# A sad day for quality listening



## RogerS (16 Jun 2009)

I refer to the gormless Govt's proposed plans to get rid of FM. They even have the cheek to say that going to DAB is an upgrade. I'm speechless. I'm so used to this Govt spouting complete b******s but this takes the biscuit. So no more listening to the radio in the car. 

DAB quality is c**p. Just like the Govt.


----------



## Racers (16 Jun 2009)

Hi, Roger

Spot on, they say it gives you more choice not more quality, and it ain't green a transistor radio battery lasts about a year and a DAB about a month, so its mains power. I thought they were not going to switch it of until most people could receive DAB, I know they are going to sell the bandwidth off, they probaly need the money quickly the bunch of robbing you know whats.

Pete


----------



## RogerS (16 Jun 2009)

More choice...huh. One rubbish channel after another rubbish channel. Join the mediocrity of the masses. My radio stays tuned to R3 and occasionally ventures over to R4. Classic FM may get the odd look in but not for very long.


----------



## Gill (16 Jun 2009)

I'm all in favour of more choice. Yet commercial stations are finding it difficult to survive in the current economic climate and the BBC isn't providing more specialist interest radio broadcasts. Even the Birdsong radio station which superseded the sadly defunct One Word had its virtues.

If the government is creating more opportunities for radio broadcasters, it had better deliver. Isn't it time we were told which new broadcasters are waiting in the wings for this opportunity?

Gill


----------



## dickm (16 Jun 2009)

YES. This is the stupidest, most blatantly anti-quality move in years. We have three radios in regular use in the house, plus two in cars, all of which will have to be changed to get poorer sound, more cost and general hassle. Presumably the Govt have some neat scheme to "sell" the FM and other wavebands to make money to give to their banker friends. :evil:


----------



## NickWelford (16 Jun 2009)

I have 6 radios and none of them receive DAB.... some cost a pretty penny too - I'll vote for the party that keeps FM for at least another 20 years........


----------



## Digit (16 Jun 2009)

I thought it stood for Dead And Buried!

Roy.


----------



## head clansman (16 Jun 2009)

Hi 

um err , this is the first I've heard about this when is this going to happen , more importantly what will happen to all our stereo equipment , i have some very expensive top of the range pioneer SA9800 amplifier and tuner dating back to when it first came out in th 1979 ish still going strong is this then going to be no use to any of us. :evil: hc


----------



## RogerS (16 Jun 2009)

HC...google digital britain report. It's all in there. The whole section on radio is the biggest load of unexpurgated rubbish and poorly reasoned rubbish I've come across.


----------



## Ironballs (16 Jun 2009)

Martin they've been banging on about this for years and publicised it quite a bit when DAB was launched.

I'd agree that the quality is lower but I love my DAB, Planet Rock is on most of the time and having Five Live in stereo is great, as is having Five Live sports extra. Also got a plug in DAB radio for the car.

Coverage is still an issue, when I drive around there are definite black spots


----------



## tekno.mage (17 Jun 2009)

NickWelford":pg2gc1z9 said:


> I have 6 radios and none of them receive DAB.... some cost a pretty penny too - I'll vote for the party that keeps FM for at least another 20 years........



Hear hear - although to be truthful some of the FM radio coverage where I live is pretty poor - too many rocky hills in the way - but I can get decent quality FM radio 4 using an expensive analogue tuner and external aerial and acceptable quality in upstairs rooms using decent (but old) battery transistor radios with the aerials fully extended. 

So far as I know there is no DAB coverage at all in rural mid-Wales at the moment. Even if they make it available (unlikely, as we can't get terrestial TV of any sort at all) I'm certainly not happy at the prospect of purchasing new equipment for poorer quality listening. 

The other options (internet radio or using the satellite TV box) aside from being fairly unreliable round here, are not a real alternative as both require mains and comms wiring to large equipment that uses seriously more energy than either my analogue tuner or a transistor radio! In fact the green credentials of the entire country having to scrap all it's analogue radio equipment are pretty poor - at least with digital TV you could continue to use the old equipment with an "add-on" box.

