True, shortwave broadcasters could charge a fee for digital shortwave
signals. Given that they have established competition in the form of
subscription satellite radio, free FM and free AM broadcasts and
internet radio I think they will find the market share small. The
shortwave broadcasters face the challenge of convincing their
listeners that spending good money on a special purpose radio and a
monthly fee will provide a big improvement in radio programming. It
will be a very steep hill to climb.

I could see digital broadcasts to local stations which then
rebroadcast in either standard MW or FM.

starman wrote in message ...
"John S." wrote:

The key to it's success will be whether users will buy the needed
digital receiver. Given that most major brodcasters are moving toward
satellite, FM and MW broadcasts I don't think there wil be much reason
for a broad range of SW listerners to buy a digital unit. Neat idea,
but too late. The speaker said as much:

"Admittedly listeners would need new receivers. As a consequence, the
real challenge for the DRM consortium would be to achieve successful
implementation, said Technical Director of the EBU, Mr. Philip Laven."

There's also the possibility that DRM or any digital shortwave system
won't always be free to the listener. It could become like subcription
satellite radio, where the user has to pay for the service before the
receiver is activated.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

DRM is great IMO. I get very good stereo signals on SW from DW and RTL etc.
Currently listening to vatican Radio on MW - 1611khz in FM quality - 18kb/s
DRM mode


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004

For digital radio, DRM is not the only game in the world. To be
popular worldwide, digital radio needs a standard.

For DRM you need a new receiver, but it's only popular in the UK and
Europe.
For satellite radio - XM or Sirius - you need both a new receiver and
a monthly subscription.
HD Radio from iBiquity is for the stereophile and you need a new
receiver.
I think the receiver is different for each of these.

Depending on where you live and your listening preferences, your
results may vary. But the major broadcasters do seem to be abandoning
shortwave.

For example, the BBC World Service stopped shortwave transmissions to
North America years ago, but is on both XM and Sirius here.

In the US, DRM is not well known, but XM is popular. (I'm in the US.)

cw

(John S.) wrote in message . com...
The key to it's success will be whether users will buy the needed
digital receiver. Given that most major brodcasters are moving toward
satellite, FM and MW broadcasts I don't think there wil be much reason
for a broad range of SW listerners to buy a digital unit. Neat idea,
but too late. The speaker said as much:

"Admittedly listeners would need new receivers. As a consequence, the
real challenge for the DRM consortium would be to achieve successful
implementation, said Technical Director of the EBU, Mr. Philip Laven."

"Mike Terry" wrote in message ...
Monday, 25 October 2004

"Digital short-wave will revolutionise cross-border broadcasts and will
initiate a world-wide renaissance of radio". This was the opinion of the
Director General of Deutsche Welle, Mr Erik Bettermann, during a panel
discussion at Münchner Medientage.

....(snip)....


(See more in a long article at
http://ukradio.com/news/articles/E69...A75DE7F8A5.asp )

RHF said.....
With the phase-in implementation of DRM, wouldn't a 10 kHz, 20 kHz
or even 25 kHz be a more acceptable and practical 'channel' Spacing
to reduce interference from any 'adjacent' Channels

If DRM was in section of its own in each SW band, rather than amongst
existing AM transmissions, that begs another question. With the
current 5kHz spacing, what is the impact of adjacent DRM
transmissions? As we know, a DRM broadcast on, say, 6005kHz can kill
an AM broadcast at 6010kHz. But if 6010kHz is a DRM broadcast too, to
what extent can error correction come into saving both broadcasts? If
two strong, adjacent DRM signals can withstand each other's spill-over
where two strong adjacent AM signals would usually knock each other
out, then that can only be another advantage of DRM.

Frank Dresser said....
Why reduce the AM shortwave broadcast band at all? The AM SW BC
bands have
been expanded since the SW commercial utility stations have mostly
left.
Just let some of the new expansions go to DRM.

I was in bandwagon jumping mode, assuming that eventually there will
be no AM broadcasting on SW at all (with or without DRM taking the
space). I did say elsewhere that I don't believe AM and FM broadcast
will die completely at all, but if DRM *does* take off, *is*
implemented well enough and *is* embraced by the consumer eventually,
what would be the advantage of continuing AM broadcasts on SW for the
broadcaster? (I realise there are a good few conditions to meet just
there; many "ifs" and "maybes").

