Report: Not much interest in buying DAB

[KB1OKL]

I continue to post DAB articles because the HD cheerleaders here keep pointing to DAB in Britain as a success model that HD will not fail to follow. But, DAB is not doing much better in the UK than HD is doing here despite the UK government's heavy handed push to get the listeners to adopt a $$$$$$¡¡¡¡¡¡DIGITAL!!!!!!$$$$$$ radio format. It is quite obvious that UK listeners couldn't much care less whether their format is digital or not and in fact the whole world seems to have quite the same opinion. The only people who seem to insist that digital is our inevitable future for radio are people who stand to make a profit directly or indirectly if we convert.

This from Radio Today:

"The latest annual report on digital radio from Ofcom shows people are still buying more FM radio sets than DAB, and 60% of new cars still don’t have DAB as standard.
Forty-six per cent of people claimed ownership of a DAB digital radio, but out of those who do not have access to a set at home, only 14% claim that they are ‘likely’/’very likely’/’certain’ to buy a set in the next 12 months.

The Government is expected to announce the future of platforms for radio in the UK before the end of the year.

In automobiles, 38.3% of new cars are currently fitted with DAB as standard, up just 12.4 percentage points more than were fitted with DAB as standard in Q2 2012."

As you can in the article see many cars in the UK are fitted with digital radios and that has not been the panacea for DAB that ibiquity claims thier coup will be for HD here, in fact iNiquity would kill for those figures. I think it would behoove the cheerleaders here who constantly bloviate about HD radio and what a wonder it is to get a broader view of digital radio worldwide before they claim the latest "great happening" of ibiquity will be "the thing" that forces us all to eventually either buy digital radio receivers or resort to shortwave only.

"William Rogers, UKRD Chief says: “This report tells us what we already know to be true. There will be no switchover to DAB in 2015, the choice of DAB as the alternative platform to FM for local radio was an error, DAB has failed to become the choice of platform for those listening to local radio stations, more sets are sold today without a DAB enabled receiver than those that have one, the choices people are making in terms of listening to a digital platform are increasingly those that are not DAB related and the coverage for local radio on DAB remains totally inadequate. This is an inferior and more costly platform."

He mistakenly blames DAB itself as an inferior platform in which to force the masses to go digital. When are these radio executives going to realize that most of us really just couldn't care less about digital radio in general? It is not DAB (which BTW is a much better way of broadcasting radio digitally than HD) but the whole idea of having to buy new radios and convert to a non-needed technology when the one we have now works just fine thank you.

HD: a digital radio platform for people who don't need it nor want it.

Incidentally this article directly contradicts the suppositions in the ibiquity VP's HD AD "AM Radio Must go all Digital" in this weeks Radio World as DAB in the UK is ALL digital albeit on different frequencies and of which a post was added with that title.

Read the whole article here:

http://radiotoday.co.uk/2013/09/report-not-much-interest-in-buying-dab/

 

[kenglish]

My new neighbors asked me about my antennas the other day.....
They were surprised to hear that I was able to get any signals on them since 2009.

They understood that "DIGITAL" meant, "Can't be received without Cable or Satellite subscription any more".

Seems like MOST people don't know what a "digital" is anyway. But, they'd probably laugh if you suggested they buy an analog phone.
(That means "bigger and heavier", as opposed to "lighter and cuter" digital.)

 

[TheBigA]

If US AM radio went DAB, it wouldn't need IBOC at all. In fact a US mandated DAB program would most likely put iBiquity out of business.

 

[diymedia]

This, of course, presumes that the FCC were amenable to considering alternative technologies, but when it first unleashed HD it was very explicit in saying that anything but IBOC was now and forever off the table. We never did see a comparative test of all available technologies.

 

[KB1OKL]

We should have been able to have something like DAB with some of the free space given up by the low TV channels, of course instead we had ibiquity pay off the FCC and get their lousy nonworking proprietary system become our system. Regular AM and FM should have been left alone.

 

[TheBigA]

This, of course, presumes that the FCC were amenable to considering alternative technologies, but when it first unleashed HD it was very explicit in saying that anything but IBOC was now and forever off the table.

