New book predicts failure of DAB Digital Radio

[radioskeptic]

Grant Goddard's new book is reviewed here:
http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/new-book-predicts-failure-of-dab-digital-radio
(Yes, it's a Dutch web site, but this page is in English.)

It would be nice if someone here would write a similar book detailing the technical and marketplace failings of Iniquity's half-baked technology!

 

[kenglish]

Is it just IBOC, or does the public just NOT WANT "digital anything".....except, of course, when it comes thru an "i-something", and has a monthly fee attached?

 

[JJS]

Is it just IBOC, or does the public just NOT WANT "digital anything".....except, of course, when it comes thru an "i-something", and has a monthly fee attached?

No, the public wants "digital everything" provided it's compact, convenient, reliable, and facilitates greater content choice. From wi-fi audio, to podcasts, to banking, to phones, to digital picture frames. There's no generalized digital apathy to blame for HDR's or DAB's ills.

 

[kenglish]

Is it just IBOC, or does the public just NOT WANT "digital anything".....except, of course, when it comes thru an "i-something", and has a monthly fee attached?

No, the public wants "digital everything" provided it's compact, convenient, reliable, and facilitates greater content choice. From wi-fi audio, to podcasts, to banking, to phones, to digital picture frames. There's no generalized digital apathy to blame for HDR's or DAB's ills.

So, there's no real reason why we (broadcasters) could not make some sort of Digital Radio work? We just gotta fix some things?

It's pretty easy to make it compact...there's almost nothing inside a Digital radio. It could be made even smaller.
Convenient would be easy enough...making it smaller was the first step. Battery operation could help.
Reliability could be fixed by coming up with a stronger signal,....not necessarily IN-Band, though.
Greater content choice is just a matter of changing the thinking of owners and managers...oh, and advertisers.

 

[tomservo]

Is it just IBOC, or does the public just NOT WANT "digital anything".....except, of course, when it comes thru an "i-something", and has a monthly fee attached?

HDTV. Because of the bad economy, I've seen more people going back to OTA reception only than in any other time in my life. The improved picture and increased choice sells itself, at least in urban areas with strong signals.

The problem with digital radio is that people are not by and large clamoring for more OTA radio choices, and are instead turning to online/mobile listening on other platforms. The digital scheme in the US simply does not offer enough improvements to sell itself. While it does offer some real world reception improvements and helps eliminate some reception problems in urban areas, it does not improve the overall coverage area of stations. It does not improve sound quality (and in many cases, makes it even worse) and it doesn't provide any visual text information that an analog equivalent (RDS) does not already do. And that's just for FM. AM seems to be far worse off, with very few stations able to really see an improvement with the system. The ones that need the most help (flea power grave yarders) are left out cold.

 

[JJS]

So, there's no real reason why we (broadcasters) could not make some sort of Digital Radio work? We just gotta fix some things?

Broadcasters don't design the receivers, and each signal is delivered from one direction, hampering mobile reliability. It's not enough to make HDR somewhat better than it is; HDR would have to surpass the digital competition, both for the listener's time and the advertiser's dollar.

 

[LynnW]

Is it just IBOC, or does the public just NOT WANT "digital anything".....except, of course, when it comes thru an "i-something", and has a monthly fee attached?

HDTV. Because of the bad economy, I've seen more people going back to OTA reception only than in any other time in my life. The improved picture and increased choice sells itself, at least in urban areas with strong signals.

The public did not want HDTV. It was forced upon us after being delayed three times due to lack of interest despite an enormous public relations campaign. People going back to OTA reception is a result of that coercion combined with the fact that HDTV actually does (mostly) deliver what was promised and ever increasing cable fees.

Radio, as it is, is not broken and the public sees no reason to fix it. Really, there is no reason to have digital radio other than some people in the business and some in the public like to have a shiny, new, but useless toy.

My 2 cents as a member of the public.

 

[kenglish]

I really have to wonder, if there was a market for satellite radio, why is there not a market for a free, over the air service that would provide dozens (or hundreds) of different channels, many with some local content.
Not that IBOC is really the answer, but something else?

 

[Chuck]

I really have to wonder, if there was a market for satellite radio, why is there not a market for a free, over the air service that would provide dozens (or hundreds) of different channels, many with some local content.
Not that IBOC is really the answer, but something else?

The market for satellite doesn't seem to be that big either. If the receivers weren't a part of the "trim package" in most cars, you probably would see a lot less of them. After the free trial period expires, a lot are never used again. The good news is they were effective in partnering with the automotive industry, making the receiver standard equipment on most new cars. For whatever reason, HD has failed to do that in a timely manner.

