In message <b8ofhit0p5alqk10d9n44u5v6daflssg63@4ax.com> at Sat, 30 Sep
2023 09:51:08, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]
>>In message <dc1ehit71iblticriff9l6dfhi9jgcroi5@4ax.com> at Fri, 29 Sep
>>2023 18:18:59, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>[]
>>>I doubt that very much. I would doubt whether DAB accounts for more
>>>than about one third of listeners overall and those with non-DAB+
>>>compatible sets would form a small proportion of that figure. Anyway,
>>>why does that matter as the licence fee is for TV sets and it really
>>>doesn't matter that much how many people listen to the radio?
[]
>So where is the incentive to cater for the small number of people who
>listen on non-DAB+ radios and are unwilling to upgrade? Do they write
>more letters to the Telegraph or something?

I wonder if it _is_ a small number. When DAB first came out, the sets
were of course expensive (so only few bought them); then they got
cheaper, and presumably lots of people bought them, not necessarily to
get DAB, just that it became part of all but the cheapest radios. Then
DAB+ came along - initially expensive, and also not particularly
promoted by the retail industry. I suspect there are quite a lot of
non-plus sets about - especially in cars, given the British habit of
hanging on to cars longer than the manufacturers would like. It'd be
interesting to see actual figures (though these will be skewed by
whoever commissions their collection, by loading the questions).

They probably _do_ include a higher proportion of letter-writers (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Does Barbie come with Ken?"
"Barbie comes with G.I. Joe. She fakes it with Ken." - anonymous

On 29/09/2023 16:11, JMB99 wrote:
> On 29/09/2023 15:22, Mark Carver wrote:
>>  > and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
>>
>> They are not permitted to do that
>
>
>
> How is it different from leasing out space on their towers (when they
> owned them)?
>
> Not that I want any commercial stations locally!

It's not all about YOU want.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 29/09/2023 23:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <kno4seFqshjU2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023
> 15:22:06, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>> On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does it cost anything?  I thought it was just a tweak in the software.
>>> The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
>>> be used
>>
>> .....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
>>
>> https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio-
>> research/dab-radio
>>
>>> and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
>>
>> They are not permitted to do that
>>
>>
> I'm pretty sure everything from the bitstream outward is outsourced now,
> so Arqiva or whoever would just charge less, and it would be they who
> lease out the spare capacity. It would be presented as just the BBC
> devising a way of being charged less, for which they would be praised.

It's BBC allocated spectrum, they cannot just sub lease it.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

I would hope that the BBC would keep more or less the same bitrates on
DAB+ and show the way DAB+ should be done, with it not sounding worse
than FM.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 12:29:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <b8ofhit0p5alqk10d9n44u5v6daflssg63@4ax.com> at Sat, 30 Sep
>2023 09:51:08, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>[]
>>>In message <dc1ehit71iblticriff9l6dfhi9jgcroi5@4ax.com> at Fri, 29 Sep
>>>2023 18:18:59, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>>[]
>>>>I doubt that very much. I would doubt whether DAB accounts for more
>>>>than about one third of listeners overall and those with non-DAB+
>>>>compatible sets would form a small proportion of that figure. Anyway,
>>>>why does that matter as the licence fee is for TV sets and it really
>>>>doesn't matter that much how many people listen to the radio?
>[]
>>So where is the incentive to cater for the small number of people who
>>listen on non-DAB+ radios and are unwilling to upgrade? Do they write
>>more letters to the Telegraph or something?
>
>I wonder if it _is_ a small number. When DAB first came out, the sets
>were of course expensive (so only few bought them); then they got
>cheaper, and presumably lots of people bought them, not necessarily to
>get DAB, just that it became part of all but the cheapest radios. Then
>DAB+ came along - initially expensive, and also not particularly
>promoted by the retail industry. I suspect there are quite a lot of
>non-plus sets about - especially in cars, given the British habit of
>hanging on to cars longer than the manufacturers would like. It'd be
>interesting to see actual figures (though these will be skewed by
>whoever commissions their collection, by loading the questions).