Frank Dresser said....
Maybe a station is equipped and licensed to operate on a certain
frequency,
so that's where they operate, DRM or AM. The real, logical reason
might be
that nobody though much about interference until now, and the
implementation
is haphazard.

Well thats exactly what's happened, and I'm sure thats what you're
saying. And if it's not sorted out soon, there will be no chance of
anyone taking DRM seriously and it will be dead before it has even
taken it's first steps.

John S said....
The key to it's success will be whether users will buy the needed
digital receiver. Given that most major brodcasters are moving
toward
satellite, FM and MW broadcasts I don't think there wil be much
reason
for a broad range of SW listerners to buy a digital unit. Neat idea,
but too late.

Possibly. But as I said before, the move away from shortwave is
simply because of what alternatives there are. Listeners generally
want good quality audio, and this is rare with AM shortwave. But look
at the limitations with the media you have listed above. Satellite:
lack of portability, and issues with successful reception (satellite
dishes don't tend to work as well indoors as telescopic antennae do
for SW) although I realise XM, Sirius etc don't have these issues. FM
and MW: portable, and very cheap (at least for the listeners) but the
broadcasters then desert the many listeners who live outside the range
of such transmitters.

On the whole, I selfishly would like to see DRM fall flat on it's arse
if it was to impact on AM broadcasting on SW (this is where Frank
Dressers point of expanding the band for DRM, and leaving the AM
broadcasting parts intact, would be very good) as I enjoy DXing the SW
bands. However, from an international broadcasting point of view I
can see the potential not least in preserving the world of
international broadcasting on SW but also improving the services that
listeners get from it.

Realistically, I think it's already too late. Implementation of a new
technology such as DRM has to be faultless right from start, if only
to ascertain consumer confidence in the technology. If the likes of
Sirius, XM, and Worldspace didn't exist then DRM might seem a more
attractive option than it does now.

With each year that passes, DRM's chances slip further and further
away as other technologies surpass themselves.

Steve, Reading, UK.

In article ,
CAwriter wrote:
For digital radio, DRM is not the only game in the world. To be
popular worldwide, digital radio needs a standard.

For DRM you need a new receiver, but it's only popular in the UK and
Europe.
For satellite radio - XM or Sirius - you need both a new receiver and
a monthly subscription.
HD Radio from iBiquity is for the stereophile and you need a new
receiver.
I think the receiver is different for each of these.

Well if they get their act together, just new software, as it's
all down to the code the Digital Signal Processor chip is running.

Depending on where you live and your listening preferences, your
results may vary. But the major broadcasters do seem to be abandoning
shortwave.

For example, the BBC World Service stopped shortwave transmissions to
North America years ago, but is on both XM and Sirius here.

Doesn't the BBC own a chunk of XM?

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

For better or worse the international broadcasters are leaving the HF
portion of the spectrum for satellite and internet broadcasting. The
latest is of course SRI. These departures are much more than cost
cutting measures. Indeed they say a lot about how these companies view
their current and future listening audiences. These departures
indicate the principal listening audience is in more developed
countries with choices beyond generator powered HF receivers.

I'm not convinced that digital transmissions over the HF bands offer
much inducement for broadcasters to stay on the shortwave bands.
Listeners will have to purchase yet another piece of electronic
equipment that may very well be dedicated to one format. Given that
international broadcasters already send their messages over satellite
and internet connections, it will be hard to convince listeners that a
digital receiver will offer much new.

"Swiss Radio trades waves for web Switzerland is ending almost 70
years of broadcasting around the world today, with Swiss Radio
International airing its last programs on shortwave and satellite.
From Monday, the media organisation's information output will be
available only online. Swiss Radio International started broadcasting
in 1935. It made a name for itself as a neutral broadcaster during
World War Two and the Cold War. Under the name Swissinfo, it will now
be available online in nine languages."




"Mike Terry" wrote in message ...
Monday, 25 October 2004

"Digital short-wave will revolutionise cross-border broadcasts and will
initiate a world-wide renaissance of radio". This was the opinion of the
Director General of Deutsche Welle, Mr Erik Bettermann, during a panel
discussion at Münchner Medientage.

Bettermann, the head of the German international broadcaster - and
instigator of the event - was not the only one to present an optimistic
prediction of a "Digital Global Radio" development: The other panel
specialists also emphasised the advantages of digitalisation in the
so-called AM range, i.e. short-, medium- and long-wave.

