The Ten Myths of DAB

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well, Currys have small DAB portables as cheap as £20. And you don't need a DAB receiver for your hifi - a Humax Feeview receiver will give you excellent audio quality, a revelation after FM!

Actually I have exactly that and it's reasonably good, but the FM in the next room is probably slightly better.

[MrGongGong]

A mate of mine designed the speakers for the Pure DAB radios
his usual listening is heavy dub reggae
which probably explains the huge bass potential of the things

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Actually I have exactly that and it's reasonably good, but the FM in the next room is probably slightly better.

Then I'd give up the day job if I were you . . .

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

???

[Resurrection Man]

With respect RM, that is not the question. As we are trying to establish the costs to the great British public of switching over to DAB those that own DAB/FM radios, even if they currently only listen to the FM signal, will not need to incur any additional expenditure.

The reason why I asked the question was in response to the statement as to how many people had bought DAB radios. It is relevant in so far as if those who had bought a DAB radio and could not get a DAB signal but are listening to FM then they will also be affected by any FM Switch Off.

[Resurrection Man]

..
Have you read the sources?
.

Troll.

Read what I said in #206

I tried to find the reports that PwC refer to, to try and find out how this figure (or any other, for that matter) was arrived at and how relevant the questions posed then in terms of WTP are now valid today. But drew a blank.

You can post what you like now. I am out of here. Yeah..I know I said this before and still came back to try and inform others as to your trolling activities.

Life is too short. I suggest you go and get one.

Goodbye, trollmeister

[Resurrection Man]

???

Ignore the troll, EA

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I tried to find the reports that PwC refer to, to try and find out how this figure (or any other, for that matter) was arrived at and how relevant the questions posed then in terms of WTP are now valid today. But drew a blank.

I've just looked for one of the reports referenced by PWC and I found it - easily:
Willingness to Pay for the BBC during the next Charter period, by Human Capital (a door-stepping 88 pages of statistics).

It gives detailed analysis of how they arrive at the figures quoted in the PWC report, notably Appendix D, p 84. It looks like a detailed assessment to me, with plenty of detail as to their working method.

There are several other references in the PWC valuations of Willingness to Pay; I suspect they're all equally easy to find. The PWC notes, from this survey of surveys, 13 estimates of willingness to pay for additional digital radio stations. with a mean value of £26.5

[Resurrection Man]

An interesting perspective from a submission that Steve Green made to the Govt (although it's not clear from the source document whether it was input to the DRWG, for example). His take on the actual true costs and savings to commercial radio were FM to be switched off makes interesting reading.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/documents/upload/stevegreen.pdf

[Nick_G]

I sent the following email to 3 contacts at the Voice of The Listener & Viewer - 2 of them were sent on 31st January and the 3rd was sent on February 5th:

Hi there.

I hope you don't mind me contacting you but I am very concerned about a possible DAB switchover, and the loss of BBC national stations on FM.

I think there needs to be a public consultation on the whole idea of a radio DSO. Every news article on DAB that I've seen that allows comments has the vast majority responding negatively to the idea, often angrily. The last Digital Radio Progress Report shows that only about 32% of people who responded were likely to buy a DAB set, with only 3% 'certain to', mostly because there was no need, or they were happy with analogue. Sales of DAB radios have also flatlined in the last few years. I don't think that DAB has a killer feature that would enable it to be quickly adopted by the masses.

I also question how some of the figures are worked out. For example, when the percentage of households with a DAB radio is quoted, is this based on the cumulative sales since sets first became available? I'd like to mention at this point that I owned a DAB tuner between 2000-2008 but sold it on as I didn't feel the need for it any more. So does this mean my house counts in the statistics? How many of those sets have been binned or not used due to poor reception? Also, how do we know whether listeners are using DAB or FM (most sets include FM)? I think that FM should continue, as I think DAB is just an interim technology with no long-term future.

There are many well-publicised reasons as to why DAB is seen to be a bad choice by some, which I won't go into here. But it seems that this entire push to try and 'persuade' the public to switch to DAB is industry-led, not consumer led. Since the license fee is funding this, then I can't see how an idea which is met with such resistance from the public is in the interests of the license-fee payer. Given this and the gulf between what the industry state and what the public are posting online, then a deep investigation is urgently needed into the rationale of the decision to push for a switchover. Most members of the public do not have the funds, resources, money or knowledge to do this. So I suggest that the VLV or CEG should do this.

