Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new multiplex 
licence last year?

"Commander Gideon"  wrote in message 
news:fvugot$i2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new multiplex 
> licence last year?
>

God it can't come quickly enough!.. Tuesday morning I was driving down to 
Exeter, I switched on Five live to hear a female voice saying "In the first 
few months of pregnancy blah blah"  I then hurriedly turned over to Talk 
Sport only to be confronted with Polly Parrot screeching something along the 
lines of "will walk all over 'em mate" the conversation blabbed on for what 
appeared to be an eternity on the topic of football, until I got so fed up 
that I switched off.

Turned on Five this morning only to hear VD once again rattling on about.. 
you guessed it frigging 'babies'!.. I very rarely use profanities in front 
of my wife, but I was so pissed off today when voicing my disgust that I 
couldn't help it!

We're now living in a world beset by so many major looming problems.. I mean 
yesterday it was reported that oil could hit $200 a barrel by the end of the 
year, surely the impact of that would be catastrophic on our already fragile 
economies, yet all these lightweights want to talk about is football and 
changing nappies!

Commander Gideon wrote:
> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
> multiplex licence last year?


It's been reported that it won't be launching for a couple of years.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Ivan wrote:
> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
> news:fvugot$i2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>> multiplex licence last year?
>>
>
> God it can't come quickly enough!.. Tuesday morning I was driving
> down to Exeter, I switched on Five live to hear a female voice saying
> "In the first few months of pregnancy blah blah"  I then hurriedly
> turned over to Talk Sport only to be confronted with Polly Parrot
> screeching something along the lines of "will walk all over 'em mate"
> the conversation blabbed on for what appeared to be an eternity on
> the topic of football, until I got so fed up that I switched off.
>
> Turned on Five this morning only to hear VD once again rattling on
> about.. you guessed it frigging 'babies'!.. I very rarely use
> profanities in front of my wife, but I was so pissed off today when
> voicing my disgust that I couldn't help it!


If you're complaining about speech radio being too low-brow, why don't you 
listen to Radio 4?


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message 
news:JeJUj.999$KQ4.584@newsfe10.ams2...
> Ivan wrote:
>> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>> news:fvugot$i2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>>> multiplex licence last year?
>>>
>>
>> God it can't come quickly enough!.. Tuesday morning I was driving
>> down to Exeter, I switched on Five live to hear a female voice saying
>> "In the first few months of pregnancy blah blah"  I then hurriedly
>> turned over to Talk Sport only to be confronted with Polly Parrot
>> screeching something along the lines of "will walk all over 'em mate"
>> the conversation blabbed on for what appeared to be an eternity on
>> the topic of football, until I got so fed Up that I switched off.
>>
>> Turned on Five this morning only to hear VD once again rattling on
>> about.. you guessed it frigging 'babies'!.. I very rarely use
>> profanities in front of my wife, but I was so pissed off today when
>> voicing my disgust that I couldn't help it!
>
>
> If you're complaining about speech radio being too low-brow, why don't you 
> listen to Radio 4?
>
>

I'm not complaining about it being too low-brow, but I do like phone-ins 
because I'm interested in other people's views about what's going on in the 
world, it's just the banal topics that the presenters appear to want to 
discuss.
Being a bit of an insomniac at 5.30am I usually manage to catch 'Wake up to 
money' but even 5 minutes of that is taken up with sport, I then switch over 
to radio four's 'Today' programme only to find that more than likely they're 
discussing sport.
All I'm really asking for is something along the lines of radio five which 
discusses serious world topics and is a virtually sports free zone, in 
effect a serious talk radio station that caters for the 'millions' of people 
in this country who don't give a ff about sport.

> --

Ivan wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message
> news:JeJUj.999$KQ4.584@newsfe10.ams2...
>> Ivan wrote:
>>> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>>> news:fvugot$i2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>>>> multiplex licence last year?
>>>>
>>>
>>> God it can't come quickly enough!.. Tuesday morning I was driving
>>> down to Exeter, I switched on Five live to hear a female voice
>>> saying "In the first few months of pregnancy blah blah"  I then
>>> hurriedly turned over to Talk Sport only to be confronted with
>>> Polly Parrot screeching something along the lines of "will walk all
>>> over 'em mate" the conversation blabbed on for what appeared to be
>>> an eternity on the topic of football, until I got so fed Up that I
>>> switched off. Turned on Five this morning only to hear VD once again 
>>> rattling on
>>> about.. you guessed it frigging 'babies'!.. I very rarely use
>>> profanities in front of my wife, but I was so pissed off today when
>>> voicing my disgust that I couldn't help it!
>>
>>
>> If you're complaining about speech radio being too low-brow, why
>> don't you listen to Radio 4?
>>
>>
>
> I'm not complaining about it being too low-brow, but I do like
> phone-ins because I'm interested in other people's views about what's
> going on in the world, it's just the banal topics that the presenters
> appear to want to discuss.
> Being a bit of an insomniac at 5.30am I usually manage to catch 'Wake
> up to money' but even 5 minutes of that is taken up with sport, I
> then switch over to radio four's 'Today' programme only to find that
> more than likely they're discussing sport.
> All I'm really asking for is something along the lines of radio five
> which discusses serious world topics and is a virtually sports free
> zone, in effect a serious talk radio station that caters for the
> 'millions' of people in this country who don't give a ff about sport.


As Scott has said, although he removed the cross-posting to other groups, 
why don't you try listening to LBC via the Internet?

And if you don't like that, there are thousands of speech-based Internet 
radio stations. I'd imagine you would be able to find at least one that you 
like.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> Ivan wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message
>> news:JeJUj.999$KQ4.584@newsfe10.ams2...
>>> Ivan wrote:
>>>> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>>>> news:fvugot$i2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>>>>> multiplex licence last year?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> God it can't come quickly enough!.. Tuesday morning I was driving
>>>> down to Exeter, I switched on Five live to hear a female voice
>>>> saying "In the first few months of pregnancy blah blah"  I then
>>>> hurriedly turned over to Talk Sport only to be confronted with
>>>> Polly Parrot screeching something along the lines of "will walk all
>>>> over 'em mate" the conversation blabbed on for what appeared to be
>>>> an eternity on the topic of football, until I got so fed Up that I
>>>> switched off. Turned on Five this morning only to hear VD once
>>>> again rattling on
>>>> about.. you guessed it frigging 'babies'!.. I very rarely use
>>>> profanities in front of my wife, but I was so pissed off today when
>>>> voicing my disgust that I couldn't help it!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you're complaining about speech radio being too low-brow, why
>>> don't you listen to Radio 4?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm not complaining about it being too low-brow, but I do like
>> phone-ins because I'm interested in other people's views about what's
>> going on in the world, it's just the banal topics that the presenters
>> appear to want to discuss.
>> Being a bit of an insomniac at 5.30am I usually manage to catch 'Wake
>> up to money' but even 5 minutes of that is taken up with sport, I
>> then switch over to radio four's 'Today' programme only to find that
>> more than likely they're discussing sport.
>> All I'm really asking for is something along the lines of radio five
>> which discusses serious world topics and is a virtually sports free
>> zone, in effect a serious talk radio station that caters for the
>> 'millions' of people in this country who don't give a ff about sport.
> 
> 
> As Scott has said, although he removed the cross-posting to other
> groups, why don't you try listening to LBC via the Internet?
> 
> And if you don't like that, there are thousands of speech-based
> Internet radio stations. I'd imagine you would be able to find at
> least one that you like.

I do listen to LBC... on DAB!  :0)

In article , Ivan
<ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> scribeth thus
>
>"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message 
>news:JeJUj.999$KQ4.584@newsfe10.ams2...
>> Ivan wrote:
>>> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>>> news:fvugot$i2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>>>> multiplex licence last year?
>>>>
>>>
>>> God it can't come quickly enough!.. Tuesday morning I was driving
>>> down to Exeter, I switched on Five live to hear a female voice saying
>>> "In the first few months of pregnancy blah blah"  I then hurriedly
>>> turned over to Talk Sport only to be confronted with Polly Parrot
>>> screeching something along the lines of "will walk all over 'em mate"
>>> the conversation blabbed on for what appeared to be an eternity on
>>> the topic of football, until I got so fed Up that I switched off.
>>>
>>> Turned on Five this morning only to hear VD once again rattling on
>>> about.. you guessed it frigging 'babies'!.. I very rarely use
>>> profanities in front of my wife, but I was so pissed off today when
>>> voicing my disgust that I couldn't help it!
>>
>>
>> If you're complaining about speech radio being too low-brow, why don't you 
>> listen to Radio 4?
>>
>>
>
>I'm not complaining about it being too low-brow, but I do like phone-ins 
>because I'm interested in other people's views about what's going on in the 
>world, it's just the banal topics that the presenters appear to want to 
>discuss.
>Being a bit of an insomniac at 5.30am I usually manage to catch 'Wake up to 
>money' but even 5 minutes of that is taken up with sport, I then switch over 
>to radio four's 'Today' programme only to find that more than likely they're 
>discussing sport.
>All I'm really asking for is something along the lines of radio five which 
>discusses serious world topics and is a virtually sports free zone, in 
>effect a serious talk radio station that caters for the 'millions' of people 
>in this country who don't give a ff about sport.
>
>> -- 
>
>
Ah, people don't want to talk about serious matters as their usually
rather depressing;!..

