You have to wonder..
if Steve Green has a hidden agenda here? The fact is, millions of us are enjoying DAB daily, and have no problems with it, either reception, sound quality or program choice.
How does the UK find its way out of the DAB disaster? First, we have to get beyond the denial stage and into acceptance. One thing is certain: the UK can't carry on the way it's been going. Digital radio's year-on-year sales growth fell off a cliff the moment the BBC stopped its "DABaganda" TV ad campaign in the run-up to …
if Steve Green has a hidden agenda here? The fact is, millions of us are enjoying DAB daily, and have no problems with it, either reception, sound quality or program choice.
Seems to me the whole DAB thing is just for the sake of technology.
Why is it that i need to know the name of the station on a display on the reciever, they tell you every 10 seconds anyway.
Sound quality not greatly improved.
Quantity of stations lower than previous.
Coverage worse than previous.
While we say to phorm that if their service is so good we should be able to choose to opt in, we should also apply that thinking to DAB and say if the overall experience is better than before then great but it is simply not. Therefore it is pointless.
Take a look, it's as obvious as day why it would never sell:
If they built it into mp3 players the same way FM is built into mp3 playerss then it would sell.
Virgin radio I wouldn't have bothered - they only transmit on appalling MW over most of the country.
I agree. We grew tired of our radio reception being determined by where we stood in the kitchen and how we waved our arms.
We bought a Roberts RD-41 & haven't looked back. Occasionally the ariel needs a 1cm adjustment (literally) to get more reception bars, but other than that, we are really, really happy with our purchase.
... does this mean they will not turn off FM? That would be a good thing, I think.
The graph does *not* show a failing format; it shows a slowing rate of adoption - sales are continuing to grow but at a slower rate. There are a number of reasons, it could have been a technology that matured relatively rapidly and can't grow into a mass-market because the cost of receivers is noticeably higher than that for analogue sets, or it could be failing in the sense no one wants DAB at any price. But that graph proves nothing.
I have plenty of other problems with DAB, but to claim evidence based on that graph is misleading on a scale Alistair Campbell would be proud of.
That's what DAB does not deliver and the Internet does and to a limited extent what Pirate FM delivers. The success of the Internet has a great deal to do with the simlicity, cheapness and effectiveness of the protocols such as HTML and TCP/IP.
There is no entry level for DAB. You can't get started with £400 worth of gear like you can with Internet Radio or Pirate Radio.
You have to have lots of money and a business plan and adhere to lots of regulations. It has to make money too.
DAB is based on an outmoded ideal of the previous century.
So Steve Green is still spouting the same old rubbish about DAB being launched in 2002?
Even Steve has to admit that the BBC actually started broadcasting DAB nationally in 1995, The commercial national DAB multiplex started in November 1999.
Commercial receivers were late on the scene and expensive when launched in 1999 - but that doesn't change the fact that DAB was launched _before_ 2002
Of course Steve likes to gloss over these issue because it doesn't fit his agenda.
Has to be Paris - no one else would blindly believe this
As mentioned above, all the DAB radios seem to be retro styled and seem to be trying to win on style over substance. The bit I really don't understand is if DAB was meant to be so good, why sell a whole load of radios with just a single, mono, speaker? Stereo has been invented since the designs for those radios were first done way back when. I know that stereo speakers on such a small system might be a moot point, but all non-DAB units have stereo speakers.
So, "The sales chart shows DAB is a failing format", does it? Maybe it shows that growth of 200% isn't sustainable- and growth of 'only' 10% or so indicates a healthy but mature market?
DAB is good, and the beeb haven't pushed it as the only digital solution for a long time. The improvements indicated would be welcome. But I, and many others, are using DAB with reasonable satisfaction.
I too think El Reg has a hidden agenda. The only time I ever hear about DAB getting slated is when I read the Register (when I can find the words amongst all the annoying animated adverts which adorn the El Reg articles these days). We have a DAB radio and get a perfect signal on it. It also carries all the stations we want - it's quality not quantity after all.
So come on Register, why do you insist on having a regular stab at DAB whilst the rest of the country is happy with it?
Dab is a failure beacuse of the
lack of content,
lack of bandwith,
lack of quality.
The only party who can really be blaimed is offcom.
Given a choice between an FM radio and a DAB radio, I would choose FM without a doubt. Why? Beacuse FM has more content I want to listen to (i.e pirates playing music genres that are neglegted my the majority of commercial radio stations) FM has a more robust and rerliable signal when compared with dab (this is more than likley why in car DAB hasnt taken off). FM also has better quality of audio than the bitrates being used my most DAB stations.
If the bbc are serious about saving DAB they need to put pressure on offcom to pull their fingers out and stop using it as away of draining cash out of people........
DAB was great when it was first produced - it solved a major problem of poor FM reception in moving vehicles. But as usual both the BBC and the government went off at half-cock. DAB was supposed to take over from FM but starting transmission was delayed, and then no-one would set a date for the switch-over. It became obvious that FM would drag on in the same way that 405 line TV transmission did (at the end there were probably more 405 line transmitters than receivers.)
Result - manufacturers would not take the plunge, and DAB receivers were few and expensive. By the time DAB began to take off it had been overtaken by events. People wanted more and more channels, and when they were squeezed in, sound quality went down to significantly worse than FM. In the "new technology" medium, Radio 4 plays that were stereo in FM, went to mono.
DAB is not so bad as it is painted. I have good reception for my hi-fi on a bit of wire, while FM is noisy without a proper aerial. But it's too late. Neither BBC nor government realized the pace of technical change and they funked and dithered. I don't know whether the BBC or the government was primarily to blame but the BBC should have been the driving force and they didn't have the required nerve.
Regardless of where some other standard might prove better, I'm not sure abotu what Mr Green is proposing to do about the radios perople have already bought. I think that statistic seemed to be missing.
Replacing a £100 radio would be annoying, being told it would cost £ouch to have the one in the car upgraded would be rather more maddening.
I have to agree that this all seems to be a load of nonsense FUD about DAB. DAB wakes me up in the morning and my radio is on almost continually when I'm at home (even for The Archers, although that's more for my wife than for me!) My only problem with DAB is that my car doesn't have a DAB receiver.
The Reception is perfect - and as for being mono only, well all those little 'stereos' that one can buy are, effectively, mono only. The speakers are too close for stereo. As for the DAB hifi separates - they definitely do stereo. I still reckon that radio, of any type, only offers preview quality though. A good preview, perhaps - but if you want the best then buy a CD.
In my experience there not much technically wrong with DAB.
Whatever the analogue hippies say, quality IS better than FM, not quite in the same way that CD's are better than LP's, but not far off.
Yes, bitrates could be higher and yes coverage could be better but IMO there is only one problem with DAB - lack of support from broadcasters.
The format has never really delivered the variety it promised. Don't get me wrong - its still light years ahead of FM in that regard. i.e. it has a couple of dedicated Rock stations (ok so its old fogey rock, but still) and, until recently, a Jazz station. I have never heard any stations on FM that played anything other than the current top 40 factory produced teen fodder.
As for the argument about it being superseeded by Internet radio, that may be true, but ONLY because internet radio really does deliver variety, any genre you can think of is catered for. Delivering radio over the internet is a really inefficient way of broadcasting and a massive waste of valuable bandwidth because separate 'copies' of the data have to be sent to every listener as opposed to DAB which just sends one copy that can be picked up simultaneously by eveyone.
El Reg has clearly been reading this very fine book, which I recommend to anyone. It has a section on how to mis-use graphs, to tell any story that suits your personal prejudices.
The graph in fact shows continuing sales growth, albeit at a reducing rate of growth. That may not be a runaway success, but it's certainly not a failure either.
Personally, I have one DAB radio, which I find OK. Reception is not a problem. Mostly, I listen to BBC R4 and various local radio, which I could equally find on FM, but I like to listen to BBC R6 and R7 every now and again, which I can only do on DAB.
Who cares, Satellite radio is being launched in the UK in the not too distant future. I bet anyone ten pence it will be better than DAB!
The graph on page 1 may look calamitous but if so it is misleading. It records not the number of DAB radios in use, which is large and comparable in size to the UK spoken-word radio audience as a whole (indeed, the market may be saturated). It does not even record the rate of growth in the number of DAB radios (i.e. the sales level), which is positive. It records the second derivative of the relevant data. You would get a very similarly shaped picture if you drew a graph of your car's acceleration against time for a journey averaging 70mph by motorway. It would not mean your journey had failed.
