The Ten Myths of DAB

[Resurrection Man]

.....
Similarly, when the official CBA eventually comes out will it reveal a "truth" or will it just prove the point. How many people are going to say it's rigged before they read a word of it?

I will for one as the questions on which they based their CBA are very skewed in favour of a pro-DAB answer. It's a bit like a survey. Pose the questions in such a way that the answers you will get are the ones that you want to hear.

RE the number of DAB radios sold. I would be interested to know how many of those radios are actually in use and not gathering dust on a shelf somewhere because the purchaser either could not get a signal at all or could get a very good rendition of boiling mud.

Or how many people are using the FM side of their radio because of the above reasons.

Of course, we will probably never know...but the point is still moot.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

A fair point, though experience often breeds cynicism.

. . .my experience tells me the progentitor of cynicism is arrogance.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The minimum receiver specifications [more or less finished and ready to go] to be applied for switchover require that all receivers sold with a Tick MUST have DAB+ installed ready to go. No one in the UK is going to broadcast in DAB+ [they say, anyway where's the spectrum coming from] but it will be there if needed in say 2050. [tongue firmly in cheek just to avoid doubt]. The receiver industry fought this tooth and nail until the Minister made the decision a couple of years ago and now they say they can do it after all. BTW another thing the receiver industry has fought tooth and nail is making the coding/decoding delay the same on all models - that is still the position. They say it is too complicated [it isn't trivial] and costly, as they aways do with anything they don't want to do.

Surely the coffin lid on DAB+ is not so firmly nailed down? A whole multiplex can be part DAB+, part DAB? It's only the codec that's different? And the ticked box DAB-sets will simply flip codec for a DAB+ broadcast - just like every internet radio does amongst a galaxy of incoming codecs. The difficulty would be the legacy DAB sets (cue The Myths of DAB+ web site - I know a man who can do one of those!)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

. . .my experience tells me the progentitor of cynicism is arrogance.

I would call it being wary.

[Nick_G]

Gordon, I do hear you on your responses to my concerns. The best source of recommendations from the consumer's point of view was the CEG's report. One of their concerns was that:

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.

Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/pub...switchover.pdf

This still stands IMO. It summarises what my concerns are very succinctly and there is a big gulf between what the industry and the consumer seem to think. They are not singing from the same hymn sheet. A continuation of this situation will inevitably lead to trouble eventually. What a pity that the Chairman of that report has been replaced by someone who tows the party line.

Gordon, I appreciate what you are saying and there does need to be an investigation into the methodology of the figures, statistics etc but most people do not have the resources, money or knowledge to do everything that you have suggested. Surely that is what the CEG was for? Now we can only hope that sending some emails to the right people might make a difference. I know you are an engineer and therefore approach it possibly from a different way to a lot of people.

Who knows, maybe take-up will be slow enough to stretch the process out for years. Nothing is guaranteed, including the decision to go ahead with the switchover in October.

Regards,
Nick

[Gordon]

I will for one as the questions on which they based their CBA are very skewed in favour of a pro-DAB answer. It's a bit like a survey. Pose the questions in such a way that the answers you will get are the ones that you want to hear.

RE the number of DAB radios sold. I would be interested to know how many of those radios are actually in use and not gathering dust on a shelf somewhere because the purchaser either could not get a signal at all or could get a very good rendition of boiling mud.

Or how many people are using the FM side of their radio because of the above reasons.

Of course, we will probably never know...but the point is still moot.

I agree. Most surveys start with something to demonstrate. In the DAB case the most of the surveys have been produced by the ProDAB camp. No one has asked people why they DON'T have a DAB radio and, if they do, why they DON'T listen to it much. The big conundrum is that, as you say, whilst sales have been reasonable though not thrilling that has apparently not turned into listening? After requests from the CEG for that data nothing has been done. CEG has no funds but DRUK does. So it's back to someone putting their money where their mouth is and commissioning a "proper" survey that will NOT be biassed either way and MAY come up with some better understanding of what is going on in the market. IF the cynics' view that many DAB receivers are being junked because they "don't work" then such a survey should "prove" the point - provided of course that it is biassed to find that out!!

[Gordon]

Surely the coffin lid on DAB+ is not so firmly nailed down? A whole multiplex can be part DAB+, part DAB? It's only the codec that's different? And the ticked box DAB-sets will simply flip codec for a DAB+ broadcast - just like every internet radio does amongst a galaxy of incoming codecs. The difficulty would be the legacy DAB sets (cue The Myths of DAB+ web site - I know a man who can do one of those!)

