In this section
The content on this page and other DCITA document archive pages is provided to assist research and may contain references to activities or policies that have no current application. See the full archive disclaimer.
1997 Report of the Digital Radio Advisory Committee
Print this pageDIGITAL RADIO BROADCASTING IN AUSTRALIA
A report of the Digital Radio Advisory Committee
- Foreword
- Recommendations
- 1. Threshold issues
- 2. A Framework for DRB
- 3. Implementation issues
- Appendix 1: Terms of reference
- Appendix 2: DRAC Membership
- Appendix 3: Summary of submissions
- Appendix 4: Digital radio broadcasting trials in Australia
- Appendix 5: Overseas developments
- Appendix 6: Glossary of Acronyms
FOREWORD
I am pleased to present this report to the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Richard Alston, on behalf of the Digital Radio Advisory Committee (DRAC).
Digital radio broadcasting (DRB) is a new way of providing broadcasting communications services using digital technology. While the introduction of digital radio broadcasting is in its early stages overseas, it is a technology that has enormous potential, and the ability to further enhance an already successful radio industry in Australia.
DRB has the potential to provide benefits to consumers and broadcasters. It can provide better reception and deliver higher quality sound than current analog broadcasts. DRB has the ability to carry a range of ancillary services in the form of audio, still pictures, data and text. Capacity can also be dynamically reconfigured so that the number and quality of services can be changed at any time.
The introduction of DRB technology in Australia will change the way Australians understand and use radio. The changes involve the kinds of services that will be possible, and the way those services will be provided.
Implementing digital technology will present an opportunity for further strengthening an already popular, high quality and successful medium.
However, the new digital radio era comes at a cost, as it will require new reception equipment for listeners, as well as new transmitters, studio equipment and other infrastructure for broadcasters.
Implementation arrangements should be tailored to this country's particular features. DRB should be planned to deliver a range of services to meet the needs of our remote, rural and urban areas, at least to present standards, so that radio can further enhance its successful past record in informing, entertaining and educating Australians. It should also be able to provide interactive services, and information services targeted to the particular needs of different groups when and where they need them, and at times of the day that best suit them.
I thank all members of the Committee for their generous assistance in preparing this report, in attending meetings and preparing submissions. In particular, I thank those members of the public and interested parties who provided submissions to the Committee following the release of the discussion paper in September 1996.
Finally, I would like to express my personal thanks and that of the Committee to the DRAC Task Force at the Department of Communications and the Arts, without whom the Committee could not have completed the task.
Victoria Rubensohn
Chair
Digital Radio Advisory Committee
August 1997
1. Digital radio broadcasting (DRB) should be introduced into Australia to enhance and realise the full potential of radio broadcasting services and new services.
2. Australia should adopt the Eureka 147 technology to provide DRB services.
3. The development of in-band systems in the United States of America should continue to be monitored.
4. Detailed planning for developing DRB in the existing L band frequency allocation of 1452 to 1492 MHz should proceed, with minimal disruption to existing users of the band in the short term, having regard to agreements reached in the Australian Broadcasting Authority DRB Task Force report, Digital Radio Broadcasting for Australia Part 2-Technical Possibilities and Spectrum Implications. The possible advantages of using VHF spectrum for DRB should also be further investigated.
5. Planning of DRB services should be undertaken as soon as possible, with services commencing in 2000.
6. National broadcasters and existing commercial broadcasters, community broadcasters and narrowcasters licensed under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and operating within the broadcasting services bands should have a right to automatic access to DRB with the same licence conditions as apply under analog technology. Detailed planning should provide capacity for other narrowcasters and other services as a next priority.
7. The development of equipment standards for receivers through the Standards Australia forum should start as soon as possible. These should be open standards which are compatible with international standards.
8. The Department of Communications and the Arts (DCA) should give urgent consideration to developing strategies to encourage the early supply of inexpensive, mass produced receivers, and consult further with the domestic manufacturing sector on appropriate strategies.
9. The introduction of DRB should have regard to the localised and/or specialist needs of the Australian community, including the print handicapped. DCA should recommend to government ways in which digital radio might be implemented to ensure access and equity principles are upheld.
10. Government and industry should cooperate in a consumer awareness campaign on DRB in Australia.
11. DCA should identify what legislative amendments may be needed to facilitate the provision of DRB services.
12. The transition to DRB should be in two phases:
a development phase-where services are planned, frequencies assigned, and licences offered to existing broadcasters and narrowcasters to simulcast on digital and analog technology, and experiment with, and develop, the new DRB technology and services; and
full service provision-where new entrants are eligible to enter via a planning process coupled with the existing Broadcasting Services Act 1992 allocation systems.
13. There should be no prescribed simulcasting requirements.
14. No target date should be set for phasing out analog services.
15. Existing radio coverage areas should be duplicated wherever possible. However, DRAC recognises that retaining existing high powered analog transmitters may be the most economical way of providing services in some regional areas. DCA should consider strategies which could be adopted to encourage the early development of DRB services in rural and remote areas, noting that the use of VHF band spectrum for DRB may provide a commercially viable solution to introducing DRB in these areas.
16. Terrestrial services should be introduced in the first instance, having regard to future satellite services. Meanwhile, planning for developing satellite services should continue.
17. The existing broadcasting service objectives and industry categories in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 should be retained for DRB, at least in the short term.
18. There should be a coordinated approach to DRB spectrum planning and allocation, consistent with existing arrangements, whereby the Australian Communications Authority undertakes frequency band planning and the Australian Broadcasting Authority plans services on the basis of socio-economic criteria in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and then allocates licences. DCA should give consideration to a model for spectrum allocation, with spectrum reserved for national and community broadcasters, as under present arrangements.
19. In the development phase (see Recommendation 12), current service providers should be automatically allocated capacity on multiplexes. During this period, an appropriate licensing regime for DRB should be developed.
20. The definition of the term 'broadcasting service' in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 should be amended as necessary to accommodate the ability of digital technology to permit datacasting and channel-splitting, and to encompass the control by the broadcaster of the whole of their digital bit rate.
21. During the development phase (see Recommendation 12), transitional legislative provisions should, if necessary, be enacted to provide that, if control of analog service licences does not breach the multiple interest aspects of the ownership and control rules, control of digital and analog services will not breach these rules.
APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Digital Radio Advisory Committee is to advise the Government on issues relevant to introducing digital radio broadcasting (DRB).
The Committee in providing advice to government will give particular attention to:
à the appropriate operating system or systems for DRB, having regard to Eureka 147 technology and the USA in-band approach, as well as satellite options;
à spectrum planning and allocation, including consideration of usage requirements of the L band following input from the Australian Broadcasting Authority and Australian Communications Authority (formerly the Spectrum Management Agency) studies;
à licensing, including carriage and content provision, licence allocation, coverage areas and limits on ownership and control;
à provision for incumbent broadcasters, narrowcasters and subscription service providers;
à content, including Australian program requirements, add-on services and experimentation and innovation in radio broadcasting;
à consideration of social justice and consumer needs, including listener access to DRB, particularly in regional and remote areas;
à benefits and costs associated with introducing and developing DRB;
à opportunities for involving the Australian manufacturing sector;
à transitional arrangements from current analog transmissions to DRB services, taking account of the likely structural development of the broadcasting sector (including narrowcasting) over time; and
à timing of introducing DRB.
