All posts by Michael Rogers
Below are all of Michael Rogers's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Apropos "authorisation". The OED no longer sets the trend, it belatedly follows it. Statistically, "z" has long since been overwhelmed by "s", except in the US and Canada. That said, either must be accepted. As an academic linguist, I use "s". With reference to the BBC and the World Service, I would observe that poor English is far too often heard, both in terms of English usage and of clear articulation. Regional dialects and second-language announcers are most welcome, but clarity of diction is essential to effective communication. Different registers should be observed. Text messages and internet blogs have their own freedoms, which should not impinge on "standard English".
Hold on now while I step down from my soap-box...
| link to this comment |
Brian, no personal gripes, but the BT guide is probably as reliable as BT, which has over years provided this location with extortionate and abysmal service. My father worked in days where pride in working for the GPO resulted in a good service. Modern management has all but destroyed this, as free-speaking technicians have confided. Regarding English usage, I concur with MikeP.
Apropos BBC World Services : I can follow five of the languages listed. My impression covers all of them. I used to be an avid listener in precarious locations and reiterate my observations over time. Sadly, in many countries the BBC is now (wrongly) perceived to be a propaganda arm of the UK government. This was not prevalent in my earlier years in areas of conflict.
That is, however, subordinate to the issue of the future of all BBC services and their funding. A lot of savings could be made whilst improving overall standards. In the UK, the BBC should, in my opinion, concentrate on being a genuine public service and leave much popular programming to advertising-dependent commercial services. Viewing statistics should not be determinant criteria.
| link to this comment |
Brian, sorry about the misapprehension. My gripe is not with your choice and preferences, which I respect even if my own differ As an HE exam marker I was required to adhere to prescribed rules :-) My gripe is only with BT and the BBC. I have no choice but to pay BT for a service grossly inferior to that provided to others for less. Indirectly, I pay the BBC for services which to me offer ever less quality. In addition : threat of MW close-down despite patchy DAB and FM and very patchy 3G. If the majority of viewers prefer this, democracy rules. But is this certain? If the BBC is forced to adopt a pay-implementation, I fear it may not survive in a competitive market. Free-to-view would shrink to commercial and vested-interest broadcasters. Fortunately, the current licence fee entitles me to selectively watch services from commercial operators and from other countries, so, despite issues of quality and content, I am still reasonably satisfied. There is a related issue. Membership of the EU entitles all EU citizens to equality of access to "free movement of goods and services". "Services" should, irrespective of geographic contracts, include equal access to television services freely available to EU citizens by satellite in other member countries. As this is a minority interest, it appears not to merit official attention - not even of NF :-)
| link to this comment |
Re the licence : strictly speaking they have a let-out. The UK TV licence is required to watch anything from any provider, not just BBC. Government then shovels the revenue over to the BBC for profligation... Only online-recorded viewing is exempt, but not live streaming. This might well change in time as it would be tedious to check who is watching live and who is saving podcasts for later viewing. I could well imagine that all possible permutations are under consideration, but it is hard to envisage a pay-implementation which would be cost-effective and foolproof. I am no iplayer fan as my bandwidth does not stretch to streaming and because others between here and the telephone exhange use streaming and thereby reduce my bandwidth even more. This is particularly evident after school hours...
| link to this comment |
"The BBC is reported to have announced that it will conduct a DAB+ trial later this year."
True, but there have also been no-promises DRM and DRM+ trial broadcasts.
In view of the sluggish take-up of DAB options - and shrinking budgets - one might wonder how excited listeners and potential operators will be to invest in DAB+ compliant kit. My most expensive DAB radio died a while back, so I now have to choose between enjoying tinny sound on a cheapo or booming hifi on various ancient FM thingys. No brainer :-)
| link to this comment |
"I simply do not believe the claims that without ancient valves it is impossible to transmit on LW frequencies. LW penetrates into the continent - maybe BBC don't care about those users. But it is also used for the Shipping Forecast - apparently also for receivability at a distance. And finally we need it as an emergency service for its robustness if complex networks fail." (Steve P.)
I concur, Steve. The 234kHz transmitter is a relatively recent solid-state installation. See below. 198kHz could do the same. One might hope that your rationale might prove determinant. However, in the event of a national emergency, more people would have access to a MW battery or car radio, not so many to one with LW capability, so 909 and 693kHz might be preferred.
"Long wave (LW) broadcasting is the forgotten stepchild of AM radio. While there are no LW radio stations in North America, they continue to operate throughout Europe, North Africa, Russia and Mongolia, due in part to their unparalleled signal coverage. Most stations are in the 155-281 Khz band. A new installation by Transradio Sender Systeme Berlin AG proves there is still interest in broadcasting at the lower end of the spectrum.