Sport is far more Fun !..thats what Joe Public wants Fun, not something
to make him miserable;!
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article <j9JUj.997$KQ4.452@newsfe10.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than FM
<dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>Commander Gideon wrote:
>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>> multiplex licence last year?
>
>
>It's been reported that it won't be launching for a couple of years.
>
>
Suppose they've got to save up for it;!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On 9 May, 12:32, tony sayer  wrote:
> Sport is far more Fun !..thats what Joe Public wants Fun, not something
> to make him miserable;!

If only TalkSport did talk about sports other than football (with the
occasional nod to cricket and golf). Someone should do them under the
trades discriptions act and also for just offending public decency by
hiring George Galloway as nighttime presenter at the weekends.

B2003

On 9 May, 12:33, tony sayer  wrote:
> In article <j9JUj.997$KQ4....@newsfe10.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than FM
> <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus>Commander Gideon wrote:
> >> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
> >> multiplex licence last year?
>
> >It's been reported that it won't be launching for a couple of years.
>
> Suppose they've got to save up for it;!...

The spectre of OneWord probably still lingers at C4 HQ. If they do
launch it I hope they call it something a bit more imaginative than
Talk Radio. Besides, that was the original name of TalkSport - why
would they want a hand-me-down name for a new station?

B2003

I listen to 2GB Sydney with Ray Hadley, real Aussie talkback. Roll on
internet HSDPA car radios I say, can be done now of course in a Heath
Robinson kind of way with a laptop and 3G internet connection with a
dongle or your Nokia mobile with a USB lead etc

In article <9d082722-7fc0-454c-af8c-2f619f3f9ccb@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.
com>, DRM-Fan  scribeth thus
>I listen to 2GB Sydney with Ray Hadley, real Aussie talkback. Roll on
>internet HSDPA car radios I say, can be done now of course in a Heath
>Robinson kind of way with a laptop and 3G internet connection with a
>dongle or your Nokia mobile with a USB lead etc

Yes can be;!...

Don't go for stations over 64K ..

Make sure your in town not more than 100's of metres from a base
station..

And even then prepare for the odd occasions where a bit of silence
intrudes;)(.....
-- 
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
> In article
> <9d082722-7fc0-454c-af8c-2f619f3f9ccb@2g2000hsn.googlegroups. com>,
> DRM-Fan  scribeth thus
>> I listen to 2GB Sydney with Ray Hadley, real Aussie talkback. Roll on
>> internet HSDPA car radios I say, can be done now of course in a Heath
>> Robinson kind of way with a laptop and 3G internet connection with a
>> dongle or your Nokia mobile with a USB lead etc
>
> Yes can be;!...
>
> Don't go for stations over 64K ..
>
> Make sure your in town not more than 100's of metres from a base
> station..
>
> And even then prepare for the odd occasions where a bit of silence
> intrudes;)(.....


Could you give more details about your experiments, please?

You said you were experiementing with a 3G modem and laptop. Was it using 
W-CDMA (i.e. normal 3G) or HSDPA?

Which media player were you using on your laptop?

What were the buffer settings in the media player?

Which stations did you try at 64 kbps?

Which stations did you try at bit rates greater than 64 kbps that made you 
draw the conclusion that higher bit rates don't work?

Did you check that the stations you listened to had a reliable stream by 
listening via a wired broadband connection?

Were you in a high, medium or low signal strength area for 3G/HSDPA?


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> Commander Gideon wrote:
>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>> multiplex licence last year?
> 
> 
> It's been reported that it won't be launching for a couple of years.
> 
> 
If they launch it at all.

However I thought I heard that C4 were talking to DigitalOne about the 
possibility of launching some of their new stations on the DigitalOne 
network instead. That would C4 save money, by not having to set up their 
own MUX while also helping DigitalOne out of their current hole.

Richard E.

Richard Evans wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> Commander Gideon wrote:
>>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>>> multiplex licence last year?
>>
>>
>> It's been reported that it won't be launching for a couple of years.
>>
>>
> If they launch it at all.
> 
> However I thought I heard that C4 were talking to DigitalOne about the 
> possibility of launching some of their new stations on the DigitalOne 
> network instead. That would C4 save money, by not having to set up their 
> own MUX while also helping DigitalOne out of their current hole.

Yes, they are talking indeed. Would be a smart thing. And then use the 
new multiplex to launch DAB+ and switch the old one a few years later.

gr, hwh

In article <8EeVj.2057$Nk5.1220@newsfe15.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than FM
<dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article
>> <9d082722-7fc0-454c-af8c-2f619f3f9ccb@2g2000hsn.googlegroups. com>,
>> DRM-Fan  scribeth thus
>>> I listen to 2GB Sydney with Ray Hadley, real Aussie talkback. Roll on
>>> internet HSDPA car radios I say, can be done now of course in a Heath
>>> Robinson kind of way with a laptop and 3G internet connection with a
>>> dongle or your Nokia mobile with a USB lead etc
>>
>> Yes can be;!...
>>
>> Don't go for stations over 64K ..
>>
>> Make sure your in town not more than 100's of metres from a base
>> station..
>>
>> And even then prepare for the odd occasions where a bit of silence
>> intrudes;)(.....
>
>
>Could you give more details about your experiments, please?

A Vodafone 3 G modem as they are promoting at the moment..

Might have to copy/paste this..

http://online.vodafone.co.uk/dispatch/Portal/appmanager/vodafone/wrp?_nf
pb=true&_pageLabel=template04&pageID=MB_0001

>
>You said you were experiementing with a 3G modem and laptop. Was it using 
>W-CDMA (i.e. normal 3G) or HSDPA?

AFAIK Normal 3G

>
>Which media player were you using on your laptop?
>
Windows media player and Winamp..

>What were the buffer settings in the media player?
>

Pass on that .. whatever they have as standard..around 15 to 20
seconds?..

>Which stations did you try at 64 kbps?

A few that were listed in Winamp, plus Radio Jackie from London..
>
>Which stations did you try at bit rates greater than 64 kbps that made you 
>draw the conclusion that higher bit rates don't work?


Again a few in the lists in Winamp, they seemed to drop out a lot unless
you were near a base station..


>Did you check that the stations you listened to had a reliable stream by 
>listening via a wired broadband connection?

Nope but I can't suppose that all of them were bad!..

>
>Were you in a high, medium or low signal strength area for 3G/HSDPA?

Well this was in and around Cambridge England which is supposed
according to Vodafone to be covered by their 3 G services..


>
>

-- 
Tony Sayer

In article <NumVj.2090$Nk5.165@newsfe15.ams2>, Richard Evans <R.P.Evans.
NoSpam@NTLWorld.com> scribeth thus
>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> Commander Gideon wrote:
>>> Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new
>>> multiplex licence last year?
>> 
>> 
>> It's been reported that it won't be launching for a couple of years.
>> 
>> 
>If they launch it at all.
>
>However I thought I heard that C4 were talking to DigitalOne about the 
>possibility of launching some of their new stations on the DigitalOne 
>network instead. That would C4 save money, by not having to set up their 
>own MUX while also helping DigitalOne out of their current hole.
>
>Richard E.

Begs the question that if GCap couldn't make a go of it why should
channel; 4 be able?..

And of course the numbers of Cars fitted with DAB are well.. almost non
existent!..
-- 
Tony Sayer

hwh wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:

>>
>> However I thought I heard that C4 were talking to DigitalOne about the 
>> possibility of launching some of their new stations on the DigitalOne 
>> network instead. That would C4 save money, by not having to set up 
>> their own MUX while also helping DigitalOne out of their current hole.
> 
> Yes, they are talking indeed. Would be a smart thing. And then use the 
> new multiplex to launch DAB+ and switch the old one a few years later.
> 
> gr, hwh

I was thinking the same thing. However now I tend to think that if they 
did launch using a new system, they might as well go for the new DVB-H2 
standard, which should be out by then.

If they are a bit short of stations to fill it up, then they could use 
QPSK with a high level of error correction. This would make the signal 
so robust, that they would be able to manage with fewer TX sites 
(probably a lot fewer), and so get a network up and running for a lot 
less money than they could with DAB/DAB+.

Or in the unlikely event that they have lots of services to put on the 
new mux, they could build a network similar to the one they would need 
for DAB, but use QAM16 or perhaps even QAM64, to carry far more services 
than would be possible with DAB/DAB+.

Richard E.