Chair
Ms Victoria Rubensohn
Principal
Omni Media
Australian Broadcasting Authority
Mr Bob Scott*
Deputy ChairMr Colin Knowles
General Manager, Planning & CorporateMr Tim O'Keefe
MemberAustralian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr Peter Loxton
Head of Technology PlanningMs Kate Dundas
Senior Policy Adviser
ABC RadioAustralian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association
Mr Alan Williams*
Technical Commercial Manager
Philips Public Telecommunications Systems
Philips Electronics Australia Ltd
Community Broadcasting Association of Australia
Mr Mike Thompson
Executive DirectorMr David Sice
Technical ConsultantCommunications Law Centre
Mr Jock Given
Director
Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations
Mr Richard Barton
Deputy General Manager
Federation of Australian Narrowcasting and Subscription Services
Mr Mark McDonnell
Chief Executive OfficerMr Philip Muscatello
DirectorFederation of Australian Radio Broadcasters
Mr Stan Willmott
DirectorMr Tony King
Chief ExecutiveNational Transmission Agency
Mr Vic Jones
General Manager
Optus Communications
Mr Ross Ramsay
Senior Government Liaison Consultant
Special Broadcasting Service
Mr Malcolm Long
Managing DirectorMr David Soothill
Director Communications & PlanningAustralian Communications Authority, formerly Spectrum Management Agency
Mr Roger Smith
Executive Manager
Business Directions Group
Telstra
Mr Bob Hinrichs
Manager
Business DevelopmentMr Peter Darling
General Manager
Standards & Regulatory Strategy
Network & Technology GroupVodafone
Mr Bill McDonald*
Manager Special Projects
Secretariat
Department of Communications and the Arts
Dr Rod Badger
First Assistant Secretary
Licensed Broadcasting and Information Services DivisionDr Beverly Hart
Assistant Secretary
Licensed Broadcasting BranchMr Paul Palmer
Director
Broadcasting Development Section* These members have subsequently left these organisations.
APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
Submission 1-Mr Wiliam A Shirley
Mr Shirley believes introducing DRB offers an opportunity to revitalise the Australian electronics manufacturing industry, and for it to become an aggressive force in the export market as other nations in our region adopt DRB technology. Care should be taken to avoid a repetition of the situation that occurred with introducing colour television, where the Australian market was flooded with an enormous range of overseas-produced sets, leading to consumer confusion and the cessation of domestic production of sets.
**********
Submission 2-Dr Cyril A Appleby
Dr Appleby commented that, while DRB is a superior and flexible technology, it is important that its introduction to Australia does not disadvantage rural communities. A dedicated Australian satellite should be operating before DRB services commence, so that rural listeners have access to the technology. In addition, to ensure affordability of receivers, Australia should adopt standards that are in use elsewhere in the world, rather than design receiving equipment unique to this country.
**********
Submission 3-Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations
FACTS supports the use of the L band allocation for DRB, and opposes the use of VHF band III because of its allocation for, and use by, television in Australia. It also notes that, while FACTS has no preference for any particular DRB standard, there are gains to be made in choosing a standard that is common to other substantial markets, particularly in facilitating access to low cost receivers. A policy which encourages existing broadcasters to develop DRB is desirable, since distributing the existing radio broadcasting revenue base any further will reduce the viability of the industry.
It notes that the concept of a multiplex licence is to some extent already in place; the holder of a broadcast licence is currently able to control the delivery infrastructure, either directly by ownership or by renting from another entity. This system works well, and should be retained in a DRB environment, with the content provider entitled to a defined level of delivered data capacity. FACTS proposes licensing content and delivery capacity together.
The existing ownership and control provisions would continue to work following the introduction of DRB provided there is no introduction of new points of control, such as multiplex operators which operate as more than passive conduits.
Developing a digital market is a process which may take some years, and will be most effectively achieved if left to the market itself, including issues such as simulcasting or different programming mixes. While there is a role for government in areas requiring specific action, such as the termination of analog services, no decisions are required for some years.
**********
Submission 4-Dr BJ Robinson
Dr Robinson notes that DRB will be particularly useful in metropolitan areas where existing FM radio broadcasts are often subject to a great deal of interference. DRB will gain maximum consumer acceptance if the technology is used to provide more than just simulcast analog services; it has the potential to offer a range of innovative services, such as weather maps, traffic reports and currency exchange rates, and this potential should be exploited.
Dr Robinson expressed concern that out-of-band and spurious emissions from L band DRB, particularly with satellite DRB, need to be controlled.
**********
Submission 5-Federation of Australian Narrowcasting and Subscription Services
FANSS opposes any suggestion that DRB should be restricted to established broadcasters, particularly if, as a result, narrowcasting and subscription operators are disadvantaged. Provision for new entrants should be made from the introduction of DRB, and narrowcasters should be accorded favoured access under any licensing or access regime established for DRB because of the competitive advantage already enjoyed by established broadcasters.
FANSS questions the desirability of analog and digital simulcasting on economic grounds, and given the likelihood that many broadcasters will not choose to utilise DRB. FANSS interest in DRB, however, is primarily motivated by a desire to overcome the inadequate coverage available to narrowcasters in the existing AM and FM radio bands (and those outside the bands).
It recommends DRAC place advertisements seeking either formal Expressions of Interest or a Request for Proposal from potential multiplex and transmitter network operators using the Eureka 147 standard. Licensing and regulatory arrangements applicable to the multiplex and transmission network(s) established for DRB should be deferred until specific network proposals are received for consideration.
If broadcasters were to own and operate a DRB distribution network directly, it would require consensus on the part of all broadcasters, given the need to multiplex different services supplied by different operators. In addition, not all broadcasters may wish to be involved in service distribution or carriage, and the rights of access by these broadcasters to the network would require clarification. FANSS concludes that DRB, therefore, appears to require separate regulation of carriage and content.
An alternative model is that of an independently built and managed network, such that broadcasters would have protected rights of access, broadcasters would hold the apparatus transmission licences, a network operator (selected by tender) would construct and operate the transmission network, and access rates would be established through tender. The network operator could be the National Transmission Agency (NTA), a consortium of broadcasters, a telecommunications carrier, or any other suitable entity.
**********
Submission 6-Western Visitor Radio
Western Visitor Radio believes DRB spectrum should be planned to include narrowcast services from the outset, and all existing radio services should be given every opportunity to make use of DRB spectrum. In addition, as much spectrum as possible should be made available for radio services, ie maintaining the AM and FM bands, and opening up the full L band allocation for DRB.
**********
Submission 7-NSW TAB
The NSW TAB supports the introduction of DRB, and, in particular, early and unrestricted access to digital technology for narrowcasters. Product from narrowcasters, such as form and approximate odds in racing, is particularly suited to demonstrating the features of the technology, and, as this has strong public appeal, it is likely to encourage consumers to purchase digital receivers.
**********
Submission 8-National Ethnic & Multicultural Broadcasters' Council Inc.
The NEMBC proposes that planning for DRB should allow for all existing broadcasting services to automatically migrate to DRB spectrum, with each provider receiving a bit rate allocation of 256 kbps. Additional capacity should be allocated on the basis of a transparent policy and should be allocated on a case-by-case basis. Space on the DRB spectrum must be reserved for non-commercial and community use, including the development of multiplex facilities, and genuine community services should not be required to bid for access at commercial rates.
