Some strong words were spoken as players in the Digital Radio debate took up their positions at the Digital Radio Study Group’s consultative forum in Sydney this week. On one side were the incumbents – groups who have a defined position in the mainstream radio broadcasting bands; and on the other the wannabes – who want to gain or increase their position in the radio broadcasting landscape as a result of the introduction of Digital Radio Broadcasting (DRB).
Taking up a position
The digital radio debate has been going on in Australia for more than ten years, and some of the long term campaigners who spoke at the Forum expressed the frustration that “we’ve heard all this before and still nothing gets done.” Their position was that incumbents with vested interests are delaying the process for their own purposes and are locking out new players who could give consumers more choice.
On the other hand it was also noted by many speakers that the ‘wait and see’ approach has served Australia well in the past by giving this country the advantage of seeing where others fail before jumping into something that may not work properly or may not have a viable business model. The point was made more than once that outlaying money on technology that is not acceptable to consumers, or creating a regime that would send businesses broke, was not good for the industry or consumers.
Eureka – that’s it! Or is it?
Most of the speakers at the Forum agreed that Eureka 147 was still the best system for Australia to adopt, but there was by no means complete agreement on this issue. DRM (Digital Radio Mondial) was also a preferred technology, which many speakers thought could be particularly useful in regional areas.
In the years since Eureka was first introduced using a mandated MPEG compression ratio, audio compression capability has improved and this was the basis for some of the debate around other systems. Some of the more modern systems use better compression algorithms that could allow more signals to fit into the same amount of bandwidth of the Eureka system.
The progress of satellite delivered radio systems also brought in another factor to consider when addressing the questions of bandwidth and the spectrum availability.
Will everyone fit?
The amount of spectrum available to allow existing stations to convert to digital is also an issue. The L Band ( 1452 – 1492 MHz) is proving unsuitable for wide coverage signals and the VHF spectrum in the Channel 9a band is not available in all areas of Australia.
The CBAA’s Divid Sice proposed that VHF Channel 12 also be investigated because he believed the defence forces, who have reserved that area of spectrum, are not using it.
Without enough bandwidth, not all existing players will be able to migrate on an equal level to the new bands required for DRB. The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) flagged this as an issue that would not be easy or quick to solve.
Hidden Agenda?
Many at the conference were wondering whether there was a hidden agenda to push the introduction of DRB forward quickly, especially after the announcement that the ABA would not plan for more licence expansion in the current AM and FM bands for at least five years.
This question was put several times, in one way or another, and both the Convenor of the Forum, ABA member Malcolm Long and ABA General Manager Giles Tanner said this was not the hidden meaning behind the announcement.
Who said what?
The ABA’s Giles Tanner warned that “Eureka is not the only potential use of the spectrum” which is being target for radio, others may want it too. The ACA’s Geoff Luther reinforced Tanner’s view with a detailed chart of who was using the spectrum and for what purposes.
Giles Tanner also commented on the application by Broadcast Australia to conduct a trial in Melbourne saying “there has been strenuous objection” to this trial. There is currently an ongoing trial under way led by Commercial Radio Australia. Tanner said the ABA “will make a clear statement soon” about whether it will allow that trial.
ABA Engineer Fred Gengaroli foreshadowed that digital radio would bring a new way of thinking to transmission sites. Currently radio transmission sites are mostly stand-alone facilities, but multiplex transmission will require co-siting with other operators in many locations, which would require more planning activity from the ABA. He also raised the possibility of a DRM trial in Canberra using the current ABC NewsRadio frequency of 1440 if that stations moves to another frequency.
DCITA’s James Cameron explained the Study Group’s findings on where DRB is at in four world markets – USA, Germany, Canada and UK (see technical news page report).
SBS Radio staked its claim to two national networks in any new DRB transmission system, while Worldspace outlined the receiver and transmission technology currently in use from its own international satellites and put forward a view that would position it as a potential carrier company if satellite DRB were allowed in Australia.
Cemedia’s Hendrik Prins strongly expressed his expert opinion that “DRB is not an immature technology,” that there is “plenty of spectrum,” and that “consumer resistence will not be a problem” if there is interesting content. He urged the government to “just get on with it.” In answer to a question from the convenor “are you suggesting the incumbents don’t want digital radio?” his simple answer was “yes.”
CRA’s Joan Warner rejected “assertions that we have been idle or disinterested so far” and outlined the significant progress made during the current trail broadcasts. She said commercial radio “will not apologise” for its strong position, because “this discussion is about the future of our industry.” She pointed out that comparisons with the UK’s DRB progress were not entirely valid because Australia has a very different licencing regime and industry history.
Warner said “the way forward for government is crystal clear – it should consider the interests of existing broadcasters and their audiences as the first priority” and use the conversion model as a basis for proceeding. The commercial radio industry “has already funded and progressed DRB in Australia… but has not rushed like lemmings to adapt anything too early.”
Warner also announced that Alpine, Harvey Norman and Ford are companies all interested in helping with trials of receivers and testing audience response to the new technology. (See other news story for more detail on Joan Warner’s speech).
Austereo’s Des DeCean said “for digital radio to be a success we need an audience, otherwise it’s just all about engineering.” He made the point that consumers don’t want to go backwards, so they will expect better quality and more services from DRB, but also that the broadcasters will want to balance the audience need with business priorities. He said radio licencees must be allowed to exploit all the capabilities of the technology and should have a period free from new competition, to compensate for the significant investment that must be made in the new technology.
CBAA engineering consultant David Sice agreed with other speakers that the next steps for DRB in Australia should be “evolutionary,” as a replacement for existing services at first, and that later new players should be considered. He said that while DRM and satellite transmission were interesting options for the national broadcasters, they were less attractive to local broadcasters who did not seek to cover the whole country. He urged that there should not be any consideration of a change in the allocation of 256 kBits for Eureka because, even though it might squeeze more broadcasters into the scarce spectrum, it would compromise a broadcasters ability to deliver quality and new services into the future.
A statement from the floor by a representative of Channel Ten said there should be ore funding to the ABC to assist more with the progress of the trials and to develop interesting programming options which would stimulate listeners.
The ABC’s Russell Stendell said the ABC is “a very enthusiastic player” in digital radio because it would provide better quality for listeners and would allow the ABC to introduce new services. He outlined the contribution the ABC has made so far and the programming options is developing for DRB.
World Audio’s Andrew Thompson said he “would not apologise for being a Section 40 commercial broadcaster” and outlined World Audio’s plans for the progress if its network. He favoured the UK model as a way forward for Australia, which would allow operators like his company to be on a more “level playing field” with all the other radio sectors.
Astra’s Debra Richards said “not this again!” She commented on the progress so far and explained that whatever options are taken, some of her members would win and others would lose. She asked whether the recent announcement about analog licences was “about setting a timetable” for the introduction of DRB in Australia.
The debate goes on, but now that the ABA has less to work on in the area of Licence Area Plans, and that a merger is proposed with the ACA, there may be a new level of increased interest in this area of the Australian broadcasting landscape in the near future.