MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4EBA76AC.3090906@charter.net>
References: <BLU153-W9854A427A3859438A4D77CFDE0@phx.gbl>
	<CAMFjj71aTnqX-8vhr36wP4CqDpb+Z6VPA9-kZnBUhJ2v4kt8kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBA76AC.3090906@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:43:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMFjj70g87eEFwfCD7r_mLVV12KJivHxos8Ws3EnF95WuuxJaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Ziegler <wd2xgj@gmail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Radio 4 Long Wave to close.... (soon?)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m005.1 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60574eba91c07253
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


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.
--=20
73 Warren K2ORS
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 WD2XGJ
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 WD2XSH/23
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 WE2XEB/2
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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 modul=
es
> from a manufacturer like Harris, but Auntie would set up specs that requi=
re
> 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, n=
ot
> just be training one guy...
>
> There's also the issue of spare parts. No tubes, obviously, but quantitie=
s
> 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 h=
as
> somewhat different procurement systems.
>
> John, W1TAG
>
>