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <8EeVj.2057$Nk5.1220@newsfe15.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
> FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>> tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <9d082722-7fc0-454c-af8c-2f619f3f9ccb@2g2000hsn.googlegroups. com>,
>>> DRM-Fan  scribeth thus
>>>> I listen to 2GB Sydney with Ray Hadley, real Aussie talkback. Roll
>>>> on internet HSDPA car radios I say, can be done now of course in a
>>>> Heath Robinson kind of way with a laptop and 3G internet
>>>> connection with a dongle or your Nokia mobile with a USB lead etc
>>>
>>> Yes can be;!...
>>>
>>> Don't go for stations over 64K ..
>>>
>>> Make sure your in town not more than 100's of metres from a base
>>> station..
>>>
>>> And even then prepare for the odd occasions where a bit of silence
>>> intrudes;)(.....
>>
>>
>> Could you give more details about your experiments, please?
>
> A Vodafone 3 G modem as they are promoting at the moment..
>
> Might have to copy/paste this..
>
> http://online.vodafone.co.uk/dispatch/Portal/appmanager/vodafone/wrp?_nf
> pb=true&_pageLabel=template04&pageID=MB_0001


That's HSDPA then - 3.5G.


>> You said you were experiementing with a 3G modem and laptop. Was it
>> using W-CDMA (i.e. normal 3G) or HSDPA?
>
> AFAIK Normal 3G
>
>>
>> Which media player were you using on your laptop?
>>
> Windows media player and Winamp..
>
>> What were the buffer settings in the media player?
>>
>
> Pass on that .. whatever they have as standard..around 15 to 20
> seconds?..


I suggest you try increasing the buffer size then, because what's 
appropriate for wired Internet isn't appropriate for the mobile Internet.


>> Which stations did you try at 64 kbps?
>
> A few that were listed in Winamp, plus Radio Jackie from London..
>>
>> Which stations did you try at bit rates greater than 64 kbps that
>> made you draw the conclusion that higher bit rates don't work?
>
>
> Again a few in the lists in Winamp, they seemed to drop out a lot
> unless you were near a base station..
>
>
>> Did you check that the stations you listened to had a reliable
>> stream by listening via a wired broadband connection?
>
> Nope but I can't suppose that all of them were bad!..
>
>>
>> Were you in a high, medium or low signal strength area for 3G/HSDPA?
>
> Well this was in and around Cambridge England which is supposed
> according to Vodafone to be covered by their 3 G services..


Cambridge is hardly the most densely populated area of the UK, though, so 
it's not as likely to have strong 3G coverage as the bigger cities have. At 
the end of the day, 3G is still being rolled out, and networks are rolled 
out first to the places where they can cover the most people, because that's 
the most cost effective way of doing things.

Also, writing off streaming via mobile broadband, which you seem to be 
doing, is ignoring the new mobile technologies that are in the pipeline, all 
of which will use MIMO, which inherently provides far more robust reception 
quality than current systems that are using single antennas at both the 
transmitter and the receiver.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

In article <q6BVj.67970$%n2.37390@newsfe12.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <8EeVj.2057$Nk5.1220@newsfe15.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
>> FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <9d082722-7fc0-454c-af8c-2f619f3f9ccb@2g2000hsn.googlegroups. com>,
>>>> DRM-Fan  scribeth thus
>>>>> I listen to 2GB Sydney with Ray Hadley, real Aussie talkback. Roll
>>>>> on internet HSDPA car radios I say, can be done now of course in a
>>>>> Heath Robinson kind of way with a laptop and 3G internet
>>>>> connection with a dongle or your Nokia mobile with a USB lead etc
>>>>
>>>> Yes can be;!...
>>>>
>>>> Don't go for stations over 64K ..
>>>>
>>>> Make sure your in town not more than 100's of metres from a base
>>>> station..
>>>>
>>>> And even then prepare for the odd occasions where a bit of silence
>>>> intrudes;)(.....
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you give more details about your experiments, please?
>>
>> A Vodafone 3 G modem as they are promoting at the moment..
>>
>> Might have to copy/paste this..
>>
>> http://online.vodafone.co.uk/dispatch/Portal/appmanager/vodafone/wrp?_nf
>> pb=true&_pageLabel=template04&pageID=MB_0001
>
>
>That's HSDPA then - 3.5G.

Well its lightning Fast, the best download we got was around 300 K
Bits!..

>
>
>>> You said you were experiementing with a 3G modem and laptop. Was it
>>> using W-CDMA (i.e. normal 3G) or HSDPA?
>>
>> AFAIK Normal 3G
>>
>>>
>>> Which media player were you using on your laptop?
>>>
>> Windows media player and Winamp..
>>
>>> What were the buffer settings in the media player?
>>>
>>
>> Pass on that .. whatever they have as standard..around 15 to 20
>> seconds?..
>
>
>I suggest you try increasing the buffer size then, because what's 
>appropriate for wired Internet isn't appropriate for the mobile Internet.
>

What dost thou suggest?..

>
>>> Which stations did you try at 64 kbps?
>>
>> A few that were listed in Winamp, plus Radio Jackie from London..
>>>
>>> Which stations did you try at bit rates greater than 64 kbps that
>>> made you draw the conclusion that higher bit rates don't work?
>>
>>
>> Again a few in the lists in Winamp, they seemed to drop out a lot
>> unless you were near a base station..
>>
>>
>>> Did you check that the stations you listened to had a reliable
>>> stream by listening via a wired broadband connection?
>>
>> Nope but I can't suppose that all of them were bad!..
>>
>>>
>>> Were you in a high, medium or low signal strength area for 3G/HSDPA?
>>
>> Well this was in and around Cambridge England which is supposed
>> according to Vodafone to be covered by their 3 G services..
>
>
>Cambridge is hardly the most densely populated area of the UK, though, so 
>it's not as likely to have strong 3G coverage as the bigger cities have. 

Well its supposedly covered according to the Voodofone website...

>At 
>the end of the day, 3G is still being rolled out, and networks are rolled 
>out first to the places where they can cover the most people, because that's 
>the most cost effective way of doing things.

Indeed .. so the people of bits of Suffolk and Narfolke haven't much
chance. In some locations 2G signals are almost none existent!..

>
>Also, writing off streaming via mobile broadband, 

I'm not writing it off, just telling you of my current experiences thus
far!..

A presenter at a local radio station was telling me the other day his
experiences with a modem on the 3 network were much the same..

>which you seem to be 
>doing, is ignoring the new mobile technologies that are in the pipeline, all 
>of which will use MIMO, which inherently provides far more robust reception 
>quality than current systems that are using single antennas at both the 
>transmitter and the receiver.
>
>

Isn't this a capacity issue as such not a "transmission and reception"
one?..
-- 
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <q6BVj.67970$%n2.37390@newsfe12.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
> than FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus

>> That's HSDPA then - 3.5G.
>
> Well its lightning Fast, the best download we got was around 300 K
> Bits!..


I've heard of people getting a lot faster than that, so that suggests it's a 
capacity issue - or in other words, they haven't rolled out 3G enough there 
yet.


>>>> You said you were experiementing with a 3G modem and laptop. Was it
>>>> using W-CDMA (i.e. normal 3G) or HSDPA?
>>>
>>> AFAIK Normal 3G
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which media player were you using on your laptop?
>>>>
>>> Windows media player and Winamp..
>>>
>>>> What were the buffer settings in the media player?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pass on that .. whatever they have as standard..around 15 to 20
>>> seconds?..
>>
>>
>> I suggest you try increasing the buffer size then, because what's
>> appropriate for wired Internet isn't appropriate for the mobile
>> Internet.
>>
>
> What dost thou suggest?..


In Winamp, go to Options > Preferences > Plug-ins > Input. Then double click 
on Nullsoft MPEG Audio Decoder (in_mp3.dll). Go to the Streaming tab and 
increase the Streaming Data Biffer size in KB, and put the top Streaming 
Prebuffer slider to 100%.

Just experiement with the Streaming Data Buffer Size value. You're trading 
off the time that it takes for the stream to start playing against the 
robustness of the stream, so if you put a ridiculously high value in, the 
stream would basically never buffer, unless there's a serious problem with 
the stream itself, but it would take an age to start playing. It's just 
trial and error to see which are the best settings.

Also, the fact that you said you were having problems with streams using bit 
rates higher than 64 kbps also suggests that your buffer size was too small, 
because the higher the bit rate of the stream the larger the buffer needs to 
be for it to hold X seconds' worth of audio - a 128k stream would need a 
buffer size twice as big as a 64k stream would need to hold X seconds' worth 
of audio.


>> which you seem to be
>> doing, is ignoring the new mobile technologies that are in the
>> pipeline, all of which will use MIMO, which inherently provides far
>> more robust reception quality than current systems that are using
>> single antennas at both the transmitter and the receiver.
>>
>>
>
> Isn't this a capacity issue as such not a "transmission and reception"
> one?..


