06-11-2012, 07:46 PM
The sub-header to that article states "The switchover to digital radio is likely to be delayed because the Government has failed to meet listening targets".
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't understand that sentence. It implies that the Government has total control of 'listening targets':i.e. people listening to DAB as opposed to FM. So, just how is the Gov't. meant to be able to control what method we use for receiving such broadcasts - apart from switching off F.M. - which, therefore, begs the question?
Secondly, Ford Ennals is quoted as saying: "A lot of people don't get it; they don't understand what DAB offers and why it's important".
You know something? I'm one of them! Perhaps that is because I have seen, read or heard little promotional blurb to explain it all to me. And that itself is a bit surprising, since the vast bulk of my radio & TV 'entertainment' comes from the BBC - whom, I would have thought, would have been 'plugging' it like crazy.
Thirdly, quote: "A department spokesperson said that the analogue switch-off will not happen until digital listening reached 50%".
Is that figure of 50% a reasonable figure to use as a decider, I ask myself? Suppose the government research figures arrive at, say, 55% - and at that point, the decision is made to throw the switch. Suppose, further, that the remaining 45% have simply stopped using FM or DAB completely - and the latter could be because the reception is poor. Surely a deciding figure of something like 75 - 80% would be more democratic? Or are my expectations here of 'democracy' somewhat naive?
These are the thoughts that crossed my mind when I read the article - together with remarks from various users - here and elsewhere. I have no experience of DAB, since all my VHF broadcast radio equipment is F.M. - which works just fine. And that could be taken as the viewpoint "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".
Al.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't understand that sentence. It implies that the Government has total control of 'listening targets':i.e. people listening to DAB as opposed to FM. So, just how is the Gov't. meant to be able to control what method we use for receiving such broadcasts - apart from switching off F.M. - which, therefore, begs the question?
Secondly, Ford Ennals is quoted as saying: "A lot of people don't get it; they don't understand what DAB offers and why it's important".
You know something? I'm one of them! Perhaps that is because I have seen, read or heard little promotional blurb to explain it all to me. And that itself is a bit surprising, since the vast bulk of my radio & TV 'entertainment' comes from the BBC - whom, I would have thought, would have been 'plugging' it like crazy.
Thirdly, quote: "A department spokesperson said that the analogue switch-off will not happen until digital listening reached 50%".
Is that figure of 50% a reasonable figure to use as a decider, I ask myself? Suppose the government research figures arrive at, say, 55% - and at that point, the decision is made to throw the switch. Suppose, further, that the remaining 45% have simply stopped using FM or DAB completely - and the latter could be because the reception is poor. Surely a deciding figure of something like 75 - 80% would be more democratic? Or are my expectations here of 'democracy' somewhat naive?
These are the thoughts that crossed my mind when I read the article - together with remarks from various users - here and elsewhere. I have no experience of DAB, since all my VHF broadcast radio equipment is F.M. - which works just fine. And that could be taken as the viewpoint "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".
Al.
