we have people complaning that the FCC is allowing stations to broadcast using the IBOC digital system (which is a system developed by private industry) and on one hand they say government should stay out of certain aspects of their lives but they want government protection fom IBOC. You can't have it both ways.

 

[radioskeptic]

Gentlemen, please. Can we stop the pointless and ill-informed comments about “socialism,” and the use of any other such loaded terms? I don’t want to see this thread moved to “Take It Outside.”

Why not? Because we have an important issue to consider here: Just how far will digital advocates go in using bogus claims about the public acceptance of digital radio in their efforts to rationalize the elimination of an older, but obviously far more practical, system?

Specifically, in this case, can anyone possibly defend the deliberate misrepresentation of web stream listening to stations that are broadcasting only in analog FM (or AM) as digital radio listening?

Listening to a web stream though a hard-wired connection is certainly not radio, at least not in the strict technical sense of the word (though we use the word “radio” all too loosely to refer to any kind of aural programming that comes from a remote location in real time, rather than being played by the listener from a tape or a disk). Listening through wireless internet is radio in the strictest sense of the word, but it is not broadcasting as we have known it for the almost a century, because it requires a paid subscription – not necessarily to the web stream, but to an ISP. So even if that kind of listening is digital, it’s not digital radio!

And how can you rationalize counting listening to an analog FM station through the analog FM chip in a mobile phone as “digital listening” just because there’s digital phone circuitry in the same box? You just can’t—at least not if you have even a shred of intellectual integrity!

Why, then, do some digital proponents resort to such outrageously absurd rhetorical excesses? Because they’re embarrassed about the real market failure of the ill-conceived technology they have so publicly supported. And when they’re apparently trying to save the technology, they’re really only trying to save face.

 

[JJS]

can anyone possibly defend the deliberate misrepresentation of web stream listening to stations that are broadcasting only in analog FM (or AM) as digital radio listening? ... And how can you rationalize counting listening to an analog FM station through the analog FM chip in a mobile phone as “digital listening” just because there’s digital phone circuitry in the same box? You just can’t—at least not if you have even a shred of intellectual integrity!

Easily. From a policy standpoint, this is the proper way to count. Parliament's not trying to determine whether to transition to digital radio, but when, and, specifically, when to announce a cut-off date. Their objective is to accomplish the transition while protecting, for a time, the public's equity in legacy FM equipment.

If somebody's listening to a web stream, irrespective of the content source, he's imposing incremental bandwidth costs on the originator, the ISP, and himself, and likely burdening limited wireless capacity, circumventing the analog radio system to hear what he wants, where he is. That listener is properly counted as a post-analog transition listener who is certain to be better off with the option of a broadcast digital system possibly freeing up that one-to-one connection.

If, on the other hand, he's listening to FM on a cell phone or mobile device, he hasn't chosen analog FM but is simply deploying whatever chip is mounted on the device. Cell phones are replaced every few years and presumably can incorporate both digital and analog chips during a transition period. Again, this is a user who will not be inconvenienced by the digital transition; he's just living with a secondary feature of one generation of cell phone. Counting him as an analog user entrenches analog forever, quite costly for the broadcasters.

Once it's determined that the transition has to happen at some point in the foreseeable future, only analog listening on legacy receivers should be holding that transition back.

 

[radioskeptic]

Oh, really, JJS?

Parliament's not trying to determine whether to transition to digital radio, but when, and, specifically, when to announce a cut-off date...

Once it's determined that the transition has to happen at some point in the foreseeable future, only analog listening on legacy receivers should be holding that transition back.

So they’ve already determined the outcome they want—i.e., turning off analog—and now they’re just trying to manipulate the outcome.

And that’s my whole point.

No one will be better off with a digital broadcast system that is subject to sudden and catastrophic drop-outs from the least level of interference. The government and the leaders of the broadcasting industry in Britain—and many industry leaders here, too--have arbitrarily decided that radio must go digital, and they are determined to rationalize that decision by whatever sophistries their weasely bureaucratic minds can invent. Thank you for your post. You’ve perfectly illustrated exactly what I was talking about!

 

[Tom Wells]

What JJS and others still don't realize is that people want radios that work, work well, work with weak signals, and
don't blank out frequently, MORE than they want something to become digital.

Digital is just a gimmick "tacked onto" radio. It's NOT the essence of electromagnetic radiation.
Digital requires a lot of redundant data to try to make up for the fact that radio waves do not transmit data
in the manner of a wire or fiberoptic, but somewhat "smear" the data as propogation speed changes going from
antenna to free space and then back into an antenna. This effect is worse as wavelength increases.
Cellphones use very high frequencies and still have dropout issues.

Then add weak signal zones, a little noise and the digital can't even begin to cope.

"Has" to happen? Nothing that is such a clear step backward in the usefulness of any technology "has" to happen.
We can ignore the laws of physics and try to pretend it's working OK, but that still doesn't actually make it work
as well as the old technology.

Kinda like automobile jacks. We once had easy to use bumper jacks, and changing a flat tire was easy.
Now, there's these silly scissor-lift jacks that don't work well at all and require you to kneel down and crank them.
It didn't HAVE to happen, but no one cared enough to make a stink.
Or gasoline pumps....they used to be ready to pump instantly, but now have to "think" for a good long while
before letting you pump gas. Things like this are CHANGE, but they are arguably not PROGRESS.

 

[MarioMania]

So, There's no set date to End Analog Radio in the UK??

I hope the FCC don't do that

 

[JJS]

What JJS and others still don't realize is that people want radios that work, work well, work with weak signals, and
don't blank out frequently, MORE than they want something to become digital.

Nonsense. My own views on the digital transition in the UK are irrelevant here. For the record, I'm an advocate for satellite, for cellular delivery, for shattering scarcity and breaking the broadcast model wide open. I want mobile devices with text-to-voice, data and images along with "radio." Multiple business models and a coinbox so that content providers don't live primarily by haranguing audiences. On the technical side, I'm in awe of the robustness of analog delivery, and am extremely skeptical of mobile digital technologies that don't offer signal diversity for seamless, bit-level handoffs. Thus IBOC's performance is unsatisfactory on the road, though it works well enough in the living room. R.F. Burns knows my arguments very well.

But radioskeptic asked for a coherent argument for counting webcast and mobile hybrid listening as digital for the purpose of setting a date for the transition. I tried to demonstrate that there are excellent policy reasons to do so; no chicanery or intellectual dishonesty is required. I'm confident UK regulators would be very open in acknowledging that this formula would not be useful in determining whether to transition, but that's already been decided. This is about the timing.

 

[calstymes]

My old buddy R.F. Burns gave us this paradox to ponder and digest:

we have people complaining that the FCC is allowing stations to broadcast using the IBOC digital system (which is a system developed by private industry) and on one hand they say government should stay out of certain aspects of their lives but they want government protection from IBOC. You can't have it both ways.

If it were up to me (and I know it isn't) I choose government protection from IBOC!

PLEASE!