Digital Economy Bill

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

With DAB, BBC Radio 3 (classical music station for those not aquainted with it) is crystal clear in my area, much the best quality sound I've ever heard on radio.

I do think it's a shame there's compression on other stations though - it's not what we were promised.

The reason the BBC give for this, you may be interested to know, is that people listen to music on Radio 3, whereas on Radio 1 and 2, it's just on a "background". This may, of course, be pure BBC "snobbery"; the practical reason is that there isn't the bandwidth on the BBC's multiplexer to transmit all the stations at the same bandwidth as R3.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I do think it's a shame there's compression on other stations though - it's not what we were promised.

They're going to have compress - more - with the basic plan for the changeover.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

They're going to have compress - more - with the basic plan for the changeover.

Could you elaborate on that? I was under the impression that the reason for switching off analogue radio stations was to free up more digital bandwidth.

[DawnFalcon]

It frees up bandwidth, yes. But I wouldn't assume from the current plans that digital radio will be getting all (or even a majority) of that bandwidth.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Radio 4 (like Radio 1 and 2) is 128kbit stereo; Radio 3 is 160kbit stereo; Radio 7 is 80kbit mono. Given, however, that Radio 7 is a purely speech station, this is entirely acceptable for its purpose (most audiobook MP3s are 64k mono, by comparison). I have Radio 7 on all day, every day on DAB. I don't believe Radio 7 is stereo on FM, either, is it?.

Radio 7 is stereo on both Freeview and Sky and used to be stereo on the internet/listen again (not sure if it still is or not). Anything recorded from the mid 1970s onwards will have been made in stereo

Originally Posted by HarryT

The whole point, though, of freeing up more bandwidth in the radio spectrum is to permit more stations, and at a higher bitrate. You've noticed, I'm sure, that the FM spectrum in the UK is currently so full that it's very often impossible to pick up one station without interference from those around it, especially in the evening.

Actually it is so that they can sell off the FM spectrum to commercial organisations. Which will mean no local radio, and no radio at all in most people's cars.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason the BBC give for this, you may be interested to know, is that people listen to music on Radio 3, whereas on Radio 1 and 2, it's just on a "background". This may, of course, be pure BBC "snobbery"; the practical reason is that there isn't the bandwidth on the BBC's multiplexer to transmit all the stations at the same bandwidth as R3.

Jenny Abramski (?) who used to be the controller of digital radio, once said on Feedback that she listens to Radio 3 on her in-car DAB radio. That is more likely to be the real reason Radio 3 stole all the bits.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It frees up bandwidth, yes. But I wouldn't assume from the current plans that digital radio will be getting all (or even a majority) of that bandwidth.

Granted, but you said in an earlier post that it would result in more compression of what's already there. Why would that happen?

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Granted, but you said in an earlier post that it would result in more compression of what's already there. Why would that happen?

Well lets say there is currently space for 200 DAB stations in the current bandwith given to DAB well if any new stations want to launce then surely they will need to compress the existing 200 to fit the new ones in?

[HarryT]

Granted. But, on the other hand, switching off one FM station probably frees up space for 10 digital ones, so I would have expected that the migration of FM stations to DAB would result in increased bandwidth per station, rather than reduced.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Granted. But, on the other hand, switching off one FM station probably frees up space for 10 digital ones, so I would have expected that the migration of FM stations to DAB would result in increased bandwidth per station, rather than reduced.

well yes but no... they arent giving the bandwith to DAB! they are selling the 'spare' bandwith off to other wireless comms.

eg pre DAB Radio bandwith used 60% of available spectrum
They have estimated if they go digital Radio DAB needs only 15% so they sell off/assign the other 45% to other uses. Then DAB is left with 15% or no expansion room... add new stations means compress existing.

exactly the same is happening with digital TV they have given over a certain amount of space in the spectrum but didnt take HD into account really! so freeview HD being introduced is messing it up and they are having to basically make the pictures worse! BBC HD is now a lower quality picture than when it launched!

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Granted, but you said in an earlier post that it would result in more compression of what's already there. Why would that happen?

Actually, I meant to imply that all the stations will be quite heavily compressed - as some already are - and the quality of those stations is ime poor.

Moreover, it makes no sense to switch to a MPEG-2 based standard in a world where the web is about to shift to more advanced codec's. Given all the more advanced digital radio standards break compatibility anyway, they might as well do it /right/.

[Sparrow]

Will the BBC be improving the broadcast quality of its stations following the demise of Radio 6 and the Asian Network?
I'd think that'd free up some bandwidth.

[HarryT]

One would hope so. Bit rates are dynamic as it is - when Radio 5 Sports Extra (a part-time station) is transmitting, Radio 3 gets its quality reduced from 192 to 160kbits, for example.

6 Music is 128kbit, Asian network 64kbit, so ditching them would free up 192kbits of bandwidth; that could be used, for example, to bring radio 1, 2, and 4 all up to 192kbit, just like radio 3.

[Steven Lake]

Sparrow, if they're using bittorrent, it's dead easy. Every leecher is a downloader and uploader at the same time. With other avenues, like websites and newsgroups, they'll have to sue the companies to get access to the download logs to find out who did what. Which is easy with web hosts, but not so easy with newshosts, as they're smart enough not to log downloads. But they could easily be forced to. P2P networks can be monitored for both uploads and downloads very easily, as it's been done a lot in the past.

The only way you'll avoid their detection these days is to be on a private darknet that uses encrypted VPN. But even that's only safe for a short time. If they really want in, they're gonna get in, and you're gonna get caught. Even the old standby of IRC isn't safe anymore.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Sparrow, if they're using bittorrent, it's dead easy. Every leecher is a downloader and uploader at the same time.

Not at all. Any bittorrent client (or at least, the ones I'm personally aware of) can be configured not to upload.