Re-thinking radio's digital future

British consumers have bought six million DAB radios because they want to listen to services which are not available on either AM or FM. It is a familiar argument and one that has become the mantra of countless analysts, consultants, broadcasters, regulators and journalists.

I have spread the same message through conference speeches, articles, e-mails and blog posts. But now we are all being asked to think again, as France questions whether listeners really do want more choice.

Although DMB audio is less efficient than DAB+, this is only a problem if your objective is to extend choice. But the GRN believes that French listeners are already well served.

"Significantly increased programme offering is not a strong consumer demand," says Radio France's Sylvain Anichini. "In France, there is already a very diverse offering in most places."

In Paris alone, listeners can tune into around 50 FM stations.

Anichini's comments come as France appears poised to adopt T-DMB technology for digital radio services, even though it was designed for mobile TV. It is an audacious move backed by the Groupement pour la Radio Numérique (Association for Digital Radio), a group of broadcasters whose members have more than 95 per cent of France's domestic audience.

GRN members have already started trial services in Paris, with a nationwide commercial launch planned for Christmas 2008. The French authorities will provide frequencies in the VHF (Band III) and Band L range.

The GRN is plumping for T-DMB, rather than DAB+, because its members believe that multimedia services will play an important part in the future of radio. Unless radio becomes interactive and adds pictures, they say, it will die a slow, but inevitable death.

"Digital radio cannot only be digital sound - it needs to have the right functionalities to compete with other digital offerings," says Anichini. These include a screen, rich data, synchronization between data and sound and high audio quality.

French broadcasters are worried they are failing to reach younger audiences, who prefer the Internet - Anichini claims that young people find radio "dumb" and "one-dimensional." It is a common concern across Europe, for both radio and TV.

Indeed, the situation may even be worse for TV since radio’s unique advantage is that you can listen to it whilst doing other things. The challenge facing mobile TV, in contrast, is to convince consumers that it is not a “sit-back” medium.

Nevertheless, the GRN perceives mobile TV as a real threat. For this reason, they argue not only that radio needs to be interactive and able to offer video, but also that it must be available in DMB-equipped mobile phones.

The GRN says that because T-DMB is part of the DAB family, the new French phones will be backwards compatible with DAB and DAB+. However, the inverse is not true.

Samsung will provide the phones. However, Nokia, which prefers the rival DVB-H technology, is unlikely to follow suit.

Instead, the Finnish giant is offering a free Internet Radio download for all Nokia phones running the Series 60 operating system. The service, which allows users to browse for radio programmes by genre, language, country, or name, will be installed on new phones.

The fact that GRN broadcasters are demanding more bits for DMB services will further restrict competition. However, Nokia's Internet Radio could have a significant Long Tail effect by allowing small stations squeezed out by the GRN a real opportunity to reach new audiences.

This leads us to the other question mark against the French strategy: is multimedia really the future of radio? Despite massive investment, commercial broadcasters in the UK have so far failed to launch any truly successful services.

Multimedia is undoubtedly a sexy addition to radio, but can it really compete with the sophisticated services already available on the Internet?

Many outside France, including foreign regulators and receiver manufacturers, have condemned the GRN’s controversial decision to adopt T-DMB for radio services. But different countries may have different needs.

In terms of the upper layers and legacy equipment, if you build a network capable of transmitting DMB audio, it is easy to convert it to deliver DMB video. However, if you build a DAB+ network, there is no migration path to "something better than radio" which includes video.

In the real world, there is no migration path from a multiplex which provides 50 DAB+ channels to one that gives you 50 T-DMB channels.  Either you would have to drop some of the services, or you would have to build a new multiplex.

Although T-DMB is less spectrum efficient than DAB+, that is only a problem if you plan to launch new stations. In addition, French radio will require still more bits to provide the kind of interactive and video services being planned.

In the end, though, I suspect this is a question of culture and the depth of existing analogue services, rather than technology. Different choices - T-DMB or DAB+ - may be appropriate in different countries. Some countries may decide to complement "standard" DAB+ services with premium services on T-DMB.

[All changes to original text in Italics.]

Comments

[Tuija Aalto]

However nifty as an application, the new Nokia internet radio will hardly have widespread significance as mass medium as long as data transfer fees continue to be as high as they are.