BTW - does anyone know what the plans are for Radio 4 on long wave? I listen to that in the workshop on a tranny as I can't get FM in there whenever it's not covering wall-to-wall cricket!

tekno.mage


----------



## RogerS (17 Jun 2009)

tekno.mage":sixw8zkc said:


> .....
> BTW - does anyone know what the plans are for Radio 4 on long wave? I listen to that in the workshop on a tranny as I can't get FM in there whenever it's not covering wall-to-wall cricket!
> 
> tekno.mage



That's going as well and all MW transmitters. From a security perspective a very shortsighted move as, heaven forbid, when Armageddon arrives that method (LW) of mass communication to the UK populace will have gone.

EDIT: Actually the report is silent as regards to LW. It does specify MW as going. Given that the rest of the report is a fudge, they probably meant to say AM stations instead of MW and that would include LW.


----------



## llangatwgnedd (17 Jun 2009)

In work, we are all purchasing dab radios with rechargeable batteries, for when we are driving the machines as we get a far better reception than FM and a much better choice of stations.


----------



## laird (17 Jun 2009)

We only have a choice of 5 stations on DAB, all clones of a local commercial outfit. B****y useless.


----------



## cambournepete (17 Jun 2009)

laird":3idtmyde said:


> We only have a choice of 5 stations on DAB, all clones of a local commercial outfit. B****y useless.


That's not many - are you sure the radio is tuned in properly?

It coul dalso be that the radio you are using is poor.
We upgraded from a cheapo that I returned to Tesco to a Pure Tempus and there were 2 or 3 times as many stations.

As I, like most people I'd guess, only use radio as background listening then any difference in sound quality doesn't really bother me.
Radio 5 live is much better on DAB than MW


----------



## laird (17 Jun 2009)

I'm afraid that it was a perfectly good radio and tuned in properly. Also the fact that no-one else on the island can get any better (and some can get nothing) really makes me think that the system is a failure, not the individuals. Also realise that we need a satellite to get Ch5 (why would one bother do I hear?) or even a decent BBC1 signal.


----------



## Gill (17 Jun 2009)

cambournepete":1gi3n3up said:


> Radio 5 live is much better on DAB than MW



No it's not. I can still hear Nicky Campbell   .

Gill


----------



## wizer (17 Jun 2009)

Gill":23ts1anb said:


> cambournepete":23ts1anb said:
> 
> 
> > Radio 5 live is much better on DAB than MW
> ...



 (hammer)


----------



## cambournepete (17 Jun 2009)

Gill":3ocpgqof said:


> cambournepete":3ocpgqof said:
> 
> 
> > Radio 5 live is much better on DAB than MW
> ...


Fair point.
I was thinking of the sports coverage when I typed that...
I might have Radio 5 on in the morning, but I don't take much notice of it/him...


----------



## RogerS (17 Jun 2009)

Great for those who like the choice on DAB.

Not so great for those of us who 'potentially' are being forced to downgrade and at a significant cost. I say 'potentially' as I like to think that there will be a groundswell against this.


----------



## dickm (17 Jun 2009)

Talked to an old colleague who is a communications specialist. He reckons that this is unlikely to happen, mainly because DAB is hardly used elsewhere in the world. So the (totally useless) sentence in the proposal that "the industry will be encouraged to produce cheaper digital sets" just won't happen because there is no world market for them. 
Plus he confirms that digital receivers inherently use more power than analogue.
He reckons that a political party wanting a cheap vote winner will just promise to scrap the whole nonsense. (Don't tell your favourite politician)


----------



## RogerS (17 Jun 2009)

dickm":3fqq71e7 said:


> Talked to an old colleague who is a communications specialist. He reckons that this is unlikely to happen, mainly because DAB is hardly used elsewhere in the world. So the (totally useless) sentence in the proposal that "the industry will be encouraged to produce cheaper digital sets" just won't happen because there is no world market for them.
> Plus he confirms that digital receivers inherently use more power than analogue.
> He reckons that a political party wanting a cheap vote winner will just promise to scrap the whole nonsense. (Don't tell your favourite politician)



Just think about all the cars that have their own manufacturers radios built in. Just how in hell are those owners going to retrofit a DAB radio in? Glue it to the dashboard?


