Funferal

DAB update

No, I don’t have a response from ComReg yet, but coincidentally ComReg published, this morning 05/01, Preparing the Radio Spectrum Management Strategy for 2005 -2007. So, what is their proposed strategy for sound broadcasting?

• monitor the development of digital modulation techniques that have the potential to replace the analogue service with high quality broadcast services in the short wave, medium wave and long wave broadcast bands;
• ensure present operator compliance and protect authorised services from illegal spectrum use;
• prepare positions for ITU Conference RRC-06.

So much, so opaque. Apart from the fact that they talk of replacing analogue services with DAB – something that seems to give the lie to their claim that community radio can stay on FM since it won’t be replaced in the foreseeable future – there is little concrete or useful here.
However, the preceding discussion has slightly – though not much – more of interest. The discussion of the current state of international negotiations and developments adds weight to the likelihood that FM broadcasting is likely to come to an end – providing other countries also adopt digital radio solutions – “since it is unlikely manufacturers would continue to produce analogue sets for such a small market.” Notice the conditionality there though – it appears, reading somewhat between the lines, that not all countries are wedded at this stage to the adoption of DAB. However, timescales for migration have been set, though changeover “could be a decade or more away.”
ComReg is the manager of the radio spectrum, with a charge to ensure efficient usage. In this light, and given the neo-liberal logic within which it operates, it is not surprising that it moves, after outlining the debate, to economic considerations. Before this it does note in passing that:

Due to the importance attached to broadcasting from a political, social and cultural perspective broadcasting has been, and no doubt will continue to be, afforded a prominent position in both National and International spectrum allocation policies

.However, the bulk of its discussion is given over to a calculation of the GDP contribution of broadcasting (broadly stated – they include an estimate of income earned by advertising agencies), employment, and what they term ‘consumer surplus’ – that is the difference between what ‘consumers’ pay and what the market could bear.
To do this last part they rely on a report estimating an estimated mean willingness to pay EUR252 per household per annum for access to RTE services, and compare this to the current license fee of EUR152. This gives a surplus of EUR129m, and they price it up (based on time spent watching non-RTE TV) to get a figure of EUR290m.
The point of this calculation, of course, is to figure how much extra money could be extracted from the public, the maximum value of the market. One could ask what this has to do with efficient spectrum use, but in the current interpretation of that phrase, the only thing considered is economic value – that is, the size of the commercially exploitable market. Cultural contributions are only considered insofar as some body – a government agency concerned with ‘social goals’ in the vocabulary of Dr. Pepper – is willing to stump up cash to subvent them.
In this context, it is not surprising that the term ‘community radio’ is never mentioned in the document – despite a listing of the various types of broadcasting services currently on offer (including cable, which arguably falls outside radio spectrum policy except when delivered using MMDS or a similar mechanism).
There is, however, an interesting topic raised – on p58 and again in the appendices on p63 – Wireless Public Address systems “to meet the needs of religious and other community organisations” – the example given being people who are unable to attend local church services. This is a significant suggestion, as it would allow a form of broadcast that would be regulated by ComReg rather than BCI. Also, spectrum would be used on a “non-exclusive, non interfering basis.”First, this would effectively create a tier below community radio (which is itself being ignored into obsolesence by ComReg). Second, however, given the uni-directional nature of the service it is difficult to see how a ‘non-exclusive’ shared system could evolve – as opposed to radio experimenters (Hams) who have strict controls, and others such as taxi services who are listening and therefore able to hear when someone else is on the channel. Somehow this strikes me as less banal than might be thought at first glance.