It makes me wonder if the public really wants that much variety, or if it just confuses them with too many choices. I know a lot of people simply don't want to pay for radio, but I suspect there is more to the story than just that.

A good salesman doesn't give a prospective customer too many choices. Just enough to make them comfortable....

 

[stacker]

HDTV. Because of the bad economy, I've seen more people going back to OTA reception only than in any other time in my life. The improved picture and increased choice sells itself, at least in urban areas with strong signals.

It's true that there is a lot of variety provided OTA. However, in this market it takes an outside antenna for reliable in-city reception even though all the station towers are 1500-2000 feet. Rabbit ears won't deliver like they did in the analog days. You can get a lock on the signal for a few seconds, but the moment someone moves a pan in the kitchen or a plane flies overhead, it goes away. I can't find the old Winegard antenna, so I'm still tethered to the cable. Wonder how many folks would bother to erect the antenna they had in the pre-cable days?

 

[tomservo]

The public did not want HDTV. It was forced upon us after being delayed three times due to lack of interest despite an enormous public relations campaign. People going back to OTA reception is a result of that coercion combined with the fact that HDTV actually does (mostly) deliver what was promised and ever increasing cable fees.

Radio, as it is, is not broken and the public sees no reason to fix it. Really, there is no reason to have digital radio other than some people in the business and some in the public like to have a shiny, new, but useless toy.

My 2 cents as a member of the public.

You're confusing the digital broadcast transition with high definition television. HDTV has taken off in a big way and every major cable provider and all the major broadcast networks show a ton of programming in high def.

Digital broadcasting was foisted on us because the FCC saw a major pile of money in auctioning off a chunk of TV spectrum. It had nothing to do with a public demand or lack thereof. Nobody wanted computers when they first came out, either, but look at us now. We are a society that by and large cannot live without them!

 

[tomservo]

It's true that there is a lot of variety provided OTA. However, in this market it takes an outside antenna for reliable in-city reception even though all the station towers are 1500-2000 feet. Rabbit ears won't deliver like they did in the analog days. You can get a lock on the signal for a few seconds, but the moment someone moves a pan in the kitchen or a plane flies overhead, it goes away. I can't find the old Winegard antenna, so I'm still tethered to the cable. Wonder how many folks would bother to erect the antenna they had in the pre-cable days?

Same here, actually. I manage to get by with a cheapo amplified TV-top antenna up in the attic since I watch very little local/network programming. Anytime someone flips on a light or uses an electric toothbrush I lose my stations. But when it works, I get over double the stations as before the switchover. I get just as many dropouts and glitches with DirecTV, though.

No one wants a big ugly antenna, that much is for sure. But I've seen new ones going up out in the country around here since satellite doesn't provide locals for my market. On some HDTV discussion forums, there's a ton of posts where people have either cut the cord completely or just added an attic antenna for the subchannels that cable may not carry. For the majority of people, it seems like the bugs have been worked out. The only issues are with the stupid stations that chose to stay in the VHF-low (2-6) band.

I can't help but feel like the bugs will eventually get worked out of HD radio on FM and it will, if not flourish, at least hold its own.

 

[Savage]

This is the closest thing I hear these days to "endorsement" of HD Radio. Something along the lines of what Zach just wrote - in essence, "HD-AM? Fuggeddaboud it, it's dead. HD-FM? It's got problems, but over time they'll work out."

No. They won't. Sorry.

Once again: you can't finesse the laws of physics. Neither will people - broadcasters or listeners - tolerate unacceptable levels of interference. Or anything less than perfect reception in typical real-world conditions, much less spotty and unpredictable coverage.

HD Radio - both AM and FM - amount to a range war on the electromagnetic frontier. Instead of cutting barbed-wire fences and stampeding cattle and horses, HD interferors are encroaching on adjacent channels with signals which occupy three channels in an allocation scheme assigning one. And they're poisoning their own wells with self-interference which destroys essential in-car listening. It won't work because it can't, in the long run. HD developers have been lying to themselves about real-world realities so long, they've been reduced to chanting talking points. You can see more of it in the "new HD holiday initiative." These guys are in La-La-Land.

At the end of the day, the same problems which sank HD-AM will sink HD-FM. Along with the fact that IBOC is already an unwanted antique. Yes, it will linger as a ghetto for paid and ethnic programs on subs in major markets - a clumsy, kluged digital SCA - and an alternate-programming vehicle for pubcasters.

So HD will hang around sort of like C-QUAM does. But that's about it.