The concept of licence areas should be maintained as much as possible. The NEMBC does not believe that DRB necessarily requires a reassessment of current broadcasting services objectives, but it would welcome the opportunity to develop objectives that more fully reflect and further enhance Australia's identity.
DRB's capacity to provide multiple program streams and channel streams would be invaluable for ethnic broadcasting. However, the NEMBC emphasises the importance of a phased transition, so as not to disadvantage those who cannot afford new equipment, and suggests one-off grants to community groups to buy new equipment.
**********
Submission 9-Really Really Big Productions
Really Really Big Productions notes that consumer demand will be encouraged if a range of new services is offered, but simulcasting may limit growth of demand. It further comments that services with smaller than whole-of-metropolitan coverage would be unnecessarily constrained, and that simulcasting would be detrimental to the creation of demand for digital receivers. Keeping multiplex operation separate from content provision is supported on the basis that it will ensure fair access for all. Really Really Big Productions concludes that aspirant broadcasters and existing narrowcasters should be given preferential access to DRB to expedite the process of providing new services, and unnecessary limits on capacity and access should be avoided.
**********
Submission 10-Contingency Planning Pty Ltd & Australian Data Corporation Pty Ltd
Contingency Planning Pty Ltd argues that DRB offers significant advantages over existing analog technology, and notes it will be seeking a number of DRB licences. They are interested in exploring the commercial aspects of DRB, especially traditionally non-broadcast features like datacasting, and see the mobile reception offered by DRB as a critical feature. Radio is a basic service in the information age, and the Government should assist in the introduction of digital radio as soon as possible.
**********
Submission 11-Australian Broadcasting Authority
The ABA argues that the transition to DRB should have regard to longer term considerations. The initial policy and legislative framework should underpin an orderly development approach which will allow DRB to grow, the consumer to respond to the market, and a channelling of efforts towards its widespread adoption.
The full impact of the new technology on the broadcasting industry will not be clearly apparent until DRB has been introduced and allowed to develop, so the appropriate regulatory measures cannot be determined until that time. However, there are a number of threshold issues which need to be addressed before introducing and developing DRB, namely planning processes for DRB, policy objectives for regulation of DRB, and licensing arrangements for initial services.
The ABA considers the relevant part of the L band should be designated as broadcasting services bands spectrum. The ABA believes the Broadcasting Authority, rather than the ACA, is best placed to plan DRB licence areas because many of the essential principles of the current planning process remain relevant and appropriate for digital broadcast planning.
The ABA does not believe the spectrum licensing models used for communications services will result in a distribution of DRB services which meets the social needs of the Australian community. The ABA's public planning processes would provide an efficient match of capacity against current and likely future demand, allow some equity in distribution of the available spectrum resource, and balance between nationwide, regional and metropolitan, and sub-metropolitan or sub-regional areas.
The key public policy principles for broadcast planning relate to public interest concerns and market considerations in the context of spectrum as a limited, valuable public resource. These include ensuring there is a diversity of broadcast services in each area, that regional and remote areas receive adequate services, balancing the needs of adjacent markets, and allowing delivery of local services. The ABA believes these considerations would continue to be relevant to the planning of DRB services.
However, under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the ABA can only make available for allocation that capacity for which it is demonstrable that new services are 'feasible'. The ABA would be suggesting some changes to this arrangement in respect to future DRB allocations. The ABA believes it is desirable to avoid systems which rely totally on the 'free market' by being required to make available all capacity at the outset. This model has the significant disadvantage of removing all scope for future government public interest initiatives in support of national or community broadcasting sectors.
Most of the conditions that presently apply to licence holders will continue to be relevant to DRB, though specific elements of the policy, such as how to consider degrees of influence and whether particular services should be licensed individually or on a class basis, appear to be in need of review. Licensing arrangements will need to be developed which take account of the separation of the content and carriage functions in digital broadcasting, with the need for multiplexing and combined transmission facilities.
In the ABA's view, the principles of industry-developed and regulator-supervised codes of practice would remain applicable for regulating the content of digital radio services. However, the question of the need for a link between the codes of practice, which embody a number of public interest obligations, and the rights to spectrum access remains to be addressed, especially if separate service and multiplex/transmission licensing is envisaged.
Introducing DRB provides an opportunity to consider some aspects of the rationale for ownership and control regulation. The emergence of digital technology in traditional broadcasting services also needs also to be considered in the context of other developments, such as distributing increasingly sophisticated audio visual material online, and the likely emergence of international satellite networks.
The ABA does not believe that non-broadcast use of the L band spectrum should be allowed to develop, because the public will buy receivers for L band which are unlikely to receive any other bands. The relevant section of the L band should therefore be declared as a broadcasting services band.
**********
Submission 12-Australian Broadcasting Authority Digital Radio Broadcasting Task Force15
The Task Force notes that Australian radio broadcasters, from all sectors of the industry, strongly support DRB as a worthwhile technical innovation and an effective means of increasing the range and diversity of radio broadcasting. Existing broadcasters believe that, if they are granted automatic and priority access to DRB, they can provide a catalyst for early adoption of DRB by the public. However, DRB investment will involve risk capital investment and a long delay in returns on this investment.
There should be a maximum availability of DRB services at an early date so that consumers will seek to purchase receivers and promote the early establishment of retail sales and support for DRB receivers in Australia.
In addition to providing for simulcasting of existing AM and FM radio programs on DRB, implementation strategies should provide scope for experimentation with program formats and features that make use of the new capabilities of digital technology. This will allow identification of factors that will make DRB attractive to the public. DRB will not succeed without public support and, in addition to the attractiveness of programs, receiver costs and receiver functionality will be a critical factor in determining the take up of DRB by the listening public.
Satellite-delivered DRB will be an important feature of radio delivery in the future. It has the potential to make a package of radio services available to consumers, at all times, anywhere in Australia. Consumers will be able to receive these services on the same mobile or portable radios they use for terrestrial services.
Systematic and structured planning of spectrum use will be necessary if capacity is to be made available where it is most needed. The Task Force concludes this function should be given to the ABA in a way which preserves existing non-broadcasting users rights and status.
Detailed planning against an agreed DRB development policy will be necessary to establish a plan for DRB spectrum allocation which will ensure adequate coverage for the various service needs and minimise disruption to the existing non-broadcast users of the L band.
Non-broadcasting use of L band spectrum limits the amount of spectrum immediately available for DRB in some areas. Careful planning and coordination of sharing arrangements will be necessary in order to make available sufficient DRB capacity to enable early establishment of a comprehensive range of DRB services.
The L band spectrum allocated by WARC-92 has the capacity to accommodate existing services and a range of new terrestrial and satellite delivered DRB services.
Full transition from existing analog delivery to total digital delivery of radio may take 10 to 20 years after the date that a full range of reasonably priced receivers become widely available.
The demand for DRB to deliver separate digital data services vis-a-vis other alternative methods of digital data delivery has not yet been established. New radio broadcasting services are likely to attract mass audiences before data-related services.
Early international reservation of DRB satellite spectrum will be essential in order to preserve Australia's opportunity for establishing satellite delivered DRB in the future.
**********
Submission 13-John Whiteoak, Deputy Director, Australia Telescope National Facility, CSIRO
The frequency band 1400-1427 MHz is allocated on a primary basis to passive services, including the Radio Astronomy service. Every practicable effort should be made to keep the frequency band free from interfering signals, because unwanted emissions from DRB have the potential to cause harmful interference to radio astronomy observations. Therefore, if DRB is to utilise the 1452-1492 MHz band, it is recommended that it be located at the top end of this band.