The two things are inextricably linked with mobile phone systems, because if 
an extra base station is added it both provides better coverage and it 
provides greater capacity.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

In article <6TCVj.5653$JK4.4101@newsfe30.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than FM
<dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <q6BVj.67970$%n2.37390@newsfe12.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
>> than FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>
>>> That's HSDPA then - 3.5G.
>>
>> Well its lightning Fast, the best download we got was around 300 K
>> Bits!..
>
>
>I've heard of people getting a lot faster than that, so that suggests it's a 
>capacity issue - or in other words, they haven't rolled out 3G enough there 
>yet.

Well it sez it is and those tests were conducted some 500 metres or less
from the main base sites around here.

Perhaps their might be more to come?..
>
>
>>>>> You said you were experiementing with a 3G modem and laptop. Was it
>>>>> using W-CDMA (i.e. normal 3G) or HSDPA?
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK Normal 3G
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which media player were you using on your laptop?
>>>>>
>>>> Windows media player and Winamp..
>>>>
>>>>> What were the buffer settings in the media player?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pass on that .. whatever they have as standard..around 15 to 20
>>>> seconds?..
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest you try increasing the buffer size then, because what's
>>> appropriate for wired Internet isn't appropriate for the mobile
>>> Internet.
>>>
>>
>> What dost thou suggest?..
>
>
>In Winamp, go to Options > Preferences > Plug-ins > Input. Then double click 
>on Nullsoft MPEG Audio Decoder (in_mp3.dll). Go to the Streaming tab and 
>increase the Streaming Data Biffer size in KB, and put the top Streaming 
>Prebuffer slider to 100%.
>
>Just experiement with the Streaming Data Buffer Size value. You're trading 
>off the time that it takes for the stream to start playing against the 
>robustness of the stream, so if you put a ridiculously high value in, the 
>stream would basically never buffer, unless there's a serious problem with 
>the stream itself, but it would take an age to start playing. It's just 
>trial and error to see which are the best settings.

OK..

>
>Also, the fact that you said you were having problems with streams using bit 
>rates higher than 64 kbps also suggests that your buffer size was too small, 
>because the higher the bit rate of the stream the larger the buffer needs to 
>be for it to hold X seconds' worth of audio - a 128k stream would need a 
>buffer size twice as big as a 64k stream would need to hold X seconds' worth 
>of audio.
>

OK again..

I doubt I'll be listening to many 128 K and above streams capacity and
bits cost once you go over your limit it ain't cheap;!..

>
>>> which you seem to be
>>> doing, is ignoring the new mobile technologies that are in the
>>> pipeline, all of which will use MIMO, which inherently provides far
>>> more robust reception quality than current systems that are using
>>> single antennas at both the transmitter and the receiver.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Isn't this a capacity issue as such not a "transmission and reception"
>> one?..
>
>
>The two things are inextricably linked with mobile phone systems, because if 
>an extra base station is added it both provides better coverage and it 
>provides greater capacity.
>
>
And it costs the mobile Telco more and in some locations with the
pressure on sites.. mucho more!..
-- 
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <6TCVj.5653$JK4.4101@newsfe30.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
> FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>> tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <q6BVj.67970$%n2.37390@newsfe12.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
>>> than FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>
>>>> That's HSDPA then - 3.5G.
>>>
>>> Well its lightning Fast, the best download we got was around 300 K
>>> Bits!..
>>
>>
>> I've heard of people getting a lot faster than that, so that
>> suggests it's a capacity issue - or in other words, they haven't
>> rolled out 3G enough there yet.
>
> Well it sez it is and those tests were conducted some 500 metres or
> less from the main base sites around here.


That also suggests that it's a capacity issue then, because 500m away from 
the base station you should be able to get a decent signal no problem.

The fact that the max download speed you've seen is 300 kbps shows that this 
is capacity-limited anyway. Each base station has a limited capacity, which 
is based on the amount of transmission power needed, so if too many people 
are using the base station it won't be able to provide the signal robustness 
that it would if nobody was using the base station. If you re-do your 
experments at 4am, they should work okay. ;-)


> Perhaps their might be more to come?..


HSDPA has a max theoretical speed of 14 Mbps, and there's HSPA Evolved to 
come that has a max download speed of 42 Mbps, then there's 3G LTE in the 
next few years that has a max download speed of 330 Mbps, and then 4G has a 
max download speed of 5 Gbps, so it's safe to say there's a lot more to 
come.


>> Also, the fact that you said you were having problems with streams
>> using bit rates higher than 64 kbps also suggests that your buffer
>> size was too small, because the higher the bit rate of the stream
>> the larger the buffer needs to be for it to hold X seconds' worth of
>> audio - a 128k stream would need a buffer size twice as big as a 64k
>> stream would need to hold X seconds' worth of audio.
>>
>
> OK again..
>
> I doubt I'll be listening to many 128 K and above streams capacity and
> bits cost once you go over your limit it ain't cheap;!..


Mobile broadband typically costs £15 for 3 GB of data downloaded per month. 
And 3 GB is the equivalent of 56 hours of listening to 128k streams, so I 
don't think it's all that expensive.


>>>> which you seem to be
>>>> doing, is ignoring the new mobile technologies that are in the
>>>> pipeline, all of which will use MIMO, which inherently provides far
>>>> more robust reception quality than current systems that are using
>>>> single antennas at both the transmitter and the receiver.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't this a capacity issue as such not a "transmission and
>>> reception" one?..
>>
>>
>> The two things are inextricably linked with mobile phone systems,
>> because if an extra base station is added it both provides better
>> coverage and it provides greater capacity.
>>
>>
> And it costs the mobile Telco more and in some locations with the
> pressure on sites.. mucho more!..


I think I remember seeing someone say that a quarter of people are on 3G 
now, so as that figure rises you'd expect coverage to increase. There may be 
places in deepest rural Cambs. that have poor 2G coverage, but my impression 
is that 2G coverage is good these days, so you'd expect 3G coverage to 
become good as the percentage of people on 3G reaches high levels.

And as I said before, using MIMO dramatically improves the robustness of the 
signal, which translates into better range as well, and that makes it 
cheaper for the networks to provide better coverage.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Hans,

hwh schreef:
>> If they launch it at all.
>> However I thought I heard that C4 were talking to DigitalOne about the
>> possibility of launching some of their new stations on the DigitalOne
>> network instead. That would C4 save money, by not having to set up
>> their own MUX while also helping DigitalOne out of their current hole.

> Yes, they are talking indeed. Would be a smart thing. And then use the
> new multiplex to launch DAB+ and switch the old one a few years later.

OK, let's see.
You propose C4 builds and invest in a completely new multiplex, just to
broadcast the same stations which already exist on another multiplex.

Who exactly is going to pay for this? Why would a broadcaster be
interested in getting a new technology on the air which will triple the
competition, at times when FTA-broadcasting is having a difficult time
as it is.



> gr, hwh
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

> 
> hwh schreef:
> 
>> Yes, they are talking indeed. Would be a smart thing. And then use the
>> new multiplex to launch DAB+ and switch the old one a few years later.
> 
> OK, let's see.
> You propose C4 builds and invest in a completely new multiplex, just to
> broadcast the same stations which already exist on another multiplex.

Who said anything about broadcasting the same stations on the new MUX.

> 
> Who exactly is going to pay for this? Why would a broadcaster be
> interested in getting a new technology on the air which will triple the
> competition, at times when FTA-broadcasting is having a difficult time
> as it is.

As far as I'm aware their plan is to consider launching the new MUX in a 
few years time, when they hope the market will be in better shape.

I'm not saying that I think DAB will definitely be in better shape in a 
few years time, but things may be different from the situation we have 
now. There may be enough DAB+ compatible/upgradeable radios in use to 
make it viable to use DAB+ instead of DAB. In the end we'll have to wait 
and see what happens.

Richard E.

Richard,


Richard Evans schreef:
>>> Yes, they are talking indeed. Would be a smart thing. And then use the
>>> new multiplex to launch DAB+ and switch the old one a few years later.

>> OK, let's see.
>> You propose C4 builds and invest in a completely new multiplex, just to
>> broadcast the same stations which already exist on another multiplex.

> Who said anything about broadcasting the same stations on the new MUX.

Hans did.

Use the "new" (i.e. C4) multiplex for DAB+ so that the current D1 mux
can be moved from DAB to DAB+.

So what he is proposing is using the C4 mux as a way to migrate from DAB
to DAB+, which means running both services in parallel. (just as is the
case when migration from analog to digital in terrestial TV and
terrestial radio).



>> Who exactly is going to pay for this? Why would a broadcaster be
>> interested in getting a new technology on the air which will triple the
>> competition, at times when FTA-broadcasting is having a difficult time
>> as it is.

> As far as I'm aware their plan is to consider launching the new MUX in a
> few years time, when they hope the market will be in better shape.
> I'm not saying that I think DAB will definitely be in better shape in a
> few years time, but things may be different from the situation we have
> now. There may be enough DAB+ compatible/upgradeable radios in use to
> make it viable to use DAB+ instead of DAB. In the end we'll have to wait
> and see what happens.