The data shows, in fact, that there was an explosive period of growth in which people found out about DAB radios and began buying them. They have continued to buy them, year on year, since then. DAB radios, like the first colour TVs to come in, aren't ephemeral commodities. They're well-made from reasonably good-quality components, they don't go wrong, they're expensive enough not to be disposable, and so people keep them. I bought mine five years ago, and it still works perfectly. There's no reason to change it, and that may be bad news for DAB manufacturers, but it doesn't mean DAB has ceased to matter to listeners or broadcasters.
So there may indeed be evidence to show that DAB has "failed", but this graph isn't it. Total all-channels audience figures in decline would be more convincing.
Personally, I hope DAB survives. Its relative lack of sophistication is in some respects good for the consumer. Whatever comes next will probably entail DRM, or will censor selected programmes for rights reasons, the way the BBC's podcasts of "The Now Show" idiotically edit out sketches in which music appears. Right now, my computer can record radio plays while I'm at work, a consumer right which the BBC continues to deny (though it dips its toe in the water more than most broadcasters). The last thing I'd want would be for radio to become an Internet-only phenomenon, accessible only as encrypted streams. I very much hope "broadcast" is not replaced by "webcast on demand", because broadcasting has a slightly less insane legal status. And the continuing support for DAB is the best hope of that, it seems to me.
A market growing at 10-20% per year sounds pretty darn healthy to me!
As someone else pointed out, that graph was designed to mislead. Another, more honest way of portraying the data is simply to show sales by month (not rate of sales growth) - then it would be showing a month-on-month increase, with current sales the highest they've ever been.
At least with FM you can still hear the program when the signal fades. With DAB it gurgles and stops.
If FM is turned off then I stop listening to the radio.
And what happens when everyone sets their clocks 5 seconds slow?
My issue with this article is this bit:
"DAB+ is up to three times cheaper to transmit, because multiplexes can carry three times as many stations."
If DAB+ coding is, as you say, 3 times as efficient as DAB, this means that you can get the same audio quality in 1/3 the bit rate, OR you can have higher audio quality at the same bit rate as before.
So if the broadcasters go with your plan (squeeze 3 times as many stations into the same bandwidth) there will be exactly the same amount of people listening to "bubbling mud" as before, because you've just delivered them the same sound quality they already had.
You can't make both arguments. You either want to improve sound quality for listeners, or reduce broadcasters' costs.
There's a parallel to this situation in Freeview, which is a great system (I make my living from it) but looks like shit because it uses MPEG2 coding at low-as-possible bitrates. This is a corollary of the UK being the first to adopt DTV in Europe and the pile-em-high-sell-em-cheap philosophy of cramming as many services as possible into it. Kind of what we have with DAB, really.
Steve Green owns digitalradiotech.co.uk, which is a nice resource for those interested in such things. His website told me about the audio quality issue, so I knew what to expect before I bought a DAB radio. He was right about how DAB sounds and I'm thankful to him for letting people know the truth.
I don't know if we need quite so many articles on the Reg letting us know how DAB is doomed and misleading graphs just make people start to think there is an agenda (see above comments), but perhaps those who have summoned the energy to rant about DAB will help us get decent quality radio over the airwaves some day.
Mine has a stitched-in wifi aerial so I can listen to the echoes of the intertubes.
I don't know where people listen to their radios, but for me it's just in the car.
iplayer/any other content delivery method all well and good - make that happen in my car please - then you can turn off fm/dab.
poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly marketed.
Oh dear - those who know of Steve Green on usenet will understand his obsessive and continued degradation of DAB and any who question his particular analysis. This despite his repeated claims to have first class degrees yet demonstrates a complete lack of grasp of elementary statistics as his presentation of the graph again demonstrates.
Yes there is much wrong with DAB and Steve does have some good points. But he has succeeded in alienating potential support by committing the same sin of some of the Beeb/Ofcom people by bending facts to the cause. IMHO the figures sugest that DAB is not a failure - nor a runaway success. Its here, we should try and improve it. Winning the hearts and minds of Ofcom/Beeb ain't going to be easy. I don't think this is going to help.
...it still manages higher MP2 bitrates than DAB. The worst Freeview channels dip down to DAB bitrates, most do better. Don't seem much difference in the quality of material either. Choosing a £100 DAB or £20 DVB box for any room with an aerial feed is a no brainer, that's half the in home sales gone right away.
