As part of the digital Britain report, it was proposed that national FM radio be switched off to free up bandwidth for DAB broadcasts. I believe that FM radio should be retained. I also believe that if we are to switch to a digital format, there are several formats which have considerable advantages over DAB.
I suggested to the last government that FM should be retained and DAB allowed to die. Their response was that DAB had to proceed since there were already a few million DAB sets in the UK. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of FM receivers in the UK seemed lost on them.
Why is this idea important?
As part of the digital Britain report, it was proposed that national FM radio be switched off to free up bandwidth for DAB broadcasts. I believe that FM radio should be retained. I also believe that if we are to switch to a digital format, there are several formats which have considerable advantages over DAB.
I suggested to the last government that FM should be retained and DAB allowed to die. Their response was that DAB had to proceed since there were already a few million DAB sets in the UK. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of FM receivers in the UK seemed lost on them.
Stop the expensive, unnecessary and non-beneficial changeover to digital radio
Why is this idea important?
Stop the expensive, unnecessary and non-beneficial changeover to digital radio
The proposed change to digital radio cannot be justified. Hundreds of millions of radios will become obsolete or require expensive modification for little reason. There is no guarantee that digital radio will even be available for all of the country. Why change a system that appears to work well and thereby impose unneccesary costs on many people who can ill afford it at a time of restricted affluence
Why is this idea important?
The proposed change to digital radio cannot be justified. Hundreds of millions of radios will become obsolete or require expensive modification for little reason. There is no guarantee that digital radio will even be available for all of the country. Why change a system that appears to work well and thereby impose unneccesary costs on many people who can ill afford it at a time of restricted affluence
In our household we have 3 portable radios, 4 plug in radios, and 3 car radios. They all work well giving excellent reception. Whereas digital TV offered enhanced performance we can see no advantage at all in digital radio based on a 30 year old technology, in fact in many respects it is less user friendly.
The BBC is trying to force the move to digital radio by offering bribes to trade in our old radios (paid for out of the obligatory £3,6 billion license fee tax) and by putting popular sport and music programs on digital radio only (even though we all pay the same license fee).
Stop wasting public money on this project which is driven not by consumer demand but by the BBC's continual desire to find other ways to spend our money and build their empire yet further.
Why is this idea important?
In our household we have 3 portable radios, 4 plug in radios, and 3 car radios. They all work well giving excellent reception. Whereas digital TV offered enhanced performance we can see no advantage at all in digital radio based on a 30 year old technology, in fact in many respects it is less user friendly.
The BBC is trying to force the move to digital radio by offering bribes to trade in our old radios (paid for out of the obligatory £3,6 billion license fee tax) and by putting popular sport and music programs on digital radio only (even though we all pay the same license fee).
Stop wasting public money on this project which is driven not by consumer demand but by the BBC's continual desire to find other ways to spend our money and build their empire yet further.
To repeal the legislation for turning off the FM radio signal.
Why is this idea important?
To repeal the legislation for turning off the FM radio signal.
To repeal the Act to enable the FM radio signal to be turned off.
Why is this idea important?
To repeal the Act to enable the FM radio signal to be turned off.
There is nothing wrong with how we receive our radio programmes now.. Why not keep both systems so people have a choice. Digital TV only improved the signal to Channel 5. The cheap freeview boxes are rubbish. There will be problems with digital radio as well.
Why is this idea important?
There is nothing wrong with how we receive our radio programmes now.. Why not keep both systems so people have a choice. Digital TV only improved the signal to Channel 5. The cheap freeview boxes are rubbish. There will be problems with digital radio as well.
1. Digital radio recievers use more battery power.
2 A seperate distribution system is not necessary for FM and Digital transmissions. The distribution feeds both, at the same transmitter sites, therefore the cost of retaining FM is only that for maintanence of the exisiting FM transmitters. This will actually BE LESS THAT THE COST OF EXTRA BATTERIES for digital radios because there are tens of thousands of receivers per transmitter.
3. If FM is retained, the radio manufacturing industry can still sell digital sets. In fact they will have a wider range of products, FM and Digital. Also they can manufacture and sell combined FM+Digital sets, which are already available.
4. Am receivers are simple and compact. They use an internal ferrite rod aerial and can be used almost anywhere. The battery consumption is the lowest of the three types (AM, FM and Digital). What will happen in a severe national emergency (may not be nuclear war, could be a natural disaster); when the government want to keep in touch with the people. Those listening on Digital services, for which the transmitters may have been destroyed, will have to go down to the shop for batteries every week! Incidentally, in such a catastrophic situation a replacement AM transmitter can be built fairly quickly. I worked for the BBC, and Droitwich built a replacement when the Midland regional transmitter blew up, in less than a day.
5. Lots of sport fans still value Long Wave. When it was proposed to close Long Wave transmissions there was a march of protest to Broadcasting House (and the decision changed)
6. Digital radio has the potential to be better quality than FM, but it is'nt. This is because the bit rate is reduced on some services to accomodate more channels. This has ALWAYS been the case.
