Category: dab digital radio

Categories
dab digital radio radio

The hidden value of Local Radio

Photo (CC) left_handed_male @ flickr.com

“Local Radio”. What does that mean to people? Alan Partridge on the slide? Cats stuck up trees? Jumble sales and council tax moans? Smashey, Nicey and cheesey jingles?

Local radio has a poor reputation with media (sorry, meeedijah) types, and possibly justifiably so. From a distance, the UK’s local radio stations used to seem terribly, well, raggedy. I think it must be a bizarrely British quirk to name local radio stations after rivers (Trent, Wyvern, Severn), Latin mottos (Invicta), Victorian railway companies (GWR) or most inexplicably, Anglo-Saxon kings from the 11th century (Hereward).

National radio may have “brands” and “stars”, but local radio brands are astonishingly highly regarded in their local areas, and local radio stations have local heroes. You might not have heard of Bush & Troy or Jo & Twiggy, but to the people of Bristol and Nottingham they’re as prominent as Chris Moyles or Terry Wogan, and considerably more visible.

Local radio has a hidden commercial value too. National radio might be able to attract national brand advertising, but only local radio can take both national and local revenue. The economic cycle seems to be moving back towards smaller independent businesses again; my local coffee shop (Baristas) is 150m away from Starbucks, but does fabulously well and has more character and is more welcoming. I’m writing this in the Star & Dove, a gastropub which is doing roaring trade and knocks the spots off Wetherspoons. These are businesses who can invest in local radio advertising, in the same way they can invest in Google Adwords and local classified listings.

Google loves local. They know that they can create more inventory and make advertising accessible to more businesses by segmenting their audience based on where they live. (Thus, in a strange way, copying something that local radio did 20 years ago by splitting adbreaks across transmitters).

Of course, when Google do something, it gets a funky new media (sorry, meedijah) name…

Geo-targeting

So maybe a new way to think about local radio is geo-targeted radio.

On DAB Digital Radio, both DigitalOne and Channel 4 will have single frequency networks across the UK, which sounds lovely and “national” and big. But I would suggest that as digital stations get bigger and bigger, we’ll see something unexpected happen. The really big digital radio stations, will move to the local multiplexes. And the national multiplexes will become the home of the “community of interest” (= “niche”) radio services.

The geo-targeted multiplexes (local multiplexes) will deliver more profit to national radio stations. On FM, Classic fm has to split commercials into regions because it’s simply too expensive for most advertisers to buy as a single station; by making it available in smaller units, more business comes in and it makes more money.

So what’s the future for “local radio”?

I think it’s potentially quite bright, because geo-targeting works for content as well as advertising. I’ll always have more interest in things-about-Bristol, and choosing to listen to GWR Bristol automatically defines a filter-set for content that includes national/international stuff I need to know about, and local stuff I want to know about. It’s like adding “+bristol” to a Google query.

Whether or not the structure of local content remains the same is open to more debate. OFCOM apply a fairly broad-brush approach to “locality” which is largely disconnected from economics. That tends to make “local content” seem like a chore, a cost and something to be avoided, rather than being an essential weapon in the competitive armory. It worries people to think that local content in the future might be regulated by actual demand, not specified requirements.

I’m excited about the prospects for geo-targeted radio. I’m looking forward to commercial radio brands using star-power to knock the BBC into a corner, but combining that with essential local information and local content that the BBC can’t replicate on Radio 1 or Radio 2. (Nor should be allowed to – note to BBC Trust). The existing local radio brands (that are powerful and valuable in their local areas) could be supplemented by new national commercial brands, but all providing geo-targetted content and advertising.

There’s a growing understanding that delivering a national brand on geo-targeted platforms could be more profitable than delivering a national brand on a national platform. I’m expecting a renaissance for “local broadcasting”, one where local content continues to thrive but in a different way to now, and spread across geo-targeted DAB multiplexes populated by the famous local brands we know now, and new national commercial brands yet to be developed.

