Tuesday, 29 April 2008
Christopher England <...> said:
I've no problem migrating everything over to a digital platform as long
as it a phased migration a bit like with the telly and includes all
parties, not just one, ie not just the BBC.
There is a difference between the TV switch over and the radio one.
Sky started the digital revolution with a large audience eager to upgrade. Then ITV was supposed to kick start the terrestrial digital switch. Problem was Sky had become the dominate force as far as content is concerned, there was no checks and balances so it was left to the BBC to pick up the pieces from the Governments mis-management of TV regulation. We are only now returning to a strong multi channel line up, with everyone on a fair even playing field
The best answer is a phased analogue switch off for radio altogether,
forget about fiddling about with reallocating analogue band plans and
all that malarkey. We are now in an age when we need to shed ourselves
of this old fashioned and restricted medium.
This would be the ideal situation. However, we as one country cannot do this on our own. This is why DAB radios are still quite expensive; the only ones that are not are the ones that can't be upgraded and the industry trying to get rid of them before the public suss them out.
This switch over has to be done throughout the EU. This way we can build a much more substantial market for DAB or DAB+ as it will probably become. We as a nation should have realised our small market is not big enough for mass producing small cheap DAB radios.
If the answer is lack of
space and a need for more choice all operating together, then we need to
radically kickstart a digital migration.
As I have stated above I don't believe this is possible in radio without the co-operation of our EU neighbours. Until there is an agreement between all nations in the EU I believe the UK's only option is the one I proposed, the finer detail will obviously need tiding up. The main problem that needs to be addressed is that the muxes on DAB should not be owned by the content providers, there needs to be a clear separation, this is what caused half the problems on the Sky platform until the BBC stood up to them
It may not be fair, but
then it wasn't fair to have oneword/Storm/theJazz trying to survive on a
struggling platform.Interestingly, all owned by leading Borgs I believe. None of them new
entrants or independents.
This is the problem when you let the loonies take over the asylum. The analogue stations should never have been able to buy up the muxes, then dictate the content. They should have been allotted a space on their areas mux and there licence renewed for a short period so that it was in their interest to get all their listeners over to the new platform as soon as possible. We need a strong competitive radio market; the only way we are going to get that is by having strong national independant commercial networks, not just a few who own the network supply the content. The checks and balances should be about ownership not content providing.
Steve
In article <f9ad666153c4acd6e2f4b049942700db@jiglu-wc>, ... (Stephen Sullivan) wrote:
There is a difference between the TV switch over and the radio one.
Sky started the digital revolution with a large audience eager to
upgrade. Then ITV was supposed to kick start the terrestrial
digital switch. Problem was Sky had become the dominate force as
far as content is concerned, there was no checks and balances so it
was left to the BBC to pick up the pieces from the Governments
mis-management of TV regulation. We are only now returning to a
strong multi channel line up, with everyone on a fair even playing
field
Oh please. Sky had a small majority of home at that time and along came ITV with a kick start called football from Division One – WOW what a winner, not! ITVD was a disaster from the start, I bet Sky were laughing like mad. The checks in place were – oh let's give to ITV. To be honest Sky would have been better at getting DVBT going via the aerial than ITV. Anyway, that is water under the bridge, the fact was that whilst most were poking fun at the mess a few were pushing for the BBC to get the platform AND DRIVE it. They did and did a good job.
As far as content is concerned, how come the take up was rubbish with ITVD and when Freeview kicked off it grew and grew and grew??
This is the problem when you let the loonies take over the asylum.
The analogue stations should never have been able to buy up the
muxes, then dictate the content. They should have been allotted a
space on their areas mux and there licence renewed for a short
period so that it was in their interest to get all their listeners
over to the new platform as soon as possible. We need a strong
competitive radio market; the only way we are going to get that is
by having strong national independant commercial networks, not just
a few who own the network supply the content. The checks and
balances should be about ownership not content providing.
The problem here Steve was one of applicants – if you only get a couple of applicants with the cash to pay for national transmission networks, what are you supposed to do? Oh well never mind we won't do that then?
There have been so many debates on here about things and most come back to money!!! So why don't all the anoraks get together and raise oodles of money to apply to take over some of the DAB space? If the content works, it would drive DAB sales like crazy, then "group anorak" would probably become the Borg :-)
Eric
Eric Tesug <...> said:
Oh please. Sky had a small majority of home at that time and along came
ITV with a kick start called football from Division One – WOW what a
winner, not! ITVD was a disaster from the start, I bet Sky were laughing
like mad. The checks in place were – oh let's give to ITV. To be honest
Sky would have been better at getting DVBT going via the aerial than ITV.
By the time ITV digital started Sky had the premium content rapped up (soccer and Movies), the fact that ITV overpaid a fortune for Division One was a desperate attempt by the regionalised companies to catch up with Sky. ITV was not one company; it was a number of regionalised companies desperate to merge to fight the big media corporations before they got swallowed up. Sky later took the opportunity to buy into ITV to stop other companies competing with its dominate position. This will always happen when there are not enforced proper checks and balances. Today we are left with regulation stopping Sky from showing all the Football, which is how it should be.
Anyway, that is water under the bridge, the fact was that whilst most
were poking fun at the mess a few were pushing for the BBC to get the
platform AND DRIVE it. They did and did a good job.
As far as content is concerned, how come the take up was rubbish with
ITVD and when Freeview kicked off it grew and grew and grew??
No problem with how TV has developed, perhaps we can learn from the mistakes made and implement it for radio by using the BBC, just in a slightly different way so as not to have a dominate commercial broadcaster.
