Shut it all* down (radio) - use OTA (ATSC 1.0) DTV (audio)

[kfbkfb]

UK - the same BBC radio stations are available many other ways (could explain why the Freeview audio only listener % is low), I found out about the Freeview DTV audio only subchannels some time ago, it seemed unusual to take some data away from the SDTV or HDTV programs to provide audio only content.

I'm interested in reading about objections to a technically easy way to offer free radio when all radio transmitters have been shut off.


Kirk Bayne

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

UK - the same BBC radio stations are available many other ways (could explain why the Freeview audio only listener % is low), I found out about the Freeview DTV audio only subchannels some time ago, it seemed unusual to take some data away from the SDTV or HDTV programs to provide audio only content.

I'm interested in reading about objections to a technically easy way to offer free radio when all radio transmitters have been shut off.


Kirk Bayne

the objections have already been given and youre ignoring them

 

[kfbkfb]

I was interested in reading about the objections, I'm not in a position to implement anything related to my idea, but knowing about some of the objections is helpful in planning to address them if someone wants to spend real money to implement my idea.


Kirk Bayne

 

[radiofan2023]

if someone wants to spend real money to implement my idea.

No one is going to do that, for the reasons many other people have explained already.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

bangs head on desk

 

[K.M. Richards]

I am inclined to agree with Kelly, several posts above. This idea is a lot more off-center than Kirk's usual.

I really wish I could get a clear idea of what his thought process is, so I could focus my comments better.

 

[kfbkfb]

Audio only DTV subchannels have been available on the UK Freeview DTV platform for several years, it's nothing new or radical.

I'm just proposing doing this in the USA (maybe only offering the top 20 radio stations in a market), if most radio listeners listen to the radio station stream and not the actual AM or FM (or HD) signal, a business analysis of the radio stations would raise questions about why the radio transmitter is being operated.

My idea would be a way, in a mostly streaming audio world, to still offer "radio for free" using equipment (ATSC 1.0 DTVs) most people have already.

It's technically simple, but (it seems) administratively complicated (convincing radio and DTV stations to do this).

Anyone know of DTV broadcasts other than in the UK that have audio only DTV subchannels?


Kirk Bayne

 

[K.M. Richards]

Audio only DTV subchannels have been available on the UK Freeview DTV platform for several years, it's nothing new or radical.

But Freeview has been shown -- multiple times in this thread -- to be on a decline now. If that's the entire basis for your proposal, it is dead in the water.

I'm just proposing doing this in the USA (maybe only offering the top 20 radio stations in a market), if most radio listeners listen to the radio station stream and not the actual AM or FM (or HD) signal, a business analysis of the radio stations would raise questions about why the radio transmitter is being operated.

My idea would be a way, in a mostly streaming audio world, to still offer "radio for free" using equipment (ATSC 1.0 DTVs) most people have already.

It's technically simple, but (it seems) administratively complicated (convincing radio and DTV stations to do this).

It still does not address the reality that most radio listening is in the car and stream listening to stations is far below that. Perhaps David E. can bring in some statistics.

Any "business analysis" as you suggest would see that factor and come to the exact opposite conclusion to yours. I think you are perhaps presuming that streaming is a larger factor than it actually is.

And while I agree that the technical aspects are sound and have indeed be proven by Freeview, this is not the U.K. and we have exponentially more stations, owners, and operators here. The logistics would be a nightmare and all it would take is one major station group owner -- either radio or television -- to object and the whole scheme falls apart. (And if, as you suggest, only the top 20 stations in a market were included, you would have to get a buy in from Audacy, iHeart, Cumulus, or the other group owners on the radio side and then also get a buy in from the major television group owners.)

Anyone know of DTV broadcasts other than in the UK that have audio only DTV subchannels?

I, for one, will be surprised if there are any, and there certainly wouldn't be any as extensive as Freeview. If the answer proves to be "no", would you then drop the idea as unfeasible?

 

[TheBigA]

It's technically simple, but (it seems) administratively complicated (convincing radio and DTV stations to do this).

Because it's a bad idea. TV companies have no reason to help radio. In the same way that phone companies have no reason to help AM.

You think companies want to help other companies or help people listen to free radio. They don't.

People aren't clamoring for alternative ways to listen to the radio. They know the options and they're fine with them.

 

[kfbkfb]

When I first found out about the audio only DTV subchannels on Freeview, I though it was a curious use of precious data bits that (IMHO) could be used for more TV programs or SDTV to HDTV upgrades, basically, I thought it was weird since the BBC radio stations are available many other ways.

If radio stations do shut down and dismantle their transmitters, some of money saved could be payed to DTV stations to fully pay for an audio only DTV subchannel - a win-win situation.

Anyway, the BBC and Freeview people came up with the idea, I'd be interested in the rationale used in the discussions between the BBC and the Freeview people about having audio only DTV subchannels.


Kirk Bayne

 

[K.M. Richards]

Please, in the name of all that is holy, stop flogging that already dead horse of an idea!

 

[Mediafrog+]

I, for one, will be surprised if there are any, and there certainly wouldn't be any as extensive as Freeview. If the answer proves to be "no", would you then drop the idea as unfeasible?

Does anyone have examples of digital TV stations in the U.S. running audio-only subchannels these days? I think I have seen some listings on RabbitEars.info.

