"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
they use 2-3 times less capacity.

FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based
on what
'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to
believe
a more efficient transmission method will alter this.


Bull****. The multiplex transmission costs are already known (and
contracts have been signed), and the transmitter networks don't need
to change at all to carry DAB+, so the transmission providers can't
turn round and just increase costs. The broadcasters all know this, so
the multiplex operators (which are all owned by the broadcasters
anyway) can hardly just bump the price up.

See:

http://www.worlddab.org/public_docum...ure_200803.pdf

"The benefits of DAB+ include:

Lower transmission costs for digital stations"




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm