Aged like milk
4 Likes
Yeah its just unfortunate. Its a bit like AM stereo but at least DAB continued transmission for a lot longer.
1 Like
Feels like to me the main reason DAB+ stays on the air these days is that is has value to the commercial networks given that I am pretty certain they can use it to reduce their royalties for the extra stations on their streaming apps if the station is “broadcast” to at least one area.
There might be a potential longer term future for DAB+ in some markets I feel- particularly in places like Melbourne and Sydney with highly diverse populations where DAB+ could serve as a future alternative for narrowcast services and the like (such as the ones currently on the upper fringe of the AM band).
I can’t see there being any further significant rollouts of DAB+ to new areas however- audio streaming (particularly the likes of Spotify) has filled the huge gaps that exist in most regional markets and I can’t see listeners migrating back to DAB+ even if it were to roll out eventually. That ship sailed at least 10 years ago, if not more.
Longer term, I think the most exciting and interesting prospects for broadcast radio will lie in some form of 5G broadcast technology that uses the existing cellular infrastructure- but that technology is currently in it’s infancy and I don’t see that being really viable for at least 10-15 years even in technologically progressive markets like those in Europe. With the pace we adopt change here, it’ll probably be closer to 30 or 40 years before we see anything like that here.
4 Likes
The mistake was that they didn’t allow any significant new channels. The only exception being datacast channels. As a result, digital TV adoption was low in most areas.
The exception was in Hobart and other regional places where there were only two commercial stations on analogue TV but three on digital. Digital TV adoption was significantly higher in those places.
The lesson - if you want an increased uptake of digital TV, better sound or picture quality wasn’t going to do it alone. You need extra channels that people want to watch.
6 Likes
Correct, and if I recall digital TV take up was really poor through the 2000s until the multichannels began and flatscreen TVs (with built-in DTV tuners) became cheaper and more common. Analogue TV was meant to be turned off about 2008 from memory but got delayed for years because of the poor uptake of digital.
1 Like
Interesting. So is that part of why they went with so many extra channels on DAB+ at the expense of sound quality? The thing is though, when I watch digital TV now, I think it sounds and looks pretty good and has a lot of extra channels. Why is digital TV less of a tradeoff?
Initially most stations only had 1 or 2 extra stations on DAB, not the 5 or 6 they have now. It meant the main stations like 2Day or Triple M were something like 88 kbps, with the secondary stations at 48 kbps. I don’t recall any 32 kbps stations back then.
5 Likes
When DAB first launched there was more of a focus on sound quality , most stations were on 64kbps and some were on 80 or higher, however the sound quality still wasn’t that great on most stations despite the high bit rates, due to a lack of investment in technology upgrades.
Since around 2018 when all of the DAB stations’ listening figures were published in the GFK surveys, the DAB stations could be better monetised with more advertising as there was more accurate listening data. This meant better targeted extensions which aligned perfectly with the streaming platforms such as iHeartRadio and LiSTNR. So more stations were added and bit rates went down, but since the ABC did its technical upgrades in 2021, the sound quality has mostly gone up. Although recently I’ve noticed since Sky News Radio launched , the Nova Ent. stations’ sound quality has reduced significantly, but the ARN and SCA stations have improved.
1 Like
Digital TV didn’t really take off until Freeview was launched at the end of 2008 and legislation was passed allowing one new HD channel and one new SD channel. This was followed in 2009 when One HD, 9 Go and 7 Two launched and in 2010/11 when another 6-7 stations launched including community TV.
Then again in 2015 when legislation was passed to allow the commercials to broadcast their main channel in HD, and effectively allowed them to launch unlimited HD channels within their allocated spectrum, which led to 9Gem , 7mate , 10bold and 7bravo in HD.
2 Likes
The early uptake of digital TV was hampered by the cost of equipment. You could spend $1,000 to get a HD set top box and flat screen panels could cost $10,000.
4 Likes
Freeview set top boxes with HD and MPEG 4 capability retailed for only $100-200 back in the early 2010s.
My first SD only STB that I bought in 2005 (a Topfield unit) was $225… a HD compatible box was around $400.
1 Like
AFAIK this was the first HD box available when DTV first started - DGTEC DH-2000A Digital Set Top Box
RRP was about +$900 though there might have been some deals available
2 Likes
OK so call me crazy but I think I came up with a plan to fix DAB+
1. Close the “Coles Radio” lower royalty rate loophole;
2. Remove stations that are also on FM, and;
3. Mandate a minimum bitrate of 128kbps.
This would mean all the filler stations would close and sound quality would improve. It would mean admitting that nobody would choose DAB+ over FM (or internet!) for the same station with the bitrates so low as it is. It would mean, at least in the short term, putting the user’s experience ahead of the bottom line of operators. Then you really would end up with something “supplemental”, as the government always promised, that sounds okay and would emphasise the potential the medium genuinely has: niche formats. It would mean a shift to a culture of quality over quantity. It would mean a viable alternative to internet broadcasting in an era when the internet is not going well and people would love alternatives.
Am I losing my mind or does this make sense? I’m aware that it would require showing a bit of spine and thinking medium-term, which is a big ask under capitalism, but if you could convince the relevant regulatory bodies to put the user first I think you’d end up with something that’s actually good - and importantly, people would be engaging with it much more.
2 Likes
I like the idea, however unfortunately medium term thinking and showing a bit of spine are very foreign concepts to ACMA and the commercial radio sector.
Sadly I think the most likely outcome of such a proposal (especially removing the royalty loophole) would be the shutting down of DAB+ completely.
I was just thinking this too. If it’s not making or saving them money they will just turn the transmitters off and save on the power bills.
1 Like
I have no insider knowledge, but my hunch is that this royalty loophole is keeping DAB+ on the air. It’s expensive to pump out that much RF and maintain the transmitters and antennas.
I doubt DAB+ ad revenue is substantial for most networks.
If they didn’t get reduced music royalties for their LiSTNR/iHeart channels, why bother? They’d all probably prefer their audience to be on their apps anyway where they can track habits, force logins, and target ads.
5 Likes
And that at least some FMs are using DAB to populate RDS, and some community stations are using DAB+ as the source for their main FM signals and/or relays… so there is some value there for them in that respect.
Both those problems could be solved pretty easily without DAB. One could argue both of those delivery mechanisms are a bit exotic. Someone should really help the ABC and Koori 
1 Like
And fix the Koori FM audio left/right imbalance issue too! It’s been like that for at least a couple of years now.