Categories
dab digital radio mobile radio

DAB = WEB

mac stillness by shapeshifter @ flickr.com (cc licenced)

Emily Bell wrote an Opinion article on MediaGuardian yesterday about the implications of a successful takeover of GCap Media by Global Radio.

In it, she notes:

“Many think that Hazlitt had a point about developing DAB. If the future distribution of radio is going to be via the web, then investing in an alternative infrastructure does seem slightly risky.”

So what does it mean to say “the future distribution of radio is going to be via the web“? What is “the web“?

In my mind, “the web” is a convenient catch-all to describe “stuff you access through a web browser”, and most people think of that being on a PC. Some people are getting used to the idea of surfing the web on something other than a PC, and the iPhone / iPod Touch have moved the concept of handheld browsing into the mainstream.

But how does “the web” get to you?

Moving “the web” around requires infrastructure. The majority of “the web” moves around on cables; cables between ISPs, cables under the sea, cables to your house.

Some of “the web” moves around without cables.

There are technologies like WiFi and GPRS+EDGE and 3G and HSPDA and WiMax.

All of these technologies require substantial infrastructure investment, have significant weaknesses and most are very expensive. Somebody has to lay cables, build towers, buy spectrum.

DAB has an image problem.

People think “DAB = Radio”, which is reasonable considering it’s been promoted as a “radio” system, championed by “radio companies” and all it’s ever done is transmit radio.

DAB = mobile broadband.

Each “multiplex” is equivalent to a 1.152MBit/s broadband connection.  Admittedly it’s a one way connection, but then so is HSPDA on 3G (and that’s a dirty secret that networks don’t like to shout  about). And DAB doesn’t use IP, but using IP would simply make it less efficient by introducing irrelevant routing information.

The UK Radio industry has flooded most UK cities with about 5MBit/s of completely free, mobile, broadband.

The investment in infrastructure to make that happen has been big for the radio industry (bigger than it appears it ought to have been), but tiny compared to other technology platforms. Miniscule. That’s why it’s the only mobile broadband platform you can access completely free and on devices costing less than £15 to buy outright.

The problem is that “the radio industry” struggles to understand how to monetise content other than radio on this valuable platform. But “new media” people who do some research understand the strengths and the weaknesses of DAB. A particular strength is that’s surprisingly economic and universal, and the weakness of being a unidirectional technology can be circumvented by combining with other technologies, like 3G or WiFi or something better at bi-directional traffic.

So investing in DAB isn’t “investing in an alternative infrastructure” at all. Investing in DAB is investing in “additional infrastructure” for distributing “the web”, and it’s particularly good at delivering the demanding application of streaming radio which people expect to access universally, on the move, for free. (WiFi and 3G simply can’t provide the Quality of Service to deliver uninterrupted mobile audio streaming).

But you can also use DAB to distribute web-sites, podcasts, video clips, traffic and travel data, public transport information, weather forecasts, local event data – anything you can access on “the web” can also be distributed simultaneously to millions of people via DAB.

We should start saying “DAB = WEB“.

(Bootnote – as I gave this blog its title, I remembered that “DABWEB” was the name of the very first webhost for Core, Planet Rock, The Storm and The Mix, wayyy back in 1999).

Categories
dab digital radio mobile radio technology

nanoDAB – DAB, Bluetooth and Mobile

GSMWorld 2008

Tucked away on TTP’s little stand (1B39) was something remarkable, and genuinely revolutionary. This is “nanoDAB“.

Well, actually, it’s not nanoDAB. It’s a Lobster phone, ex of BT Movio fame. (Remember them – Mobile TV – yes? no? oh well, suit yourself). TTP designed the guts of the BT Movio device, which most owners (all five thousand or so of them) will tell you was a dreadful mobile phone with a rather marvellous DAB Digital Radio in it. It was sensitive, it was functional, and it had a very nifty little EPG.

When Movio closed down, it seemed a shame to lose the phones. So it’s great news that TTP have extracted the goodness, and squeezed it down into a great DAB radio accessory which can hook into any device via Bluetooth. Neat.