I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with
other European markets.
>
>They probably _do_ include a higher proportion of letter-writers (-:

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:05:30 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 29/09/2023 23:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <kno4seFqshjU2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023
>> 15:22:06, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>> On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
>>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does it cost anything?  I thought it was just a tweak in the software.
>>>> The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
>>>> be used
>>>
>>> .....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
>>>
>>> https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio-
>>> research/dab-radio
>>>
>>>> and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
>>>
>>> They are not permitted to do that
>>>
>>>
>> I'm pretty sure everything from the bitstream outward is outsourced now,
>> so Arqiva or whoever would just charge less, and it would be they who
>> lease out the spare capacity. It would be presented as just the BBC
>> devising a way of being charged less, for which they would be praised.
>
>It's BBC allocated spectrum, they cannot just sub lease it.

It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.

Scott wrote:

> I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with other
> European markets.

My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the
previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB
only.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 19:53:20 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with other
>> European markets.
>
>My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the
>previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB
>only.

Could there be an upgrade option via software?

On Mon 02/10/2023 19:00, Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:05:30 +0100, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2023 23:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <kno4seFqshjU2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023
>>> 15:22:06, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>> On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
>>>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it cost anything?  I thought it was just a tweak in the software.
>>>>> The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
>>>>> be used
>>>>
>>>> .....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio-
>>>> research/dab-radio
>>>>
>>>>> and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
>>>>
>>>> They are not permitted to do that
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure everything from the bitstream outward is outsourced now,
>>> so Arqiva or whoever would just charge less, and it would be they who
>>> lease out the spare capacity. It would be presented as just the BBC
>>> devising a way of being charged less, for which they would be praised.
>>
>> It's BBC allocated spectrum, they cannot just sub lease it.
>
> It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
> Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.

You imply that CC became Arqiva. Nope. CC sold the operation to National
Grid Wireless which in turn was bought by Arqiva.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 21:23:50 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Mon 02/10/2023 19:00, Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:05:30 +0100, Mark Carver
>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/09/2023 23:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> In message <kno4seFqshjU2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023
>>>> 15:22:06, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>>> On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
>>>>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it cost anything?  I thought it was just a tweak in the software.
>>>>>> The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
>>>>>> be used
>>>>>
>>>>> .....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio-
>>>>> research/dab-radio
>>>>>
>>>>>> and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are not permitted to do that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure everything from the bitstream outward is outsourced now,
>>>> so Arqiva or whoever would just charge less, and it would be they who
>>>> lease out the spare capacity. It would be presented as just the BBC
>>>> devising a way of being charged less, for which they would be praised.
>>>
>>> It's BBC allocated spectrum, they cannot just sub lease it.
>>
>> It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
>> Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.
>
>You imply that CC became Arqiva. Nope. CC sold the operation to National
>Grid Wireless which in turn was bought by Arqiva.

Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware of the full history.

On 02/10/2023 19:00, Scott wrote:
> It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
> Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.

They didn't, it went through a few stages before it became Crown Castle
International.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2023 20:56:10 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>>> I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with other
>>> European markets.
>>
>>My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the
>>previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB
>>only.
>
> Could there be an upgrade option via software?

In the same way you can upgrade an FM radio to DAB via software?

Scott wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the
>> previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB
>> only.
>
> Could there be an upgrade option via software?

Unlikely, there wasn't for my (now unused) Pure Evoke3.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2023 23:37:32 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Oct 2023 20:56:10 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with other
>>>> European markets.
>>>
>>>My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the
>>>previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB
>>>only.
>>
>> Could there be an upgrade option via software?
>
>In the same way you can upgrade an FM radio to DAB via software?

