A recent visit to Canada by Swinburne University’s Jim Barbour provided an opportunity to investigate the operation of digital radio in Vancouver, where DRB has been available to the public for more than three years using Eureka 147 technology.

He interviewed radio station staff at commercial broadcasters, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation CBC and retailers to assess the impact of DRB and to consider the business model behind it.

Barbour filed this report for radioinfo examining the latest progress on DRB in Canada:

Vancouver has a population of just over 2 million people and has 18 commercial radio stations, 4 community stations and 4 CBC stations. Two of the CBC stations broadcast in English and two broadcast in French. A fifth CBC station, Radio 3, is a multimedia service delivered via the Internet. Of the commercial stations, 9 are AM broadcasters and 9 are FM broadcasters, with any one owner allowed a maximum of 2 AM and 2 FM licenses in the market.

There are currently 15 DRB radio services broadcast to Vancouver. All the 15 stations currently broadcast on DRB are simulcasts of AM or FM services, with the exception of one CBC service and one service broadcast by the Corus group. CBC has one DRB ensemble carrying their 4 main services as well as a mix of programs produced by Radio 3 on the fifth channel. The Corus radio group owns a second ensemble carrying their 2 AM stations, NW Talk and Mojo, and their 2 FM services, The Fox and Rock101, with the fifth channel a demonstration service, listed as ‘NW2 demo’. Rogers Radio owns the third ensemble and broadcasts their 2 FM stations, JackFM and XFM, and 1 AM station, WX All News. The fourth and fifth channels are leased to commercial rivals, broadcasting Z95 and JR Country.

Receivers

At the time of visiting, only one radio station broadcasting on DRB could demonstrate their services with an operational DRB receiver at the station, and that demo was intermittent due to technical reception problems. The issue of receivers is a significant hurdle to be overcome in the implementation of DRB.

As part of my investigations, I visited five major audio retailers in downtown Vancouver looking to purchase a DRB receiver. Only one, the Radio Shack chain, had any receivers in store, carrying two portable units made by Plestel, retailing at $C259 and $C299. Both these receivers are small portable units with a very small backlit 2 line screen that offer DRB and FM reception, not AM. They are approximately the size of a portable minidisk unit and work with headphones only.

In the opinion of Rick Dal Farra, Chief Engineer with the Rogers Radio group in Vancouver, the Radio Shack units were inadequate to best represent the advantages of DRB. There were no car radio units available anywhere, though one store thought they could order in a Panasonic unit if I paid in advance, for approximately $C400. At none of the stores were staff at all enthusiastic about DRB. No one came in to their stores and asked about DRB receivers and they were universal in their criticism of the services offered and the lack of marketing. Few staff knew anything about DRB, and where DRB receivers had been sold by Radio Shack, ‘about half’ had been returned by purchasers because the service was either ‘unreliable or no different’ to their current receiver.

The potential lifeline offered by General Motors to install DRB receivers in their cars has been postponed indefinitely due to a downturn in the automotive industry, according to an article in Dialogue, a broadcast industry magazine in Canada.

PAD

A key feature of DRB is the ability to broadcast Program Associated Data, PAD, which can include text information about the song title and artist, advertiser information like telephone numbers, sports information including player statistics or betting dividends or pictures, including animated gifs. Enthusiasts sometimes describe this PAD facility as ‘radio with pictures’. When I tuned in, only two of the 15 services were broadcasting PAD, (CBC Radio 1 and Radio 3).

At least, the receiver recognised that the PAD flag in the broadcast signal was activated. But neither of these two channels actually had any content in their PAD; there was no text or pictures broadcast by any service. Rick Dal Farra suggested that ‘there were technical reasons for not broadcasting PAD’, including transmitter link limitations and interface problems with their broadcast software. Fixing these problems was part of their long-term plans. However, ‘since there were so few listeners, there was no programming or sales pressure to get PAD operational.’

Reception

The technical quality of the DRB broadcast is considered by all who have heard it to be superior to FM, more closely matching CD. There is improved signal to noise ratio, improved high frequency response and improved rejection of interference due to multi-path reflections or static electricity. The improvement in the rejection of interference is in part dependent on the number and location of DRB transmitters. Currently in Vancouver, DRB is broadcast from two tower locations. The primary location is Mt. Seymour overlooking Vancouver, the site of the FM transmitters for CBC, Rogers and Corus. The second location is Metrotown, a tall building complex within the suburban area.