----------



## Alie Barnes (17 Jun 2009)

My concern is what will happen to all the FM radios in the country, they will just end up in landfill. it would be nice to say people will put them for electrical recycling but not many people will.

Sad day.


----------



## Alie Barnes (18 Jun 2009)

RogerS":b7aq7t4y said:


> dickm":b7aq7t4y said:
> 
> 
> > Talked to an old colleague who is a communications specialist. He reckons that this is unlikely to happen, mainly because DAB is hardly used elsewhere in the world. So the (totally useless) sentence in the proposal that "the industry will be encouraged to produce cheaper digital sets" just won't happen because there is no world market for them.
> ...



quite a few companys now produce a unit which converts your FM car radio to Digital, they just take over a station of choice to play digitial through the car speakers. i belive it works a little like an iPod trip if you have ever used one.

these units are not generally that cheap though.


----------



## RogerS (18 Jun 2009)

By installing a better aerial, Roger was finally able to receive DAB in his car


----------



## Racers (18 Jun 2009)

Hi,

On one of the HiFi forums someone is starting a petition on the 10 Downing Street web site, I will post the link when its up and we can all sign it. It might get somewhere.

Pete


----------



## lurker (18 Jun 2009)

Racers":3v5xlu00 said:


> Hi,
> 
> On one of the HiFi forums someone is starting a petition on the 10 Downing Street web site, I will post the link when its up and we can all sign it. It might get somewhere.
> 
> Pete



:roll: :roll: poor deluded fool :roll: 
I had not realised there were a few people left who thought politicians listened to them


----------



## Racers (18 Jun 2009)

Hi, Lurker

Forgot the "not a snowballs chance in hell" emoticon on the end :wink: 


Pete


----------



## RogerS (19 Jun 2009)

If you are minded to please sign this petition

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/

Thanks


----------



## RogerS (21 Jun 2009)

An interesting viewpoint here and also this from The Register


----------



## RogerS (23 Jun 2009)

Oooh..get you..missus! Listened to Broadcasting House on Sunday and got a tad incensed by the soapboxing about how wonderful DAB was that I sounded off to the Radio 4 Feedback programme about how BH had trivialised what is quite a serious issue. Got a call today and so maybe, just maybe, my dulcet tones will be heard by all. :wink: 

Fame at last. Actually recording my words down the line was a lot more difficult than it seems as I was having to paraphrase what I'd written to them from memory.


----------



## Gill (23 Jun 2009)

According to His Lordship, DAB radio is incompatible with heart pacemakers!

:shock:


----------



## RogerS (3 Mar 2010)

There was a petition raised on DuffGovs' website. Here is the predictable BS response, if you have the energy. Full of waffle but then why should I be surprised?

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22663


----------



## Smudger (3 Mar 2010)

RogerS":2e3o58sh said:


> There was a petition raised on DuffGovs' website. Here is the predictable BS response, if you have the energy. Full of waffle but then why should I be surprised?
> 
> http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22663



If you were determined not to believe the response, why read it?
How can you counter an argument by simply rubbishing it?


----------



## Jake (3 Mar 2010)

Smudger":1rqobj8o said:


> How can you counter an argument by simply rubbishing it?



The magic phrase DuffGov means he doesn't have to.


----------



## RogerS (3 Mar 2010)

Smudger":ows9cui3 said:


> RogerS":ows9cui3 said:
> 
> 
> > There was a petition raised on DuffGovs' website. Here is the predictable BS response, if you have the energy. Full of waffle but then why should I be surprised?
> ...



Who said I was determined not to believe the response? I live in hope.

