You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
It is obvious that futher savings could be made by combining the ABC and SBS into one entity. That may involve consolidating behind-the-scenes staff.
It has been done before. In 2011, the ABC and WIN consolidated their master control and continuity at a distribution point in Ingleburn. What was once the sacrasanct ABC master control where there were no cuts to overtime compared to other departments within the ABC. It has vanished now.
Here's the irony about the ABC's staff cuts. Why are ABC cutting staff, yet in the last year we're seeing new faces presenting on ABC24? New faces on the ABC are not staff cuts. Alternatively are ABC using staff cuts as a pretext to really discriminate against older workers? It seems so. The new faces at on ABC24 don't look like mature-aged workers seeking a career change.
Furthermore the other irony is that their news always talk about climate change and lowering carbon dioxide emissions, yet they don't look at their own house by having the biggest carbon footprint, specifically 50kW-100kW ABC transmitter versus a 5kW commercial station transmitter.
Just because the ABC is permitted to transmit high power doesn't mean they can do with less power.
I am a fan of the ABC and SBS, but when they talk about staff cuts and reducing carbon emissions, there is a loss of credibility. Similarly many of the programs on SBS are English-language and have nothing to do with multiculturalism. and could easily be accommodated on the ABC. I have said this before on this site.
Thank you,
Anthony of I don't believe the rhetoric of staff cuts at the ABC when they're employing new staff, Belfield in the land of the Wangal and Darug Peoples of the Eora Nation.
Correction:
Where I wrote:
"Just because the ABC is permitted to transmit high power doesn't mean they can do with less power"
Correct to
"Just because the ABC is permitted to transmit high power doesn't mean that they cannot achieve using less power"
Thank you,
Anthony of it's my mistake Belfield in the land of the Wangal and Darug Peoples of the Eora Nation
Hi Anthony,
Just a difference of opinion here. Some of the ABC's AM radio services operate at a maximum transmitter power of 50kW. That's a bit different from EIRP radiated from the antenna. I haven't ever seen FM radio transmitters in Australia greater than 20kW but because of the more limited coverage footprint of FM services, FM transmission power consumption costs are probably slightly higher than AM for a similar coverage footprint. Commercial AM radio services in Australia are typically either 2kW or 5kW. 50kW may sound like a lot of power but the coverage of a 50kW AM service is extensive. Very high powered AM transmitters are preferred where extensive coverage is desired because the AM band doesn't have the capacity to accommodate many lower powered transmitters without interference. Analog radio is extraordinarily power efficient. Considering the power consumption of every listener's receiver, analog radio is much more power efficient than DAB+ and Internet streaming.
Here's an additional thought Anthony. The mode of transmission for many of the ABC's regional FM Local Radio, Radio National and News Radio services is mono. FM transmission in mono requires 10 times less transmission power than stereo FM transmission to achieve the same signal to noise ratio. There's a point above which increasing FM transmission power no longer extends coverage because the line of sight between the transmission tower and the receiver becomes obstructed by the curvature of the Earth. FM is typically suitable for coverage extending 100km to 150km or sometimes more from the transmission site, depending upon the height of the transmission antenna above sea level and the nature of the surrounding terrain. FM generally can't provide coverage beyond the horizon.
Dear David,
Thanks for responding. You made the valid point about high-powered AM transmitters having greater coverage. I would understand that in the context of rural broadcasting, high-powered AM transmitters cover a greater area than the licenced area of a rural commericial AM transmitter.
Then is a 50kW transmitter for metropolitan necessary for the metropolitan areas given that the commercial stations' transmitters are 5kw for the same licence area?
When it comes to AM transmissions, the greatest waste of power is in the carrier frequency which remains constant regardless of loudness of the information.
Generally radio manufacturers have from "day one" utilitised diode detectors to demodulate AM signals. Had a synchronous detector been employed in AM receivers, then it would not be necessary for the AM station to transmit the carrier.
Despite that, the use of high-powered AM radio transmitters is a far greater emitter of carbon dioxide compared to a low-power transmitter.
Nevertheless, I cannot see why the ABC is using high-powered 50kW transmitters for metropolitan and RN in the metropolitan areas when the commercial stations can achieve the same coverage area with a 5kW transmitter.
Further to that, another contributor, Mr St. John would argue of the benefits of DRM+ being implemented in rural areas. DRM+ can be implemented in a number of frequency bands including MW, HF and VHF. An MW DRM+ transmission can carry more channels, transmit in stereo, provide a wake up on emergency event and transmit text.
The energy required to transmit DRM+ is much less than an AM transmitter.
Here is a demonstration of a DRM+ signal form NZ received in Victoria, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36h2-lsy1Vg&ab_channel=VictorianDXer , The signal is very clear and audio quality is better than a standard AM SW receiver.
However from previous postings about DRM+, there does not seem to be a motivation to broadcast in DRM+ especially in rural areas. The policy tends to be for converting AM stations to FM.
Yet the DRM+ system requires less energy than either an AM and/or FM service and the receivers can be implemented by software defined radio (SDR) rather than employing electronic components.
Don't know why the ABC aren't pushing for lower costs of transmitting their services either by lowering their power output and/or using DRM+ which uses less power.
Doing that, the ABC can definitely be wearing its reduction of carbon dioxide emissions "on its sleeve" and not be two-faced about the issue.
Thank you,
Anthony of critical Belfield in the land of the Wangal and Darug Peoples of the Eora Nation
Here's another thought Anthony. I don't like coming up with thoughts that don't get said. There's a point above 50kW where increasing AM transmission power doesn't yield much meaningful increase in the coverage footprint. The RF propagation mechanisms get too complex more than about three or so hundred kilometres from the transmitter site to be able to deliver reliable, consistent reception quality.