Talk of deploying 3.9G and 4G in a few years' time is ludicrous. We don't even have 3G at my home or place of work. And no, I don't live and work in Shetland but the South of England in the medium-sized town of Aylesbury. We've got to the point where it's impossible to finish one thing before the Next Big Thing comes along. Take this to its logical conclusion and you end up with half a dozen people in London, Birmingham, and maybe Manchester, with 5G networks, DAB+++, and Terabits per second pipes, while the rest of us are still on dialup and AM radio.
You've basically just spent three pages stating the bleedin' obvious, "I no sooner get my new PC/MAC home than something far better and cheaper becomes available." That's the fundamental problem that needs addressing, not arguing over what the Next Big Thing should be.
A whole DAB article with no mention to the car radios!!!
I have a DAB radio at home and use it - great to have 5live without the MW crackle - but otherwise, all stations I can get on FM without the mud !
However, cars are where the problem lies.
I always listen to radio in the car (well, sometimes CDs, but 90% of the time, its the radio)
I agree that radio via Broadband is the way to go (wireless network around the house, and a radio receiver that can pick it up) - but what about my car? Do I have to have a 3g receiver in my car to get broadband, to listen to radio?
I think that how any format is adapted to be used in the car radio will be instrumental in deciding the successor of FM/AM radio - look at the moment, hardly any DAB in cars.
With the BBC constantly force-feeding us stories on the news about how the planet is doomed from MMGW - I'm wondering how encouraging the public to purchase DAB radios is going to help things ? I assume that they aren't all made in Carbon-Neutral factories, with non-polluting materials and shipped to us on sail-boats ?
Perhaps the BBC would like to tell us how much additional CO2 will be pumped into the atmosphere as a result of this policy, and how much of the ice sheet will be lost as a result ?
When I read these articles I can't help but feel Mr. Green has missed the point slightly.
DAB might not be the most technically advanced format and there might be better alternatives but that's miles from why DAB _might_ be failing, or at least not taking over from say FM. It's because the units are overpriced, and as someone already pointed out, have gone for style over substance because you get a better markup from 'stylish'.
Plus in order to get maximum wonga for minimum effort the streams have had their nuts compressed off to get as many in as possible meaning there's no great improvement in quality over existing systems.
I do agree that that graph is about as misleading as it could possibly be.
It seems Mr. Green is constantly trying to push us to use freeview or Internet (IP) based systems. Both of which I've used and find don't suit the way I want to listen.
So why not stop slating DAB and start highlighting what it is you actually do and don't want ?
I want a small cheap receiver which I can easily move from room to room. Something I can't do with freeview receivers or _most_ devices relying on IP.
I want a system that work in my car (so probably not freeview or IP based again...)
So I pretty much want a (radio)wave broadcast.
I want some of the channels currently only available via freeview, IP and DAB
I want small, useful, cheap stereos which I can buy a few of to replace the FM/CD machines dotted round my house and in my car. Plus 2 well specced HiFis capable of receiving my chosen programming without turning my telly or computer on.
As for the BBC, they even have to balls up web radio. None of the 'affordable' media streamers and/or web radios do the Realplayer format that the beeb uses and if they change formats for the new iPlayer crap (spot a Linux/Mac user if you can) then even less stand alone units will support it. I have 3 'cheap' streaming media receivers (mp101s and a Roku soundbridge) and the easiest way to listen to the beeb on them is get a computer to convert the incoming Real stream to an outgoing mp3 one (adds about a 3s delay).
If someone made a small ( micro/mini stereo format ) box that could receive DAB (or the DAB channels I like), stream music off my computer/audio server (mp3 or preferably ogg) and tune into web radio (without needing my computer to be on at the time) as well as play CDs and cost less than 200 notes, I'd buy 3 at the weekend. A bonus would be mp3/ogg off CD/DVD and or a card/USB.
I don't understand why, when all the elements exist, and have very common requirements, they aren't all strapped into one box yet.
I agree with Mark and many of the other commenters - I'm very happy with the DAB service. Perhaps the author of the article was scarred by a 220MHz radio wave as a child?
like others have pointed out... that graph shows year on year sales growth, so even if it got to 0%, doesn't that just mean that they are selling the same number of radios this month as they did in the same month last year? They only need worry if the figure shows negative, i.e. a sales decline...?