Quite so. Those legacy receivers are/will be the problem, all 16+million of them sold to date and those yet to be sold [sales may be slow but they are going on]. Some of them are already DAB+ anyway [I have 2 that are claimed to be DAB+ ready, meeting WorldDAB specs] but I suspect that the proportion out there is very small. ALL car receivers will be DAB+ ready because of a Europe wide ruling. Until the Tick scheme is implemented [perhaps after the announcement] there will be no increase in the proportion of DAB+ ready receivers. That Tick scheme is voluntary so consumers need to be on their guard - so what's new - that some manufacturers will not use it.

[Gordon]

Gordon, I do hear you on your responses to my concerns. The best source of recommendations from the consumer's point of view was the CEG's report. One of their concerns was that:

Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/pub...switchover.pdf

This still stands IMO. It summarises what my concerns are very succinctly and there is a big gulf between what the industry and the consumer seem to think. They are not singing from the same hymn sheet. A continuation of this situation will inevitably lead to trouble eventually. What a pity that the Chairman of that report has been replaced by someone who tows the party line.

Gordon, I appreciate what you are saying and there does need to be an investigation into the methodology of the figures, statistics etc but most people do not have the resources, money or knowledge to do everything that you have suggested. Surely that is what the CEG was for? Now we can only hope that sending some emails to the right people might make a difference. I know you are an engineer and therefore approach it possibly from a different way to a lot of people.

Who knows, maybe take-up will be slow enough to stretch the process out for years. Nothing is guaranteed, including the decision to go ahead with the switchover in October.

Regards,
Nick

I'm sorry if I was a bit grouchy in my response to your posting. I get somewhat annoyed by people making sweeping statements, regardless which side of this debate they are on. I agree completely about that CEG report, it is a good one and whilst it is 2 or more years old now it is still valid and relevant. That group has little actual power, being advisory not executive, but perhaps they need to be encouraged to re-assert that report in the run up to the announcement? I think RM knows who the chair is and maybe has an email?

Whilst this message board has its moments it is nowhere near as abusive and thoroughly unpleasant as some I've seen where personal abuse and foul language flies about rather than relevant debate.

[Resurrection Man]

Unfortunately the CEG route is a dead-duck as Leen Petré is no longer the chair and has been replaced by one Roger Darlington who is as Pro-DAB as you can get, sadly. So no impartiality there then. A great pity. As you say the report that her committee produced highlighted all the concerns voiced here and elsewhere.

This DAB debacle makes the plot line of Borgen look like the Teletubbies!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Gordon/Nick
The CEG report is useful, but I don't agree with some of its recommendations (I do wish they'd numbered them, rather than bullet points).
1 A full CBA from the viewpoint of the consumer has already been done - it's the PWC report. It attempts to quantify the NPV of the project for UK PLC. The consumers are UK PLC.
2 There are detailed reports on DAB coverage, far more detailed than was the case for FM, and there's been a strenuous effort to ensure that coverage will provide adequate signal for reception by desk-top receivers, unlike the case with FM where reception was deemed possible if you had an external aerial 10 m above ground. I see no reason to change the definition of 'coverage'.
3 The provision of common time delay on DAB receivers may not be easy. If all DAB receivers shared a common chip-set that might be so, but I suspect they haven't. And even if you lock the time delays to your satisfaction, there may be drift out of sync as the programme content changes (and the decoding algorithm changes response). Many people may have no use for this feature, which might not be cheap, so it should be optional. The only streaming devices I know with such synchronization are Squeezeboxes (Sonos?) and they stream from a common server.
4 Digital takeup should not be defined as DAB reception only. I have switched away from DAB, years ago, but I don't use DAB. That shift should count.
5 The notes about DAB usage by the blind and disabled are worthy, but apply equally to FM sets. The basic push-button functionallity of FM sets has already appeared on even the most basic of DAB sets. A friend of mine is blind and has a LIDL DAB set (~£20). After I'd set up his basic preferences, he has no problem controlling the set.

[Resurrection Man]

Reluctantly, AIC, I feel bound to comment.

To pick you up on several points...and using your numbering for the sake of clarity

1) The PwC report simply states that the benefit to consumers is £780 million - assuming the DRWG policy. They arrive at this figure by taking a figure of £24.90 and multiplying by, at a guess, the number of households ? or circa 30+ million. How they arrive at that figure of £24.90 is known only to them. They refer to WTP plus a number of covering statements. There is no further information as to how this figure has been arrived at. If you believe that this constitutes, therefore, a full CBA from the viewpoint of the consumer then all I can say is I am glad I never had to ask you to produce one for me when I ran my company.

