TruthSeeker: Ten Myths About DAB

It seems the anti-DAB crowd are being just as vocal as they ever were.  But are they making any points?  Is there any truth to what they say or is there more spin and propoganda than actual facts?

To find out, I've been reading the site Ten Myths of DAB, which claims to "...explain why the Government is intent on steamrollering this through and the secrets they are keeping from us."

The site actually manages to get off to a good start...

"The more one looks into the whole question of the proposal to switch off the FM transmission network for national stations, such as Radio's 3 and 4, the more one realises there is no compelling reason or mandate to do so as far as the consumer is concerned."

Perfectly correct, actually.  There is no compelling mandate as far as the consumer was concerned.  In the same way, there was no compelling mandate for the consumer to switch from Sky analogue to Sky Digital, until Sky decided they were going discontinue analogue transmissions in 2001, 11 years before the analogue terrestrial network was switched off.  Sky created the mandate, just like the Government did with the analogue terrestrial television network, and they want to do with analogue radio. 

But after that good start, the site goes downhill very quickly...

"The more I researched into this, the more apparent it became that because of this lack of mandate, with the exception of one report, every single document from the Government or Ofcom regarding the FM switch off is redolent of hype, marketing spin and smacks of desperation.  As an ex-Marketing Director, I can smell it a mile off.

Yet the Government remains firmly committed to doing this.  So why the steamroller?

The answer is simple.  The commercial radio guys want to make more money.

At your expense."

Hmm.  Are you so sure about that?  If that were the case, the commercial radio powerhouses would be far more committed to DAB than they really are.  Their support is lukewarm at best, and in fact, at worst, they are downright hostile to DAB.  And they have been ever since 2008, and a report from Grant Goddard of Enders Analytics, a report incidentally I wrote about at the time.  It was a hit job worthy of Fox News on a Democratic candidate, not an analysis at all.

So, if this was about the commercial radio companies, they would not be as opposed to it as they are.  That is one big mark against the site.

So let's examine each of these 10 myths that the site talks about.

"Myth 1 - DAB is being consumer led."

Now, this is actually kinda interesting.  This is the first myth, yet nowhere in the piece do they talk about consumers actions.  They don't mention that in the past 3 years, DAB reciever sales have been consistent at 1.9 million units per year.  Nor do they mention that DAB accounts for over 20% of all radio listening in this country, 4 times as much as Digital TV or the Internet, although internet listening is growing at a much faster rate, partially because of the availablity of good, solid, internet radio apps, such as TuneIn, UK RadioPlayer. BBC iPlayer Radio, and RTE Radio Player.

What they do mention is the change in emphasis in the Government's 50% target, from 50% of all listening on DAB, to 50% of all listening on Digital.  That change in emphasis had not gone unnoticed by many, even within the industry. 

The other thing they mention is transmission costs for the radio stations, and how they've gone up.  Well of course they've gone up.  Think about it, if you were transmitting on FM only, and now you're transmitting an FM signal, a DAB signal and two online streams, one for home use and one for mobile use, then transmission costs are bound to have gone up.  They even quote from a 2010 House of Lords Communications Committee report that quotes figures from the RadioCentre.  RadioCentre is the UK's commercial radio industry trade body., and this is the quoted piece.

"...RadioCentre told us that total transmission costs have risen from £50m a year, five years ago to £70m, of which £40m is for analogue transmission (FM and AM), £20m for DAB transmission and £10m for other forms of transmission, such as DTT and satellite..."

So, naturally they extrapolate from those figures that analogue transmission is more expensive, and that the commercial radio industry wants to shut down analogue. 

Wrong.

That £40million is spread between far more analogue transmitters than DAB's £20million is.  More than double the amount of transmitters.  Think about this.  From the Redruth transmitter, the following signals are transmitted on FM...

BBC Radio 2 on 89.7 FM
BBC Radio 3 on 91.9 FM
BBC Radio 4 on 94.1 FM
BBC Radio 1 on 99.3 FM
Classic FM on 101.5 FM
Pirate FM on 102.8 FM
BBC Radio Cornwall on 103.9 FM
Heart South West on 107.0 FM

...and the following singals are transmitted on AM...