**********
Submission 14-Australian Council for Radio for the Print Handicapped & National Federation of Blind Citizens of Australia
The Council recommended DRAC consider the potential barriers to DRB usage facing people who have a print handicap. DRAC representatives should commit themselves to ensuring universal access to all aspects of DRB, and ensuring that the data transmission protocols to be used for DRB do not preclude or limit access to the data component of DRB transmission for people who are reliant on alternative format presentation of such data.
The Council also recommended that Committee members who represent Commonwealth Departments or Agencies ensure that all DRB developments are consistent with the intent of the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. In addition, the Council saw the needs of the print handicapped as to some extent paralleling those of motorists, in that in both instances display screens would be of limited use. DRAC should, therefore, give consideration to these needs when considering issues of universal access to DRB.
The Government and broadcasting sector should take full account of the need to maintain local broadcasting services in rural and remote areas in order to ensure that local information, news and entertainment remain available to audiences.
Finally, it is important that DRB receivers available on the Australian market be as useable by a person who has a print handicap as it is by others in the community, and all receivers offering access to datacasting services should be readily and inexpensively adaptable for alternative format delivery of that information.
**********
Submission 15-Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The ABC considers that no system other than Eureka 147 has yet been shown to perform satisfactorily and that, even if in-band systems were developed successfully, the problem of limited spectrum for news services would remain. The compatibility of the system with both terrestrial and satellite broadcasting is a further recommendation, since there is great benefit for rural and remote audiences in introducing satellite DRB.
Sufficient L band spectrum is available for the initial requirements of existing broadcasters, but there may be a requirement of additional spectrum in the longer term. The ABC considers that the relevant part of the L band should be referred to the ABA for planning.
The ABC doubts that any policies implemented in Australia will have much impact on DRB receiver pricing; the relatively small size of the Australian market means that the price of DRB receivers here will be at levels determined internationally by much larger economies.
The ABC suggested adding another object to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, namely the promotion of means of broadcasting that are spectrum efficient. There may also be an opportunity to modify the narrowcasting categories in the Act, because of the changed service and coverage characteristics of DRB. However, the ABC considers this issue is principally a matter for comment by the commercial radio industry.
The range of programming provided by DRB will include all of those programs broadcast at the present time, plus additional audio and data services. Program content, and, in particular, additional services, rather than technology, will ultimately determine the success or otherwise of DRB. Staged implementation of DRB should avoid any disadvantage to the majority of listeners.
The ABC notes that the difficulties associated with duplicating the coverage of high power services in rural and remote areas is an argument for retaining them for some time. It may, therefore, be unwise to attempt a prescriptive approach to the cessation of analog services at this time.
The ABC sees existing licence areas as applicable to DRB, although wide service area coverage by non-national broadcasters may need to be addressed in the future. The ABC will need access to both satellite and terrestrial transmissions in regional and remote areas to ensure coverage of all existing audiences, as well as the coverage of small and remote communities not presently able to receive services.
Broadcasters currently have assured carriage of programs, and licences for DRB must also guarantee program carriage. The licensing regime would effectively need to licence the radiofrequency spectrum required, as well as the multiplex. For the national broadcasters, assurance of carriage could be accomplished through owning the complete multiplex, or establishing a joint operating company with other broadcasters. To have an independent company owning and providing transmission capacity is not acceptable, unless legal means can be found by which the carriage of program is absolutely assured. Some restrictions may need to be imposed on multiplex operators, irrespective of the service concerned, in order to ensure that the market operates transparently and fairly, and access is available at competitive prices.
An appropriate data capacity, such as 256 kbps, must be allocated to each broadcaster who wishes to explore and develop the new medium, and broadcasters who only wish to use lower data rates for services requiring narrow audio bandwidths will also need to be accommodated in the licensing regime.
The ABC notes that a broadcasting service category needs to be reserved for carriage of national broadcasting. Access for aspirant broadcasters could be considered at some later stage, but the spectrum currently available in the L band is only likely to accommodate existing broadcasters. There is a possibility of directing some existing L band spectrum to aspirant broadcasters, eg as DRCS moves to new spectrum and delivery methods such as Low Earth Orbit satellites (LEOs) are introduced.
The ABC considers the success and consumer acceptance of DRB will depend strongly on simulcasting by existing broadcasters. At the very least, simulcasting would be required until there is 50 per cent penetration of DRB receivers provided that a time limit (a minimum of five years to a maximum of 15 years) is also applied to ensure that aspirant broadcasters are not 'locked out'.
The ABC wishes to migrate all its current services to the DRB platform, and would seek Ministerial spectrum reservation (ie section 31 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992) to enable this to occur.
**********
Submission 16-Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters
FARB strongly supports the introduction of DRB in Australia, and endorses Eureka 147 as the most appropriate delivery system for Australia at this time. It seeks automatic and priority access to DRB spectrum on a one for one basis, based on a nominal allocation of 256 kbps per service channel, and considers the Government should make an early statement of its commitment to existing broadcasters on this issue.
FARB has already called on government to take immediate action to formally reserve spectrum in the band 1452-1492 MHz (the L band) for DRB and associated communication services in Australia. At this early stage of DRB planning and until extensive trials utilising the L band are completed, a rigid adherence to the L band may not be prudent. Other options, such as VHF, can be explored and this should be noted in any report to the Minister.
DRB should be regarded as another means of transmission and, if adopted, existing broadcasters should automatically migrate across and the commercial broadcasters should not have to re-bid for spectrum. DRB regulations for commercial radio should be identified well in advance of transition to allow informed investment decisions, and there should be a fixed commencement date for digital services.
Free-to-air services will remain an essential feature of radio broadcasting, and the main use of DRB should be to transmit sound; there should be no compromise in audio quality in the move to DRB. The move to DRB should be kept simple, with the use of a staged approach comprising development/transition and introduction.
FARB endorses the reports of both the Spectrum Requirements Working Party and the ABA DRB Task Force. It supports the use of both satellite and terrestrial delivery for all services.
Availability of affordable receivers is crucial to the success of DRB and, once a decision is made on a digital transmission system, receiver manufacturers should be encouraged to begin selling attractively priced digital receivers. However, world demand will determine the availability of low cost receivers, not the relatively low volume Australian market in isolation.
FARB sees the current service objectives as continuing to be relevant to DRB, although changes will need to be made to the ownership and control rules in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the definition of a 'service' needs modifying. The amended definition of 'broadcasting service' may also need to include ancillary services.
It also believes the current 'two-to-a-market' rule will prohibit commercial operators taking full advantage of the digital environment. Commercial broadcasters recommend that, with the advent of DRB and the potential expansion in the number of services throughout the broadcasting industry, ownership and control provisions should be removed from the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the competition levels determined solely as occurs with all other industries.
Determination of whether the existing industry categories in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 are sufficiently flexible to accommodate DRB will not be possible until the transition phase is under way. If an ensemble provides equal power and coverage for all services, a narrowcast service may exceed its limited coverage/ limited audience qualification, leading to a further blurring of the distinction between the categories.