There is one past example here in Houston: PBS KUHT/8 used to have the various services from sibling FM KUHF as audio-only subchannels. The main signal (HD-1) was simulcast on 8.6, the Classical HD-2 on 8.7, and the HD-3 XPoNential Radio on 8.8. There was also a reading service for the visually impaired on 8.5, which was available on the HD-4 and a SCA subcarrier. This arrangement went on for several years, but was quietly dropped around the time of the Houston UHF repack in the spring of 2019. Never saw any sort of announcement or explanation from Houston Public Media.

Those audio subchannels did have a video component; a simple graphic with station ID and listing the audio subchannel lineup. Same graphic on all the audio subchannels, so little bandwidth used.

KUHT still has the reading service on 8.5, but no video component.

 

[radiofan2023]

Does anyone have examples of digital TV stations in the U.S. running audio-only subchannels these days? I think I have seen some listings on RabbitEars.info.

There is one past example here in Houston: PBS KUHT/8 used to have the various services from sibling FM KUHF as audio-only subchannels. The main signal (HD-1) was simulcast on 8.6, the Classical HD-2 on 8.7, and the HD-3 XPoNential Radio on 8.8. There was also a reading service for the visually impaired on 8.5, which was available on the HD-4 and a SCA subcarrier. This arrangement went on for several years, but was quietly dropped around the time of the Houston UHF repack in the spring of 2019. Never saw any sort of announcement or explanation from Houston Public Media.

Those audio subchannels did have a video component; a simple graphic with station ID and listing the audio subchannel lineup. Same graphic on all the audio subchannels, so little bandwidth used.

KUHT still has the reading service on 8.5, but no video component.

The only one I know of is that Iowa Public Television lets the Iowa Reading Service for the Blind/Visually Impaired use one of their subchannels for audio only.

 

[TheBigA]

I thought it was weird since the BBC radio stations are available many other ways.

If you dig a little deeper, you'll discover that Freevue is partly owned by the BBC.

If radio stations do shut down and dismantle their transmitters, some of money saved could be payed to DTV stations to fully pay for an audio only DTV subchannel - a win-win situation.

The only win is the side that gets paid. Once again, why would radio do this? They would be paying money so that even fewer people would hear them.

 

[Miss Tuned]

When I first found out about the audio only DTV subchannels on Freeview, I though it was a curious use of precious data bits that (IMHO) could be used for more TV programs or SDTV to HDTV upgrades, basically, I thought it was weird since the BBC radio stations are available many other ways.

If radio stations do shut down and dismantle their transmitters, some of money saved could be payed to DTV stations to fully pay for an audio only DTV subchannel - a win-win situation.

Anyway, the BBC and Freeview people came up with the idea, I'd be interested in the rationale used in the discussions between the BBC and the Freeview people about having audio only DTV subchannels.


Kirk Bayne

It's all completely different. For one thing, we don't have "subchannels", those just aren't a thing. The channels are arranged into centrally organized multiplexes, which operate at a national level (with limited opts for regional programming within the national channels). If you live in Manchester, you get largely the same Freeview TV programming as someone in London, or Cornwall.

The BBC are on Freeview because one of the Freeview multiplexes belongs to the BBC to carry their TV programming, and it fills some space. The BBC also go on as many platforms as possible because they're publicly funded and they want to make themselves accessible to as many people as they can within reason. Commercial radio has found that it doesn't pay to be on there, which is why Bauer has quit.

 

[Kelly A]

I'm fine, audio only DTV subchannels seems like a reasonable thing to do, they are doing that in the UK on Freeview (ultimately, maybe only for some of the BBC radio stations though).

As some have already mentioned, yet you seem to ignore; ATSC 1.0 transmissions don't do well in mobile environments. Back in 2008, a group was proposing the idea of mobile TV. It failed in actual use.

Say it costs $x to operate an FM transmitter (everything - land, tower, license, specially trained personnel etc.) and $y to operate a stream of the radio station.

Purchasing a radio station, including assets like land, tower, and transmission equipment, are all 'sunk costs'. Other than utilities and maintenance, the other costs were rolled up into the original form of financing or cash outlay. In the case of leasing transmission space/tower, those costs are tax-deductible.

Say also that 80% of the radio station listeners listen to the stream of the radio station, some ads could be made to try to get the streaming number >90% and then the FM transmitter could be justifiably turned off and maybe some of the saved $x could be paid to a DTV station to place the radio station audio on a DTV subchannel, seems like a win-win to me.

But that isn't reality. I believe last I saw, statistics indicated that 30% of aural media consumers stream full time, not 90%. Big difference.
That, and most of the large media groups stream the same stations carried over the air, so should the trend move away from OTA to streaming, radio and TV stations are already there. That's assuming those consumers want what local radio and TV are offering in a linear form. Most of the streaming appeal is for the personal playlist touch and VOD, not curated music and TV programming.

The infrastructure to do this is already in place and people are buying suitable radios (in the form of DTVs with ATSC 1.0 tuners - TV is, after all, radio with pictures).

But you assume TV stations want to give up existing bandwidth to carry radio audio that chances are nobody will listen to. Trust me. After being involved in TV groups most of my career, TV stations would laugh your proposal out of the building.

 

[fybush]

It should be telling that of all the remaining commercial radio-TV co-owned clusters (and there aren't many, because the economics of radio and TV ownership don't mesh neatly these days), not one of them is putting their radio product out over ATSC TV subchannels. Not Nexstar in Chicago. Not Hubbard in Minneapolis. Not Bonneville in Salt Lake, or Morgan Murphy in Spokane. Not a one.

It's a solution chasing a non-existent problem.