Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70684 > unrolled thread

Dynamic bitrate (DAB)

Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast

Contents

  Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-02 10:20 +0100
    Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-02 12:38 +0100
    Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-02 14:39 +0100
      Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 16:03 +0100
        Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0100
          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 17:16 +0100
      Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Old John <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-10-03 06:29 +0000
        Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-03 09:29 +0100
          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-04 08:37 +0100
          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-04 07:45 +0000

#70684 — Dynamic bitrate (DAB)

The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
off-air. Why has the BBC done this? 

I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
capacity as a cost-cutting measure?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70686

On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?



The big danger is that a politician comes up with the idea of selling 
DAB bandwidth to commercial stations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70687

On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?
>
> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
>
If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go. 
It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British 
Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for 
catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video 
recorder.
-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70688

On 2026/10/2 14:39:0, John Williamson wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
>> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
>> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
>> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
>> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
>> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
>> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?

DAB is probably considered legacy technology, not worthy of
tweaking-type attention when DAB+ is there.>>
>> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
>> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
>> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?

That'll only save money if they pay less, which can only work if there
is someone willing to pay for what's released.>>
> If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go. 
> It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British 
> Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for 
> catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video 
> recorder.

Although _I_ agree with you, we are both of an older generation that
listen to what is broadcast; regardless of the name, which is
historical, to keep up with the audience (not just "down with the kids",
but a fair proportion of young adults), they have to do the online stuff
- if we believe what we're told, a lot of the "audience" don't listen to
or watch much live at all.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong. - H.L.Mencken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70689

On 02/10/2026 16:03, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Although _I_ agree with you, we are both of an older generation that
> listen to what is broadcast; regardless of the name, which is
> historical, to keep up with the audience (not just "down with the kids",
> but a fair proportion of young adults), they have to do the online stuff
> - if we believe what we're told, a lot of the "audience" don't listen to
> or watch much live at all.
>
What I was suggesting is dropping the online only content, only keeping 
the stuff that actually gets transmitted available on line.

Timeshifting costs very little, no matter which end of the link it 
happens. What costs money is creating content, not distributing it.

They could also save money by bringing a lot of production back "in 
house", as the current system has to pay for all the backroom staff at 
dozens of creators instead of one department split between all the 
programme creators.

However, the new Boss seems determined to close down all the 
transmitters as soon as he can get away with it, transferring that part 
of the cost from the BBC to the consumer, as we will all need a decent 
broadband speed to watch. In my case, as I can not get a landline 
connection, that will have to be Starlink. My current system is far too 
slow to stream HD (Or even SD) video.
-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70690

On 2026/10/2 16:41:32, John Williamson wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 16:03, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Although _I_ agree with you, we are both of an older generation that
>> listen to what is broadcast; regardless of the name, which is
>> historical, to keep up with the audience (not just "down with the kids",
>> but a fair proportion of young adults), they have to do the online stuff
>> - if we believe what we're told, a lot of the "audience" don't listen to
>> or watch much live at all.
>>
> What I was suggesting is dropping the online only content, only keeping 
> the stuff that actually gets transmitted available on line.
> 
> Timeshifting costs very little, no matter which end of the link it 
> happens. What costs money is creating content, not distributing it.

I am in total agreement with you; however, I do understand that many of
the potential licence-fee payers may think differently.>
> They could also save money by bringing a lot of production back "in 
> house", as the current system has to pay for all the backroom staff at 
> dozens of creators instead of one department split between all the 
> programme creators.

I can't comment on that point.>
> However, the new Boss seems determined to close down all the 
> transmitters as soon as he can get away with it, transferring that part 
> of the cost from the BBC to the consumer, as we will all need a decent 
> broadband speed to watch. In my case, as I can not get a landline 
> connection, that will have to be Starlink. My current system is far too 
> slow to stream HD (Or even SD) video.

That does seem to be the desire :-( , not just with the BBC (I didn't
know it was "their" aim too) but with all sorts of powerful bodies - set
manufacturers, broadband suppliers, and so on - and, especially, OfCom;
the last seems to have a plan to turn off DTV altogether, as soon as
they think they can get away with it. The assumption that everybody has
broadband, and to hell with those who don't, is very similar to the
assumption that everybody has a smartphone, and = more insidiously - a
permanently-on data contract (and can get a connection).
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Religion is a name for opinion that cannot be argued about.
[Heard on Radio 4, 2010-10-18, 9:xx.]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70691

On 2 Oct 2026 at 14:39:00 BST, "John Williamson"
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
>> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
>> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
>> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
>> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
>> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
>> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?
>> 
>> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
>> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
>> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
>> 
> If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go.
> It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British
> Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for
> catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video
> recorder.

I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
TV.
-- 
God makes power, Man makes engines.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70692

On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 06:29:34 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 2 Oct 2026 at 14:39:00 BST, "John Williamson"
><johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
>>> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
>>> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
>>> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
>>> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
>>> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
>>> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?
>>> 
>>> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
>>> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
>>> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
>>> 
>> If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go.
>> It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British
>> Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for
>> catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video
>> recorder.
>
>I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
>TV.

Could they not compromise and make it free in real time and charge for
back catalogue? This would closely resemble the original concept of
the radio/TV licence. I have always thought R4 Extra could be
chargeable as there is no entitlement to watch 1960s comedy. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70707

On Sat, 03 Oct 2026 09:29:25 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>>I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
>>TV.
>
>Could they not compromise and make it free in real time and charge for
>back catalogue? This would closely resemble the original concept of
>the radio/TV licence. I have always thought R4 Extra could be
>chargeable as there is no entitlement to watch 1960s comedy. 

They could make the whole thing subscription based, like other online
services, or maybe individual programmes available for rent or
purchase like some of the movies on Amazon. I don't care what they do
as long as they stop sending me threatening and legally misleading
letters and let me make my own choices about what I want to pay for.

They won't want to of course. Who would want to stop a five billion a
year gravy train? And the government won't want to stop it either,
because they still think that by keeping control of broadcasting they
can control what the public is told, even though an increasing number
of people now get their knowledge of the world from a variety of other
sources. I wonder how long they can keep it going?

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70708

On 03/10/2026 09:29, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 06:29:34 -0000 (UTC), Old John
> <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 2 Oct 2026 at 14:39:00 BST, "John Williamson"
>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/10/2026 10:20, Scott wrote:
>>>> The BBC seems to have stopped adjusting the DAB bitrate dynamically
>>>> depending on programming. It used to be that R3 (or) R4, and R5 (main
>>>> service) had bitrates adjusted when R5L was on air.  Now it looks as
>>>> though they remain static as R3 160 kbps, R4 112 kbps and R5 64 kbps.
>>>> R5L seems to be wasting 64 kbps playing a silly loop while it is
>>>> off-air. Why has the BBC done this?
>>>>
>>>> I see the new DG is talking about reducing the number of services.
>>>> Will this improve DAB quality or will the BBC vacate the 'spare'
>>>> capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
>>>>
>>> If he wants to cut costs, then a lot of the on-line only stuff can go.
>>> It is, after all the British *Broadcasting* corporation, not the British
>>> Web Content Maker. Leave iPlayer running, though, as that is handy for
>>> catching up on the stuff they have broadcast. It saves buying a video
>>> recorder.
>>
>> I would be deeply distressed if iPlayer went. I tend to use it more than live
>> TV.
> 
> Could they not compromise and make it free in real time and charge for
> back catalogue? This would closely resemble the original concept of
> the radio/TV licence. I have always thought R4 Extra could be
> chargeable as there is no entitlement to watch 1960s comedy.

you "watch" Radio 4 ?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast

csiph-web