Why do you think the problem is technology?

If you look at the offering on FTA digital radio now, it seams to me
that the issue is not a lack of spectrum.
If the situation would be that there are a large number of interesting
radio-formats out there that are just waiting for a new way to reach a
public, why are we not seeing it on the digital radio-offering.

In contrast. The situation is that the "digital only" stations on the
radio-muxes are no more then just a automated music-computers.

The problem is that FTA-radio is under pressure by all kinds of
different systems.
10 years ago, radio offered a number of services where they where the
only provider: music, national and local news and information, talk,
traffic-information, music/information aimed at particular ethnic
communities, ...

Show me one of them where it is now not in competition with some other
technology: internet-radio, digital cable and satellite-radio at home,
mp3-players and podcasting for on the move, mobile internet-services for
mobile news-delivery, TMC and TPEG for traffic-information, ...

And it only about to get worse: mobile TV (terrestial and satellite),
subscription-radio, radio from abroad via DRM and satellite-radio.

And there the evolution from dumb radios to things like iPhones, android
mobile-phone and other intelligent devices with internal storage and all
kind of alternative ways to receive and transmit information.


The only format where I see radio still has a advantage is live
sport-reporting; which will probably mean that this will be the first
thing to get "bought up" by the subscription-radio provider.




So do you think DAB+ will help?
The only thing it does is even further increase the competition.


The problem is not DAB or bitrates, the problem is the death of the
format of "unstructured stream of audio-information, interleaved by
advertisement-messages" (read: the format of commercial FTA-radio).


> Richard E.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Anyone know if DVB-H2 and DAB/DAB+ can run simultaniously on the same 
multiplex?

-- 

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

R5 was introduced as "Talk Raio", "News and Sport".

It was fantastic, freed from the R4-type shackles and could be relied
upon to be utterly flexible in regard to breaking news..

These days, breaking news has to rigidly conform to a strict schedule.

As for 'talk radio', don't make me laugh.

At the drop of a hat, information slots, traffic and weather, are
drowned by loud 'music'. All the fucking annoying trails are given the
same treatment. These useless amateurs play about 100 old sport
commentary clips every day.....accompanies by the same loud music.
Worse still, the studio often forgets? to swich off the bloody racket
when the programme resumes.

"Drive" actually had the gall to berate commercial advertisers for
having their stuff broadcast at higher levels than the programmes that
hosted them.

What price hypocrisy?

Is Auntie holding an internal competition to see who can piss-off the
punters most?

Mick.

In article <TFTVj.23839$Kq.2402@newsfe09.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than FM
<dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <6TCVj.5653$JK4.4101@newsfe30.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
>> FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>> In article <q6BVj.67970$%n2.37390@newsfe12.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
>>>> than FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>>
>>>>> That's HSDPA then - 3.5G.
>>>>
>>>> Well its lightning Fast, the best download we got was around 300 K
>>>> Bits!..
>>>
>>>
>>> I've heard of people getting a lot faster than that, so that
>>> suggests it's a capacity issue - or in other words, they haven't
>>> rolled out 3G enough there yet.
>>
>> Well it sez it is and those tests were conducted some 500 metres or
>> less from the main base sites around here.
>
>
>That also suggests that it's a capacity issue then, because 500m away from 
>the base station you should be able to get a decent signal no problem.
>
>The fact that the max download speed you've seen is 300 kbps shows that this 
>is capacity-limited anyway. Each base station has a limited capacity, which 
>is based on the amount of transmission power needed, so if too many people 
>are using the base station it won't be able to provide the signal robustness 
>that it would if nobody was using the base station. If you re-do your 
>experments at 4am, they should work okay. ;-)

Well from what I gather on another broadcast transmission forum the
results obtained seem broadly in line with what I've been
experiencing!..

Especially on the upstream...
>
>
>> Perhaps their might be more to come?..
>
>
>HSDPA has a max theoretical speed of 14 Mbps, and there's HSPA Evolved to 
>come that has a max download speed of 42 Mbps, then there's 3G LTE in the 
>next few years that has a max download speed of 330 Mbps, and then 4G has a 
>max download speed of 5 Gbps, so it's safe to say there's a lot more to 
>come.


If the markets there and people want to pay for it;)..
>
>
>>> Also, the fact that you said you were having problems with streams
>>> using bit rates higher than 64 kbps also suggests that your buffer
>>> size was too small, because the higher the bit rate of the stream
>>> the larger the buffer needs to be for it to hold X seconds' worth of
>>> audio - a 128k stream would need a buffer size twice as big as a 64k
>>> stream would need to hold X seconds' worth of audio.
>>>
>>
>> OK again..
>>
>> I doubt I'll be listening to many 128 K and above streams capacity and
>> bits cost once you go over your limit it ain't cheap;!..
>
>
>Mobile broadband typically costs £15 for 3 GB of data downloaded per month. 
>And 3 GB is the equivalent of 56 hours of listening to 128k streams, so I 
>don't think it's all that expensive.
>

;!..
>
>>>>> which you seem to be
>>>>> doing, is ignoring the new mobile technologies that are in the
>>>>> pipeline, all of which will use MIMO, which inherently provides far
>>>>> more robust reception quality than current systems that are using
>>>>> single antennas at both the transmitter and the receiver.
>>>>

Well one would hope the present pipeline would live up to
expectations;!..


>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this a capacity issue as such not a "transmission and
>>>> reception" one?..
>>>
>>>
>>> The two things are inextricably linked with mobile phone systems,
>>> because if an extra base station is added it both provides better
>>> coverage and it provides greater capacity.
>>>
>>>
>> And it costs the mobile Telco more and in some locations with the
>> pressure on sites.. mucho more!..
>
>
>I think I remember seeing someone say that a quarter of people are on 3G 
>now, so as that figure rises you'd expect coverage to increase. There may be 
>places in deepest rural Cambs. that have poor 2G coverage, but my impression 
>is that 2G coverage is good these days, so you'd expect 3G coverage to 
>become good as the percentage of people on 3G reaches high levels.
>
>And as I said before, using MIMO dramatically improves the robustness of the 
>signal, which translates into better range as well, and that makes it 
>cheaper for the networks to provide better coverage.
>
>

When is all this going to happen?..
-- 
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <TFTVj.23839$Kq.2402@newsfe09.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
> FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>> tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <6TCVj.5653$JK4.4101@newsfe30.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
>>> than FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>>> In article <q6BVj.67970$%n2.37390@newsfe12.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
>>>>> than FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>>>
>>>>>> That's HSDPA then - 3.5G.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well its lightning Fast, the best download we got was around 300 K
>>>>> Bits!..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've heard of people getting a lot faster than that, so that
>>>> suggests it's a capacity issue - or in other words, they haven't
>>>> rolled out 3G enough there yet.
>>>
>>> Well it sez it is and those tests were conducted some 500 metres or
>>> less from the main base sites around here.
>>
>>
>> That also suggests that it's a capacity issue then, because 500m
>> away from the base station you should be able to get a decent signal
>> no problem.
>>
>> The fact that the max download speed you've seen is 300 kbps shows
>> that this is capacity-limited anyway. Each base station has a
>> limited capacity, which is based on the amount of transmission power
>> needed, so if too many people are using the base station it won't be
>> able to provide the signal robustness that it would if nobody was
>> using the base station. If you re-do your experments at 4am, they
>> should work okay. ;-)
>
> Well from what I gather on another broadcast transmission forum the
> results obtained seem broadly in line with what I've been
> experiencing!..


Which broadcast transmission forum is that?

I've already said what you need to do, which is to increase the buffer size 
to see what difference it makes. I think you said you used Winamp, and its 
default buffer size is 64 KB, which is okay for the vast majority of 
Internet streams via fixed-line broadband, but it's not long enough for 
mobile broadband.


> Especially on the upstream...


I thought we were talking about Internet radio streams here?


>>> Perhaps their might be more to come?..
>>
>>
>> HSDPA has a max theoretical speed of 14 Mbps, and there's HSPA
>> Evolved to come that has a max download speed of 42 Mbps, then
>> there's 3G LTE in the next few years that has a max download speed
>> of 330 Mbps, and then 4G has a max download speed of 5 Gbps, so it's
>> safe to say there's a lot more to come.
>
>
> If the markets there and people want to pay for it;)..


Mobile broadband is booming at the moment, so now is hardly the best time to 
be making the case for people not being willing to pay for mobile broadband.


>>>>>> which you seem to be
>>>>>> doing, is ignoring the new mobile technologies that are in the
>>>>>> pipeline, all of which will use MIMO, which inherently provides
>>>>>> far more robust reception quality than current systems that are
>>>>>> using single antennas at both the transmitter and the receiver.
>>>>>
>
> Well one would hope the present pipeline would live up to
> expectations;!..


HSDPA is a big step forwards compared to where we were a year ago.