Not exactly. What they said, and have continued to say, is that there would not be a digital radio mandate. And Congress agrees. Following the TV conversion, there was little appetite to go through the cost and hassle of doing the same thing for radio. At least they got sellable spectrum space from TV. No such benefit from radio.

As for the idea that iBiquity "paid off the FCC," the fact is that they've never had enough money to pay their own bills, much less pay off a federal agency. That kind of thing is left to the telecom companies. But if they had paid off the FCC, as you suggest, they probably could have gotten the mandate.

 

[diymedia]

I never said iBiquity paid anybody; that's the realm of true haters and conspiracists. And the FCC's 2002 launch Order specifically says, "the Commission will no longer entertain in this proceeding any proposal for digital radio broadcasting other than [HD Radio]." The door to alternatives closed then and there. Now, it's true the FCC said the marketplace will determine the pace of the transition. But what to do in the case of market failure?

 

[TheBigA]

I never said iBiquity paid anybody;

I didn't say YOU did. I was addressing the post directly after yours.

The Commission was speaking for itself in 2002. I'd suggest the current Commission doesn't feel bound by what was said 11 years ago. I doubt anyone in 2002 would have ever suggested giving away translators is a solution to the AM problem. But that's what they're saying now. The bigger problem is that electronics manufacturers and inventors aren't motivated to come up with a better idea because they've seen the response IBOC got. Consumers don't want to buy radios, the electronics industry doesn't want to pay royalties on a new invention, and then there's the regulatory hurdle. Not a lot of fun. Think I'll develop an app instead. Far cheaper and easier with more chances to make money.

 

[diymedia]

The Commission was speaking for itself in 2002. I'd suggest the current Commission doesn't feel bound by what was said 11 years ago. I doubt anyone in 2002 would have ever suggested giving away translators is a solution to the AM problem. But that's what they're saying now.

That's funny, because the Commission is often bound by its own precedent. There have been multiple instances in the ongoing digital radio rulemaking where many people (broadcasters and listeners) have said, "Let's look at alternatives," only for HD proponents to point back to 2002 and wave their arms, saying "any deviation from HD exclusivity puts our investments at risk, and that's not in the public interest," at which point the FCC nods sagely.

The evolving use of translators, and their connection to an AM revitalization, are wholly unrelated to the digital radio rulemaking, and as with many things involving policy, the devil's in the details. I think that's one case where the FCC is willing to throw precedent out the window (they've already done as much by allowing current practices to flourish)....but there seems to be no flexibility on digital radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Do you have examples of actual rulings from the FCC where they refer to 2002? Or just head nods?

Any lawyer will tell you that the easiest way to challenge a ruling is if you can show inconsistency. You're saying the FCC is inconsistent. Call the lawyers.

 

[KB1OKL]

I didn't say YOU did. I was addressing the post directly after yours.

QUOTE]

Yup that would be me, I realize no actual money changed hands probably but you know something funny had to go on to OK a system such as ibiquities.

 

[diymedia]

Do you have examples of actual rulings from the FCC where they refer to 2002? Or just head nods?

Any lawyer will tell you that the easiest way to challenge a ruling is if you can show inconsistency. You're saying the FCC is inconsistent. Call the lawyers.

Yep, it's all in the book, which you can read at your leisure come January/February. But if you really want pedantry, one good example is the FCC's NPRM on "further rules" issued on 4/20/04, p. 4, footnote 17.

Ironically, NPR put the finest point on it in 2008, responding to some petitions for reconsideration: considering alternatives challenges "the basic decision to authorize the iBiquity system and not merely some incidental aspect of it. Accordingly...we urge the Commission to consider the potentially catastrophic consequences for the future of digital radio and the public." (Opposition to Pet. Recons., 2/11/08, p. 8-9).

You know the FCC can respond to these sorts of things two ways: explicitly (saying, "we've covered that ground already," which it did in the "further rules" proceeding), and implicitly (by ignoring petitions for reconsideration and other valid filings which the Commission does have an obligation to address, or by framing an inquiry to encourage or discourage particular information).

Although I do believe a case might be made that the digital radio rulemaking did not comport to the letter of administrative law, you seriously think the courts will walk this back? In the D.C. Circuit, of all places? With what money and army?