At first glance, it’s great because now you can have DAB Digital Radio on any mobile phone, and you get a free handsfree too. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Whatever. It’s a great opportunity. (Unless you have an iPhone, of course, which has a crippled Bluetooth interface. Can’t imagine why that might be).

But here’s the very special sauce of the nanoDAB.

Why are all DAB Digital Radios square wooden boxes? Because radio manufacturers understand square wooden boxes, and colour displays, embedded browsers and memory over 2Mbytes scares the living daylights out of them. So much DAB functionality is unused because of boring radios, from manufacturers who assume that consumers are boring and unable to deal with change.

But a mobile phone. Well, it’s a nirvana. Handheld, colour screen, embedded browser, pots of storage, performance microprocessors, and a real, genuine, programmable operating system. Now the nanoDAB allows DAB data services to bridge into the mobile phone, and finally you can see what DAB is to radio – it’s mobile, wireless, broadband at a fraction of the cost of 3G/UMTS/WiFi or WiMax, and it’s ours… all ours. We control the spectum, and we get it for free.

TTP were demonstrating DLS text, Slideshow, EPG and downloading audio and video files for on-demand playback, and doing so on a Nokia, a Sony Ericsson and a Motorola phone. Just pair the device, it installs the relevant Java app, and off you go.

Go find out about nanoDAB. It will be worth it. Pass the details around to colleagues who don’t get DAB because all they see is wooden box radios.

nanoDAB is the future of DAB. Good work on TTP for salvaging something genuinely useful from the wreckage of BT Movio. Let’s hope they keep the APIs nice and open so that people can freely develop exciting applications for it. (And apologies to them for adding an enhanced profile to Slideshow about two weeks before they launched it. But that’s innovation).

(P.S. I didn’t actually see the nanoDAB device. It was kept hidden around the back for cryptic reasons to do with branding).

(P.P.S.The eagle eyed will spot the juxtaposition of “Planet Rock” with Slideshow content from KISS 100 in London. Apparently, that was an in-joke).

Categories
dab digital radio radio

GCap Media and DAB Digital Radio

A necessarily short post.

There will doubtless be a great deal of coverage over the coming days of GCap’s new strategy, and the parts of it that concern GCap’s commitment to DAB Digital Radio.

Here are some facts, most of which are drawn from GCap’s statement:

  • GCap is refocusing on what makes money right now, which is FM and Broadband. GCap is disposing of two DAB Digital services, three regional FM services, and eventually an entire network of AM services, because they just don’t make money now. GCap’s investors have been calling for better financial performance since the merger of GWR and Capital in 2005, and the company is subject to a takeover bid from Global Radio.
  • No DAB transmitters are being switched off, nobody will lose any coverage they have now. DigitalOne is still on-air, and wholly owned by Arqiva, who provide the transmission infrastructure. Local DAB licences continue to be advertised and won, and Channel 4 are still committed to launching a second national multiplex. GCap’s local radio services (under the “One Network” brand) continue to be simulcast on FM and DAB. GCap will be lobbying for AM radio to be turned off.
  • GCap’s commitment to DAB infrastructure has exceeded that of the BBC’s, which is a bizarre situation when you consider the relative funding available to the two organisations. (The BBC’s funding for radio is £536m plus a share of £154m for on-line – GCap’s annual revenue is about £193m, which returns a profit of about £11m).
  • The justification for pulling back on DAB is “we do not believe that – with its current cost structure and infrastructure – [it] is an economically viable platform.” (my emphasis). The issue with DAB in the UK is the cost of the unique way in which infrastructure has been built, licenced and funded (which I have commented on in the past), not the principle of the technology.
  • GCap was the first commercial operator to invest in DAB infrastructure, between 1999 and 2002, on very long contracts. The cost of new DAB infrastructure has fallen by about 60% since then.
  • GCap is one of six big radio operators in the UK. The BBC has a 55% share of the market, GCap 12.8%, Bauer (formerly EMAP) 10.4%, Global 4.9%, GMG Radio 4.7%, UTV Radio 3.1%. All these other broadcasters continue with their DAB Digital Radio services.