Perhaps a comment from Steve Green to answer these points is warranted?
Thumbs down because of the attempted deception...
largely irrelevant here, although arguably it's marginally more relevant to delivering "broadcast" content (multiple people listening to the same content at the same time) than it is to generic IPtv and in particular the VoD flavour of IPtv which BTw like to hype when they're hyping 21CN (which they do rather a lot).
Mr Orlowski recently promised an article focusing on multicast. He already has my comments. There'll be more if/when the article arrives.
Other than that, there's some rubbish in the article (the interpretation of the graph) and some sense (the bubblies).
Actually the most significant thing in the current UK commercial radio market is probably the fact that the industry is consolidating in a big way (so much for competition and local services, eh?)... eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7427657
...if commercial interest is waning. Which it would appear to be.
...if we are practically the only country in Europe still doing it.
It may well be that the problem is this: why should I pay good money for a new sort of radio when the old one still works, and I don't deliberately listen to the radio much anyway? In other words, most of us think that if it's not broke, it doesn't need fixing.
I only listen to the radio in the car. I'm happy enough listening to FM, I don't know how I could get a DAB player for the car, and I'm pretty certain I couldn't afford it if I did.
Of course, that's not to say that those of you who've bought DAB players were wrong; you just had a bit more emotional capital invested in listening to the radio than the rest of us.
the receivers were stupidly expensive for no visible gain over existing FM... and as previously mentioned, the styling was crap...
almost as if they were designed to fail in the market...
I've just received an email about my use of the year-on-year sales graph, and people are calling me "a liar" for using it, so here's the reply I've just sent to the person by email, which explains why it DOES show a failing format:
The text in the article that's relevant to the graph is this bit:
"One thing is certain: the UK can't carry on the way it's been going.
Digital radio's year-on-year sales growth fell off a cliff the moment the
BBC stopped its "DABaganda" TV ad campaign in the run-up to Christmas 2005,
and sales growth has continued to slide ever since."
which says "Digital radio's year-on-year sales growth fell off a cliff".
The relevance of the year-on-year sales growth graph is that there are
120m - 150m devices that contain FM, and there have only been 6.5m DAB
receivers sold so far. Therefore, unless there is a reasonably high level of
sales growth, DAB will NEVER reach the target number of receivers sold. For
example, if sales growth falls to zero, as the trend of that graph suggests
will happen - unless the BBC kindly donates a loads more air-time for DAB
adverts - the annual sales wouldn't increase year-on-year, and annual sales
currentlys stands at 2m, so it would be 2m forever more if there was no
growth, so it would take 57 years for DAB sales to reach 120m.
Now, I don't know about you, but I happen to think that 57 years is too long
to wait for DAB to replace FM."
XM and Sirius are light-years ahead of DAB, and have the coverage problem cracked for in-car radio, which is the killer-app for radio.
If you're driving, you can't look at pictures; that's why radio is so good.
For years you couldn't buy a DAB radio for under £100. Now you can get them for £20, a change which seems (to me anyway) to have happened quite suddenly and relatively recently. I'm in a marginal reception area, so I get a bit of mud, but it's better than FM.
Now if the Beeb could just fix the 2.5sec delay, which is really annoying as I move from a room with DAB to one with FM. If ClassicFM can do it, why not auntie?
I really have no complaints about DAB, owning two sets and a portable, which I listen to regularly. I like the choice of stations available and the ease of tuning.
On another point, the BBC doesn't advertise DAB as the only way of receiving digital radio. It goes out of its way to point out the many different ways you can listen. Eg, the Five Live stab "On DAB digital radio, digital TV, downloads and online, this is 5 Live". Pretty comprehensive, wouldn't you say?
To assert that OFCOM/the BBC/the Government should have waited for DAB+/Internet radio/direct telepathy is an argument that can always be made. Whichever technology is adopted, there will always be something better 'just around the corner'. In the end you just have to pick a moment to adopt what's available and go for it. I'd say DAB's been a success. Sure there are now better technologies out there but DAB does the job and it'll serve its purpose until we all move on to whatever the next standard becomes. Register or no Register.
"What Ofcom is scared of is that if DAB+ stations were launched today there would be complaints from a few luddites who think technology should stand still forever"
Is it "luddite" to refuse to upgrade when the replacement gadget costs significantly more than the original, yet delivers no discernable improvement in quality, or possibly even a reduction? The benefits of DAB over FM are nowhere near as obvious as FM over AM or DVD over VHS.