>>>>> Isn't this a capacity issue as such not a "transmission and
>>>>> reception" one?..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The two things are inextricably linked with mobile phone systems,
>>>> because if an extra base station is added it both provides better
>>>> coverage and it provides greater capacity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And it costs the mobile Telco more and in some locations with the
>>> pressure on sites.. mucho more!..
>>
>>
>> I think I remember seeing someone say that a quarter of people are
>> on 3G now, so as that figure rises you'd expect coverage to
>> increase. There may be places in deepest rural Cambs. that have poor
>> 2G coverage, but my impression is that 2G coverage is good these
>> days, so you'd expect 3G coverage to become good as the percentage
>> of people on 3G reaches high levels.
>>
>> And as I said before, using MIMO dramatically improves the
>> robustness of the signal, which translates into better range as
>> well, and that makes it cheaper for the networks to provide better
>> coverage.
>>
>>
>
> When is all this going to happen?..


HSPA Evolved is supposed to start beign rolled out later this year, and 
that'll be the first mobile phone system to use MIMO. When we start using it 
will depend on how long it takes to roll it out across the country, because 
MIMO obviously needs 2 transmitters (or more) instead of 1, so it requires 
more than a simple software update to the base stations.

Anyway, I'm more interested in the effect of the buffer size on Internet 
radio streams than the current state of the 3G network.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
> Anyone know if DVB-H2 and DAB/DAB+ can run simultaniously on the same
> multiplex?


DVB-H2 and DAB/DAB+ use completely different transmission schemes, so no, 
they can't run simultaneously on the same mux, it has to be one or the 
other.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

In article <H3bWj.1$Pp2.0@newsfe10.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than FM
<dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <TFTVj.23839$Kq.2402@newsfe09.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
>> FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>> In article <6TCVj.5653$JK4.4101@newsfe30.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
>>>> than FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>> In article <q6BVj.67970$%n2.37390@newsfe12.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
>>>>>> than FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's HSDPA then - 3.5G.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well its lightning Fast, the best download we got was around 300 K
>>>>>> Bits!..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard of people getting a lot faster than that, so that
>>>>> suggests it's a capacity issue - or in other words, they haven't
>>>>> rolled out 3G enough there yet.
>>>>
>>>> Well it sez it is and those tests were conducted some 500 metres or
>>>> less from the main base sites around here.
>>>
>>>
>>> That also suggests that it's a capacity issue then, because 500m
>>> away from the base station you should be able to get a decent signal
>>> no problem.
>>>
>>> The fact that the max download speed you've seen is 300 kbps shows
>>> that this is capacity-limited anyway. Each base station has a
>>> limited capacity, which is based on the amount of transmission power
>>> needed, so if too many people are using the base station it won't be
>>> able to provide the signal robustness that it would if nobody was
>>> using the base station. If you re-do your experments at 4am, they
>>> should work okay. ;-)
>>
>> Well from what I gather on another broadcast transmission forum the
>> results obtained seem broadly in line with what I've been
>> experiencing!..
>
>
>Which broadcast transmission forum is that?

The tx list .. mainly a collection of people involved in broadcast
transmission. Some have been attempting to use 3 G modems for outside
broadcast purposes with mixed results the overwhelming one of which is
dropouts and loss of connection..

>
>I've already said what you need to do, which is to increase the buffer size 
>to see what difference it makes. I think you said you used Winamp, and its 
>default buffer size is 64 KB, which is okay for the vast majority of 
>Internet streams via fixed-line broadband, but it's not long enough for 
>mobile broadband.
>
>
>> Especially on the upstream...
>
>
>I thought we were talking about Internet radio streams here?

Well sort of ... in the other direction!.
>
>
>>>> Perhaps their might be more to come?..
>>>
>>>
>>> HSDPA has a max theoretical speed of 14 Mbps, and there's HSPA
>>> Evolved to come that has a max download speed of 42 Mbps, then
>>> there's 3G LTE in the next few years that has a max download speed
>>> of 330 Mbps, and then 4G has a max download speed of 5 Gbps, so it's
>>> safe to say there's a lot more to come.
>>
>>
>> If the markets there and people want to pay for it;)..
>
>
>Mobile broadband is booming at the moment, so now is hardly the best time to 
>be making the case for people not being willing to pay for mobile broadband.

Dunno so much from what I hear from some in the sharp consumer end..
>
>
>>>>>>> which you seem to be
>>>>>>> doing, is ignoring the new mobile technologies that are in the
>>>>>>> pipeline, all of which will use MIMO, which inherently provides
>>>>>>> far more robust reception quality than current systems that are
>>>>>>> using single antennas at both the transmitter and the receiver.
>>>>>>
>>
>> Well one would hope the present pipeline would live up to
>> expectations;!..
>
>
>HSDPA is a big step forwards compared to where we were a year ago.
>
>
>>>>>> Isn't this a capacity issue as such not a "transmission and
>>>>>> reception" one?..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The two things are inextricably linked with mobile phone systems,
>>>>> because if an extra base station is added it both provides better
>>>>> coverage and it provides greater capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And it costs the mobile Telco more and in some locations with the
>>>> pressure on sites.. mucho more!..
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I remember seeing someone say that a quarter of people are
>>> on 3G now, so as that figure rises you'd expect coverage to
>>> increase. There may be places in deepest rural Cambs. that have poor
>>> 2G coverage, but my impression is that 2G coverage is good these
>>> days, so you'd expect 3G coverage to become good as the percentage
>>> of people on 3G reaches high levels.
>>>
>>> And as I said before, using MIMO dramatically improves the
>>> robustness of the signal, which translates into better range as
>>> well, and that makes it cheaper for the networks to provide better
>>> coverage.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When is all this going to happen?..
>
>
>HSPA Evolved is supposed to start beign rolled out later this year, and 
>that'll be the first mobile phone system to use MIMO. When we start using it 
>will depend on how long it takes to roll it out across the country, because 
>MIMO obviously needs 2 transmitters (or more) instead of 1, so it requires 
>more than a simple software update to the base stations.
>
>Anyway, I'm more interested in the effect of the buffer size on Internet 
>radio streams than the current state of the 3G network.
>
>
I'll have another play with it when I get a moment or two!..
-- 
Tony Sayer

Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Why do you think the problem is technology?

I think technology is a problem, because to have a DAB+ station running 
at the same quality as a DAB station requires less than half the 
bandwidth and thus less than half the transmission cost. So you can have 
the same choice at half the (transmission-) price.


> If you look at the offering on FTA digital radio now, it seams to me
> that the issue is not a lack of spectrum.
> If the situation would be that there are a large number of interesting
> radio-formats out there that are just waiting for a new way to reach a
> public, why are we not seeing it on the digital radio-offering.
> 
> In contrast. The situation is that the "digital only" stations on the
> radio-muxes are no more then just a automated music-computers.

Yes, they have to save money.

> The problem is that FTA-radio is under pressure by all kinds of
> different systems.
> 10 years ago, radio offered a number of services where they where the
> only provider: music, national and local news and information, talk,
> traffic-information, music/information aimed at particular ethnic
> communities, ...
> 
> Show me one of them where it is now not in competition with some other
> technology: internet-radio, digital cable and satellite-radio at home,
> mp3-players and podcasting for on the move, mobile internet-services for
> mobile news-delivery, TMC and TPEG for traffic-information, ...
> 
> And it only about to get worse: mobile TV (terrestial and satellite),
> subscription-radio, radio from abroad via DRM and satellite-radio.

All the more reason to keep cost down and therefore use a more efficient 
transmission system.

> And there the evolution from dumb radios to things like iPhones, android
> mobile-phone and other intelligent devices with internal storage and all
> kind of alternative ways to receive and transmit information.
> 
> 
> The only format where I see radio still has a advantage is live
> sport-reporting; which will probably mean that this will be the first
> thing to get "bought up" by the subscription-radio provider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you think DAB+ will help?
> The only thing it does is even further increase the competition.

No, it could reduce cost. Remember that you can use better error 
protection to save transmission cost per multiplex and you can save on 
the number of multiplexes. To have more stations is another option, but 
there is no evidence that the market could support those.


> The problem is not DAB or bitrates, the problem is the death of the
> format of "unstructured stream of audio-information, interleaved by
> advertisement-messages" (read: the format of commercial FTA-radio).

I don't believe so. I think the UK has more stations than the number 
that would be economically feasible. To have slightly less stations with 
lower cost could save the day.

gr, hwh

Mick Tully  wrote in news:5f3e025f-f879-4a51-
a2f5-284fbcbc86cb@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> 
> R5 was introduced as "Talk Radio", "News and Sport".
> 
> It was fantastic, freed from the R4-type shackles and could be relied
> upon to be utterly flexible in regard to breaking news..
> 
> 
> What price hypocrisy?
> 
> Is Auntie holding an internal competition to see who can piss-off the
> punters most?
> 
> Mick.
> 
> 

If you looked in a HONEST dictionary these days and looked up the meaning 
of hypocrisy, all it would need to put is BBC.
It went beyond the pale in the early 90s. 5 live wasnt bad at first, but 
then the heterosexualy-challenged types from Radio 4 got their own ways 
with R5

tony sayer  wrote in news:SuTX1TBT5gJIFwyw@bancom.co.uk:


> Begs the question that if GCap couldn't make a go of it why should
> channel; 4 be able?..
> 
> And of course the numbers of Cars fitted with DAB are well.. almost non
> existent!..