Flattering as it may be, it’s an unrealistic perception that a change in GCap’s strategy can , or indeed should, dictate the success or failure of DAB Digital Radio in the UK or anywhere else.

Categories
dab digital radio technology

OFCOM’s Review of DAB Sound Quality

Like My Ears? by *Rob* at flickr

 

OFCOM’s Future of Radio consultation has come back for a part 2, following the initial findings published in November 2007. Whilst most attention has focused on the regulation applying to local content on Analogue radio, there is also a significant statement on DAB Sound Quality.

 

Sound quality is a subject that provokes ferocious sentiment in a small number of listeners, some of whom feel that DAB should have stuck to its original proposition of very high quality sound. They haven’t accepted that the success of DAB so far has been driven by the mass-market appeal created by variety of services, and so continue to look for ways to bring DAB back to the place they think it ought to be.

 

I wonder if OFCOM occasionally curse the Broadcasting Act (1996) that brought DAB to life, as it also contained a statutory requirement to regulate the “audio characteristics” of a service, a piece of legislatory meddling that was no doubt done to appease someone somewhere, but now looks increasingly anachronistic in a world of streaming over the Internet and via Digital TV where no such regulations exist.

 

Unfortunately, the statues stand (s 54(6A) and 54(6B) if you’re interested) so OFCOM isn’t in a position to allow the market to take its course as it would do anywhere else. It’s also a point of leverage that the audio connoisseurs can bring to bear.

 

At first glance, their statement that they will now regulate not just the bitrate for services, but also whether they’re in mono or stereo, is pretty heavy-handed.

 

I ‘ve always maintained that OFCOM is a pretty realistic and pragmatic regulator, so finding themselves in between the rock and the hard place, I think they’ve found a way of meeting their statutory obligations (of which they have no doubt been reminded by the lobby groups) whilst seeing a way through pragmatic requests for change.

 

Reading the justification for the decision:

 

“…our policy is intended to be a backstop to ensure that multiplex operators do not seek to unacceptably diminish the range and variety of the services that they broadcast by changing the audio characteristics of a radio service in order that freed-up capacity can be allocated to services which, in our view, would not be in the best interests of listeners. Examples of such services would be those aimed at a closed user group (i.e. not available to the general public) and where Ofcom judges this would not be in the overall public interest.” 

 

That sounds like a very clear reference to DigitalOne’s situation where the (now defunct) BT Movio Mobile TV service chewed up vast amounts of capacity, forcing radio stations like Core and Life and theJazz into mono. As we’re some way past the event now, I can say that there was quite a lot of discussion about how to fit three radio stations into space made (snugly) for two, and in the end the decision was that it was better to run two moderate and one good quality mono services, than one medium quality stereo service and two ropey mono ones. If you disagree, then aim your complaints at me.

 

If OFCOM stick to the guidance they appear to have issued themselves, then I can’t see that it will affect reasonable requests from broadcasters, and by leaving the door open for a review in 12 months time there’s an opportunity to show that the market can manage services and spectrum effectively.

 

However, the phrase “shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic” also springs to mind. The reason D1 took BT Movio’s shilling (well, I hope it was more than 5p) was that it needed to justify the costs of their network and turn a profit, and that in turn overrode the economics of the radio industry and forced a capacity squeeze and a sound quality squeeze. The underlying problem of all of this – the reason why stations have to scrimp and save on capacity and cost – is that the infrastructure as originally built in the UK is too expensive.

 

OFCOM’s Digital Working Group, and particularly the Technology team, need to look at why DAB infrastructure is so inexplicably expensive, and how it can be got into the realms of the affordability that are achievable. If OFCOM can successfully apply their regulatory weight to that problem, then it will be appreciated by both broadcasters and listeners.

Categories
dab digital radio radio

Is UK DAB Radio “like Betamax”?

Don't stop Innovation by MatthewBradley @ flickr

It’s been a busy week this week, and I’m beginning to realise just how much a good soundbite in a story can attract journalists. I’m also trying to understand why only one view of a story makes it to publication.

Today’s “DAB crisis panic panic” story (following on from the flurry regarding unsubstantiated statements from Germany on Friday) follows the publication of a report into DAB by a company called Enders. I have met Claire Enders, and have been interviewed for one of their previous reports on mobile TV. I guess their reports are as accurate as anyone else’s, but I feel they are written – how to say this politely – to be “headline friendly”.

The headline that caught the press-pack’s eye today was provided by quoting Richard Wheatley of The Local Radio Company, who said that “DAB is the Betamax of Radio”. Hello headlines, goodbye measured analysis.

I’m certainly not saying that all is well in the world of UK DAB. Indeed, I’ve been warning of the problems in my presentations and this blog for the last year or so. But let’s look at what Enders actually said, rather than the “we’re all doomed Captain Mainwaring” stuff.

What Enders have said is that we have to wake up (agree) and deal with the fact that the original 1990’s plan for DAB isn’t working (agree). The plan tried to replicate an analogue radio environment into a digital space with no reference point for costs and on far too little spectrum. It also used computer predictions of coverage which are now pretty universally discredited.

I’m not surprised that plan now looks wrong, given the huge amount of change in the industry in the last 18 years. Indeed, it’s a tribute to a lot of peoples’ visions and determination that UK DAB is an amazing success (6.5m unsubsidised receivers in the market, from scratch, with the just the UK driving it – that’s a miracle).  But we need to learn from the last 9 years on-air and make the necessary changes.

The doomsday headlines seem to be predicated on a pretty insulting assumption that the radio industry isn’t capable of changing; isn’t capable of redefining and restructuring DAB to continue that success for the next 20 years.

So let’s challenge that assumption. The radio industry is full of surprisingly passionate and able people, who have very clever and clear ideas on how DAB can be evolved to fix the niggles and problems. The Enders report identifies some key actors in the change piece – DigitalOne, OFCOM, Arqiva, Channel4. Well, yes, OK, they’re important, but alongside them, GCap Media, Global Radio, EMAP and the BBC are equally able to help find solutions.

As I’ve said before, most of the money invested in DAB Digital Radio goes into transmission, and therefore to Arqiva. If they aren’t willing/able to change their plans (originally predicated on 12 year licence periods), then we probably do have a big problem. And OFCOM will need to justify that the change is really necessary and beneficial to the radio eco-system in the UK.

There is no reason why DAB should be expensive as it is. DAB networks don’t cost substantially more than FM networks, DAB multiplexers are just PCs running software. The mystique is falling away as we get older and more confident. I’d love to see Richard Wheatley able to put more of TLRC’s radio stations on DAB, even DAB+, at costs well below being on FM. It’s achievable, but it requires change, and if the Enders report provides the necessary painful kick up the bum to do it, then lets swallow hard and take the medicine.

Categories
dab digital radio radio

A German Melodrama (Part III – Finale?)

Das Koelner Dom by vividBreeze @ flickr

More information is starting to flow about the changes proposed to DAB Digital Radio in Germany. There is a press release from WorldDMB which corroborates the information I had earlier.

With the benefit of the full picture, it appears that the KEF has taken the not unreasonable position of expecting to see some more effective use of the money invested in DAB in Germany. They’ve broken up the funding available into smaller pots; although the word “smaller” here is relative – it’s still more than the BBC spend on creating a national DAB network of 10 stations. Access to each pot of money will require proper justification and most importantly, clear objectives for the results.

It’s quite interesting to see a funding stream specifically allocated for the development of terrestrial multimedia media services; aka, Slideshow, Broadcast Website, EPG and so on. This is, in fact, fantastic news. There’s been too long a history in all DAB countries of not developing the multimedia capabilities because it’s too hard for traditional radio people to get their heads round. By putting €32m on the table, it makes many of the incredible ideas that exist in the DAB world able to become reality for once.

So it appears that DAB in Germany is far from dead, and in fact may just be waking up. It’s interesting to speculate if the original scare story was created by someone with much to lose if DAB does take off (or perhaps much to gain if DVB-H succeeds?), but they certainly got spooked by the plans of the private and public broadcasters to co-operate and organise themselves for a rebirth of DAB in 11 months time.

I wonder now how many of the apparently reputable news sources and bloggers who fell onto the original story will have the courage to publish the truer picture now it’s been revealed? (Hello, The Register…. I shall be e-mailing you again).

Categories
dab digital radio radio

A German Melodrama (Part II)

blueS by chaosinjune at flickr.com

Part II, dear reader, of the “What’s Going On With DAB In Germany” story. If you missed episode one yesterday (and can’t be bothered to scroll down), the scare story broke on Friday that “DAB was Dead in Germany”. The source of the story isn’t exactly clear, but it doesn’t appear to have been the KEF, as widely and inaccurately reported. (Disappointing that El Reg failed to publish either my comment on their story, nor reply to my e-mail to the journalist who wrote it. Facts obviously do get in the way of a good story on the net too).

So here’s what I’ve got to offer you on day two. This information is drawn from various reliable sources within the German radio industry, as opposed to from one over-excitable individual. There’s also a press release from the ARD (in German only, I’m afraid – babelfish is your friend).

Digital Radio in Germany

Various rumours have recently flooded the industry that the introduction of Digital Radio in Germany could fail.  These are based largely on the recent announcement from the KEF (Kommission zur Ermittlung des Finanzbedarfes), which is the body that decides on the licence fee for public broadcasters in Germany. On January 22nd, the KEF did not allocate the full requested 140 Mio. € to the public broadcasters for the roll out of digital radio.  In fact, it was decided that the public broadcaster ARD would receive 45 Mio. € for the roll out of digital radio and Deutschlandradio would receive 19.5 Mio. € for the same purpose.  In addition 32 Mio. € will be allocated to the public broadcasters for the roll-out of terrestrial multimedia services.  This means that a total of 97 Mio.€ has been awarded to the public broadcasters for terrestrial digital radio and multimedia services.

The criticism of the commission focused on the poor results regarding the market success achieved by the public broadcasters throughout the past few years, when the KEF allotted more than 180 Mio. € for DAB digital radio.  However, the commission missed a clear commitment of public broadcasters and a convincing plan to (re-)launch Digital Radio in Germany using the DAB family of standards.  Herbert Tillmann, chairperson of the production commission and technology commission states: “ ARD, Deutschlandradio and the Private broadcasters are committed to arranging a successful new start of digital radio in 2009.  The KEF’s recommendation should not leave behind a complete technological mess, solutions are being developed now and there is active participation of the public service broadcasters.”

The broadcasters are now required to submit a proposal to the KEF for how they will use the funds by mid 2008.  This proposal for digital radio is currently being drafted by a working group of the joint digitalisation initiative of the federal and regional governments in Germany, the so-called “Forum Digitale Medien (FDM)”. Since September 2007 this working group “radio” is installed and headed by Dr. Stephan Ory, the General Manger of the association of private radio broadcasters (APR) in Germany. This group meets every four weeks and drafted a (re-) launch plan, which will be finalized and published in the 2nd quarter 2008.

In a recent press release issued from ARD, the main barriers that previously hindered the success of DAB in Germany are stated as being overcome.  “With the successful conclusion of the international radio conference in Geneva 2006, considerably more frequencies are available for terrestrial digital radio.  In addition modern audio codecs permit even more efficient use of these frequencies….the restrictions of the transmitting power, that previously impaired in door reception have now been lifted. ”

The key points of the current proposal by the broadcasters include:

– Terrestrial distribution will be the main distribution channel for radio even in the digital world.

– The VHF-frequency range offers the most suitable conditions to achieve 100% area coverage, which is mandatory for radio distribution.

– The DAB family is the preferred technology due to offering a good compromise between multiplex size and flexibility in regards to regional and local coverage.