OK - if you want me to be specific.... there is no evidence that people want choice so why hide behind that as reason? 

They have ignored the fact that battery life is non-existent in DAB radios. 

They have ignored the fact that the current DAB standard is actually a sub-standard compared to much of Europe. 

They have ignored the cost that everyone has to pay to buy a new radio. 

They have ignored the cost of anyone wanting to listen to radio in the car.

Do I really have to spell it out?

Anyway, purchase of DAB radios appears to have stalled so one can only live in hope that they will honour the 50% penetration. But somehow I doubt that that will happen.


----------



## matt (3 Mar 2010)

Why can't you listen to DAB in the car?


----------



## Racers (3 Mar 2010)

Hi, 

Anarchy, lets storm Westminster, torches, pitch forks etc.


Cars don't have DAB radios, we use a different encoding to the continent so I doubt you will see a DAB radio in a car, tyre noise from now on.


Pete


----------



## newt (3 Mar 2010)

I see one solution is a set top box, should work well in a car :twisted:


----------



## jlawrence (3 Mar 2010)

My radio is 'coded' to work in my car and my car only - I thought that was a reasonable security thing. So I suppose the government will be providing me with an equal DAB alternative - will they heck as like.


----------



## newt (3 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":3tvqk8fk said:


> My radio is 'coded' to work in my car and my car only - I thought that was a reasonable security thing. So I suppose the government will be providing me with an equal DAB alternative - will they heck as like.



The good news is nobody will want to steal a DAB


----------



## studders (3 Mar 2010)

newt":108l155o said:


> I see one solution is a set top box, should work well in a car :twisted:




:lol: 

Yebbut, think of your poor Missus having to lean out of the window with the aerial trying to get the best signal.


----------



## matt (3 Mar 2010)

But you can get DAB radios in cars today... :?


----------



## Smudger (3 Mar 2010)

matt":1wcs8zuw said:


> But you can get DAB radios in cars today... :?



Don't bring the facts into this!


----------



## RogerS (3 Mar 2010)

Smudger":2sljs3c3 said:


> matt":2sljs3c3 said:
> 
> 
> > But you can get DAB radios in cars today... :?
> ...



No-one is saying that you can't. Whether or not you can get a decent signal seems to be overlooked by DuffGov.

And what aboiut those of us withg existing FM radios. How many is that? 20 million cars? Why should we forced to go to the hassle of buying and fitting a DAB radio that we don't want?

No-one at DuffGov was available for comment when we went to press or could answer our question 'Why? Why this switch to DAB?' What is the benefit?


----------



## Racers (3 Mar 2010)

Hi,

The benifit in all those new licences they can sell and make pots of cash.


Pete


----------



## matt (3 Mar 2010)

I think the Govt are in on the secret. They know full well that we will buy-in to the technology. OK, so it's like the equivalent of dial-up internet at the moment but we'll get over it and it will get better (or be dropped for Internet radio...).

Look how many people own truly awful plasma TV's - and they did that more or less voluntarily. They were sitting alongside the superior CRT's at the time and yet the draw was too much. I suspect if the Govt had forced early plasma TV's on us then we'd feel compelled to resist.

Why not just go buy an Internet radio? I realise this will not solve your car radio woes but it's a start and it does mean that you're not being crushed by the Govt. (OK, they're taking away the old signal but, but, but - you can pretend you're rebelling against their DAB revolution. You can, you can... I'm gonna make a placard now!)

My work here is done... 

EDIT: I just realised... You can get Internet radio on an iPhone. Plug that in to your car radio - that'll show 'em!


----------



## dickm (3 Mar 2010)

RogerS":3utxshki said:


> No-one is saying that you can't. Whether or not you can get a decent signal seems to be overlooked by DuffGov.
> 
> And what aboiut those of us withg existing FM radios. How many is that? 20 million cars? Why should we forced to go to the hassle of buying and fitting a DAB radio that we don't want?
> 
> No-one at DuffGov was available for comment when we went to press or could answer our question 'Why? Why this switch to DAB?' What is the benefit?