Could have something to do with the ludicrously expensive, bad reception 
tripe that DAB is.

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message 
news:K7bWj.2$Pp2.0@newsfe10.ams2...
> DVB-H2 and DAB/DAB+ use completely different transmission schemes, so no, 
> they can't run simultaneously on the same mux, it has to be one or the 
> other.

Okay, thanks for your answer.

-- 

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

Hans,

hwh schreef:
>> Why do you think the problem is technology?

> I think technology is a problem, because to have a DAB+ station running
> at the same quality as a DAB station requires less than half the
> bandwidth and thus less than half the transmission cost. So you can have
> the same choice at half the (transmission-) price.

But it's a double-edged sword, isn't it?
It may reduce the transmission-cost by (let's say) 2/3, it also triples
the competition as you can stuff three times as much stations in the
same mux; potentialy reducing your revenue by 2/3".


It only increases the problem and that is "to much competion for the few
radio-formats which are economically viable for FTA-broadcasting".


Another problem is that this all opens up all kind of other possible
enarios. Let's take this one.

A music radio-stations signs a deal with a record-company or a
concert-organisor to broadcast live music concerts over the radio.
Instead of going for 160 Kbps mp2 in "normal" DAB, DAB+ now enables them
 broadcast this in two channels: one 32 kbps mono "low quality" stream
and one 128 Kbps stereo "high quality" stream.
The low-bitrate channel is broadcast in FTA but carries ads. The 128
Kbps channel is part of a subscription-radio system and does not carry
advertisements.

That way, as they know they have a sufficient interesting radio-format
and "exclusive content", this allows them to get two different sources
of revenue.


I do not think a lot listeners would find this a very attractive future;
but I do fear this is one of the things we might see in the future.



>> If you look at the offering on FTA digital radio now, it seams to me
>> that the issue is not a lack of spectrum.
>> If the situation would be that there are a large number of interesting
>> radio-formats out there that are just waiting for a new way to reach a
>> public, why are we not seeing it on the digital radio-offering.
>> In contrast. The situation is that the "digital only" stations on the
>> radio-muxes are no more then just a automated music-computers.

> Yes, they have to save money.

So why not switch to one of the other "interesting" formats out there
that are just waiting for a slot on the airways and attract new
listeners and revenue that way?




>> The problem is that FTA-radio is under pressure by all kinds of
>> different systems.

> All the more reason to keep cost down and therefore use a more efficient
> transmission system.

I think it's already much to late for that.

There is simply no way terrestial radio broadcasting is able to compete
with satellite, cable or the internet. And using intelligent devices
with local storage; it's not not even necessairy to broadcast
music-content (among others) in real live.


It's probably much more interesting to use a DAB+ mux for
subscription-radio then just forget about the FTA-broadcasting-model;
except for things that really need a "live" feed and are provided by the
public broadcasters as part of their "public service" (read: news and
information).



>> So do you think DAB+ will help?
>> The only thing it does is even further increase the competition.

> No, it could reduce cost. Remember that you can use better error
> protection to save transmission cost per multiplex and you can save on
> the number of multiplexes. To have more stations is another option, but
> there is no evidence that the market could support those.

Except when the space is used for other purposes: subscription-radio,
mobile podcasting, datacasting, mobile TV, ...


Let's take another application:

Most public broadcasters nowdays have a very extensive website with
news, information, videos, audio-fragments, ...

So, with more and more receiver-devices turning into small
internet-computers; why not datacast these websites onto these devices
using a MOT datacarrousel so that this information is available "on the
fly" without the need to use some internet-connection?

It would also act as "emergency information system" in case of special
disasters; when something serious goes on; and all telecom-systems
cluthers because everybody races to his internet-connection to get the
news. (as we have seen in certain events, e.g. just after the London
bus-bombing).

This has been an idea that the public broadcasters have been thinking of
for long time; but with the intelligent devices now; this does become a
possibility.



This is just one example; but I do expect with -FTA-broadcasting under
pressure- systems, we will see other networks and applications aiming to
use the advantages of a terrestial network for completely others things
then FTA-broadcasting; like this one, or subscription-radio system for a
large urban center.


>> The problem is not DAB or bitrates, the problem is the death of the
>> format of "unstructured stream of audio-information, interleaved by
>> advertisement-messages" (read: the format of commercial FTA-radio).

> I don't believe so. I think the UK has more stations than the number
> that would be economically feasible. To have slightly less stations with
> lower cost could save the day.

Well, I have my doubts. We will see.


In the end; I do am happy there still is something called "public
broadcasters" as this will probably be the best garantee against
FTA-broadcasting going down the drain completely.



> gr, hwh
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> But it's a double-edged sword, isn't it?
> It may reduce the transmission-cost by (let's say) 2/3, it also triples
> the competition as you can stuff three times as much stations in the
> same mux; potentialy reducing your revenue by 2/3".
> 
> 
> It only increases the problem and that is "to much competion for the few
> radio-formats which are economically viable for FTA-broadcasting".

No. You simply do not put more stations on but improve reception and 
quality while reducing transmission costs.

> Another problem is that this all opens up all kind of other possible
> enarios. Let's take this one.
> 
> A music radio-stations signs a deal with a record-company or a
> concert-organisor to broadcast live music concerts over the radio.
> Instead of going for 160 Kbps mp2 in "normal" DAB, DAB+ now enables them
>  broadcast this in two channels: one 32 kbps mono "low quality" stream
> and one 128 Kbps stereo "high quality" stream.
> The low-bitrate channel is broadcast in FTA but carries ads. The 128
> Kbps channel is part of a subscription-radio system and does not carry
> advertisements.
> 
> That way, as they know they have a sufficient interesting radio-format
> and "exclusive content", this allows them to get two different sources
> of revenue.
> 
> 
> I do not think a lot listeners would find this a very attractive future;
> but I do fear this is one of the things we might see in the future.

If there is a market, why not? Only it should not increase transmission 
costs for other broadcasters.

>>> If you look at the offering on FTA digital radio now, it seams to me
>>> that the issue is not a lack of spectrum.
>>> If the situation would be that there are a large number of interesting
>>> radio-formats out there that are just waiting for a new way to reach a
>>> public, why are we not seeing it on the digital radio-offering.
>>> In contrast. The situation is that the "digital only" stations on the
>>> radio-muxes are no more then just a automated music-computers.
> 
>> Yes, they have to save money.
> 
> So why not switch to one of the other "interesting" formats out there
> that are just waiting for a slot on the airways and attract new
> listeners and revenue that way?

Because those formats do not attract sufficient numbers of listeners to 
pay for themselves?


>>> So do you think DAB+ will help?
>>> The only thing it does is even further increase the competition.
> 
>> No, it could reduce cost. Remember that you can use better error
>> protection to save transmission cost per multiplex and you can save on
>> the number of multiplexes. To have more stations is another option, but
>> there is no evidence that the market could support those.
> 
> Except when the space is used for other purposes: subscription-radio,
> mobile podcasting, datacasting, mobile TV, ...

You could do that on DVB-H, or anywhere else.

> Let's take another application:
> 
> Most public broadcasters nowdays have a very extensive website with
> news, information, videos, audio-fragments, ...
> 
> So, with more and more receiver-devices turning into small
> internet-computers; why not datacast these websites onto these devices
> using a MOT datacarrousel so that this information is available "on the
> fly" without the need to use some internet-connection?

You could do that, but this would only be a viable option for pubcasters.

> It would also act as "emergency information system" in case of special
> disasters; when something serious goes on; and all telecom-systems
> cluthers because everybody races to his internet-connection to get the
> news. (as we have seen in certain events, e.g. just after the London
> bus-bombing).
> 
> This has been an idea that the public broadcasters have been thinking of
> for long time; but with the intelligent devices now; this does become a
> possibility.

Sending SMS-es could be done right now to devices that almost everyone 
has in their pockets!

> This is just one example; but I do expect with -FTA-broadcasting under
> pressure- systems, we will see other networks and applications aiming to
> use the advantages of a terrestial network for completely others things
> then FTA-broadcasting; like this one, or subscription-radio system for a
> large urban center.

Therefore open radio as we know it now should be protected against other 
media.

>> I don't believe so. I think the UK has more stations than the number
>> that would be economically feasible. To have slightly less stations with
>> lower cost could save the day.
> 
> Well, I have my doubts. We will see.
> 
> 
> In the end; I do am happy there still is something called "public
> broadcasters" as this will probably be the best garantee against
> FTA-broadcasting going down the drain completely.

