Comments on: We’re not done talking about platforms for radio http://nick.piggott.name/blog/2009/07/29/were-not-done-talking-about-platforms-for-radio/ Nick Piggott's blog about the intersection between new media and radio Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:27:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Richard http://nick.piggott.name/blog/2009/07/29/were-not-done-talking-about-platforms-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-9343 Richard Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:02:05 +0000 http://nick.piggott.name/blog/?p=156#comment-9343 James is right - nobody cares how they get their content - the consumer just wants a cheap, easy to use device which delivers content to them. The internet is part of this picture - but I see terrestrial broadcast in some form as an essential part of the mix. Nick is also right - the platform is also important. Currently the internet fills the needs for some listeners - but not all. Internet radio is cheap if you have laread invested in a PC and a broadband connection. The iPhone is a great solution for mobile radio - but would it work reliably in any city of the world if 10% or more of the population all decided to listen to a radio station at the same time? I beleive that radio does need a terrestrial broadcast delivery method to survive - and this platform needs to be digital in order to allow radio to evolve. We can't just rely on the traditional analogue platforms. The choice of platform may not seem important to consumers - but it is important to the broadcast industry. If we want the cheap, ubiquitous consumer devices that free to air radio requires - we need devices that can be manufactured for a world market. If more broadcasters in more countries back a particular platform - this means more choice of receivers at lower costs in all these countries - and less confusion for consumers. I also agree that multiplexing need not be a big problem for broadcasters. In Australia the commercial radio broadcasters all have an equal share in the owner ship of the DAB+ multiplexing and transmission equipment. We don't have a multiplex operator chargiing us for services and limiting the broadcasters flexibility to change their service offering when they wish. We also bought the multiplexing equipment ourselves up front - avoiding the finance costs hidden within a service contract. If broadcasters "collaborate on technology and [only] compete on content" these issues are not a huge problem. James is right – nobody cares how they get their content – the consumer just wants a cheap, easy to use device which delivers content to them. The internet is part of this picture – but I see terrestrial broadcast in some form as an essential part of the mix.
Nick is also right – the platform is also important. Currently the internet fills the needs for some listeners – but not all. Internet radio is cheap if you have laread invested in a PC and a broadband connection. The iPhone is a great solution for mobile radio – but would it work reliably in any city of the world if 10% or more of the population all decided to listen to a radio station at the same time?
I beleive that radio does need a terrestrial broadcast delivery method to survive – and this platform needs to be digital in order to allow radio to evolve. We can’t just rely on the traditional analogue platforms.
The choice of platform may not seem important to consumers – but it is important to the broadcast industry. If we want the cheap, ubiquitous consumer devices that free to air radio requires – we need devices that can be manufactured for a world market. If more broadcasters in more countries back a particular platform – this means more choice of receivers at lower costs in all these countries – and less confusion for consumers.

I also agree that multiplexing need not be a big problem for broadcasters.
In Australia the commercial radio broadcasters all have an equal share in the owner ship of the DAB+ multiplexing and transmission equipment. We don’t have a multiplex operator chargiing us for services and limiting the broadcasters flexibility to change their service offering when they wish. We also bought the multiplexing equipment ourselves up front – avoiding the finance costs hidden within a service contract. If broadcasters “collaborate on technology and [only] compete on content” these issues are not a huge problem.

]]> By: Nick Piggott http://nick.piggott.name/blog/2009/07/29/were-not-done-talking-about-platforms-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-8694 Nick Piggott Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:32:21 +0000 http://nick.piggott.name/blog/?p=156#comment-8694 It's a complex question, and thanks for your observations Bev. I see multiplexing as less of a disadvantage as it might seem. Multiplexing allows capacity to be moved around as requirements change, and having bandwidth for future (non-audio) applications seems like a prudent things to do. Multiplexing also allows infrastructure to be shared between operators, reducing the per-station cost. I suspect, now that multiplexers run (as software) comfortably on a mid-range laptop, the small cost of multiplexing is worth paying in order to dramatically reduce the number of transmitters required in the network. What I think we're struggling with is the choice of "ubiquitous" platform. DVB-S, DVB-C, DVB-T, IP are all capable of carrying radio, and probably will continue to do so (assuming the economics make sense - in the UK, the economics of DVB-T don't make sense for radio IMHO). But none of those do well against all 4 check points, because none of then are *designed* for radio from the ground up. It’s a complex question, and thanks for your observations Bev. I see multiplexing as less of a disadvantage as it might seem. Multiplexing allows capacity to be moved around as requirements change, and having bandwidth for future (non-audio) applications seems like a prudent things to do. Multiplexing also allows infrastructure to be shared between operators, reducing the per-station cost. I suspect, now that multiplexers run (as software) comfortably on a mid-range laptop, the small cost of multiplexing is worth paying in order to dramatically reduce the number of transmitters required in the network.

What I think we’re struggling with is the choice of “ubiquitous” platform. DVB-S, DVB-C, DVB-T, IP are all capable of carrying radio, and probably will continue to do so (assuming the economics make sense – in the UK, the economics of DVB-T don’t make sense for radio IMHO). But none of those do well against all 4 check points, because none of then are *designed* for radio from the ground up.