BBC Radio Cornwall on 630 AM
BBC Radio 4 on 756 AM
BBC Radio 5 Live on 909 AM
TalkSport on 1089 AM
Absolute Radio on 1215 AM

...and each one of those signals is transmitted by a separate transmitter, on the Redruth mast.  13 stations, 13 transmitters.

In constrast, on that same Redruth mast, there are just 3 digital transmitters...

South West Digital Radio on 218.64 MHz, aka block 11B.  That block transmits 7 stations.
Digital One on 222.06 MHz, aka block 11D.  That block transmits 14 stations.
BBC National DAB on 225.64 MHz, aka block 12B.  That block transmits 12 stations.

3 transmitters, 33 stations.  Surely less transmitters to transmit more stations makes it cheaper?  No, it doesn't.  DAB transmission is much more expensive than FM or AM transmission, and not every AM and FM station currently broadcasts on DAB.  In fact, stations like The Breeze have stopped transmitting on DAB, simply because they are not making enough money to justify transmitting on DAB.

So much for that argument.

Overall, the 'myth' that DAB is consumer led is in fact, only Half True.  Consumer demand can be described as steady, both for the equipment, and the services.  And in a time of recession, where spending on discretionary items such as consumer electronics has gone down significantly and led to the collapse of Comet, DAB's steady performance is more encouraging than discouraging.

Myth 2 does not have a title, but is all to do with the sound quality.  Certainly this topic has sparked many a debate between audiophiles, who want the quality of signal maintained, and others, who prefer more choice, without necessarily maintaining the quality.  Unless enough frequencies are released to ensure every digital transmission has a minimum of 128 kbps, and that looks unlikely, you are never going to satisfy the audiophile.  I have to rate this myth as Mostly True.

"Myth 3 - DAB sales are growing year on year."

Having read this through, I have to rate this as "Pants On Fire".  Here's why.

They reference the DWRG Interim Report, but notice they don't say when that report was.  This is what they quote from that report...

"The take-up of DAB digital radio over the last few years has been impressive.  By the end of May this year sales of DAB sets exceeded 7 million, with this figure predicted to rise to 9 million by the end of the year."

Those are not yearly sales figures, by the way, but cumulative.  Then, they manage to make the dumbest of statements.

"These figures are irrelevant unless one asks the questions "Are those digital radios in daily use?" and "Are those digital radios using FM or DAB?".  If a local straw poll I carried out locally is anything to go by then the answers would be "No" to the first one and "FM" to the second."

Would a local straw poll be carried anywhere else other than locally???  That's pretty dumb in itself.  Then to ask if that straw poll would be anything to go by... oh dear.  No, a straw poll has little value other than being very circumstancial and very flimsy.  Remember, DAB represents over 20% of all radio listening in this country.  1 hour in every 5 hours is heard through DAB.  Those DAB radios are definitely tuned in DAB for a not insignificant amount of time, that much is obvious from the evidence.  Does it matter whether those radios are in daily use or not?  Not really, that's perhaps the silliest question of the two. 

Whilst it would be accurate to say that DAB have not grown in the past 3 years, and are in fact slightly down on 2008, the lack of economic context to the whole question, ie that we are and have been in a recessionary period since 2008, and sales of discretionary items like consumer electronics have plummeted to the point that one major retailer of consumer electronics collapsed under a mountain of debt, so fundamentally undermines the whole point, as to render the whole 'myth' as totally irrelevant.  It's totally busted.

"Myth 4 - Radio listeners want more choice."

This is another one, where there is evidence both ways.  Ask most people upfront if they want more choice, and most will generally say no.  However, the evidence also says that when they have more choice, they tend to use it.  This myth is rated as "Half True."

"Myth 5 - There is a robust Cost Benefit Analysis in favour of the FM switch off."