7. Quality FM transmission requires companding and variable pre-emphesis, but so does digital transmission.
8. Many Hi Fi enthusiasts have their FM tuner integral to their sound system. There are no digital radio tuners marketed which will substitute, and the changeover is not simple. There are portable receivers, but enthusiasts want to play the sound on their own loudspeakers (today called "Monitors"). In my system the FM station is selected by remote control in each room. There is no digital equivalent.
9 Have any of the Digital Committee actually listened to a Digital receiver, such as the "Gemini", and compared the quality on an A-B switch to FM on a reasonably good set of stereo speakers? If they had they would not keep saying that Digital is better than FM. You have to judge the whole system, and not compare digital reception to a cheap FM portable receiver.
10 Most households will have to replace more than on receiver.
11. The Communications Minister said that Digital Radio offers a hugh opportunity. Well it doesn't. It did twenty years ago when it started, but now we see the proposed closure of 6 Music and the Asian Network
Why is this idea important?
1. Digital radio recievers use more battery power.
2 A seperate distribution system is not necessary for FM and Digital transmissions. The distribution feeds both, at the same transmitter sites, therefore the cost of retaining FM is only that for maintanence of the exisiting FM transmitters. This will actually BE LESS THAT THE COST OF EXTRA BATTERIES for digital radios because there are tens of thousands of receivers per transmitter.
3. If FM is retained, the radio manufacturing industry can still sell digital sets. In fact they will have a wider range of products, FM and Digital. Also they can manufacture and sell combined FM+Digital sets, which are already available.
4. Am receivers are simple and compact. They use an internal ferrite rod aerial and can be used almost anywhere. The battery consumption is the lowest of the three types (AM, FM and Digital). What will happen in a severe national emergency (may not be nuclear war, could be a natural disaster); when the government want to keep in touch with the people. Those listening on Digital services, for which the transmitters may have been destroyed, will have to go down to the shop for batteries every week! Incidentally, in such a catastrophic situation a replacement AM transmitter can be built fairly quickly. I worked for the BBC, and Droitwich built a replacement when the Midland regional transmitter blew up, in less than a day.
5. Lots of sport fans still value Long Wave. When it was proposed to close Long Wave transmissions there was a march of protest to Broadcasting House (and the decision changed)
6. Digital radio has the potential to be better quality than FM, but it is'nt. This is because the bit rate is reduced on some services to accomodate more channels. This has ALWAYS been the case.
7. Quality FM transmission requires companding and variable pre-emphesis, but so does digital transmission.
8. Many Hi Fi enthusiasts have their FM tuner integral to their sound system. There are no digital radio tuners marketed which will substitute, and the changeover is not simple. There are portable receivers, but enthusiasts want to play the sound on their own loudspeakers (today called "Monitors"). In my system the FM station is selected by remote control in each room. There is no digital equivalent.
9 Have any of the Digital Committee actually listened to a Digital receiver, such as the "Gemini", and compared the quality on an A-B switch to FM on a reasonably good set of stereo speakers? If they had they would not keep saying that Digital is better than FM. You have to judge the whole system, and not compare digital reception to a cheap FM portable receiver.
10 Most households will have to replace more than on receiver.
11. The Communications Minister said that Digital Radio offers a hugh opportunity. Well it doesn't. It did twenty years ago when it started, but now we see the proposed closure of 6 Music and the Asian Network
The government is planning to do away with AM and VHF broadcasting.
At the moment, millions of people use these services. And although AM radio is somewhat dated, VHF is certainly not.
The VHF service is a high quality one, offering sterio broadcasting in most cases, and is very well respected throughout the country.
The government wants to scrap the service alogether, and thereby make us all by digital (DAB) radios.
These radios are expensive, and are nearly always monophonic.
Why is this idea important?
The government is planning to do away with AM and VHF broadcasting.
At the moment, millions of people use these services. And although AM radio is somewhat dated, VHF is certainly not.
The VHF service is a high quality one, offering sterio broadcasting in most cases, and is very well respected throughout the country.
The government wants to scrap the service alogether, and thereby make us all by digital (DAB) radios.
These radios are expensive, and are nearly always monophonic.
The BBC (ex-Auntie) has invested heavily in this 30 year old technology and is going to be relied upon by the Government to determine when the majority of the listening public have switched over to DAB. Is the BBC to be trusted to provide an unbiased assessment in light of the investment? Living outside London and the south east (Northumberland) we are in the minority and our inability to be heard (sic), as is still the case with broadband connectivity, means that, when anaglogue is switched off, we will no longer be able to hear J Humphries et al. Yes, employ new technology for all the benefits its offers the licence payer, but to enforce the introduction of an out-dated DAB system and to shut down the analogue network that clearly is not yet 'broken', strikes me as being irresponsible. Are any other states introducing DAB at present, what else is available – there may even be a financial, but not necessarily face-saving, benefits!
Why is this idea important?