Is it "luddite" to want to wait to see if a technology is stable and successful rather than rushing out to buy the next betamax? The colour TV my parents bought in the early 70s was still going strong in the late 80s. The "HD Ready" digital TV I bought last year might already be obsolete if OFCOM won't allow HD over the existing DVB network. My £10, 10 year old FM clock radio still does the job I bought it for. Can I expect the £60 replacement DAB model to still work in 2018? Why upgrade in such a climate?
Moore's law may apply to technology, but it doesn't apply to people's wages and most people will not part with their hard earned cash to replace perfectly serviceable equipment for something that offers little perceived benefit and a probable shorter lifespan. And this holds true for DAB, HDTV, Blu-Ray, etc.
After reading all these comments i despair a little.
First off lets get a few facts straight. Next time you are listening to DAB, go to Radio 3 (one of, if not the, highest quality sound stations on both FM and DAB). Press the info button and make a note of the bitrate.
Usually about 192kbps.
If you told anyone who enjoys listening to music and has a pretty nice hifi that this codec and bitrate was nearly as good as CD - they would laugh hysterically. I don't know what kind of radio some of you used on FM but I reckon you generally bought the cheapest set available before going on to DAB. Radio 3 on an average priced radio sounds superior than on DAB. I can tell the diference on my blix when i swtich between DAB and FM on radio 3 (If you have one - hook it up to you HiFi and try the same experiment - Oh and i have full signal strength on DAB). FM, by simple dint of the law of physics, for good to excellent signal strength, will produce better sound quality than DAB because at the current bitrates and codec used it cannot do it by it's own nature. Ask ANY sound engineer. Lower signal strengths, well then that depends on local interference and how much brake up you get on DAB compared to signal hiss on FM. DAB cannot compete with FM in terms of sound quality in a like for like - get over it.(Dont get me started on the tag lines CD QUALITY on Philips Radio boxes)
So the sound quality is mute. Some of you get poor FM yet DAB is fine? THat is not any proof in the FM vs DAB debate. More in your location, the equipment you are using. Again BBC HYS mentality creeping in here.
Some of you stated that you only here DAB bashing on the Reg, well I hear DAB bashing from lots of sources and aquaintences.
Now, just before the flames come flooding in, im not a luddite. I like radio, I have DAB and analogue sets, most of my music is based on computer. WHen i first heard of DAB I was interested and looking forward to it. Then I got one, but couldnt receive the signal where I lived at the time but ok. Then I moved and could receive it and was quite dissapointed. But that's me. Personal thing. Sound quality EVEN IN MONO matters to me. Stereo has nothing to do with the quality of sound, just the perception. Most small stereo radios, the speakers are that close together any stereo seperation is lost anyway. (Listen to a Tivoli Model one - Mono can also be good).
DAB+ would have been a better bet - plus more sets since a lot of Europe adopted it also meaning better choice and cheaper radios for all. By the way, GET OVER THE LOOK OF THE THING. the look of some radios (looking like 50's sets for example) has nothing to do with this debate. That is purely aesthetics.
The only real show that i use DAB for is now BBC7. Again personal choice since all the other channels I want i can get on FM, the sound is better. If I could get that on FM then I would have no need at all for a DAB set. And that saddens me, because there is, properly implement, a real place for it. The comment on satellite radio i think is an apt one. Sooner or later, DAB will fail because it is doomed from the start, the technology is not up to the demands that will come about. I mean come on - streamed radio on the net being better than digital radio?? That should not be the case at all. There is no future for it as it stands. OFCOM are reprehensible for their part in this, that i am sure of, and nothing they have reported on or stated or done has really given me any confidence in their position of 'for the Public'.
There is a place for analogue radio. There should always be too. Any comments on an FM switch off are not really thought out. From an emergency point of view - any national disaster, DAB infrastructure will be harder to keep going, yet alone the radios, whereas analogue is pretty resillient.
This was a good article, and a lot of it is has been said by others not related to the reg. I have to say that a lot of you commenting haven't taken too much of an interest in this debate in the past and haven't tried to do even a little research. I ask that you do some now, on other sites, find out what others are saying too and consider the point that just because it provides what YOU need, doesn't make the points in the article any less valid. The rate of take up graph is interesting when you consider the penetration of sets per household compared with number of households. This is before we even get started on car radios.