This one is more difficult, because there is a lack of evidence either way.  An Ofcom commissioned report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2009 was only released after being heavily redacted.  Now you can go with the "no smoke without fire" principle if you like.  I will point out that tyres can spin and produce smoke, but will never catch fire, rendering the whole principle useless.  You have to look at this from the same kind of perspective as you would in Court.  And what's more, you have to apply the same principle of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" to both the pro and con arguments.  And if you do that, neither argument satisfies Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.  This is a classic "Not Proven", a verdict that is only rendered in Scottish courts.  So, due to the lack of conclusive evidence either way, the only way I can call this is "Plausible but Not Proven."

"Myth 6 - DAB has no interference"

This is another myth, that I have to rate as "Pants On Fire", because although it looks more sensible, again the evidence paints a totally different picture.

Unless you are practically right next door to an FM transmitter, nobody hears an FM signal without some background interference.  No AM signal is interference free either.  A decent DAB radio, placed in a good reception area, gives a signal that is free of background interference. 

Now granted not everywhere has decent DAB reception.  The same applies for FM.  Just spend some time listening to FM on the train.  Reception comes and goes like crazy, and white noise can drown out signals.  DAB suffers in the same way, but instead of white noise, you get this burbling sound that is actually worse than white noise, and just as frustrating.  But that is the physics of radio transmission, not a problem with DAB as a platform. 

So, on the basis that the basis for the myth, is totally undermined by simple science, this is rated "Pants On Fire."  It's totally busted.

"Myth 7 - The analogue infrastructrure needs £200million of capital expenditure."

This is another myth, that actually has very little evidence at all.  The figure does seem to have been plucked out of thin air.  £200million over the next 20 years, to maintain the FM network?  That figure could be an overstatement, or it could be an understatement.  Transmitter parts do need replacing from time to time, and transmitters do need regular maintenance, so that figure actually could be a gross understatement.  But without more evidence, it's impossible to answer conclusively either way.  This one too is "Plausible but Not Proven."

"Myth 8 - The Government are doing this to sell off the FM spectrum."

This is one of the easiest myths to bust.  This is all they write on the page for that myth.

"If they are then it's wishful thinking because no-one (including PwC) have identified any commercial purpose, other than audio, for the FM spectrum were it to be freed up."

I may suggest that whoever wrote this hasn't been paying attention.  Mobile phone networks are always looking for more frequencies to expand their calls and data services and increase capacity.  Those companies that produce hand held walkie talkies have been lobbying for the frequencies to be used for local communication networks.  Even computer network manufacturers are looking for frequencies for Wi-Fi and other wireless network technologies.  To say nobody has identified any commercial purpose other than audio, is totally wrong.  This one is busted and gets the "False" rating.

"Myth 9 - Digital radio listening is really taking off."

Apparently, the writer of the website, does not understand mathematics.  He tries to claim that an increase from 13% to 26% is an increase of 13%.  In fact, it's an increase of 100%, as the figure has doubled.  Similarly, he claims that going from 19% to 21% is an increase of 2%.  In fact, it's more like 10%.  And with DAB listening going up by around 10% in 2012, well, it's not exactly taking off, but it is growth.

On that very simple basis, he so totally undermines his whole argument on that myth, as to render other points he makes on that page as moot and irrelevant.  This is another "Pants On Fire".  It is totally busted.

"Myth 10 - No such thing as a digital radio switchover.  No such thing as a DAB switchover.  It is an FM Switch Off."

Okay so if that is the myth, why do you then contradict yourself by then writing...

"The DCMS and Ofcom have been very clever here and a masterclass in subterfuge.  Rather than talk about the Great FM Switch Off, for that is what it is, they started talking about the DAB Switchover."

You just busted your own myth, with your own words.  And by the way, factually, AM still hasn't been switched off yet, and there are still a number of stations across the country broadcasting AM signals.  So it wouldn't be just an FM switch off, but an analogue switch off, but it would only be a switch off, if there were nothing to replace it.  But there is Digital Radio, so it is a switchover.  "Pants On Fire" rating again, and this one is double busted!

