Message-ID: <59A6FB116EC54DDAA8FE7C8739DCDC93@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <BLU153-W9854A427A3859438A4D77CFDE0@phx.gbl><CAMFjj71aTnqX-8vhr36wP4CqDpb+Z6VPA9-kZnBUhJ2v4kt8kg@mail.gmail.com><4EBA76AC.3090906@charter.net> <CAMFjj70g87eEFwfCD7r_mLVV12KJivHxos8Ws3EnF95WuuxJaQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMFjj70g87eEFwfCD7r_mLVV12KJivHxos8Ws3EnF95WuuxJaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:18:03 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: LF: Radio 4 Long Wave to close.... (soon?)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d61874eba99da6007
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Yes ..  It  will not  be  possible  to  run your  own low  power  local  FM 
radio  service   from your  own TX site  as  all  FM direct  BC  will  of 
been  stopped
.. so  you  will  have to  pay   for  a  time slot  on a  multiplex   TX . 
and as  the   ham  repeater groups  are  finding  out  .. even  mast   space 
is not  cheap .
so  how much for a  channel  ?? $$$

G..

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Warren Ziegler" <wd2xgj@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:43 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: Re: LF: Radio 4 Long Wave to close.... (soon?)

>
> Hi John,
>
>      The point is that they are starting from a position of "Analog
> modulation is rubbish, and anything below 100MHz is total rubbish,
> what can we say to justify a preordained decision?"  Their religion is
> that only digital has value, what's more, many (most?) people get a
> digital service through a paid subscription model, either through an
> ISP or a cell phone provider. (I realize that there is digital over
> the air but that seems a small minority at least in this country.) I
> believe they (the BBC as well as others) would love to ween the public
> off of broadcast in the traditional sense and get the public to pay
> for the service through a digital provider, Currently the BBC gets its
> revenue through 'license fees', switching to a model that collects
> taxes on ISPs and cell providers would muddy the waters enough and
> people would think (wrongly) that eliminating the license fee was some
> kind of tax break when in fact the revenue stream would be lumped in
> with a general tax on data service providers.
>
>    Had the BBC started from a position of "Radio 4 is a valuable
> service, what can we do to maintain it at reasonable cost?" a
> different solution would be reached. They could alter their
> acquisition model to make it look more a commercial broadcaster, e.g.
> buy 2 off the shelf transmitters (1 as a spare), some additional spare
> parts and have a service/maintenance contract,probably for less than 1
> million GBP.
>
>    What hurts most is that they take the public for complete idiots
> and think that they will buy all the rubbish stories that they have
> invented. (We've forgotten how to make valves, faulty valves send a
> 'power wave' up the tower etc. etc.)
>
> That's my rant for today.
> -- 
> 73 Warren K2ORS
>                 WD2XGJ
>                 WD2XSH/23
>                 WE2XEB/2
>                 WE2XGR/1
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:48 AM, John Andrews <w1tag@charter.net> wrote:
>> Warren,
>>
>>> "Building a new long-wave transmitter for Radio 4 would cost "many
>>> millions of pounds"
>>> Many millions ? I doubt that they sought a quote!
>>
>> They may not have, but I'm not entirely surprised by that off-the-cuff
>> estimate. The Beeb would likely set up specifications requiring a custom
>> design. As has been pointed out, that design might include standard 
>> modules
>> from a manufacturer like Harris, but Auntie would set up specs that 
>> require
>> considerable engineering and testing expenses.
>>
>> And it doesn't end there. There would be contracted costs for training at
>> the manufacturer's plant and on-site in the U.K. They would, of course, 
>> not
>> just be training one guy...
>>
>> There's also the issue of spare parts. No tubes, obviously, but 
>> quantities
>> of boards, modules, big RF components and power supply stuff. Not cheap.
>>
>> Little of this would apply to U.S. commercial broadcasters, but the BBC 
>> has
>> somewhat different procurement systems.
>>
>> John, W1TAG
>>
>>
>
>