In recommending an initial policy to the Minister on industry categories, DRAC should note that: services which operate under a broadcasting services band licence must be distinguished from services operating under a class licence; the migration of mainstream broadcasting services should have the highest priority; and the underlying features of class licences (temporary nature, periodical bidding, no licence fees based on revenue, etc) must be clearly identified and reflected in any DRB access regime.
FARB sees introducing DRB as providing opportunities for a range of exciting new services and commercial broadcasters wish to experiment with a range of formats. It notes that DRAC should note the range of services being offered in the UK and other European countries. The anticipated lengthy transition period for DRB introduction would provide the opportunity for addressing particular problems.
Commercial broadcasters consider that the current licence area planning process conducted by the ABA under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 should be used to determine demand for services with different service areas from the existing arrangements.
DRB allows a service to encompass more than one stream of programming, so a new licensing approach is necessary to enable broadcasters to maximise the benefits of DRB for their listeners. A single digital broadcasting service must be defined as comprising the whole of the content (programming) encompassed in the digital bit rate assigned to the service. The multiplex under this approach becomes a management tool linking broadcasters (service content providers) and the transmission facilities. Commercial broadcasters believe the control of services should rest with licensees, not the owner and/or operator of the multiplex. Separate licensing of the multiplex is not required and its management functions would be the responsibility of the licensees with authorised access and transmission rights.
Commercial operators must have access to sufficient digital capacity to provide competitive services with evolving forms of new media and multi-media. The financial health of commercial radio in a digital environment is linked to the issue of automatic access, possible changes to market concentration rules, and whether broadcasters will be able to acquire additional service capacity to their existing analog services.
Commercial broadcasters consider DRB implementation should be through: a development phase (beginning early 1998 and continuing for three or four years, with all broadcasters participating on a one-for-one basis under temporary licensing conditions); a transitional phase (10-15 years, linked to receiver penetrations); and final introduction.
**********
Submission 17-Telstra
Telstra supports the findings of the Spectrum Requirements Working Party of the ABA DRB Task Force, which reported that there is considerable scope for sharing between DRB services and fixed services. The legitimate needs of both fixed services and DRB terrestrial and satellite services can be accommodated with careful planning.
Telstra supports the adoption of Eureka 147 as the most appropriate DRB delivery system for Australia, but Eureka 147 is not necessarily considered appropriate as a replacement for existing broadcast platforms because of the range of technologies likely to be available for the delivery of services. Compared with other digital transmission, Eureka 147 will be expensive, and significant investment will be required by consumers to access DRB. Telstra believes the future will see content generators choosing the best mix of platforms to reach their target audiences, eg cable and satellite for fixed audiences, and Eureka 147 and GSM (Groupe Speciale Mobile-Global System for Mobile Communications) for mobile and portable audiences.
In-band proposals do not deliver sufficient functionality to become an attractive alternative to AM and FM radio for consumers or content providers.
Frequency-sharing between satellite and terrestrial DRB services is possible, but should be confined to the upper segment of the DRB band which is clear of fixed services. Telstra has no particular preference for siting arrangements for DRB transmissions, or for their geographic location, as long as steps are taken to regulate against potential interference to fixed services.
Telstra believes the nature of Eureka 147 encourages the adoption of a licensing framework separating carriage from content. There will be a requirement for content providers to have access to a common level of functionality provided by the core network, and this can only be equitably and efficiently provided by a common network operator on a national basis. This will also allow provision of a common conditional access and subscriber management service to allow for individual addressability and billing for subscription services.
It requests, whatever type of licensing framework for DRB services is adopted, protection against interference to other fixed services be included as a legal requirement, applicable equally to the licensee and to any other party authorised by the licensee to operate DRB equipment under that licence.
Telstra believes the planning and management of shared use of the 1.5 GHz band (which encompasses the L band) between DRB and fixed services must be handled by the ACA. DRB technology will be capable of providing numerous non-broadcasting services. Telstra therefore opposes any proposal to designate DRB spectrum as a broadcasting services band and refer it to the ABA for planning and management.
DRB spectrum should be covered by apparatus licences, not spectrum licences.
As the consumer acceptance of Eureka 147 will depend on its capacity to provide some rural and highway coverage, this should be further investigated. The trials under way in the UK and Europe may provide the information to enable the effectiveness of the use of VHF band III for wide area coverage to be evaluated.
**********
Submission 18-RE Butler AM, Chairman, AsiaSpace
Mr Butler provided general information on the WorldSpace system, noting that it is the only satellite system in advanced stages of development. Given that Eureka 147 is optimised essentially for terrestrial applications, and that Eureka 147 style satellites are unlikely to service Australia in the near future, Mr Butler recommends giving consideration to alternative satellite implementation techniques, such as those planned by AsiaSpace for Asia and part of the Pacific.
**********
Submission 19-Steve Drain, PMFM 92.9 and 94.5FM
Mr Drain proposes DRAC impose a five year moratorium on DRB planning in Australia, but that the L band allocation for DRB should remain. Continued testing should be encouraged, but in a far more intensive manner and in broader terms. Objective listening tests involving a wide range of potential customers should be conducted.
Close observations of the successes and failures of the European and Canadian implementation of DRB should be conducted and these should be disseminated to all interested parties. The apparent USA commitment to in-band systems suggests that a cautious approach might have some merit; Australia should wait to see if the USA approach is successful before committing to Eureka 147.
Mr Drain notes the Eureka 147 system is being driven by the European community, which has specific interference and signal coverage problems with their existing AM and FM radio services due to circumstances which do not exist in Australia.
Mr Drain recommends DRAC make available to all interested parties all published information that has led to its decisions.
**********
Submission 20-Christina Spurgeon, University of Technology, Sydney
Ms Spurgeon notes that introducing DRB provides an opportunity to rethink the structure of the radio broadcasting industry, and it is important this process leads to increased diversity in broadcasting.
Some discussion would be useful of the types of services which could be accommodated in the spectrum which would become available for re-assignment if analog transmission is phased out. This information could assist in promoting DRB to the consumer, given that consumers will be asked to purchase expensive new equipment to receive DRB services.
Ms Spurgeon proposes the 'GSM solution' (ie mobile telephony) of simply switching off analog transmitters at an appointed time. She also proposes the development of an innovative, environmentally-aware disposal program for obsolete analog transmitters and receivers.
Ms Spurgeon believes that the current broadcasting legislation is generally adapted to accommodating the development of digitally transmitted program sources. However, given that it has point-to-point functionality, and it can be used audiovisual consumer services, Ms Spurgeon doubts that DRB can accurately be considered as simply an enhanced radio service. She argues that government should ensure best industry practices in terms of service quality and consumer protection, particularly with regard to minors, and believes that the ABA is well-positioned to take responsibility for these matters.
Ms Spurgeon argues for public interest obligations-such as, Australian content, adequate and comprehensive service, and diversity-to be applied across the output of a single multiplex. Conditions applied to multiplex operators should also distinguish between commercial or non-commercial services.
Ownership and control limits should not be relaxed: digital technology for both radio and television provides an opportunity to disperse the power of the media where it has concentrated through vertical and horizontal integration.
**********
Submission 21-Community Broadcasting Association of Australia
The CBAA supports the use of the Eureka 147 system in preference to in-band solutions because, in addition to the absence of a workable in-band solution, Eureka offers robust mobile reception. The Eureka system has also been designated as an international standard, and it is important for Australia to be in step with international practice.
