BobTheFraudStruble wrote:
"Canada in Digital Radio Limbo"

"OTTAWA, Ontario — Going nowhe These two words succinctly sum up
the state of Canadian digital radio broadcasting, or DRB.

Despite years of offering Eureka-147 DAB simulcasts of AM and FM
signals in L-band (1452–1492 MHz) in major metro markets, broadcasters
have virtually no listeners and no market profile.

“L-band DAB is in limbo,” said Canadian broadcast technical consultant
Wayne Stacey, who has been involved with Canadian DRB for the past 20
years. “In fact, from a transmission standpoint, the band is dying.”

I haven't got time to read the rest, but thought I should say the Canada
have never really pushed their DAB radio system.

Also having it only on L-Band probably didn't help, as that makes it
very expensive to provide any reasonable coverage. I seem to remember
reading that coverage was very limited, and there were sod all receivers
available in the shops.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:31:10 +0100
Richard Evans wrote:
Also having it only on L-Band probably didn't help, as that makes it
very expensive to provide any reasonable coverage. I seem to remember
reading that coverage was very limited, and there were sod all receivers
available in the shops.

Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.

As for recievers - my Denon picks up L Band but its the only one I know of.

B2003

In article , d
scribeth thus
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:31:10 +0100
Richard Evans wrote:
Also having it only on L-Band probably didn't help, as that makes it
very expensive to provide any reasonable coverage. I seem to remember
reading that coverage was very limited, and there were sod all receivers
available in the shops.

Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.

It is a good frequency band for a high capacity type of GSM phone system
but hardly appropriate for low cost Broadcasting;!...


As for recievers - my Denon picks up L Band but its the only one I know of.

Does it pick up anything at all?..


B2003


--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:53:30 +0100
tony sayer wrote:
As for recievers - my Denon picks up L Band but its the only one I know of.

Does it pick up anything at all?..

There were test transmissions here in London for years but they stopped them
last year. Last time I checked a few months back there was nothing there. Or
no DAB broadcasts anyway.

B2003

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:37:33 -0800
dave wrote:
wrote:


Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.


XM has decent coverage on S Band.

Its via satellite so there usually won't be half a city between the
transmitter and your radio. Does it work indoors? I'll bet it doesn't.

B2003

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:54:30 -0800
dave wrote:
XM is a hybrid satellite/terrestrial system. They cover a good deal of
Los Angeles with a 10 KW transmitter on Mt. Harvard. It gets indoors
surprisingly well.

Given that my 100mw wifi system which also operates in S band can barely
penetrate 2 walls in my house I find that rather surprising but I'll take
your word for it.

B2003

On 10/29/10 07:49 , d wrote:


XM has decent coverage on S Band.

Its via satellite so there usually won't be half a city between the
transmitter and your radio. Does it work indoors? I'll bet it doesn't.




Hit or miss. I've gotten satellite reception indoors without an
external antenna, internal antenna only, and without ear a window.
But it was a frame house.

When I checked the antenna orientation function on the radio, it
showed that, indeed I was receiving satellite signal, and not the
terrestrial repeater.

Near a window, no problem. With an external antenna, exceptional
reception.

So, yes, it does work, indoors. But it's not always easy.

d wrote:


Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.


XM has decent coverage on S Band.

d wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:37:33 -0800
wrote:
d wrote:


Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.


XM has decent coverage on S Band.

Its via satellite so there usually won't be half a city between the
transmitter and your radio. Does it work indoors? I'll bet it doesn't.

B2003

XM is a hybrid satellite/terrestrial system. They cover a good deal of
Los Angeles with a 10 KW transmitter on Mt. Harvard. It gets indoors
surprisingly well.

On 10/29/10 12:53 PM, tony sayer wrote:
In , d
scribeth thus
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:31:10 +0100
Richard wrote:
Also having it only on L-Band probably didn't help, as that makes it
very expensive to provide any reasonable coverage. I seem to remember
reading that coverage was very limited, and there were sod all receivers
available in the shops.

Using frequencies in the Ghz range is pretty dumb for an earthbound broadcast
system that needs to penetrate hills and buildings. You'd think they'd have
figured that out before they started the tests.

It is a good frequency band for a high capacity type of GSM phone system
but hardly appropriate for low cost Broadcasting;!...

They thought at one time that it would be good to replace analog
low-power community radio and perhaps local radio. National and some
regional radio could use Band III.

gr, hwh