There is also a neat get-out for Govt in that their criterion for switching off analogue is "when 95% coverage is achieved". By which, of course, they actually mean that 95% of houses can get a signal, not 95% of the area of the country. And so we all know who the deprived 5% will be - anyone who lives in a rural area more than 20 or so miles from a big town. Possibly not a problem in England, but a different story up here in Scotland. And don't suggest mobile phone solutions - we can't get a mobile signal here either.
But to me the total nonsense is that only the UK is keen on DAB; almost all other countries regard it as a very poor system, so none of the big manufacturers is going to make cheap sets for the small UK market.
I wonder which UK based retailer slipped a big donation to this corrupt Govt to come up with this stupid idea?


----------



## RogerS (3 Mar 2010)

matt":3pb999v6 said:


> I think the Govt are in on the secret. They know full well that we will buy-in to the technology. OK, so it's like the equivalent of dial-up internet at the moment but we'll get over it and it will get better (or be dropped for Internet radio...).
> 
> Look how many people own truly awful plasma TV's - and they did that more or less voluntarily. They were sitting alongside the superior CRT's at the time and yet the draw was too much. I suspect if the Govt had forced early plasma TV's on us then we'd feel compelled to resist.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if this tongue in cheek or not. Internet radio is a non-starter.


----------



## cambournepete (4 Mar 2010)

RogerS":37gma3b6 said:


> I'm not sure if this tongue in cheek or not. Internet radio is a non-starter.


Why?


----------



## RogerS (4 Mar 2010)

Well, we're talking about listening to the radio in the context of the UK. I don't have detailed statistics although they'll be out there somewhere but it is reasonable to assume that there are many many millions of people who listen to the radio on an FM portable. 

A portable that they take out into the garden, around the house with them, that sort of thing. It is a very simple device. Low powered. Works anywhere (OK accept that there are some dodgy areas of reception but probably less than there are for broadband access). 

To use internet radio, you need to shell out over £100 for the internet radio - which must have wifi to be portable. So leaving aside the question of the viability of wifi in some houses/locations, that also means that you have to pay for a broadband connection - why? You could get away with not having a computer perhaps ...not sure..maybe you do need one for setting up the internet radio. We haven't addressed whether you might have bandwidth usage issues (although probably not as audio data rates aren't that high) ....

So from a cheap, low-cost perfectly functional device to an expensive alternative that does not give any benefits to 99% of the listening audience. Those that want the cacophony of choice will go out and buy an internet radio. But why should all the cost, expense and inconvenience be forced on so many many people? For what reason? 

Probably selling off the bandwidth....but I suspect that they won't get anything like the £30bn that the mobile providers stumped up (and are now regretting) for the 3G licences.


----------



## cambournepete (4 Mar 2010)

None of that reasoning makes it a non-starter though.
Different and more expensive perhaps, but still a go-er.


----------



## RogerS (4 Mar 2010)

It's a non-starter in the context of the thread, I think, but then I wouldn't want to be accused of being pedantic :wink:


----------



## cambournepete (4 Mar 2010)

[pedant]just because it's internet radio doesnt mean it's not quality listening though, which is what the threads about.[/pedant]
Quality is a subjective term, and just because it's FM doesn't mean it's "quality".
There's plenty of over-compressed poor sounding tripe on FM...

I like my DAB radios.


----------



## RogerS (4 Mar 2010)

cambournepete":3s3lpx5x said:


> [pedant]just because it's internet radio doesnt mean it's not quality listening though, which is what the threads about.[/pedant]
> Quality is a subjective term, and just because it's FM doesn't mean it's "quality".
> There's plenty of over-compressed poor sounding tripe on FM...
> 
> I like my DAB radios.



 And no-one is suggesting that you get rid of it.. :lol: 

However SWMBO loves her portable transistor radio. So why should she be forced to get rid of it? 

The question is still moot. Why?


----------



## grafter (5 Mar 2010)

I can't really see internet radio taking off - like it was stated above, needing a net connection to get the radio seems totally over the top - necessitating a wireless broadband router, phone line and internet radio (inc power). Everyone will need to have unlimited download broadband packages (increased cost), and everything we listen to would be tracked and monitored, and it would not be unfeasible for Ad's to be tailored for each listener or locality - a further invasion of privacy.

I am quite into hifi and looked into getting a DAB separate - really for bbc 7 and bbc 6 and the main contender is a denon for £200 (cheapest i found was a no brand in argos for £100) - this only supports DAB and not DAB+ which is anticipated to be introduced. However looking at richer sounds website, they are selling a full size FM tuner for £20. the sound quality will be better and much more energy efficient - (data will not required to be decoded by the radio like with DAB)

As nobody else in the world really seems to be taking dab seriously these products will continue to be expensive and without the investment the technology will not developed. I live in hope that FM will be kept...

(sorry for what has become a very rambling post...)


----------



## matt (5 Mar 2010)

RogerS":30orn3p2 said:


> However SWMBO loves her portable transistor radio. So why should she be forced to get rid of it?



Your wife can keep her tranny. In time they'll be nowt to listen to, but she can definitely keep her tranny


----------



## matt (5 Mar 2010)

grafter":365f28qf said:


> ...and it would not be unfeasible for Ad's to be tailored for each listener or locality.



If only... What an absolute blessing. If you're going to have ads at least make them relevant.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jul 2010)

I came across an interesting report by Steven Green. In it he highlighted how in 2009 Ofcom commissioned some market research and asked the simple question "How satisfied are you wth the choice of radio stations in your area". 91% reported "satisfied". So much then for the DAB supporters argument that we are all clamouring for choice.

If you'd like to read the article then it can be found here.


----------



## dickm (2 Jul 2010)

But that will be spun as "5 million listeners want more choice" - that sounds so much more convincing than 9%, even if it's the same number.

I dread to think what cr*p there will be on the extended "choice". :evil:


----------



## cambournepete (2 Jul 2010)

but I am satisfied with the choice in my area - on DAB!
FM choice is very poor - several commercial stations all playing the same rubbish, or the usual BBC, none of which appeal.
Yes DAB+ is better, but technology is always better is you wait...
The report is clearly written by someone who knew the answer he wanted before he started...


----------



## RogerS (2 Jul 2010)

cambournepete":2looduwy said:


> but I am satisfied with the choice in my area - on DAB!
> FM choice is very poor - several commercial stations all playing the same rubbish, or the usual BBC, none of which appeal.
> Yes DAB+ is better, but technology is always better is you wait...
> The report is clearly written by someone who knew the answer he wanted before he started...



Which is fine, Pete. It's your choice. You can go and buy a DAB radio now. Today. No-one is stopping you. So why switch off FM?


----------



## RogerS (2 Jul 2010)

dickm":2zo9swci said:


> But that will be spun as "5 million listeners want more choice" - that sounds so much more convincing than 9%, even if it's the same number.
> 
> ....



But that's the point. Those that want choice, have it. They can go and buy a DAB radio. Now. Today. So why switch-off FM?


----------



## Benchwayze (3 Jul 2010)

Isn't it the same with Digital Television? It's rubbish. IMHO it's a step backwards to the infancy of TV. 

But it isn't any use blaming the Government completely (This lot weren't the instigators remember

). The mobile phone companies are as much to blame, because it's they who will be buying the use of the frequencies. 

As for music? Well the thinking is.. get it from t'internet thingy.. (assuming, as they do, that everyone has the facility.) 

I am just waiting for the scrapped land-line tax to be replaced by a licence to own a PC! 

Mark my words... Sooner or later some whiz-kid in Whitehall will have the 'bright' idea. 


John


----------



## RogerS (3 Jul 2010)

It's generally accepted that there is no mileage to be had in selling off any part of the FM spectrum.