DRB spectrum should be planned on the assumption that, as a minimum, all existing broadcasting services have a place within an initial DRB allocation. The CBAA would be strongly opposed to any broadcasting system which does not meet balanced and equitable objectives for broadcasting. Designating an appropriate amount of spectrum for DRB purposes (ie 26 MHz in the L band) is also an important step towards ensuring services can be established to allow for the most economical receivers, rather than designing a network which presupposes 'clever' receivers.
The allocation of sufficient spectrum and careful band planning are particularly important to providing local coverage services, as national, major metropolitan and provincial coverage services will logically be the first users of unencumbered spectrum. Services with local coverage could be considered for spectrum sharing arrangements.
All existing radio broadcast services must have automatic and priority access to the DRB platform on the basis of a 256 kbps allocation.
The CBAA does not see any great need for amendments to the objectives of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. However, unless the network architecture is carefully planned, and guided by strong policy imperatives, DRB might take a network approach, as television has done. The CBAA therefore suggests that the objectives might be amended to emphasise the need for local services.
The CBAA believes the sectoral diversity of Australian broadcasting should be retained and reflected in the definitions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. However, there may be a need to amend the definition of the term 'service' in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to reflect the nature of digital technology. DRB services might be defined by reference to the character of their primary service (or purpose), and a defined amount of multiplex capacity or bit rate be allocated on that basis.
The CBAA believes that a suitable period of simulcasting should be established to avoid disadvantage to listeners, and existing analog radio services should not be forced to close prematurely.
DRB coverage should be driven by service objectives and therefore be based on licence areas to the extent that this is possible. These arise out of community of interest areas and are unlikely to be markedly different to those identified to date for analog radio services.
The CBAA points to work by the Spectrum Requirements Working Party of the ABA DRB Task Force which demonstrated that suburban and local coverage can be implemented, using Eureka 147, in a way which is spectrum efficient and cost efficient.
The CBAA is completely opposed to the notion that DRB spectrum should be subject to spectrum licensing. It considers the L band should be designated as a broadcast services band and allocation be driven by broadcast service criteria. Spectrum must be reserved for non-commercial community and national broadcasters. Existing (non-broadcast) users of the L band should retain spectrum rights and, where there are competing needs, a resolution could be decided by a joint process involving the ABA and ACA, in consultation with affected parties.
Access to transmission should be based on licences awarded under the apparatus licence scheme, which are also tied to the holding of broadcast service licences. The CBAA is not convinced of the merit of licensing multiplex operators under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
The CBAA notes that the Government must develop a strategy for assisting with the capital costs for non-commercial services to move to DRB.
**********
Submission 22-Special Broadcasting Service
The SBS considers the Eureka 147 system is currently the only proven technology with the features and market potential to meet Australia's requirements for a DRB system. It would offer the radio industry a strong platform to develop a wider range of services. If a workable in-band system is developed, it could possibly coexist with a Eureka 147 system, in which case there would need to be a world-wide supply of dual standards receivers. However, SBS considers there are fundamental design deficiencies with the in-band systems now under development, and even if they become available their usefulness would be limited.
The SBS strongly supports satellite DRB and the adoption of a fully compatible satellite and terrestrial delivery system. The Eureka 147 system offers identical satellite and terrestrial performance together with reception through one receiver. However, the way should be left open for Australia to adopt another satellite system should the Eureka 147 system fail to live up to its promise.
The SBS supports the work of the Spectrum Requirements Working Party of the ABA DRB Task Force, which found that sharing L band spectrum over a significant transition period is feasible, and that there is sufficient spectrum, provided its use is properly planned and managed.
Australia should benefit from mass production of receivers overseas as our sales volumes are small on a worldwide basis. There may be some advantages in seeking some forms of concession to minimise receiver costs during the early days of DRB, but in the longer term low cost receivers will only arise from large volume mass production.
The SBS believes the present broadcasting objectives and industry categories of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 can accommodate the initial phases of DRB services, though some objectives may need reviewing in the longer term. One possible concern is that increases in services expected from DRB may lead to further blurring of the distinction between certain kinds of narrowcast and commercial services, and this may need monitoring.
Channel splitting and supplementary data services are key areas where the SBS sees potential to develop its services through DRB. The SBS may pioneer some areas of DRB development in Australia, as DRB will enable both time-shifted programming and a reduction in the density of programming for only a modest increase in costs.
While some people may feel disadvantaged in the early stages of DRB by the high cost of receivers or the lack of DRB services, this problem will decrease with time. Some consumers are currently relatively disadvantaged by access to a limited range of AM and FM services. The SBS believes it should not be deprived from participating in an industry-wide development affecting all Australians just because SBS radio currently does not extend beyond the capital cities.
The SBS believes that for most metropolitan, provincial and town services, DRB coverage should be matched initially to existing coverage and/or licence areas because coverage in these areas is fairly well tailored to distinct markets. For the SBS (and the ABC) this may be varied, as they will seek to provide state-wide coverage (or even greater) with common programming, reflecting the national nature of their charter and programming.
There may be technical challenges in matching DRB coverage with existing AM and FM radio coverage in some regional areas. Solutions might include using DRB initially as a supplementary service for the more densely populated areas, with AM/FM radio continuing to offer wide coverage, and supplementary satellite support. There may be a continuing long term need for wide coverage AM radio and low-power FM radio services to complement or supplement DRB services.
The cost of DRB extension to regional and remote areas will be a concern because the unit costs of DRB will be significantly higher for less densely populated areas. In the longer term, satellite-delivered DRB can be an important part of service delivery to these areas.
The SBS believes it would be inappropriate to mandate one particular model for multiplex management. Services should be licensed on an end-to-end basis with broadcasters having a 'right' though their licences to spectrum, multiplex and transmitter access on a fair and equitable basis. There should be carriage rights associated with DRB broadcasting licences that would limit the possibility of monopoly multiplex operation by any person or group of persons. The SBS would be concerned if any arrangement made in regard to commercial radio services adversely impacted on the SBS's ability to gain multiplex access.
The SBS favours a basic allocation of 256 kbps for each service with a right to sub-divide this capacity as appropriate, within some basic parameters relating to the primary function of delivering a broadcasting service. The initial period of DRB should be available primarily for existing broadcasters to develop the market. There may be a few special cases for DRB-only services, and these should be considered on a case by case basis.
The successful introduction of DRB will depend on extensive simulcasting together with new services. The balance between these two kinds of programming is likely to vary from broadcaster to broadcaster, and the SBS considers it would not be appropriate to prescribe a system for common adoption.
The SBS would seek to start initial services on an 'experimental' basis with Ministerial reservations (ie section 31 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992) being issued as service arrangements become more established. The SBS would expect to see all sectors of broadcasting represented in the development of DRB right from the start.
If DRB is successful, it can be expected to eventually replace many AM and FM radio services, but there may be a need to continue some AM and FM radio services for an indefinite period. There is therefore little to be gained from considering arrangements to end analog services at this time.
**********
Submission 23-Communications Law Centre
The CLC notes that it is essential that existing DRCS telecommunications services using L band spectrum are not compromised through introducing DRB. For rural and remote Australians, providing a functional and quality telecommunications service must take priority over the delivery of additional entertainment services.
The CLC believes spectrum planning arrangements should be dealt with under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 because this planning process has regard to factors other than the economic and efficient use of spectrum. Capacity in the L band should be reserved for national and community broadcasters.