No, obviously not. In the same way that some Pure radios in Australia
could be upgraded to DAB+ with the purchase of a 'licence' key that
unlocked the DAB+ capability. This may be of interest:
https://www.digitalradiochoice.com/questions/upgrade-pure-radio-receive-dab-plus-stations/

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 22:41:47 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 02/10/2023 19:00, Scott wrote:
>> It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
>> Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.
>
>They didn't, it went through a few stages before it became Crown Castle
>International.

Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.

On 03/10/2023 09:39, Scott wrote:
> Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.

I think it was initially Castle Transmission Holdings, then Castle
Transmission Ltd(?) before they could become Castle Transmission
International, not sure it went straight to Crown Castle International
(could have also been an intermediate stage).

I have a feeling that National Grid Wireless also went through a couple
of stages, before becoming National Grid Wireless.

And of course with typical corporate BS, they liked all previous names
removed. At one point they sent out loads of new professionally made
metal and plastic signs for ALL sites (even the smallest and most sites
never had signs) but forget to allocate any funds for fitting them so
most were never fitted.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 11:58:39 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 03/10/2023 09:39, Scott wrote:
>> Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.
>
>
>I think it was initially Castle Transmission Holdings, then Castle
>Transmission Ltd(?) before they could become Castle Transmission
>International, not sure it went straight to Crown Castle International
>(could have also been an intermediate stage).
>
>I have a feeling that National Grid Wireless also went through a couple
>of stages, before becoming National Grid Wireless.
>
>And of course with typical corporate BS, they liked all previous names
>removed. At one point they sent out loads of new professionally made
>metal and plastic signs for ALL sites (even the smallest and most sites
>never had signs) but forget to allocate any funds for fitting them so
>most were never fitted.
>
I take it overlaid on that there was ITA > IBA > National
Transcommunications Limited (NTL) > ..... > Arqiva?

In article <ufgs50$3h41c$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net>
scribeth thus
>On 03/10/2023 09:39, Scott wrote:
>> Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.
>
>
>I think it was initially Castle Transmission Holdings, then Castle
>Transmission Ltd(?) before they could become Castle Transmission
>International, not sure it went straight to Crown Castle International
>(could have also been an intermediate stage).
>
>I have a feeling that National Grid Wireless also went through a couple
>of stages, before becoming National Grid Wireless.
>
>And of course with typical corporate BS, they liked all previous names
>removed. At one point they sent out loads of new professionally made
>metal and plastic signs for ALL sites (even the smallest and most sites
>never had signs) but forget to allocate any funds for fitting them so
>most were never fitted.
>
>
>
>
>

Don't forget National Transcommunications otherwise known as ntl in the
scheme of things...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

tony sayer wrote:

> known as ntl

With their "pig on a skateboard" logotype

On Tue 03/10/2023 12:29, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 11:58:39 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/10/2023 09:39, Scott wrote:
>>> Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.
>>
>>
>> I think it was initially Castle Transmission Holdings, then Castle
>> Transmission Ltd(?) before they could become Castle Transmission
>> International, not sure it went straight to Crown Castle International
>> (could have also been an intermediate stage).
>>
>> I have a feeling that National Grid Wireless also went through a couple
>> of stages, before becoming National Grid Wireless.
>>
>> And of course with typical corporate BS, they liked all previous names
>> removed. At one point they sent out loads of new professionally made
>> metal and plastic signs for ALL sites (even the smallest and most sites
>> never had signs) but forget to allocate any funds for fitting them so
>> most were never fitted.
>>
> I take it overlaid on that there was ITA > IBA > National
> Transcommunications Limited (NTL) > ..... > Arqiva?

No, they didn't come into the final field until after they took over NGW
and by that time had become Arqiva. NTL wanted to merge with Telewest so
had to raise some funds and the easiest way was to get rid of the
transmission business.

Have a look at the Wikipedia entry for Arqiva for more info.
What it doesn't mention is the purchase (£1?) of DTels in 1994(?), it
does mention the absorption of the Simoco sites and then UK Service Dept
in 1998/9, but doesn't mention that in the mid teens it sold off the
Radcomms Dept to Telent.