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) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-06 18:06 +0100
              Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-07 10:47 +0100
                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-07 11:03 +0100
                  Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-07 16:06 +0100
                    BBC (was: Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB)) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-07 17:45 +0100
                    Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-07 21:31 +0100
                    Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-07 23:36 +0100
                      Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-08 09:42 +0100
                        Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-08 15:41 +0100
                        Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-08 16:58 +0100
                          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-10-09 08:29 +0100
                            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-10-09 13:05 +0100
                          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 10:14 +0100
                            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 15:31 +0100
                              Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 15:40 +0100
                                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 15:46 +0100
                                  Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-10 09:08 +0100
                            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-10 04:14 +0100
                              Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-10 10:05 +0100
                                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-11 06:19 +0100
                      Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-10-08 09:55 +0100
                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-10-07 19:55 +0100
          Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-04 07:45 +0000
            Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-10-06 18:03 +0100
              Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-06 21:33 +0100
                Re: Dynamic bitrate (DAB) snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-10-06 22:51 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#70784

On Fri 09/10/2026 08:29, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <nipsu2Fnm15U1@mid.individual.net>,
>     John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>> The USP of the BBC is that despite the complaints here, most of the
>> world is of the opinion that their news is the most balanced in
>> the World,
> 
> If you tried some on-line news services you would learn just how much
> the BBC bends and hides the news. However, if you don't regularly
> look elsewhere you will be unaware and think they're honest. Main
> stream news is captured by activists and is corrupt.
> 
Euronews is a good starting point.

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

#70781

On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 16:58:59 +0100, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

[...]
>It is also free to make experimental programmes and programmes for 
>special interest groups that subscription stations could not afford to 
>take the risk of making.
[...]

That's fine as long as they're paid for by those who want them. If
other people want the luxury of having their special interrests
catered for at no extra personal cost, then I don't see why I should
be forced to pay for them. I'm sure everybody wants what they want at
no extra cost to them, but unfortunately that's not reality.

In any case, human nature being what it is, the extra money resulting
from a single broadcaster being given lots of it and the freedom to do
whatever they like with it probably doesn't always result in better
and more balanced programmes.

Rod

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

#70786

On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 10:14:56 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 16:58:59 +0100, John Williamson
><johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>It is also free to make experimental programmes and programmes for 
>>special interest groups that subscription stations could not afford to 
>>take the risk of making.
>[...]
>
>That's fine as long as they're paid for by those who want them. If
>other people want the luxury of having their special interrests
>catered for at no extra personal cost, then I don't see why I should
>be forced to pay for them. I'm sure everybody wants what they want at
>no extra cost to them, but unfortunately that's not reality.

I think the argument is that mainstream interests will be catered for
by the commercial sector and that the role of a public service
broadcaster is to fill the gaps (ie special interests).  
>
>In any case, human nature being what it is, the extra money resulting
>from a single broadcaster being given lots of it and the freedom to do
>whatever they like with it probably doesn't always result in better
>and more balanced programmes.
>
I think the argument is that the public sector service broadcaster
should not be allowed to 'do whatever it likes' but should be
restricted in how far it can compete with the commercial sector in
populist programming. 

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

#70787

On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 15:31:50 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>I think the argument is that mainstream interests will be catered for
>by the commercial sector and that the role of a public service
>broadcaster is to fill the gaps (ie special interests).  

As long as I don't have to pay for other people's special interests, I
don't care.

Rod.

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

#70788

On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 15:40:12 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 15:31:50 +0100, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I think the argument is that mainstream interests will be catered for
>>by the commercial sector and that the role of a public service
>>broadcaster is to fill the gaps (ie special interests).  
>
>As long as I don't have to pay for other people's special interests, I
>don't care.

What is a special interest anyway? Is there one list of universal
interests and one list of special interests? 

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

#70798

On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 15:46:17 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 15:40:12 +0100, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 15:31:50 +0100, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I think the argument is that mainstream interests will be catered for
>>>by the commercial sector and that the role of a public service
>>>broadcaster is to fill the gaps (ie special interests).  
>>
>>As long as I don't have to pay for other people's special interests, I
>>don't care.
>
>What is a special interest anyway? Is there one list of universal
>interests and one list of special interests? 

As far as paying for broadcasting is concerned, it's effectively
anything that doesn't interest me. There can be something for
everybody as long as I'm not forced to pay for other people's choice.

Rod.

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

#70795

On 2026/10/9 10:14:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 16:58:59 +0100, John Williamson
> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> It is also free to make experimental programmes and programmes for 
>> special interest groups that subscription stations could not afford to 
>> take the risk of making.
> [...]
> 
> That's fine as long as they're paid for by those who want them. If
> other people want the luxury of having their special interrests
> catered for at no extra personal cost, then I don't see why I should
> be forced to pay for them. I'm sure everybody wants what they want at

However, some things that would be considered "special interests"
actually turn out to be of widespread interest/enjoyment. Who would have
thought ballroom dancing, for example? (Not that /I/ watch Strictly - I
thought it's so much discussed that I ought to, so watched the final
last year or the year before: the frantic/hysterical nature of it put me
right off, it didn't seem to be about the dancing as such [I used to
enjoy figure skating] - but I know lots of people get enjoyment from
it.) and probably a lot of things associated with David Attenborough
wouldn't have been made - plants? - but turned out popular. Monty Python
is another example often quoted (of experimental things that were
allowed), though usually in the "wouldn't be made nowadays" category.