I'm not so sure. Public broadcasters tend to abuse their exclusive 
rights to the best frequencies and, compared to private operators, large 
budgets to promote political issues. This is a danger that should always 
be kept under control by having private competition.

gr, hwh

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

> 
> Why do you think the problem is technology?
I don't think that technology is necessarily the only problem, but it is 
probably the biggest problem. The old DAB system makes it expensive to 
broadcast even at low quality, and far too expensive to broadcast using 
good sound quality let alone high sound quality.

Fixing the biggest problem wont necessarily fix everything, but it would 
at least make it possible to provide reasonable sound quality and 
reasonable coverage, at reasonable cost. I wouldn't expect every 
broadcaster to provide this, but I think it is reasonable that at least 
some would.
> 
> If you look at the offering on FTA digital radio now, it seams to me
> that the issue is not a lack of spectrum.
No DAB capacity is going unused because it is too expensive to use it.

> If the situation would be that there are a large number of interesting
> radio-formats out there that are just waiting for a new way to reach a
> public, why are we not seeing it on the digital radio-offering.
Because the DAB system makes it is too expensive  for many of these 
services to broadcast.
> 
> In contrast. The situation is that the "digital only" stations on the
> radio-muxes are no more then just a automated music-computers.
Jukebox stations? There were some jukebox stations that I liked. I used 
to listen a lot to the Grove (later renamed to Virgin Groove). They may 
not be to every bodies taste, but it can be good to hear a stations 
playing the type of music you like, without some idiot DY talking over it.

> 
> The problem is that FTA-radio is under pressure by all kinds of
> different systems.
> 10 years ago, radio offered a number of services where they where the
> only provider: music, national and local news and information, talk,
> traffic-information, music/information aimed at particular ethnic
> communities, ...
> 
> Show me one of them where it is now not in competition with some other
> technology: internet-radio, digital cable and satellite-radio at home,
> mp3-players and podcasting for on the move, mobile internet-services for
> mobile news-delivery, TMC and TPEG for traffic-information, ...

Well Ok competition from other sources such as the internet could become 
a problem, as they become cheaper and more accessible. However

First of all, if we talk about today for a moment. If we have a digital 
radio system that was not so expensive to broadcast, then it would at 
least have a chance of being a success for at least the next few years, 
until other technologies eventually take over.

In the longer term Internet radio may well become a serious competitor 
to broadcast radio. However access to the internet will probably never 
be free, especially when mobile, so there may still be a possible market 
for FTA services, but to viable they would need to keep the costs well 
down, and to do that they would need a good modern broadcast system, not 
the Dinosaur Audio Broadcasting that we have today.


> 
> And it only about to get worse: mobile TV (terrestial and satellite),
> subscription-radio, radio from abroad via DRM and satellite-radio.
> 
> And there the evolution from dumb radios to things like iPhones, android
> mobile-phone and other intelligent devices with internal storage and all
> kind of alternative ways to receive and transmit information.
> 
> 
> The only format where I see radio still has a advantage is live
> sport-reporting; which will probably mean that this will be the first
> thing to get "bought up" by the subscription-radio provider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you think DAB+ will help?
> The only thing it does is even further increase the competition.

Well that would depend upon whether they keep the same number of 
multiplexes, and use it to add more services, or use broadcast the same 
number of services using fewer multiplexes. The latter would reduce 
broadcasting costs. Although DAB+ of course is not the best system for 
reducing costs, in fact DAB+ isn't all that good really, it is simply 
not nearly as bad as DAB.
> 
> The problem is not DAB or bitrates, the problem is the death of the
> format of "unstructured stream of audio-information, interleaved by
> advertisement-messages" (read: the format of commercial FTA-radio).

Well the content offered on DAB probably hasn't helped, but then isn't 
part of the reason for poor content, lack of investment, which might be 
partly due to broadcasting costs being too high. Also perhaps because 
the big players launched services just to grab capacity, and so try to 
keep their competition of the air. DRM+ might help in this respect, 
because it would allow smaller broadcasters to provide services, without 
needing to get capacity on one of the big multiplexes.

Richard E.

On May 8, 7:50 pm, "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>
> news:fvugot$i2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > Wasn't this due to start this summer when Channel 4 won the new multiplex
> > licence last year?
>
> God it can't come quickly enough!.. Tuesday morning I was driving down to
> Exeter, I switched on Five live to hear a female voice saying "In the first
> few months of pregnancy blah blah"  I then hurriedly turned over to Talk
> Sport only to be confronted with Polly Parrot screeching something along the
> lines of "will walk all over 'em mate" the conversation blabbed on for what
> appeared to be an eternity on the topic of football, until I got so fed up
> that I switched off.
>
> Turned on Five this morning only to hear VD once again rattling on about..
> you guessed it frigging 'babies'!.. I very rarely use profanities in front
> of my wife, but I was so pissed off today when voicing my disgust that I
> couldn't help it!
>
> We're now living in a world beset by so many major looming problems.. I mean
> yesterday it was reported that oil could hit $200 a barrel by the end of the
> year, surely the impact of that would be catastrophic on our already fragile
> economies, yet all these lightweights want to talk about is football and
> changing nappies!

By coincidence I got pissed off that VD used man Utd's Champions
League Final to talk about their success, but to ask whether Alex
Ferguson should retire!

I'm a QPR fan for my sins, but I emailed:

Hi,

I'm not a United fan. I'm from west London.
Today should be a day of celebration for Alex, not an excuse to retire
him by a third-rate radio host.

Why can't you talk about something you are good at: go back to your
usual boring diet of babies' nappies.

Mick (Northolt).

On May 25, 12:25 am, Mick Tully  wrote:
> By coincidence I got pissed off that VD used man Utd's Champions
> League Final to talk about their success, but to ask whether Alex
> Ferguson should retire!
>
> I'm a QPR fan for my sins, but I emailed:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not a United fan. I'm from west London.
> Today should be a day of celebration for Alex, not an excuse to retire
> him by a third-rate radio host.
>
> Why can't you talk about something you are good at: go back to your
> usual boring diet of babies' nappies.
>
> Mick (Northolt).

Football. Who gives a sh1t? A tedious game where nothing much ever
happens watched and played by simpletons.

B2003

Richard,




Richard Evans schreef:
>> Why do you think the problem is technology?
> I don't think that technology is necessarily the only problem, but it is
> probably the biggest problem. The old DAB system makes it expensive to
> broadcast even at low quality, and far too expensive to broadcast using
> good sound quality let alone high sound quality.

To be honest, I do not think any terrestial broadcasting-technology will
be able to compete with the internet or (Ku-band) satellite or cable.

Up to some time ago, that was not a real issue as terrestial
broadcasting was the only way to provide "mobile" and "portable"
reception but that has changed to the fact that digital broadcasting is
not linked to a strickt linkage of its time of between "broadcasting"
and listening.
(with the exception of news and sports-reporting; who still are things
that need to be broadcast in "real-time").


As digital broadcasting has also removed the link between the geographic
area for transmission and listening (e.g. you can now broadcasting
"local" content on a national network or even on satellite and have the
receiver "insert" the correct localised content into the audio-stream),
this has even removed the advantage of "local content" for terrestial
broadcasting.






> Fixing the biggest problem wont necessarily fix everything, but it would
> at least make it possible to provide reasonable sound quality and
> reasonable coverage, at reasonable cost. I wouldn't expect every
> broadcaster to provide this, but I think it is reasonable that at least
> some would.

Sure, but the question is "will the economic of FTA radio-broadcasting
be able to support this, or will the "better quality" content be
reserved for subscription-radio"?



>> If you look at the offering on FTA digital radio now, it seams to me
>> that the issue is not a lack of spectrum.
> No DAB capacity is going unused because it is too expensive to use it.

>> If the situation would be that there are a large number of interesting
>> radio-formats out there that are just waiting for a new way to reach a
>> public, why are we not seeing it on the digital radio-offering.

> Because the DAB system makes it is too expensive  for many of these
> services to broadcast.

You mean "they do not generate sufficiant revenue".

Why is that? It is because "DAB is to expensive" or because you can
broadcast this kind of content much cheaper on the internet or via
podcasts rendering almost any radio-based broadcasting-technology
un-economic?




>> In contrast. The situation is that the "digital only" stations on the
>> radio-muxes are no more then just a automated music-computers.

> Jukebox stations? There were some jukebox stations that I liked. I used
> to listen a lot to the Grove (later renamed to Virgin Groove). They may
> not be to every bodies taste, but it can be good to hear a stations
> playing the type of music you like, without some idiot DY talking over it.

Well, the problem is that you can get hunderds of these stations via the
internet and on satellite; and this are also the kind of station offered
on subscription-radio.




>> The problem is that FTA-radio is under pressure by all kinds of
>> different systems.
>> 10 years ago, radio offered a number of services where they where the
>> only provider: music, national and local news and information, talk,
>> traffic-information, m