The discussion was chaired by Peter Senger, Director of Distribution at
Deutsche Welle and Chairman of the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Consortium;
and next to Erik Bettermann, BBC representative Mike Cronk, Dan D'Aversa of
RTL Group and Phil Laven of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) were also
participating in the debate.

Senger outlined the advantages of digital short-wave as follows: The
world-wide accepted DRM standard provided an excellent audio-quality
comparable to FM. In addition, the search for frequencies was obsolete, as
the station identification tuned in to the designated frequency and
automatically switched to the best one. In parallel, it allows for the
sending of accompanying programme information such as text messages.

"On top of everything, digital transmission technology saves a lot of energy
and costs compared to the analogue one", Senger said. This would open up
enormous opportunities, especially for international broadcasters.

For several years, DW - like many other broadcasters - has noted that
listeners migrated from short-wave to FM or other new distribution channels
in digital quality, said Bettermann. Deutsche Welle had to stay abreast of
these changes. "According to test transmissions being operated by Deutsche
Welle, we anticipate large area coverage in almost FM quality without
interference such as jitters, induced power-noise or fading", the General
Director stated. At the same time, not only stationery indoor reception, but
also mobile reception in cars and with small portable devices is
possible...(snip).....
Mike Cronk stated that the BBC had invested heavily in DRM and that they
were now developing "a detailed strategy for its initial deployment,
probably into Europe, in 2005". According to Cronk, DRM offered the unique
combination of wide area short-wave coverage and FM usability and quality.
As a consequence of using this digital medium, continuous direct delivery to
the audience avoiding "political or other regulatory obstacles" will be
possible...(snip)....


(See more in a long article at
http://ukradio.com/news/articles/E69...A75DE7F8A5.asp )

(John S.) wrote in message . com...
For better or worse the international broadcasters are leaving the HF
portion of the spectrum for satellite and internet broadcasting. The
latest is of course SRI. These departures are much more than cost
cutting measures. Indeed they say a lot about how these companies view
their current and future listening audiences. These departures
indicate the principal listening audience is in more developed
countries with choices beyond generator powered HF receivers.

It is an interesting move. What they'll end up with, I suspect, is a
very different KIND of audience. I listened to them regularly on
shortwave, but doubt I'll ever go to their website. Of course,
billions of people are on the internet and plenty of people will visit
their site, either accidentally or on purpose; but will people visit
it regularly? Some will, but I bet SRI won't have as many habitual
visitors to their site as they had routine listeners on shortwave. (I
could be wrong, but that's my prediction.) On the other hand, there'll
be more people who come to the site more-or-less by accident and never
visit a second time. In the end, I think it boils down to the
question: What kind of audience does SRI want?

Steve

(Steve) wrote in message om...
(John S.) wrote in message . com...
For better or worse the international broadcasters are leaving the HF
portion of the spectrum for satellite and internet broadcasting. The
latest is of course SRI. These departures are much more than cost
cutting measures. Indeed they say a lot about how these companies view
their current and future listening audiences. These departures
indicate the principal listening audience is in more developed
countries with choices beyond generator powered HF receivers.

It is an interesting move. What they'll end up with, I suspect, is a
very different KIND of audience. I listened to them regularly on
shortwave, but doubt I'll ever go to their website. Of course,
billions of people are on the internet and plenty of people will visit
their site, either accidentally or on purpose; but will people visit
it regularly? Some will, but I bet SRI won't have as many habitual
visitors to their site as they had routine listeners on shortwave. (I
could be wrong, but that's my prediction.) On the other hand, there'll
be more people who come to the site more-or-less by accident and never
visit a second time. In the end, I think it boils down to the
question: What kind of audience does SRI want?

Steve

Good points. And, once they move to the internet, their competion
increases exponentially. Most people on the internet are looking for
information and there are zillions of sources to chose from we all
know. For many users it may not matter whether it is an audio & video
feed from the SRI site or news updates from CNN.com The net is far
more efficient than shortwave when it comes to getting information out
consistently to a broad audience.

The net doesn't have near the exclusivity and excitement a shortwave
broadcast has, or seems to have (for me any way). But it does give
users access to far more information, stories, breaking news, than was
ever possible with a receiver and a wire. International broadcasters
that move to the net may find that they will have to evolve into an
information resource that looks and sounds totally different than a
radio broadcast. Somehow they will have to be able to demonstrate
that their news and information is somehow different from everyone
else. SRI may find it difficult to make the switch because the name
is not as widely known as CNN and BBC.