Overall, this is just another example of spin and propoganda against the DAB platform, based upon half truths, and unprovables.  Not one of the ten myths stood up to scrutiny and came away unscathed.  The closest was myth 2, but with the demand from various companies for frequencies, the likelyhood of broadcasters being allowed to expand the number of frequencies that they have available, is so small as to be virtually impossible, which took the edge of something that was otherwise pretty accurate.  Unfortunately for the anti DAB community, this site is so full of misinformation as to be useless.  As a site, it gets a "Mostly False" rating.  What truth there is here, is often so far out of context and over extrapolated as to make what is written very very shaky.

A Multiplex operator attacking the internet?

This does seem kind of strange to be reporting this, but it needs reporting.  If only because I can think of no other way to let these people know that something is badly wrong. 

I used to keep an eye on the NOW Digital website in the run up to the launch of the multiplex in Cornwall and Plymouth and for a short while afterwards as well. 

Well, I just tried to visit the site to check on capacity availability on some of their local multiplexes only to find that the website domain is now apparently harmful to computers and is a reported attack site!  Firefox completely blocked me off from the site and even Google warned me that it was harmful. 

Now whilst I think its great that that can be done, it’s strange to think what is regarded as the official website of the multiplex operator, is a reported attack site.

Global now own the multiplexes since they bought GCap Media, yet when you visit the ThisisGlobal site it makes no mention of the multiplexes at all, almost as though they don’t exist.  It’s really kind of poor.

Now, I’m not being critical of NOW Digital, just whoever is supposed to be looking after their web presence, but even Charles Allen at Global should realise that such a situation should not be allowed to continue as should word of this go much beyond this blog, it will create some very bad PR for Global and NOW Digital.  We already know that commercial radio is reluctant to go digital, despite their protestations that there should be a switchover date, something I believe would actually be a huge mistake.

There is no reason whatsoever to switch off AM & FM, however, more UK broadcasters should be looking towards DRM, DAB+ and HD Radio as possibilities for future expansion of digital radio.  However, just as there is no reason to switch off AM and FM, neither would there be any reason to switch off DAB. 

The cynic in me is saying that this is just another example of how committed to the future of broadcasting commercial radio is, in other words, not very.  But I truly hope the cynical side is wrong.

Dead And Buried?

I am nothing if not a realist. In the many years that I have been following the media, I've seen the them do a lot of silly things. But the way industry insiders such as Ralph Bernard have recently talked down DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) digital radio is almost nothing short of deliberate sabotage. Thankfully few others have gotten in on the act, though DAB does have its problems. But then, so does GCap, the company Ralph Bernard worked for. So maybe, it was telling that Mr Bernard did everything he could to hide GCap's problems behind the façade of a DAB crisis. After all, almost all of GCap's radio stations broadcast simultaneously on analogue AM or FM and on DAB Digital Radio.

But now, a group of analysts have bought into this façade and are trying to suggest that there is a real crisis in DAB, a crisis that - by the way - doesn't actually exist except in the minds of bean counters who are looking for profit all the time. The name of this group of analysts: Enders Analysis. Now, this analytical organisation has tried to claim that in fact DAB is about to become the next Betamax!

First of all, the analogy is way off the mark. DAB is not in competition with FM, or AM, or even DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) which is fairly new on the scene. If that were the case, then LW would probably have been closed off years ago. Secondly, to look at how long it takes for something to bed in to the public consciousness, you only need to look at VHF/FM. The band was opened up in the 1950s, but it didn't become popular to listen on FM until the 1980s. Even when Radio 1 had to hand over 1053 and 1089 AM to commercial radio in the 1990s, there were still plenty of people to convert over to listening to Radio 1 on FM.

The report's writer then goes onto suggest that DAB's financial health is looking grim by saying:..

"With three of the largest radio groups having reduced their commitment to the DAB platform in recent months, their stations having been replaced by a mix of ethnic, religious and non-commercial broadcasters, the future health of the DAB platform must be under question."