]]> By: Bev MARKS http://nick.piggott.name/blog/2009/07/29/were-not-done-talking-about-platforms-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-8685 Bev MARKS Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:37:30 +0000 http://nick.piggott.name/blog/?p=156#comment-8685 For the eagle-eyed, obviously in last but one paragraph of my first comment, I should have typed "ubiquitously"! But now to James comment: simple logic says we have to know what platform is the choice, so that peripheral matters that may well affect content possibilities have previously been fixed. The trouble is the choice is too wide at present.. For the eagle-eyed, obviously in last but one paragraph of my first comment, I should have typed “ubiquitously”!

But now to James comment: simple logic says we have to know what platform is the choice, so that peripheral matters that may well affect content possibilities have previously been fixed. The trouble is the choice is too wide at present..

]]> By: A trawl around the web on August 1st - blog - James Cridland http://nick.piggott.name/blog/2009/07/29/were-not-done-talking-about-platforms-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-8680 A trawl around the web on August 1st - blog - James Cridland Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:24:21 +0000 http://nick.piggott.name/blog/?p=156#comment-8680 [...] Why the platform question for radio remains unanswered [Nick Piggott] Nick has a reply for my post earlier this week. I reckoned we should stop talking about platforms, and start talking about content. Nick thinks we should still talk about platforms. It’s a good post. Mind, it’s wrong. But it’s a good post. (grin) [...] [...] Why the platform question for radio remains unanswered [Nick Piggott] Nick has a reply for my post earlier this week. I reckoned we should stop talking about platforms, and start talking about content. Nick thinks we should still talk about platforms. It’s a good post. Mind, it’s wrong. But it’s a good post. (grin) [...]

]]> By: Bev MARKS http://nick.piggott.name/blog/2009/07/29/were-not-done-talking-about-platforms-for-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-8661 Bev MARKS Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:17:18 +0000 http://nick.piggott.name/blog/?p=156#comment-8661 Thankyou for this thoughtful commentary and indeed thanks to James for provoking you! My main reaction is I hope pretty simple: radio is first and foremost at the top of the list of mobile media. For radio to move from the analogue to digital domains it must be, in reception terms, at least as good in all mobile situations as FM is now. Furthermore digital radios must sell at approximately the same price as FM radios – otherwise I see no way it can be equivalent or thus attractive to consumers. I also assume the domain shift requires radio to include some added value aspects for the modern era, though most consumers probably have not thought what they want or need. Digital radio technology can certainly provide these simple requirements and it must also be OK for radio stations, that range from stand alone to those that are part of large companies or networks with considerable technical resources, to implement services on the platform (to use the parlance of this debate). Unfortunately most of the digital radio technical possibilities require multiplexing several stations together and I see this as a real challenge to the radio domain shift. I suppose I have a simple conclusion to make. It seems to me time for the engineers to stop inventing and fix a technology for the platform and then say to the radio stations we have a solution suitable for all radio stations to use on at least a continental basis (although preferably a worldwide basis – however there is no track record for that possibility). Then implementations can go ahead to provide transmissions and radios iniquitously for the benefit of radio users and they will have minimal technical choices to make with plenty of product differentiation from the radio manufacturers who can develop radios knowing a single platform has been selected for very large markets. To comment on my own profession - I think radio engineers have been far too reluctant to steer the choice and to say that a single platform must be selected – it is so obvious, but why do they keep quiet and leave a very destabilising debate to go on month after month? Thankyou for this thoughtful commentary and indeed thanks to James for provoking you!
My main reaction is I hope pretty simple: radio is first and foremost at the top of the list of mobile media. For radio to move from the analogue to digital domains it must be, in reception terms, at least as good in all mobile situations as FM is now. Furthermore digital radios must sell at approximately the same price as FM radios – otherwise I see no way it can be equivalent or thus attractive to consumers. I also assume the domain shift requires radio to include some added value aspects for the modern era, though most consumers probably have not thought what they want or need.
Digital radio technology can certainly provide these simple requirements and it must also be OK for radio stations, that range from stand alone to those that are part of large companies or networks with considerable technical resources, to implement services on the platform (to use the parlance of this debate). Unfortunately most of the digital radio technical possibilities require multiplexing several stations together and I see this as a real challenge to the radio domain shift.
I suppose I have a simple conclusion to make. It seems to me time for the engineers to stop inventing and fix a technology for the platform and then say to the radio stations we have a solution suitable for all radio stations to use on at least a continental basis (although preferably a worldwide basis – however there is no track record for that possibility). Then implementations can go ahead to provide transmissions and radios iniquitously for the benefit of radio users and they will have minimal technical choices to make with plenty of product differentiation from the radio manufacturers who can develop radios knowing a single platform has been selected for very large markets.
To comment on my own profession – I think radio engineers have been far too reluctant to steer the choice and to say that a single platform must be selected – it is so obvious, but why do they keep quiet and leave a very destabilising debate to go on month after month?

]]>