2009/1/29 John Ousby <john.ou...@bbc.co.uk> > The recommendation isn't 50% dab, it's 50% digital listening - so > combination of DAB, IP, DTV etc. i.e. choose the one that matches your > expectations of quality. > on the DAB+ point, the boring sounding profiles bit means that there is a > set of profiles that mean that a digital broadcast radio can work anywhere > in europe (DAB, DAB+, DMB-A) hence introducing economies of scale and > getting round the fact that a lot of manufacturers don't just provide > devices for a particular territory. >
Yes, and sidesteps the whole "are we going to use another codec in the UK and if so when?" question. > hope this helps > best > J > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: > owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] *On Behalf Of *Scot McSweeney-Roberts > *Sent:* 29 January 2009 16:41 > *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Digital Britain Interim Report is published > > Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of FM vs DAB quality. > Even if the coverage is (eventually) there, if the quality isn't as good > then I don't see 50% of the population switching to DAB any time soon. > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 16:31, Brian Butterworth <briant...@freeview.tv>wrote: > >> In the box on page 34, the second table has no headings. Nowhere does it >> mention the 'planned coverage' is for 2030. And best of all... >> "N.B. Comparing analogue FM to DAB coverage is not straightforward due to >> the individual characteristics of each platform and it is necessary to >> measure the performance in different ways ... current coverage of DAB on >> local commercial multiplexes varies considerably." >> >> 2009/1/29 Brian Butterworth <briant...@freeview.tv> >> >> I'm quite impressed by the way that the whole DAB+ issue has become a box >>> about the boring sounding European 'Digital Radio Receivers Profiles' on >>> page 33. Strange way to write a long-term plan if you ask me. >>> >>> 2009/1/29 Jim Tonge <jim_d_to...@yahoo.co.uk> >>> >>> And plenty not to: >>>> (page 22) >>>> "On the same basis, the Government has yet to see a case for >>>> legislation in favour of >>>> net neutrality. In consequence, unless Ofcom find network operators or >>>> ISPs to have >>>> Significant Market Power and justify intervention on competition >>>> grounds, traffic >>>> management will not be prevented." >>>> >>>> At least I'll be able to get to the quality at AOL news faster... >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> On 29 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Brian Butterworth wrote: >>>> >>>> A lot to enjoy here... >>>> >>>> "Our plans for the level of service which we believe should be >>>> universal. We anticipate this consideration will include options up to >>>> 2Mb/s." >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.dcms.gov.uk/images/publications/digital_britain_interimreportjan09.pdf >>>> >>>> Brian Butterworth >>>> >>>> follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist >>>> web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and >>>> switchover advice, since 2002 >>>> >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Brian Butterworth >>> >>> follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist >>> web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and >>> switchover advice, since 2002 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Brian Butterworth >> >> follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist >> web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover >> advice, since 2002 >> > > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