Just under 7% of the Finnish mobile subscribers, for instance, have a flat rate data plan which you'd need in order to play a radio stream on your mobile device. Of the data moved, however, most was generated by PC:s - that is, 3G networls are mostly used for laptop computing, the phone only serving as the mobile network provider.

No widespread usage of mobile data in the land of Nokia, that is. We'll see if the situation changes in the coming years. To date, most operators fail to promote flat rate data plans for casual users. Their main target seems to be the business user and the plans are priced accordingly.

[Ramstein]

"In the real world, there is no migration path from a multiplex which provides 50 DAB+ channels to one that gives you 50 T-DMB channels. Either you would have to drop some of the services, or you would have to build a new multiplex."

Yes it is right, T-DMB for radio is so inefficient tthat you have to use more multiplexes to transport the same number of programmes (higher costs).

But using this argument for saying that there's no possiblity to migrate from DAB+ to DMB is simply ridiculous, it is like saying that if you have bought an Airbus A380 then it is very difficult to migrate to a Caravelle because you will need many Caravelles to transport the same number of people, or you will have to drop passengers so you had better go directly for Caravelle ?!

(sigh)

[Nick Piggott]

There seems to be a fair degree of confusion about what "T-DMB Audio" will and won't do. Indeed, much of that confusion seems to originate from GRN who clearly feel the need to vindicate their own decision.

T-DMB is a video application that runs on top of a DAB network. In Korea, T-DMB provides Video services, and DAB provides radio services. This often surprises people - Koreans use DAB for radio. Even Korea has no intention of using this Frankenstein "T-DMB Audio" creation of the GRN.

T-DMB will operate on the same physical network alongside DAB (MPEG 2 audio for radio) and DAB+ (aac+ audio for radio). What T-DMB can't offer is any of the applications designed for radio. So "T-DMB Audio" won't have: DLS Text, Slideshow, Broadcast Website, Dynamic Range Control, Service Linking, Travel/News announcement functionality, or benefit from any of the past, ongoing or future worldwide development of functionality for *radio*.

"T-DMB Audio" uses roughly double the bandwidth to deliver an audio service as its equivalent in DAB+. T-DMB audio could be converted to a "Video" channel by adding a video component (and more bandwidth) but I very much doubt any French mobile phone network is going to buy T-DMB enabled mobile phones, so I don't see there being any end receivers. And of course, I believe the legislation prohibits video. If you really want to add visuals to radio, DAB Slideshow can achieve virtually the identical effect with less bandwidth and using far simpler authoring tools.

So why create "T-DMB Audio"? Who knows, but maybe the explanation will one day be filed alongside "Why create SECAM"?

[MM]

"If you build a network capable of transmitting DMB audio, it is easy to convert it to deliver DMB video. However, if you build a DAB+ network, there is no migration path to "something better than radio."

Sorry for not explaining this better. I was thinking in terms of the upper layers since the French decision is based on the idea that radio needs video capabilities that cannot be achieved with DAB+.

[nemo]

I believe that French broadcasters are interested primarily in their own survival – and that they do not want added competition. Their timetable for introducing digital radio is very relaxed – mainly because they are protecting their existing analogue services.

French Radio has specifically rejected using DVB-H because it brings too much competition and because it will be controlled by telcos rather than broadcasters.

DMB audio is less efficient than DAB+, but this is a positive advantage if your objective is to restrict competition!

I doubt that the French really see multimedia as the future of radio. As you observe, commercial broadcasters in the UK have spent a fortune trying to find commercial success with interactive services on DAB, etc. All of the market research confirms your point that "radio’s unique advantage is that you can listen to it whilst doing other things" (multi-tasking). Of course, multimedia is a "sexy addition to radio" – but it is difficult to emulate the sophisticated services that are readily available today on the Internet. However, the French broadcasters can claim that DMB is ideal for multimedia: this position also allows them to demand that the CSA should let them have more bits for interactive services (clearly, the future of radio...) which again has the added benefit of restricting competition...

Their original position in favour of DMB was that there were 2 million DMB receivers already in service in Korea – but they are DMB video receivers (which use BSAC audio coding for the TV services and MPEG-2 Layer I audio coding for the DAB audio services). But they have chosen DMB audio using MPEG-4 AAC. So their argument about receiver availability is nonsensical.