A similar graph of FM receiver sales would show a similar drop in sales so is FM a failing technology?
Also if DAB is obsolete technology then what about FM which is 70 years old.
If DAB+ was adopted then what are the chances that by the time the broadcasters get it in use then DAB++ or DAB+++ will have appeared and the same people will be calling DAB+ obsolete?
I glanced over the BBC PDF used to prove DAB is four times more expensive - all I can see is a table that say the direct cost of DAB for 07/08 is £6 million (+3.6 million for local transmission), £9.2 million for AM and £12.3 million for FM
The whole article reads like someone with an axe to grind. There was a similar "DAB disaster-ton!" story about a month ago that had a "Thanks for you comments of agreement in my last story" opening with a link to said comments. In fact the thread seemed more pro-DAB than anti. It all makes it kind of hard to take the arguments seriously.
FM Radio sound quality is good enough and has a certain 'Atmosphere' to it. Sometimes sound quality is not the only thing you want.
Plus, I've been looking at buying one for a while but the majority of them that I've looked at don't play CDs or MP3s so it's radio only, a bit limiting me thinks.
Add to that they just replicate existing radio station with a few commercial radio stations added (Double Glazing Anyone?) and Black and Asian music which for me is akin to having bamboo thrust under my fingernails, then I have to ask......
What's the point!
If DAB is going to be superceeded, then I'll have to replace my mum's DAB, which will annoy me intensely. But it is already better than FM. Much. If anone disagrees with that, they probably still use FM, and are being pathologically loyal.
The Reg has to go. I mean it. Sometimes you disrupt my sensitive and artistic peaceful calm. What is it with you guys?
A DAB radio in a fixed place on mains power works just fine thanks ....
.. I know several people who are very happy with it
But these people have a DAB radio and are not going to buy another one soon ... that's why the sales figures have fallen off - people who want one have it ...
What's the sales of FM radios like ..?
.. The problem with DAB is when you want it portable (use too much power, all or nothing reception)
.. or in a car - Again all or nothing reception (or bubbling mud....)
But how exactly will internet radio or freeview radio help this - both are non portable (over any useful distance) and cannot be used in cars ...
The thee things that put me off buying DAB
I already have freeview for fixed Digital Radio
The portable radios are bulky, ugly and power hungry
The In Car radios are still expensive and the decent coverage is patchy ...
Satellite Radio - Well if the receivers are cheap, coverage is good, and not power hungry then yes they will do better than DAB ... but I doubt all the above will be true (hey will be expensive, ugly, power hungry, and won't work indoors ....)
Wow, another dissing of DAB and this ones uses distorted statistics and dodgy graphs. 25 quid of subsidy per receiver, wow, that makes a great dent in my TV licence, thanks Beeb!
Whilst I agree that a upgradeable route for DAB would have been preferable, the technology platform available back in 1999 might have had problems with that at a viable cost.
Now it is quite possible to imagine receivers that can be updated over the air or maybe by plugging in a memory card.
I suspect the biggest problem is that whenever I am sad enough to see a copy of the Sun or Daily Express, some idiot is saying "DAB is a failure, all your receivers are obsolete.. DAB+ will make your children weep and the sky fall". I think this makes OFCOM (like all government agencies in the UK these days) very conservative and afeared to do anything sensible.
This is where I agree with the article.. a planned evolution to DAB+ with the current core of channels staying on DAB would work well. C4 could have been asked to launch partially on DAB and partially on DAB+.
But, this isn't PC and Internet.. fucking up a format (like Minidisc and DCC or the Bluray/HD-DVD war) can kill a new technology stillborn in the world of real world white goods and the older demographic who really like DAB and Freeview.
DAB isn't up to the job of replacing FM in cars, vans and lorries. That's about 25 million sales DAB won't get. Error correction can't cope with the constantly changing quality of reception as vehicles move past all sorts of objects that affect the signal.
My solution is DAB++ which can be backward compatible with DAB. It can transmit a channel twice on different frequencies about 3 seconds apart. DAB++ receivers can replace missing or corrupt data in the first transmission from that in the second transmission.
Until quality is improved all of my cars will continue to have FM radios.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds