FM switchover - Coalition steamrolling us ?

[Eric The Viking]

DAB is horribly expensive for the broadcasters too.

I work with someone who used to be the MD of one of our local commercial radio stations. He says they hated it because of the effect it had on the bottom line - very expensive TX costs and tiny audience. Clients didn't want to pay for ads on the service either as a consequence. They were pretty much required to be on DAB but wouldn't have been, had they any choice.

A small FM transmitter that's fully compliant with relevant standards costs under £1000 brand new.

E.

 

[JakeS]

He says they hated it because of the effect it had on the bottom line - very expensive TX costs and tiny audience. Clients didn't want to pay for ads on the service either as a consequence.

Surely, though, the tiny audience and lack of advertising clients are a direct result of the fact that there are far fewer DAB transmitters than FM transmitters, so most people can't get enough of a signal to listen to DAB radio in their area (which is also the problem with Roger's "people already have the choice to buy a DAB radio")? The proposition mentioned in the opening post is to increase funding of DAB transmission to match a minimum of 80% of FM penetration, at which point it should be far more feasible for more people to listen to DAB.



(I'm largely in the same boat as cambournepete - there isn't much I want to listen to on the top-4 BBC stations. As a result, I don't listen to the radio at all; if I knew there was a DAB transmitter that reached me at home, I may well listen to the radio more often. Instead, I'm far more likely to listen to Internet radio. And I'm sceptical of the RAJAR figures for this reason - I believe they don't account for Internet radio in the first place, not to mention that I don't think there's enough data there to draw the conclusion that to paraphrase, "nobody wants choice".)

 

[RogerS]

.....that I don't think there's enough data there to draw the conclusion that to paraphrase, "nobody wants choice".)

Interesting Ofcom survey here http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market ... r08/radio/ 87-90% happy with the choice of radio stations in there area. Therefore assuming that those surveyed were geographically spread across the UK then that would mean that a large proportion dont have access to DAB. Ergo they are happy not to have DAB as they are happy with their choice of radio.

 

[Eric The Viking]

He says they hated it because of the effect it had on the bottom line - very expensive TX costs and tiny audience. Clients didn't want to pay for ads on the service either as a consequence.

Surely, though, the tiny audience and lack of advertising clients are a direct result of the fact that there are far fewer DAB transmitters than FM transmitters

Actually I think there are a lot more DAB than FM, but that's not the point.

1. In urban areas, where the bulk of the audiences are DAB coverage is there. People generally aren't using it, but that isn't because of the coverage as such.
2. DAB TX costs are enormous compared to FM.
3. We're having digital broadcasting forced on us because there's money in it for those forcing the switchover.

As for internet radio, that would be hard for me to listen to whilst mending the roof.

Commercial stations know a lot about their audiences. One thing they know is that only a small minority are even interested in DAB, let alone regular listeners.

 

[cambournepete]

I reckon a lot of the "we don't want choice" argument relies on listener ignorance - they don't know there are others way to listen and they could find a better station for them on DAB or Internet.

It's also possible to buy streaming radios which just need wifi access and if you can get that on your roof you'll be fine Eric

 

[RogerS]

This blog gives a pretty good viewpoint of DrAB...

http://www.grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.co.uk/

and the hype and misleading figures being bandied about.

 

[JakeS]

I reckon a lot of the "we don't want choice" argument relies on listener ignorance - they don't know there are others way to listen and they could find a better station for them on DAB or Internet.

Exactly my suspicion - I expect that if you could go back in time and ask TV viewers in 1980 whether they were satisfied with the choice of TV channels available you'd probably see similar answers, but that didn't stop an eager uptake of satellite television when that came along. The two big differences between the two technologies being that satellite TV was made available to the whole country simultaneously, and advertised heavily.

On the other hand, I suspect that DAB suffered in the early days because the buy-in costs for a DAB unit were astronomically high in comparison to a regular radio, and the coverage wasn't there to entice people in. I still haven't bought a DAB radio not because I'm not interested in some of the radio stations transmitted digitally, but because I have no idea whether I get a signal in my house without spending the money to find out. I know that the unit we have in the kitchen at work only works on one side of the building, and moving it to another room it loses the signal completely. On the other hand, even though it's obviously just on the threshold signal-wise, it gives us a far cleaner and more listenable sound than it does when switched to an FM station. Not to mention better music. ;-)

(I also prefer CDs to vinyl.)

 

[RogerS]

I beg to differ, Jake and Pete

91% of UK consumers are satisfied with the choice of radio stations in their area, according to Ofcom research

• 69% of UK consumers only listen to one or two different radio stations in an average week, according to Ofcom research

This is a good article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/bl ... o-problems

 

[Lons]

I beg to differ, Jake and Pete

91% of UK consumers are satisfied with the choice of radio stations in their area, according to Ofcom research

• 69% of UK consumers only listen to one or two different radio stations in an average week, according to Ofcom research

This is a good article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/bl ... o-problems

I agree =D> =D> 'cos I'm one of them and not through ignorance!

I'm well aware of the options offered via DAB via radio and freeview sources along with the stations available via the internet.
I have looked at them but it hasn't changed my listening preferences.

Bob

 

[JakeS]

I agree =D> =D> 'cos I'm one of them and not through ignorance!

And I disagree; "I'm personally happy with the existing arrangements therefore obviously everybody else should be as well" is frankly a pretty crappy (and selfish) attitude, particularly with something which comes down to personal taste like choice of music/entertainment.

People who already listen to the radio obviously are happy with the choice to some extent, or they wouldn't be listening to the radio.

 

[cambournepete]

91% of UK consumers are satisfied with the choice of radio stations in their area, according to Ofcom research

You can prove what you like with statistics.
I couldn't listen to Planet Rock without DAB and I would not be happy without it.
I could list why I don't like just whats available on FM, but you wouldnt take any notice so I cant be bothered.
You stay blinkered and happy, and I'll stay enlightened and happier. :roll:

 

[RogerS]

You're missing the point, Jake and it has nothing to do with being a "selfish attitude" ...that's just a daft suggestion. Is anyone saying "I am happy with what I am listening to so you can't listen to anything different"? No. So get of the moral high horse.

It is a survey. A survey. Nothing else. If you are going to introduce a new service then you are going to want to know how many people might take up that new service. Otherwise it makes no sense from a business perspective.

 

[JakeS]

Is anyone saying "I am happy with what I am listening to so you can't listen to anything different"? No. So get of the moral high horse.

Actually, yes: you. Although you phrased it more like "please write to your MP and tell them to not bother extending the reach of DAB so people can actually listen to it" and then "who wants choice?", which in itself is pretty dismissive of the notion that anybody might want to listen to anything other than what's already available.


But as Pete's already concluded, it seems pointless talking about it - you've already decided it's a complete waste of time and nobody will get any benefit from it, so what's to discuss?

 

[RogerS]

You can prove what you like with statistics.
I couldn't listen to Planet Rock without DAB and I would not be happy without it.
I could list why I don't like just whats available on FM, but you wouldnt take any notice so I cant be bothered.
You stay blinkered and happy, and I'll stay enlightened and happier. :roll:

I'm not being blinkered. Nothing stopping anyone listening to DAB. Never said anything else.

BUT....this is a big BUT...

they are pushing ahead with something for which there would appear to be limited demand. At the expense of switching off FM and forcing 50 million odd people to replace their FM radios unnecessarily.

 

[RogerS]

Is anyone saying "I am happy with what I am listening to so you can't listen to anything different"? No. So get of the moral high horse.

Actually, yes: you. Although you phrased it more like "please write to your MP and tell them to not bother extending the reach of DAB so people can actually listen to it" and then "who wants choice?", which in itself is pretty dismissive of the notion that anybody might want to listen to anything other than what's already available.


But as Pete's already concluded, it seems pointless talking about it - you've already decided it's a complete waste of time and nobody will get any benefit from it, so what's to discuss?

See my response to Pete above

 

[Eric The Viking]

The idea that DAB promotes diversity and FM doesn't is a fallacy.

FM stations are far cheaper to set up and run, and, if it wasn't for other factors skewing the market, FM would be perfectly satisfactory, and would exhibit the diversity claimed for DAB.

The trouble is, those other factors are both wealthy and influential, and they are making the rules. I refer to other uses for the spectrum (so it gets flogged-off to make money for the government), and the hardware industry, for which DAB continues to be a growth market. Previously, FM radio hardware sales had long ago plateaued, but DAB has created 'upgrade' opportunities for manufacturers. In a recession this was (for them) a good thing.

Lots of other, well-paying interests want to use the spectrum too. Higher-up, we are supposed to be losing a chunk of UHF TV broadcast spectrum to 4G telecomms*, and I can't remember what the government intends for VHF, but it will be commercial interests behind it. Within the VHF band, things like radio microphones have lost most of their allocated space, and even their UHF allocation is being squeezed.

E.

*Why this couldn't have been incorporated into the digital TV switchover plan I can't understand, and I'm not alone in being of this opinion.

 

[RogerP]

The idea that DAB promotes diversity and FM doesn't is a fallacy.
FM stations are far cheaper to set up and run, and, if it wasn't for other factors skewing the market, FM would be perfectly satisfactory, .......

It may be where you are but around here it's very poor FM reception without an outside aerial. Whereas DAB is maximum signal strength and is fine on a portable.