Since the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 was designed to be technology-neutral, the CLC believes that if DRB is merely another technological means of delivering radio services then the current objects of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 may be considered appropriate. However, the CLC notes that diversity of services remains problematic in some areas, particularly regional areas. These areas are already some way behind in service delivery, and this situation should not be allowed to worsen with the availability of new technologies and services.
The CLC suggests the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 criteria for service categorisation (sections 14 and 15) may be unsatisfactory for a short time, in that it is a requirement of commercial and community broadcasting services that they provide programs that are able to be received on commonly available equipment, and it is unlikely that DRB receivers will be commonly available in the first instance. The CLC believes that, during any simulcasting period, the simulcast service must be subject to the same level of regulation as the original broadcasting service.
The CLC notes that DRB will be able to provide a variety of services, and must not simply be seen as a vehicle for bringing metropolitan services to the bush. Regional, rural and remote Australians must not be disadvantaged in implementing DRB, and there must be no absolute migration of existing radio services to DRB without first simulcasting over many years.
It is important that, at least during the period where some existing services are simulcasting, DRB services cover no less than the same areas as existing analog radio services.
The CLC believes it is important to preserve licence areas in order to ensure a degree of relevance in program delivery to individual areas. DRB coverage should be planned to encourage localism, as well as to deliver the choice of other services. In planning DRB coverage in regional and remote areas, it must be ensured that a reasonable number of frequencies are made available at the same time as frequencies in metropolitan areas, that some frequencies are allocated to service local communities only, and that the role of national and community broadcasters in contributing to the diversity of services in these areas is not undermined.
The CLC strongly recommends the maintenance of sectoral separation in DRB. The current mix of radio broadcasting sectors goes some way towards providing diversity in programming and news content. The licensing regime for DRB should be designed to encourage new players into the industry who will offer new and innovative programming choices to the communities served. The existing licensing regime within the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 provides for both broadcasting and narrowcasting services, and should be preserved.
The CLC also notes that the ABC should have control of its own facilities in each market.
The CLC acknowledges some change to the ownership and control limitations of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 may be needed to cater for new arrangements, but it does not believe DRB simulcast services should count as an extra station for the purposes of ownership and control limits. The current ownership and control limits do not address the issues of diversity and innovation in program delivery, and the CLC is concerned about current levels of ownership and concentration in the commercial radio sector. Given this concentration, DRB provides an opportunity for new entrants to enter the sector.
There should be no ownership and control limits imposed on DRB transmission infrastructure, but it is important that there be competition in the transmission market among infrastructure providers. Where there is a dispute in relation to access terms and conditions, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission should be charged with the responsibility for dispute resolution.
The CLC proposes the following licensing models:
1. Solus commercial radio market:
existing commercial and community operators to simulcast, with the remainder of the capacity on the ensemble to be auctioned for use by new industry players with new programming services and no licence area constraints; and
the ABC to be given its own ensemble for simulcasting and other program provision, with no licence area constraints.
2. Multi-service markets:
existing commercial operators to bid for the right to simulcast, using one ensemble, within their current licence area;
capacity on one ensemble to be auctioned for access by existing commercial operators and any other interested parties, with no licence area constraints;
ABC to be given its own ensemble for simulcasting and other program provision, with no licence area constraints; and
community broadcasters and the SBS to share one ensemble, with the ABA to determine service access issues, in accordance with its planning process.
The CLC supports a higher level of funding for the Community Broadcasting Fund to assist community broadcasters to explore opportunities with developing technologies, including access to DRB transmission facilities, and concludes it is premature at this time to consider arrangements to end analog services.
**********
Submission 24-Australian Interactive Multimedia Industry Association
AIMIA notes that, since DRB will allow the sending of data streams with a digital audio signal, some AIMIA members may find themselves as content providers in a future digital broadcasting industry. AIMIA believes there is a case for defining what is meant by a content provider/creator and a content services provider for DRB.
All content creators and content service providers need to know the minimum levels of carriage and quality of service that broadcasters-whether separately or incorporating multiplex and transmission facilities and management-will guarantee for content transport.
AIMIA is keen that the Government establishes licensing and ownership and control legislation which encourages new entrants into DRB. It believes DRB could challenge the current system of five categories for classifying radio services.
It concludes that content creators and content service providers need to know the technical details for DRB. Their involvement and feedback in DRB trials should be encouraged, to help in evaluating any new technology, and for disseminating information on DRB at the content developer level.
15.The Digital Radio Broadcasting Task Force was convened by the ABA to identify and report to DRAC on broadcasting requirements for DRB use of the 1.5 GHz spectrum (which encompasses the L band). Members were drawn from the ABA, ABC, CBAA, DCA, FANSS, FARB, SBS, and ACA.
**********
APPENDIX 4: DIGITAL RADIO BROADCASTING TRIALS IN AUSTRALIA
A series of trials using Eureka 147 equipment operating in the L band were oversighted by the National Transmission Agency (NTA), Telstra, and the Communications Laboratory of the Department of Communications and the Arts, with broadcasters providing content.
While Eureka 147 trials have also been undertaken overseas, testing in Australia was viewed as necessary because DRB involves complex technical and management issues, and the results of overseas trials cannot always be applied in Australia. For instance, much of the international testing has used VHF band III, rather than L band spectrum.
In August 1995 the Communications Minister announced that the then Government would fund, through the NTA, experimental L band DRB trials in three capital cities (Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney). This initiative was intended to provide broadcasters with an early opportunity to experiment with DRB; to investigate various service formats including data based applications; and to test listener reaction to the higher quality and diverse range of services that can be supported by the new technology.
About the same time, Telstra established DRB trials in Melbourne and Sydney designed primarily to investigate issues surrounding multiplex management. These trials, which were recently concluded, involved programming from broadcasters and narrowcasters.
The NTA determined that, because of resource constraints, it could only proceed with the Sydney component of the trial. A single frequency network (SFN) trial in Sydney was seen as the most useful way of demonstrating the capabilities of the Eureka 147 system. From a terrain perspective, Sydney is also the most challenging, and a successful demonstration would have greater significance.
In preparing for the Sydney trials, the NTA, with the assistance of the Communications Laboratory, established a two-site SFN in Canberra. This exercise was intended to provide an opportunity to gain experience with SFN operation before committing to the larger scale Sydney exercise. The first site became operational in January 1997 and the second was commissioned in March 1997. Establishment of the first transmitter site in Sydney is expected to occur in the second half of 1997.
Although there were some initial difficulties in obtaining equipment from overseas, and equipment faults (as only experimental equipment was available), the NTA and Telstra trials gave broadcasters practical experience in working with the new technology. As the trials progress, broadcasters will be able to build on their experiences in multiplex operation and further experiment with coverage and programming.
The Communications Laboratory, in conjunction with the NTA and Optus, conducted a series of satellite trials based on the Eureka 147 system between June 1995 and January 1996. These trials involved broadcasting a CD-quality program across Australia using the L band transponder aboard the Optus B3 spacecraft. A specially-fitted vehicle was used to assess the quality of mobile reception in a number of different environments. The availability of the spacecraft also enabled performance testing of the L band transponder using the Eureka 147 system, and assessment of the parameters required for an operational L band digital service. These trials confirmed the suitability of the Eureka 147 system for the delivery of satellite DRB services.