– The Digital Radio launch 2009 will be based on a “big bang”-scenario:

   o  At least 3 multiplexes in every region;

   o  One of these multiplexes will be nationwide, offering explicitly new and exclusive content due to the fact that despite the fact that there are two public services in Germany there are currently no nationwide radio services available on FM.

Categories
dab digital radio

A German Melodrama (Part I)

Brandenburg Gate by Wit @ flickr

There’s a large amount of noise and conflicting information emanating from Germany at the moment in the wake of an announcement by KEF, the federal body that administers the public service licencing funding in Germany.

The headline information is that the KEF have made some dramatic (indeed, melodramatic) announcements about DAB Digital Radio, some of which seem to be some distance from the reality the rest of the world is experiencing, and possibly partisan.

Rather than comment further here, I’ll just note that the outcome is far from definite, and I am informed that the various Ländesmedien are preparing to comment over the next couple of days. Once their side of the story has been stated, I’ll see if that stabilises the picture enough to say something meaningful about it.

Added to that, the right kind of restructuring and refocusing of effort around DAB in Germany might not be an altogether bad thing. It would appear that the German public service broadcasters have been generously funded to promote DAB, and the outcome has been somewhat underwhelming. In the UK we seem to have achieved a great deal more with the essential additions of wit and passion.

Categories
dab digital radio technology

A Good Day for DAB Digital Radio

Avalon balloons by DogfromSPACE @ flickr

Two reasons to feel good about DAB today.

First up, the DRDB reported another excellent Christmas for DAB Digital Radio sales, with 550,000 units sold, taking the cumulative total to 6.45m. The projections for this year put the total at over 8m come January 2009, and 30% of households using Digital Radio in some way or other.

The continued strong sales of DAB Digital Radios is all the more remarkable given that the UK retail sector generally had a lousy Christmas,  and consumer sentiment towards discretionary purchases is pretty weak. Is this a sign that DAB is now established as the primary radio device, and no longer a special purchase?

The breakdown of sales is also interesting, with MP3/DAB Digital Radio combined devices rating well. It’s surprising when you consider that there aren’t that many MP3/DAB combination devices, that none of the major MP3 brands are making them, and that the convergence of MP3 and DAB functionality on those devices hasn’t exactly been stellar.

Handheld devices like these are more valuable to a mobile medium like radio than kitchen radios, but they do pose a particular challenge to broadcasters in providing robust enough signal strengths for them to work reliably. It can be done, but it needs a shuffle up of the existing network plans, which is going to be complicated. DAB still seems to be growing apace, and it would be disappointing if the growth of handheld DAB devices, which offer new functionality and genuine mobility, was held back because we were slow to deliver the right quality of signal to them.

To put some numbers on that challenge:

  • A DAB transmitter needs to transmit 10kW of power to provide the same breadth and quality of reception on a device as an FM transmitter at 1kW (due to a combination of path loss at the different frequencies and a slightly lighter sensitivity requirement for DAB receivers) *
  • DAB is (currently) allocated only 7 frequencies, which means that nearly all DAB multiplexes are either adjacent (in frequency terms) to another multiplex in the same area, or on the same frequency as another multiplex nearby. That means there is far less elbow room for manoeuvre (currently) over transmission sites and powers.

These issues are resolvable, and the upturn in sales of handheld DAB devices should provide the impetus to start that difficult process.

The second piece of “good” was tucked away in a piece that Jack Schofield wrote about My Classic fm.

Aside from the fact that My Classic fm is something rather marvellous that my team made a significant contribution too, Jack has been very much more precise about what it is that he doesn’t like DAB, which is the use of MPEG-2 as a coding technology and the poor stereo image that Joint Stereo encoding produces. And I agree totally with Jack. DAB isn’t broken, but the audio coding technology we have in the UK isn’t optimum. And fixing that is a challenge at least as big as moving transmitters round (rainy, flooded, muddy) fields, and also one that we can’t afford to shy away from.

* Hello radio transmission engineers. I realise that this is a gross over-simplification of the issue, but without going into a realm of detail, it demonstrates the scale of the issue.