I also suspect that progress in mobile internet/multicast technology over the next 10 years may render DAB irrelevant.

I myself use a internet-enabled device for my digital listening, but, like millions of others, I enjoy listening to FM radio. I am very concerned that vested interests in the radio industry will try and force this switchover through against the public's will.

I'll finish with a quote from the CEG Report, which is just as relevant now as when it was published:

"The Consumer Expert Group (CEG) feels strongly about the current lack of accurate and balanced information for consumers on digital radio. As we concluded in chapter 2, we have found no discernible benefits for the consumer in a Digital Radio Switchover. We therefore question the marketing strategies to persuade consumers to switch. Any campaign implying that switchover is imminent, or to convince consumers to throw away their analogue sets is misinforming and misleading. The CEG is concerned that consumers are being panicked into adopting digital radio rather than convinced by the digital offering."

Regards,
Nick

So far, no response at all. It would have been nice to have at least have an acknowledgement of my email.

I think a public consultation is urgently needed on this matter. I have no doubt in my mind that if this was done then the majority of people would vote no to a radio DSO. This is the only reason why it hasn't happened, because it would come up with an answer that the Government don't want to hear.

Perhaps more of us need to do the same. If I don't get a response soon then I am thinking of sending similar emails to the press, to my MP and possibly Radio 4's Feedback.

Regards,
Nick

[mangerton]

I sent the following email to 3 contacts at the Voice of The Listener & Viewer - 2 of them were sent on 31st January and the 3rd was sent on February 5th:



So far, no response at all. It would have been nice to have at least have an acknowledgement of my email.

I think a public consultation is urgently needed on this matter. I have no doubt in my mind that if this was done then the majority of people would vote no to a radio DSO. This is the only reason why it hasn't happened, because it would come up with an answer that the Government don't want to hear.

Perhaps more of us need to do the same. If I don't get a response soon then I am thinking of sending similar emails to the press, to my MP and possibly Radio 4's Feedback.

Regards,
Nick

To have had no reply at all is nothing other than bad manners; it only takes seconds to acknowledge an email. I have to say, looking at the high number of ex-BBC-ites on the board, that I'm not particularly surprised. No doubt they know what side their pension is buttered on!

Good luck with your campaign. I wrote to my MP about it some time ago, and didn't get a response, but then I'm not sure he'd understand what DAB is. I think the press has much the same problem, and Feedback seems singularly toothless.

[Nick_G]

Thanks mangerton.

You'd think that the Voice Of The Listener & Viewer would be a bit more receptive :rolleyes:

[mangerton]

Thanks mangerton.

You'd think that the Voice Of The Listener & Viewer would be a bit more receptive :rolleyes:

Receptive. Very good. Perhaps Ariel (and Prospero) should jump from their perch on BH to assist.

(Shh! Caliban will be along any minute.)

[Resurrection Man]

Well, I finally got a reply from Ed Vaizey. Needless to say, none of you will be surprised to hear that he still has not answered my question. Merely re-arranged the usual BS into a different sequence. Still banging on about 'choice' that not a lot of people are interested in.

So I will ask again.

[Nick Armstrong]

(Shh! Caliban will be along any minute.)

Thou makest me merry; I am full of pleasure:
Let us be jocund: will you troll the catch
You taught me but while-ere?



FWIW I've been keeping out of this debate, as DAB has transformed my radio listening in the particular circumstances at home. A series of 'up-to-the-minute' roof aerials over the years has never delivered ideal FM reception where I live, always some interference, and never possible to listen in stereo. In contrast, DAB - especially after the boost in London pre-Olympics - delivers interference free sound, always at full strength, allowing listening on radios all around the place. The sound on the bedside Pure Evoke-3 is wonderful, and the ability to record to SD card and then put concerts, programmes etc on my iPod with great ease, a huge boon.

Sorry... And I accept that in many other areas, the opposite may well be the case.

And I wouldn't be without FM in the car