This is probably only of interest to the UK Empeg/Rio community.

Should you want to preserve the quality of digital radio, you might write, as well – I think it’s self explanatory.

I have to-day sent the following message to the listed recipients:

<a href="mailto:tessa.jowell@culture.gov.uk">tessa.jowell@culture.gov.uk</a>
Cc: <a href="mailto:tessa.blackstone@culture.gov.uk;">tessa.blackstone@culture.gov.uk;</a> <a href="mailto:broadcasting@culture.gov.uk;">broadcasting@culture.gov.uk;</a>
<a href="mailto:jwhittingdale.mp@tory.org.uk;">jwhittingdale.mp@tory.org.uk;</a> <a href="mailto:harveyn@parliament.uk;">harveyn@parliament.uk;</a>
<a href="mailto:drewd@parliament.co.uk;"

I have also sent it to Gerald Kaufman at his parliamentary site, and to my local MP

“Minister

Much of my enjoyment is derived from listening to BBC radio, so much so that I was an early adopter of Digital Audio Broadcasting receivers, of which I have two, at a not inconsiderable expense.

The publicity promised us crystal clear CD quality broadcasting; but as time goes on, and with your sanction, the BBC has added a number of irrelevant/minority stations and services and, in order to fit them in to the bandwidth available, has lowered the quality of transmissions.

It is now at a point where it is a fact that my analogue, FM reception is both superior and more reliable. In other words I have invested £600 in a damp squib, others have invested much more – and it would seem to be under false pretencies.

It should shame the BBC that DAB transmissions are now at a higher quality on Classic FM, than they are at the BBC. The policy adopted in Germany and across Europe is one of a higher quality still. Radio4 appears to now be in mono throughout the day at a quality comparable to the old medium wave transmissions.

If this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it is going to be very hard to convince the public at large that moving from analogue to digital radio is worth the effort – and then what price digital television?

Would it not be better if the BBC were to maintain its original commitment to quality and introduce its other services as and when further frequencies become available? I have no argument with providing a greater variety of broadcast stations, in fact I applaud it, but should they not all be available to the general public in the quality and with the geographical spread promised.

If action is not taken now, it will be many years before the AM/FM frequencies can be cleared for other uses.”

In reply to:

---

If action is not taken now, it will be many years before the AM/FM frequencies can be cleared for other uses.”

---

You can actually receive DAB BBC stations? I live/work halfway between Portsmouth and Southampton and can get the Digital One multiplex and that's it!

The BBC covers 65% of the population and are now aiming for 85% by "early 2004" (!)

At least we're getting a Capital Radio multiplex by January, which will have the BBC local station.

More coverage info here

Gareth

The BBC covers 65% of the population and are now aiming for 85% by "early 2004" (!)

It's the old mobile phone argument isn't it:"Our service covers 95% of the poulation, but 95% of the population live in 12% of the landmass - so the real statistic is that your service covers 11% of the Country. Not much good if you're travelling around!

Without wishing to appear overly picky, but you say "I have invested £600 in a damp squid" - aren't squid usually damp?

Bryan.
(needless pedantry over with, he retreats to a safe distance)

http://empeg.comms.net/files/121042-dried%20squid.jpg

Well, I did say "usually damp"...

Bryan.

aren't squid usually damp?

The usual phrase, of course, is damp squib -- but the mental image of investing £600 in a damp squid is sufficiently arresting that I think we should promote this wording as an improvement. It's like the way the phrase used to be "as large as life and quite as natural" before Lewis Carroll improved it to "as large as life and twice as natural", and it's only ever the improved version you hear nowadays.

Peter

damp squib

You are, of course, perfectly right "squib" being a type of firework.

The only problem is, parliament will probably spend hours discussing the EC squid allocation and never get on to the DAB frequency allocation.

I can't believe I got that wrong!

Don't forget to send your e-mail.

I also seem to have missed the possibility that the squid in question may have been a superconducting quantum interference device, and while paying six hundred notes for one seems quite cheap, I imagine a damp one may not work as intended (if at all).

I'll ignore for now my curiostity about the current market price of giant squid (the sea creature, rather than the electronic type).

Bryan.

The publicity promised us crystal clear CD quality broadcasting; but as time goes on, and with your sanction, the BBC has added a number of irrelevant/minority stations and services and, in order to fit them in to the bandwidth available, has lowered the quality of transmissions.

ROFL, this didn't work when I tried it with DirecTV, why should it work with the BBC?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained - but I accept that they are good at giving politician's answers!

I'll ignore for now my curiostity about the current market price of giant squid (the sea creature, rather than the electronic type)

OK it's monday and I've had a chance to interview the "stenographer" concerned, she in her teens and has never heard of a squib, so just keyed it how it sounded.
At the end of the day it's my fault for not checking my work.

Listening to the crummy sound of BBC Radio 2 at 96kbs this morning, prompted me to think that Damp Squid is indeed a more appropriate phrase!

Send an e-mail!

You can fight city hall!

In response to my complaints, the Radio Times(the listings guide of the BBC) have changed their website article on digital broadcasting to accept that their are glitches, looping and drop-outs as a downside to getting a DAB receiver.

It's a start

Send an e-mail!

Listening to the crummy sound of BBC Radio 2 at 96kbs this morning

Possibly Rupert Murdoch's less-is-more approach to cramming more channels per transponder (at the expense of quality) has rubbed off on them. Or are we due a BBC TV license price hike to cover the cost of these minority channels that the majority won't benefit from or listen to?