----------



## Lons (3 Jul 2010)

We have 2 DAB radios and can't get a digital signal on either of them.
We have 3 vehicles and I listen to radio more often than not when I'm driving. I also listen to NUFC footy matches on Radio Newcastle and have tried listening online but ALWAYS not available. And.. I take a radio on site with me as quiet background entertainment.

I WILL NOT buy any more DAB equipment and definately won't buy add ons for the cars or van even though it might mean the end of traffic reports - stuff em :evil: 
I have to keep the radio on as my phone is linked to the inbuilt bluetooth so I guess it will be on dvd music only.

Anyone who was a fan of Queen - substitute DAB for video in the song "video killed the radio star" - I can live without the radio if I have to :!: 

*I want my licence fee refunded! * :twisted: 

Bob


----------



## chipchaser (8 Jul 2010)

I hope this is a better day for FM, at minimum a stay of execution till (I wish) 2040. 

I only became aware of the technical arguments about choice of digital system after picking up the links on this thread for which thanks.

I would be very happy for FM and digital to run in parallel, although I hate the jargon word simulcast, but are we to be sentenced to DAB rather than a potentially better and cheaper pan european system? Is it VHS and BetaMax time again?


----------



## Peter T (9 Jul 2010)

Not the most reliable source of information I admit, but there may be some light at the end of the tunnel -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hink-Minister-stops-short-switch-date-FM.html


----------



## RogerS (9 Jul 2010)

Peter T":rimvgqvr said:


> Not the most reliable source of information I admit, but there may be some light at the end of the tunnel -
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hink-Minister-stops-short-switch-date-FM.html



Sorry to dash your hopes, Peter, but Vaiseys' position and timing announcement is no different to that of the last government. Incredulous given that on Nick Cleggs' website request..."Which law would you like to see repealed?" scrapping the FM switchoff was very high up the list.

There has to be a hidden agenda going on and Vaisey's just been given the nod.


----------



## dickm (9 Jul 2010)

RogerS":3qabb86i said:


> There has to be a hidden agenda going on and Vaisey's just been given the nod.



Well, you don't have to go very far to find it. Six FM-tuned radios in our house, two in cars. Just think of the profit some companies are going to make when I and 20 million other households have to throw them away and replace them with power-guzzling DAB rubbish. And then wonder how may of the Govt are "consultants" to the retailers who are going to make the profits.
And, of course, the DAB system is so cr*p that other countries have gone beyond it already. So guess how soon we will have to replace the DAB ones with whatever the manufacturers produce next. (Actually, that may be another pressure - manufacturers misjudged the market, have tooled up to make too many DAB radios, so have "persuaded" Govt to ensure they have a captive market)
It all stinks.


----------



## RogerS (10 Jul 2010)

You know, Dick, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Just think, Minister, of all that VAT on 50 million radios?

If anyone is as concerned as I am then please email Vaizey at [email protected] and ask him the question Why?


----------



## RogerS (22 Jul 2010)

I'm spitting feathers.

Vaizey is lying to us. In his Digital Radio Action plan, he says that (my bold text)

Listening to digital *radio* accounts for 24 per cent of all radio listening in the UK

However he commissioned Ofcom to produce a report which they issued 21st July. In it they state that...

just under a quarter (24%) of all radio listening hours were to services delivered over a digital distribution platform

So to get 24% Ofcom have included listening via FreeView, FreeSat and the Internet.

So that's lie number one by Vaizey.

But it gets worse. We were all under the impression that one of the criteria for switching off mainstream FM channels was when 50% of the public had digital radios. The sprouts have moved the goalposts and now, in an attempt to fudge the figures, this 50% figure is now made up from listening to digital via ALL platforms and not just radio.

Boy, is my MP going to get a flea in his ear.


----------



## big soft moose (22 Jul 2010)

RogerS":10jjy5wm said:


> I'm spitting feathers.
> 
> Vaizey is lying to us. In his Digital Radio Action plan, he says that (my bold text)
> 
> .



A politician telling lies, thats unheard of


----------