I really think this guy needs to wake up and actually do a little research. There are other issues at work here than just DAB. First, Yes, GCrap GCap is closing stations, not because DAB is a failure, but because of their own lack of confidence in both finances and in broadcasting itself. Remember they tried to sell off 9 stations as a bundle, that they felt were "non-core stations". They failed, miserably. GCap's Gold Network is in danger of collapsing. The whole network of 40 stations gets less than 1.5 million listeners, with some stations doing incredibly pathetic numbers. Gold's Plymouth station gets a mere 7,000 listeners. It's because the product being offered, whether by DAB, FM, AM or online, is one that people think is not up to scratch. It doesn't mean the platform will fail.

Virgin Radio may have closed one digital only station and put the brakes on launching another, but that again has little to do with DAB. SMG, who own STV and Grampian as well as Virgin Radio, are trying to sell Virgin Radio, but again, there are few interested parties. It's an attempt to make the Virgin Radio company more attractive to possible investors. It's got nothing to do with any possible failure of the DAB platform.

People were saying similar things about Digital Terrestrial Television when On/ITV Digital collapsed in 2002. I remember it well, I was reporting on it at Transdiffusion. Now, with Freeview as the base of the platform, the platform is thriving. Commercial Radio went into the platform without looking at how long it takes to establish one. They were looking for a quick 5-year or so turnaround to profits, rather than the 15-20 years it takes to properly establish a new radio platform.

DTT went from being a commercial platform to being a public service platform and has thrived. DAB needs to go down the same route and it won't as long as GCap are in charge of national and local multiplexes. GCap's Digital One and Now Digital are the DAB equivalent of ITV Digital. The daft thing is, this moronic writer of this report, whose name is Grant Goddard, also referenced the ITV Digital debacle!

"Ofcom faces a public outcry if the DAB platform were to fail, with owners of the 6.45 million DAB receivers sold to date demanding a refund of their purchases (remember ITV Digital?)."

Yes, I do. As I mentioned earlier, I reported on it, first hand, you can find the articles over in Bitstream on EMC, along with those of some of my colleagues who also reported on it at the time. And in all honesty, I do not see how over 6 million people would demand refunds for something that they HAVEN'T subscribed to, but just bought a piece of equipment for. Believe it or not, there are still ITV Digital digiboxes out there working, albeit not brilliantly, but they are working, just. But the most moronic statement of them all has to be the one that follows:

"Channel 4 is faced with the task of imminently launching a brand new DAB multiplex in the middle of a snowstorm around the future of the whole platform,"

A 'snowstorm' that has been created predominantly by two people. GCap's Ralph Bernard and Enders Analysis's Grant Goddard. Channel 4 got a taste of running a digital radio station in the recently demised Oneword, and it obviously didn't put them off because they chose to bid for a new national multiplex. And they won. 4 Digital group's stations represent the freshest ideas for DAB ever. All Digital One seems to have done is trotted out the same old tired sound, time and time again, and Joe Public is bored with it. With the growth in online listening, listeners can tune in to stations the world over, and find the cream of the crop.

Sadly for commercial radio, the UK's best stations are run by the BBC. British commercial radio barely flickers across the online 'dials' at all. But stations in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe are all providing a far superior product to almost anything we have here in the UK. The reason is simple. Whilst our commercial radio stations have cut back content to the bare bones of music, commercials and news, other stations across the world have upped their content levels and because of this, are able to take advantage of the Podcast medium, which out of necessity, has to be speech based.

DAB as a platform is not at fault. It's the stations themselves that have shot themselves in the proverbial foot. Yes, we've lost a number of radio stations on DAB, but they've closed because their business plans were not realistic, in much the same way that a multitude of stations have closed on digital television, not because of the platform, but because their business plans were not realistic, not designed for the new digital broadcast environment that exists these days. And because they aren't making money as quickly as they want to, they want to abandon a broadcast platform. And you, Grant Goddard of Enders Analysis, are actively encouraging them with this piece of anti-DAB propaganda!

The report reads like the kind of hit job that I would expect from Fox News covering a Democrat, rather than an analysis of DAB. It has so many inaccuracies, that I have detailed and more, and come to so many erroneous conclusions, that I have to consign this report to the only file where it seems to fit in. The waste paper bin!