 

[Lons]

I agree =D> =D> 'cos I'm one of them and not through ignorance!

And I disagree; "I'm personally happy with the existing arrangements therefore obviously everybody else should be as well" is frankly a pretty crappy (and selfish) attitude, particularly with something which comes down to personal taste like choice of music/entertainment.

People who already listen to the radio obviously are happy with the choice to some extent, or they wouldn't be listening to the radio.

Jake

I'm also perfectly happy with the existing arrangements which are:-

Both FM and DAB are available to those who wish to use them IF they are available in their area. - No problem with that. That would suit everyone and there would be no restriction of choice.

BUT... It isn't going to happen is it! Those of us quite happy with the FM service are going to lose it, be forced to buy alternative (or additional in the case of vehicles), equipment at no little expense for a service we don't particularly want to use.

Like being forced to pay an additional £1000 for a built in sat nav in your new car when you already own a superior TomTom :roll:

Bob

 

[JakeS]

"Nothing stopping anyone listening to DAB", "that would suit everyone", etc. - you guys have a very weird definition of 'anyone' or 'everyone' when there are still significant portions of the country where DAB simply isn't a realistic option. The proposal mentioned above is to bring DAB coverage up to 80% of FM coverage today, which would increase choice and variety for everyone within that coverage area, whether you happen to personally be interested in any of the new choices or not.

Now, I have sympathy with the anti-FM-switch-off sentiment for a variety of reasons*, but I rapidly lose a lot of it when the same people apparently tell me that I should just put up with crackly FM and a lacklustre selection of radio stations I have no interest in. In my ideal world the DAB signal would be boosted to cover the same area as FM and coexist, because from my point of view it's simply a superior consumer experience in every way, but I get the impression from some of you guys that you'd rather kill it off entirely. You should be arguing "don't turn FM off because X and Y" - a stronger position, IMO - but instead you seem to be saying "don't fund DAB because the outdated and inferior FM is OK by me"...


(And for what it's worth, without knowing exactly what questions were asked, who was surveyed, how large the sample set was and so on, survey figures are next to useless. People will answer the questions "are you happy with your current selection of radio stations?" and "would you like more radio stations?" differently, but both could be shoe-horned into the same summary. People survey with leading questions biasing towards a preconceived answer all the time, sometimes intentionally and sometimes by accident. Not to mention that surveying existing radio listeners will get different answers to surveying people on the high street at 2PM on a Thursday afternoon, which will get different answers to surveying people at home at eight thirty in the evening on Sunday.)

* Not least that there are a large number of perfectly functional FM sets already in existence and it's a shame to think that they'd just be thrown away for no good reason, or that an AM or even FM receiver circuit is a far simpler and more easily understandable (and buildable) one than that required for decoding DAB.

 

[Lons]

same people apparently tell me that I should just put up with crackly FM and a lacklustre selection of radio stations I have no interest in. In my ideal world the DAB signal would be boosted to cover the same area as FM and coexist, because from my point of view it's simply a superior consumer experience in every way, but I get the impression from some of you guys that you'd rather kill it off entirely. You should be arguing "don't turn FM off because X and Y" - a stronger position, IMO - but instead you seem to be saying "don't fund DAB because the outdated and inferior FM is OK by me"...

Absolutely agree with you Jake and I for one would never say that it should be one or the other. Both would be ideal and would give consumers the opportunity to choose whether to pay for new equipment or not. I'm not arguing to kill DAB, I just don't want it forced upon me or even worse, switch off FM and still get a poor DAB signal anyway. I'm not sure the car makers are convinced as there are very few who currently include DAB as standard and even a couple who don't offer as an option on mainstream models. That will change of course as pressure mounts.
Fine for new buyers as the cost will be added in and just accepted but what about all the millions of s/h models on sale as well as all the rest of us with vehicles unlikely to be changed for a few years?

As has been suggested, there is money to be made so the motives guiding decisions might well be just a little clouded.

I have a similar problem with freeview (which I am happy enough to have) but the signal is sometimes so poor that digital tv is unwatchable. We are last for switchover I believe - late September - If the signal doesn't improve then I'll be forced against my will into satelite :evil: I have already spent a considerable sum on upgrading ariels and have some of the latest equipment. Those ariels then become redundant :roll:

My personal experience btw, when I am out and about in areas where the DAB signal is strong, is that the quality between DABt and the FM I get at home is no better and I have tried at my sons house, switching between signals with a similar conclusion. Clearly others will not agree with that!

I love technology and what it brings. I try to keep an open mind where I can but we all have our preferences. Change doesn't always mean better - just look at the arguments about the quality of old versus new steel. :wink:

cheers

Bob