> no extra cost to them, but unfortunately that's not reality.

It has a certain parallel with taxation. Most people, if you asked them,
would say they are in favour of fair taxes; in practice, they're not,
they're in favour of taxes someone else pays. The most popular tax would
be one where everyone's tax burden was actually paid by one person. The
community charge ("poll tax") was an example of a fair tax, and look
what riots that caused. (Before you say "the man in a mansion only
paying the same as the man in a hovel isn't fair", consider it was for
_local_ services - hence the name - and the mansion man actually didn't
consume much more of rubbish services, schools, or roads than anyone else.)

> 
> In any case, human nature being what it is, the extra money resulting
> from a single broadcaster being given lots of it and the freedom to do
> whatever they like with it probably doesn't always result in better
> and more balanced programmes.

Not always, no. But often enough for me to be, on the whole, content
with the outcome. I know YM Vs, and both of us are entitled to our opinions.

> 
> Rod

John

-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Astaire was, of course, peerless, but it's worth remembering that
Rogers does everything he does, only backwards and in high heels.
- Barry Norman in Radio Times 5-11 January 2013
(possibly quoting Faith Whittlesey)

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

#70800

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> some things that would be considered "special interests"
> actually turn out to be of widespread interest/enjoyment. Who would have
> thought ballroom dancing, for example?

Several decades before "Strictly Come Dancing" the BBC produced "Come 
Dancing" without the pro-celeb contestants, I seem to remember it being 
popular in the 70s ...

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

#70809

On 2026/10/10 10:5:11, Andy Burns wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 
>> some things that would be considered "special interests"
>> actually turn out to be of widespread interest/enjoyment. Who would have
>> thought ballroom dancing, for example?
> 
> Several decades before "Strictly Come Dancing" the BBC produced "Come 
> Dancing" without the pro-celeb contestants, I seem to remember it being 
> popular in the 70s ...
> 
Yes, that's where the name (of Strictly) came from; I'm not sure it
remained that popular except with a fairly narrow - and ageing -
audience, which is presumably why it ceased, until someone decided to
_risk_ the new format. Which was sort of my point.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a long time making it (Anon)

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

#70761

In article <11a6hgj$3a2pr$1@dont-email.me>,
   JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 07/10/2026 16:06, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > It already works for the other broadcasters, so why not?


> And just look what you end up on the channels dependent on adverts
> or subscriptions.

> And even worse with radio.

You get exactly what the majority wish to watch ! These channels are
chasing viewers because viewers drive advertising revenue. In that
regard it's fair and honest.

Do I like what it produces? No, in the main it's awful and mostly
still absurdly woke to unhinged levels.  

I hardly watch any broadcast TV now, I watch more youtube than
anything else. On there I find Science, music, politics, great.

Nothing offered to me there tells me CO2 drives climate, or that
multiculturalism and DEI are good, or that you can change sex, or we
must keep open borders to save people from war torn Europe, etc. etc.

Would I subscribe to a honest culture channel? Possibly but I can't
see one on the horizon certainly not from the dreadful BBC, an
organisation I once loved but now despise. I have not changed, they
have.

Bob.

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

#70755

In article <5s4ccl1td3v06o6nb11pf6oee9ra7ic5be@4ax.com>,
   Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> The government probably would like to pay for it out of taxes,
> because it would mean they retain some control of it. However, if
> it's really supposed to be a public service, it should be the
> public that is in control of it, by controlling whether we want to
> pay for it or not.

For me, to be a public service the BBC would have to be straight,
honest and tell the truth. 

Indoctrination to ignore reality for an ideology is not education.


Bob.

[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] | [next] | [standalone]

#70731

On Sun, 04 Oct 26 07:45:04 UTC, Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>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 ?

Of course, we all sit around the fireplace to watch the radio play
'Round the Horne' :-) 

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

#70736

On 06/10/2026 18:03, Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 26 07:45:04 UTC, Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk>
> wrote:

>> you "watch" Radio 4 ?
>
> Of course, we all sit around the fireplace to watch the radio play
> 'Round the Horne' :-)
>
Don't knock it, the pictures are a lot better on the radio. :-)

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

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

#70737

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/2026 18:03, Scott wrote:
> > Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> 
> >> you "watch" Radio 4 ?
> >
> > Of course, we all sit around the fireplace to watch the radio play
> > 'Round the Horne' :-)
> 
> Don't knock it, the pictures are a lot better on the radio. :-)

We used to call the fireplace "the caveman's telly".

-- 
Sn!pe, birdbrain.              My pet rock Gordon just is.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web