Vancouver has similar terrain to Sydney, situated around a harbour with significant valleys and low points throughout the suburbs. There are many locations where FM reception is intermittent due to geographical constraints, and DRB has similar reception problems at these locations. It was suggested by one Chief Engineer that three more transmitter sites would be necessary to provide adequate coverage for the greater Vancouver area. Considering the cost to erect these towers and the very low estimates for receivers in the population, the business model for further investment is not encouraging. Staff interviewed were not aware of any plans to expand the broadcast service and one chief engineer said he would be happy to ‘turn it all off tomorrow and never think about it again!’ Indeed, Rick Dal Farra said that ‘a DAB feed can be off for weeks and no one calls!’

It would appear from this brief study that DRB in Vancouver is not a success and that further investment in the medium is not a priority. It is clear that DRB can be implemented and will work within its design specifications.

There appears to be three main reasons for the current situation in Vancouver: no unique content, lack of receivers and no significant marketing. For DRB to succeed in the marketplace and provide a return on investment for the industry, these issues need to be carefully addressed.

Firstly, there must be something unique and compelling about DRB to interest the listening audience. Simulcasting existing AM and FM services will not interest many listeners as they can already receive that content elsewhere for no additional cost. However, if existing broadcasters introduce unique DRB services, this will potentially dilute the audience for existing services, as would the licensing of new entrants to the radio market.

Also, while the expectation of listeners currently is not to expect visual information from their radio, and there are dangers in accessing such information while driving, the case for PAD is not strong. PAD needs to be consistent and compelling for all DRB broadcasts if a listener is to be convinced of the benefits of DRB. Radio with pictures will never be television, and with the introduction of cameras and colour screens to mobile telephones, PAD must offer a service that is of clear benefit to a listener. There will also be a significant cost to broadcasters to provide constant updates to the text information, unless the service can be linked by software to functions already performed by station employees.

Given the limited web site information provided by many broadcasters currently, there is no evidence that PAD will fare any better. The employment of extra staff to design visual services to enhance the DRB experience is unlikely to be high on the agenda for most broadcasters or advertisers unless there is a clear and unambiguous cost benefit.

Secondly, good quality receivers need to be available at an affordable price. The marketplace for technology in Australia is huge and growing steadily. As both early adopters and mature consumers, Australians will purchase new technology if it is a clear improvement on current practice. However, the difference needs to be crystal clear and the price must be right. This has been the case for CDs replacing vinyl and DVDs replacing video, where new technology has made the experience better for the listener or viewer. However, for a large part of the listening audience, the current marketplace is dominated by mobile phone technology, with the introduction of cameras and colour screens demanding replacement handsets. Improvements to the current telephone technology and the introduction of 3G services will be a direct competitor for the disposable income of consumers. If an average listener is faced with the choice of a new DRB receiver, broadcasting the same FM or AM content, or a new mobile phone, the price alone will make little difference.

One potential avenue for assisting the establishment of DRB in Australia would be to give away receivers, as new commercial FM stations did in the early 1980’s, when there were few FM receivers in the marketplace. Considering the substantial investment required to establish DRB, there would be only a small extra cost for thousands of DRB receivers to be handed out from promotional vehicles across the country.

Thirdly, once a clear and viable point of difference is established for DRB, there must be consistent long-term marketing of the medium to ensure that it is not stillborn. The opportunity for the establishment of a new technology is usually a once only event, as the competition will seize any perceived weakness or limitation and seek to cut it down. Already we can see the problem of conflicting technology driving wedges into the potential for DRB, with the push for a different technology in the US.

The proponents of IBOC in the US have labelled the Eureka 147 model of equal technological potential for all DRB broadcasters as ‘communist’, since the owners of radio stations would lose any competitive advantage that FM may have over AM, and higher power licenses have over weaker signals. Other technologies for digital broadcasting may also provide a rerun of the AM stereo debacle, where listeners ignored the significant improvement of the AM service due to industry inconsistency and a lack of receivers.

This brief investigation into DRB is based on one small analysis of one market at one moment in the evolution of DRB. However, it does highlight some of the issues that must be addressed if digital radio is to succeed in Australia.

While the future of FM and AM broadcasting is uncertain and there is the introduction of new digital services in other media, radio must be certain that the investment it makes in future technology is as close to bullet-proof as is possible.

Currently, there is virtually no viable business model for any industry using the internet and there are no successful media applications based solely on the internet. Digital and cable television in Australia are struggling to get a return on their investment in new technology.

While there is a political perspective in the allocation of DRB licenses to incumbent licensees or to new entrants, and differences between the metropolitan and regional business models, the radio industry cannot afford to invest in a delivery technology that does not access a large percentage of the listening audience very quickly. DRB has some advantages over existing delivery technologies and has the potential to grow with new research investigating using DRB for datacasting. However, radio must seriously consider other delivery systems, like piggy backing on digital television, cable or mobile telephone technologies, before it makes a commitment to any new medium specific delivery technology, as the quality of DRB technology alone will not deliver a viable audience.