Broadcasting Center Europe (BCE) manages long- and shortwave broadcasts for Radio Television Luxembourg, including the French-language program RTL France', which is beamed from a station in Beidweiler, Luxembourg towards Paris on 234 Khz via a directional antenna system made up of three 290-meter masts.
Rising energy costs led BCE to replace the two Thompson-2175 1000 Kw tube transmitters with more efficient solid-state devices. Transradio was awarded the contract to design and deliver an air-cooled DRM capable LW transmitter with output powers of 1500 and 1000 Kw AM/DRM respectively.
Assigned the model number TRAM/P 1500 LS, the transmitter is made up of two TRAM 750 LS 750 Kw transmitters and a paralleling unit (PU) for loss-free combining of both transmitters. In the event of failure, or during maintenance, the PU switches the unaffected unit online so that the system remains on-air with a 3 dB reduction in power." » Transradio Equips BCE LW Site WHEAT:BLOG
| link to this comment |
Very pertinent insights! With the ongoing struggle to establish DAB, it would be even more uphill to supplant it with DAB+, despite its technical superiority. A new national network with coverage limited to main population centres and motorways might be a first option for DAB+, perhaps with DAB retained as a basic service for the many who have already invested in a DAB-only receiver. Broadcasters understandably eschew multiple provision on different platforms, so minimal duplication of services must be expected. But then, quo vadis FM? Quo vadis AM? Local radio on FM and DAB could be discontinued to limit duplication. National Radio5 and BBC local radio on AM only could be retained for remote area and emergency national coverage. Ideally 198kHz (perhaps with a combination of R5 and R4?) should also be retained, perhaps with new solid-state equipment as on 234kHz to reduce running costs. Even more ideally, 198kHz could become DRM, but .... India is actively investing in DRM, so it may still have a future in some parts of the world. Many DRM experimental broadcasts continue, although reception is mainly restricted to shortwave receivers with a 12kHz IF output to a SDR computer. Pragmatism and cost factors will doubtless reign - sigh...
| link to this comment |
Stan: To repeat, I am suggesting that to cut costs national Radio 5 and BBC local radio could be prioritised on Medium Wave analog. At the same time this would serve the largest number of battery and car radios in an emergency using a minimum of transmitters. To cut costs further, these could even be removed from DAB and FM. An emergency services network could be established on 198kHz using new solid-state transmitting equipment, but military-style technology on shortwaves might be more flexible and less vulnerable.
| link to this comment |
We do tend to misinterpret others' or poorly phrase our contributions at times! If we are discussing a major national emergency, which there surely are plans for, one issue is communication from government to the populace, another is communication between emergency services. If mains power were broadly maintained, then most radio and television would still work. lf, however, there were major power cuts, many transmitters would not operate and many homes would be without power and not be able to receive satellite or terrestrial broadcasts - except on a battery or car radio from transmitters with power, whether mains or generator. In this scenario Medium Wave would only require a few transmitters in strategic locations with generator power to maintain the widest emergency public service outreach. This MW network already exists and would, in my opinion, be overall the most resiliant option for public information. ( I am not aware of other countries' plans for the future of their longwave transmitters, but 198kHz may well close down on grounds of cost and the diminishing number of LW receivers in use. ) Communication between emergency services would require all Tetra and similar transmitters to have independent power generation facilities. If this is the case, then such networks would continue to function as long as hand-held radios had power. Shortwave would be a useful source of information for some from other countries, although services are shrinking. However, military and amateur-radio (eg Raynet) transceivers would be a valuable backup for emergency services.
The issue of current interest is the future of radio, rendered complex by advances in technology, duplication and cost factors. DAB may well develop into the main platform, complemented perhaps by separate networks on DAB+ and FM. If Radio5 and local radio were exclusively on AM with wide coverage from a minimum of transmitters, duplication costs could be avoided - and a skeleton AM network would be available at a moment's notice in the event of a major national emergency. Webradio offers thousands of stations, but is limited to wifi radio and computer-based listening. 3G and 4G may become a more desirable option if affordable flatrates become available.
| link to this comment |
Thursday 3 April 2014 9:46PM
I have been following this thread with interest and bemusement. Most of the scenarios outlined are too complex, too expensive, too selective, in sum too unrealistic to merit serious consideration. The concern remains that abacus-operators in government and commerce may nevertheless devise a scheme which is to their advantage - but not to that of the majority of viewers.
If ever we are frogmarched to the pay-up booth, two BBC channels should remain free-to-view; these should offer an honest selection of all genres. Other services would be available to the TOWIE etc set. ITV, C4, C5 etc and their advertisers would be the big winners. Who will be paying for the world to watch BBC World free? The World Service is a shadow of its former self. With great chagrin, I maintain that, if there is no equitable way to finance it, it could be closed down. Overseas viewers will continue to be kept abreast of world events by emerging regimes' freesat services. Hmmm...