The BBC (ex-Auntie) has invested heavily in this 30 year old technology and is going to be relied upon by the Government to determine when the majority of the listening public have switched over to DAB. Is the BBC to be trusted to provide an unbiased assessment in light of the investment? Living outside London and the south east (Northumberland) we are in the minority and our inability to be heard (sic), as is still the case with broadband connectivity, means that, when anaglogue is switched off, we will no longer be able to hear J Humphries et al. Yes, employ new technology for all the benefits its offers the licence payer, but to enforce the introduction of an out-dated DAB system and to shut down the analogue network that clearly is not yet 'broken', strikes me as being irresponsible. Are any other states introducing DAB at present, what else is available – there may even be a financial, but not necessarily face-saving, benefits!
the above act should be repealed because it is unnessessary and unwanted. I have been given a digital radio, I live near Heathrow, I cannot recieve radio 4 in Two roooms of my house and the reception on Radio 3 is poor!
The idea of throwing away millions of raios that are in perfect working order is lunacy and ill considered. The chinese economy does not need a megaboost from this stupid law
Why is this idea important?
the above act should be repealed because it is unnessessary and unwanted. I have been given a digital radio, I live near Heathrow, I cannot recieve radio 4 in Two roooms of my house and the reception on Radio 3 is poor!
The idea of throwing away millions of raios that are in perfect working order is lunacy and ill considered. The chinese economy does not need a megaboost from this stupid law
The Digital Economy Act (ending of FM and medium wave radio ) is ill thought out and typical of the Big Brother State of New Labour who sought to control every aspect of the UK citizens life. The switch to digital broadcasting is not necessary, the current frequency band allocations are well mapped and do not cause mutual interference within the UK.
Why is this idea important?
The Digital Economy Act (ending of FM and medium wave radio ) is ill thought out and typical of the Big Brother State of New Labour who sought to control every aspect of the UK citizens life. The switch to digital broadcasting is not necessary, the current frequency band allocations are well mapped and do not cause mutual interference within the UK.
Stop this insane push to scrap broadcasting national radio on the FM frequencies. DAB radio is far from perfect, and will ultimately be replaced by DAB2. The reasons given for going over to DAB broadcasting are political and don't stand up to scrutiny.
Why is this idea important?
Stop this insane push to scrap broadcasting national radio on the FM frequencies. DAB radio is far from perfect, and will ultimately be replaced by DAB2. The reasons given for going over to DAB broadcasting are political and don't stand up to scrutiny.
The turning off of theFM broadcasting is quite wrong. There are millions of radios that would be effected and it is quite wrong that this is being imposed on the public. By all means run both in tandum but do not turn off the signal – I can't imagine any contry in Europe planning to go down this road!!!
Why is this idea important?
The turning off of theFM broadcasting is quite wrong. There are millions of radios that would be effected and it is quite wrong that this is being imposed on the public. By all means run both in tandum but do not turn off the signal – I can't imagine any contry in Europe planning to go down this road!!!
This doesn't quite fit any of your categories, so I'll put it here for somewhere to put it.
The switchover to digital radio is a waste of time, money, effort and carbon emissions.
Digital radio uses significantly more electricity than FM, so the switchover will increase carbon emissions permanently just when we're trying to reduce them.
The quality of broadcast is inferior, particularly affecting all music stations.
Most households have multiple radios (I have 8, excluding the car) and the cost of replacing them all will be prohibitive. Additionally, the manufacture and purchase of all these extra radios will waste resources and increase one-off carbon emissions.
Old radios, we are told, will receive the new stations and so not be 'redundant' – but I want to listen to the stations I choose, not some mythical new ones. I want BBC Radios 3 and 4 to continue on FM!
Changing radios in cars will be difficult and very expensive.
Does anyone really want all the extra radio stations we're supposed to get?
Who is supposed to benefit from this switchover?
This is a wasteful, unnecessary, expensive nonsense – please drop it forthwith.
Why is this idea important?
This doesn't quite fit any of your categories, so I'll put it here for somewhere to put it.
The switchover to digital radio is a waste of time, money, effort and carbon emissions.
Digital radio uses significantly more electricity than FM, so the switchover will increase carbon emissions permanently just when we're trying to reduce them.
The quality of broadcast is inferior, particularly affecting all music stations.
Most households have multiple radios (I have 8, excluding the car) and the cost of replacing them all will be prohibitive. Additionally, the manufacture and purchase of all these extra radios will waste resources and increase one-off carbon emissions.
Old radios, we are told, will receive the new stations and so not be 'redundant' – but I want to listen to the stations I choose, not some mythical new ones. I want BBC Radios 3 and 4 to continue on FM!
Changing radios in cars will be difficult and very expensive.
Does anyone really want all the extra radio stations we're supposed to get?
Who is supposed to benefit from this switchover?
This is a wasteful, unnecessary, expensive nonsense – please drop it forthwith.
The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.
It should be repealed unconditionally.
Why is this idea important?
The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.
It should be repealed unconditionally.