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.

One also must ask the question why this CBA was effectively buried until the Select Committee referred to it.

4/ I disagree. We are talking about switching off FM radio. Figures for listening etc on DAB radio are what the criteria should be based on. They originally were but then someone realised that the 50% figure would probably never be met. So they moved the goalposts.

5/ The reference within the report to DAB radios and blind people, for example, refers to the 'benefit' of a DAB radio displaying the station name. Yes, once set-up a blind person can hit > > > on a DAB radio to get to the station that they want or equally tune the dial on an FM set. But the 'benefit' of display of information provided by a DAB radio compared to an FM radio is the point in question and of zero relevance to a blind person.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

1 The benefit may well be £780 m. The benefit minus costs (the net benefit) is £437 m - derived over a period of years and expressed as a net present value.
4 Yes, it's the switch-off of FM that matters, Just so. So it's the figures for switched-off FM, not the figures for switched-on DAB, that matter. And I've switched FM off, just as all those who've migrated to DAB have done. We're one and the same viz-a-viz FM and should be counted together.
5 If a DAB set relies upon the display of station name for correct station selection then obviously, it's no use to a blind person; they shouldn't buy it. If it has push-buttons that can be pre-assigned to stations (and plenty do, as per my £20 LIDL example) it is suitable for a blind person. Job done.

[Resurrection Man]

1 The benefit may well be £780 m. The benefit minus costs (the net benefit) is £437 m - derived over a period of years and expressed as a net present value.
4 Yes, it's the switch-off of FM that matters, Just so. So it's the figures for switched-off FM, not the figures for switched-on DAB, that matter. And I've switched FM off, just as all those who've migrated to DAB have done. We're one and the same viz-a-viz FM and should be counted together.
5 If a DAB set relies upon the display of station name for correct station selection then obviously, it's no use to a blind person; they shouldn't buy it. If it has push-buttons that can be pre-assigned to stations (and plenty do, as per my £20 LIDL example) it is suitable for a blind person. Job done.

I might as well give up trying to reason with you. It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree. I'll go back to ignoring you. Better for my sanity.

[Resurrection Man]

RNIB commissioned research from i2 Media research and Ricability which looked at how easy digital radios are to use for blind and partially sighted people, people with dexterity problems or dyslexia.
Results have shown that simple changes could make a big difference but, amongst many poor designs, there are some good products already available.
i2 Media research

The initial research, undertaken by i2 Media research, looked at how accessible the functional and design features of digital radios are.
Results show

• 90 per cent of blind and partially sighted people using a digital radio without voice output need help the first time they use their radios
• 70 per cent continue to need support for subsequent use
• many people feel significant improvements could be made to DAB radios with simple design changes that include voice output feedback.

Voice output is particularly important on digital radios, where switching channels is far less obvious than on analogue.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

RNIB commissioned research from i2 Media research and Ricability which looked at how easy digital radios are to use for blind and partially sighted people, people with dexterity problems or dyslexia.
Results have shown that simple changes could make a big difference but, amongst many poor designs, there are some good products already available.
i2 Media research

The initial research, undertaken by i2 Media research, looked at how accessible the functional and design features of digital radios are.
Results show

• 90 per cent of blind and partially sighted people using a digital radio without voice output need help the first time they use their radios
• 70 per cent continue to need support for subsequent use
• many people feel significant improvements could be made to DAB radios with simple design changes that include voice output feedback.

Voice output is particularly important on digital radios, where switching channels is far less obvious than on analogue.

Don't be ridiculous. The first statement is simply a statement of the bleeding obvious. It would apply equally to FM radios. If a DAB radio has preset pushbuttons then they can be tuned as easily as any FM radio with pushbuttons. Blind people will need help with defining the presets on an FM radio as much as a DAB radio. Been there, done that, and the blind person I helped has used the set-up for more than a year. Job done! If they have special needs where they need audio feedback, this applies equally to FM and DAB. As your RNIB statement says " there are some good products already available". If people have dyslexia, they will have difficulty with an FM radio manual as much as a DAB manual. This is no issue here.

These will do very nicely:

http://www.ricability.org.uk/consumer_reports/at_home/digital_radio/recommendations/