The problem here Steve was one of applicants – if you only get a couple
of applicants with the cash to pay for national transmission networks,
what are you supposed to do? Oh well never mind we won't do that then?There have been so many debates on here about things and most come back
to money!!! So why don't all the anoraks get together and raise oodles of
money to apply to take over some of the DAB space? If the content works,
it would drive DAB sales like crazy, then "group anorak" would probably
become the Borg :-)
Content will only work if you have the right platform; DAB on its own will not work. Why should group anorak try to make something work in our unfair broadcast set-up when a huge company like GCap cannot even do it? You might as well spend a few hundred thousand and get a boat and have fun for a few months, rather than get on DAB and fail like all other commercial ventures on this platform.
Yes it will comedown to money. What we have to do is correct the mistakes of the past before you can plan for a first class radio system for the future.
To a certain extent in a few decades time all radio will be on an equal footing to a certain extent, they won't have the luxury of cross media advertising that the BBC have, unless they are owned by other media giants or can set-up deals with other media providers, but they will be able to provide content on one or two platforms and if the content is right they may make money as well. The problem is the likes of me and you will either not be around or so old as to not even be able to hear a radio,
Steve
In article <a34a13b6905d8dcddd0c00dda6d02e58@jiglu-wc>, ... (Stephen Sullivan) wrote:
By the time ITV digital started Sky had the premium content rapped
up (soccer and Movies), the fact that ITV overpaid a fortune for
Division One was a desperate attempt by the regionalised companies
to catch up with Sky.
I think the point was missed. ITV did what it did and was foolish.
The BBC came along with an offering and it worked – the middle ground of Sky is a red herring.
enforced proper checks and balances. Today we are left with
regulation stopping Sky from showing all the Football, which is how
it should be.
Not quite true, the legislation covers all groups. When there is a significant golf tournament the BBC have to gain agreeing from Ofcom in the same way as ITV and/or Sky – just look at all the application on the Ofcom site.
No problem with how TV has developed, perhaps we can learn from the
mistakes made and implement it for radio by using the BBC, just in
a slightly different way so as not to have a dominate commercial
broadcaster.
I do believe there is a major difference with radio which has lots of people running round in circles and that is, in what ever form, streaming radio. Not so easy with TV because of the bandwidth needs of vision.
So being dominant for the BBC in audio is very hard, they need to do so many things in the same way as other broadcasters must do to retain the audience, especially when considering different age groups.
Different age group access radio in many ways, the broadcaster has to decide if they want to go there or not – the BBC has to as switched as other broadcasters to stay in front, or they'll go behind. Actually the people that have more power these days are the listeners. If they all go to listening by phone and you're not there, then bye bye audience. The same goes for offering other services such as webcams, chat rooms and the like – you only fail to have those services at your own peril.
Content will only work if you have the right platform; DAB on its
own will not work. Why should group anorak try to make something
work in our unfair broadcast set-up when a huge company like GCap
cannot even do it? You might as well spend a few hundred thousand
and get a boat and have fun for a few months, rather than get on
DAB and fail like all other commercial ventures on this platform.
There you are either being a smart politician or emulating C.E. :-)
The constant negatives about GCap would suggest, if the views are correct, that the failing of DAB is much about there content. Therefore with improved content the sales would increase, although the figures out suggest DAB hasn't suffered by the reduction of programme content – which says a lot.
Yes it will comedown to money. What we have to do is correct the
mistakes of the past before you can plan for a first class radio
system for the future.
Nobody is going to do that for nowt!
To a certain extent in a few decades time all radio will be on an
equal footing to a certain extent, they won't have the luxury of
cross media advertising that the BBC have, unless they are owned by
other media giants or can set-up deals with other media providers,
but they will be able to provide content on one or two platforms
and if the content is right they may make money as well. The
problem is the likes of me and you will either not be around or so
old as to not even be able to hear a radio,
:-) Speak for yourself.
People who get hung up about the BBC will never move forward – the BBC actually wins because people spend to much time worrying about them and not getting on with it.
The joke about anyone being a broadcaster is now getting less and less of a joke. Many of the keys to being a good broadcaster and centred in key word searches, hyper-links and lots more.
C.E. and I have been advocates of Twitter for ages, recently a guy from a large broadcast organisation wrote a piece, after flying to a show in the USA, saying he'd found this great new thing called Twitter – he got HAMMERED for his story. In the future that kind of cock-up will make a huge difference to the brand and as such the value of the broadcaster.
Just my view
Eric
Where's that Oscar when you need him?
If you're out there man, what's happening in this whole talking radio thing?
I've noticed the lovely Nick Abbott seems to be struggling for calls even more than ever, plus the Globalised format at LBC still sounds sterile and like a whole load of character has been knocked out of the station and the 'individual sound' of each programme. And them having to 'talk-up' the breakfast show every 10 minutes – worse than when commercial music radio stations have to keep doing it – how annoying is that?!
Meanwhile City Talk is sounding confused and I suspect we a month or two away from blood and tears.
That Talk 107 seems to have changed into some boring 1930s BBC station, and there's no Tommy Boyd using rude words on Play Radio.
So, what am I supposed to listen to?
—
* Christopher England just said that *
Never been a fan of games consoles. Ever. Or games on PCs. But, man, the more stuff I see on the Wii the more I'm convinced this is the console and gaming system that will wipe out all the others. I have become a Wii anorak.
The thing that makes it really work is the fact that you are not limited to the conventional 'controller' and pressing endless buttons all the time. The whole concept has completely liberated the user from this old fashioned idea, and you are suddenly using 3 dimensions of 'realistic' interaction with the games. But how does the Wii remote (or controller) know all this stuff about what you are doing and how you are doing it? They're really thought about this through and through.
More importantly, why do I get a curved ball to the right whenever I'm bowling? How can this bloody Wii remote keep saying I'm doing this? Am I going to have to take it apart for some corrective surgery?
—
* Christopher England just said that *