APPENDIX 5: OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENTS
UNITED KINGDOM
Digital radio services are being introduced into the UK using Eureka 147. The Government has allocated 12.5 MHz of radio spectrum (217.5-230 MHz) in VHF band III for DRB, which can accommodate seven DRB ensembles. Legislation is in place and broadcasters and multiplex managers will be licensed separately.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) National Radio has been allocated one ensemble, and another one has been earmarked for Independent National Radio, on which space has been reserved for the three existing INR Licence-holders-Classic FM, Virgin Radio and Talk Radio.
These two ensembles will eventually cover the UK. The remaining five ensembles are intended to carry BBC and Independent Local and Regional Radio. They will be arranged so that each area, in addition to the national services, will receive one ensemble carrying up to six local/regional stations.
In the main metropolitan areas, two local ensembles should be available, providing up to 12 local/regional services. No space has been reserved on these blocks of frequencies, meaning there is no guarantee that all existing stations will get access.
The Radio Authority is scheduled to advertise the UK's first national independent multiplex in late 1997.
The BBC launched its national DRB ensemble in London in September 1995, and aims for 60 per cent coverage of the UK population over the next three years. Commercial trials began in November 1995 with a National Transcommunications Limited (NTL) transmission trial in Birmingham. NTL is now transmitting a London-based trial. The third trial is being operated by NTL rival British Telecom (BT). Both commercial trials involve simulcasting as well as experiments with new services.
By mid-1998, it is expected that there will be 27 transmitters reaching about 60 per cent of the UK population, including the main motorway and trunk road network.
There are presently estimated to be 150 DRB receivers in the UK, each costing between £2000 and £5000. The BBC expects that after 10 years of DRB, 40 per cent of UK households will own a DRB receiver, and that by the time receivers are in mass production, they will be only marginally more expensive than a typical analog radio.
CANADA
Canada has been the leading country in developing Eureka 147 DRB in the L band, and is migrating all existing AM and FM radio broadcasters to digital technology using a combination of terrestrial and satellite coverage.
A DRB frequency allotment plan was published in June 1996. It involves a DRB allocation-capable of providing one CD quality stereo program plus allowance for ancillary data-for every AM and FM radio station (including current unused allotments), as well as every low power AM and FM radio station. Up to five stations with similar coverage areas are grouped together to share the same transmitter. Allowance is made in the plan for a possible implementation of a future satellite component (ie a mixed satellite/terrestrial DRB network).
Transitional licences for DRB are being issued for a period of three years, while a permanent licensing system is developed. Existing broadcasters intending mainly to simulcast current signals will be granted automatic access to spectrum, while applications for new services will be considered on a case-by-case basis. There are experimental stations in operation.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The USA has yet to decide on introducing digital radio broadcasting.
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has endorsed the IBOC approach. However the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has yet to set a DRB standard.
Laboratory and field tests have been conducted as part of an industry-based standards-setting program. Seven systems were initially submitted, including Eureka 147, four IBOC systems, one IBAC system and one satellite system.
The laboratory test findings have revealed deficiencies with the IBOC and IBAC implementations. In contrast, the Eureka system appears to have performed well. The second phase, involving field trials in San Francisco, has been affected by the withdrawal of all four IBOC systems, raising further uncertainty on the viability of this particular approach. Field testing the remaining systems has recently concluded and preliminary results again appear favourable for the Eureka 147 system. It is understood a final recommendation and report to the FCC is being prepared.
In view of the poor performance of the IBOC systems and NAB's continued opposition to alternative approaches, there is unlikely to be an early introduction of DRB services in the USA.
OTHER COUNTRIES
France: DRB experiments have been conducted since 1994 by a consortium known as Club DAB France in Rennes and Paris. Initial trials with Eureka 147 used VHF band I and the L band. However, problems with VHF reception led to the decision in 1995 to use the L band for all DRB services. Radio France has established a Working Party to study which specific programs would be particularly suited for DRB broadcasts. Radio France intends to establish DRB coverage of all major metropolitan areas (25 per cent of the population) and motorways, as soon as consumer receivers become available.
Germany: More than 100 DRB services are already on the air in Germany using the Eureka 147 system. Pilot projects are being undertaken in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westfalia, Saxony, Berlin, Brandenburg, Hessen, Saarland, Saxony Anhalt and Thuringia, using both VHF Channel 12 and L band.
These tests are being carried out through a partnership of the Government, Deutsche Rundfunk and Deutsche Telekom. The project in Baden-Württemberg began in 1994 and is to include six single frequency network multiplexes, each broadcasting at least six stereo channels with associated data and a separate 64 kbps data channel.
In North Rhine-Westphalia one single frequency network multiplex has been set up to cover the entire region, with three networks covering the sub-regions. In total, more than 10 000 receivers will be available for testing technical and programming features of DRB.
The on-going commitment to DRB as the radio of the future in Germany was confirmed when it was announced there would be a special supplement added to the licence fee from 1997. This supplement is expected to produce 176 million Deutschmarks (US$125 million) over four years to aid the public service broadcasters to build up the DRB infrastructure.
The Netherlands: Four transmitters have been established covering 50 per cent of the population, including the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and Utrecht. Seven companies are involved in experiments with ancillary DRB services which include datacasting, newspaper transmission, company information, railway and travel information.
An allotment planning conference was held in July 1995 to allocate spectrum for digital transmission which should pave the way for introducing operational DRB. The limited allocation, however, does not meet the program needs expressed by broadcasters, and lower bit rates are being considered as a way of providing extra channels.
Sweden: As a result of collaboration between Swedish Radio and Teracom, the first DRB experiments started in March 1992, covering the Stockholm area, and another DRB experiment started in March 1994 in Uppsala/Enköping. The Swedish Broadcasting Corporation has been allocated a national ensemble which began operation with one Stockholm transmitter in September 1995.
Initially, transmissions will be limited to simulcast of FM radio programs, after which new services will be added. In addition to the Swedish programs, there will be a program in Finnish and a channel for Lapps. Regional ensembles will be shared between the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation and commercial radio stations.
Belgium: In Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of the Belgium, the public broadcaster BRTN is installing one frequency network with 14 DRB transmitters, six of which were on air by June 1997. By the end of 1997, 80 per cent of the population will be within reach of DRB transmissions using Eureka 147. Similar DRB projects are underway in the French-speaking part of Belgium.
Other European countries in which DRB trialing is taking place include Italy, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, and Poland.
In addition, there are trials of, or proposals for, DRB services in a number of Asian countries, including Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, India and China.
APPENDIX 6: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
- ABA
Australian Broadcasting Authority - ABC
Australian Broadcasting Corporation - ACA
Australian Communications Authority - ACCC
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - ACRPH
Australian Council for Radio for the Print Handicapped - ADSL
Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line - AIMIA
Australian Interactive Multimedia Industry Association - AM
Amplitude Modulation - BBC
British Broadcasting Corporation - BSB
Broadcasting Services Band - BT
British Telecom - CBAA
Community Broadcasting Association of Australia - CBC
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - CD
Compact Disc - CLC
Communications Law Centre - CSIRO
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - DAB
Digital Audio Broadcasting - DCA
Department of Communication and the Arts - DRAC
Digital Radio Advisory Committee - DRB
Digital Radio Broadcasting - DRCS
Digital Radio Concentrator System - DSB
Digital Sound Broadcasting - DVB
Digital Video Broadcasting - FACTS
Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations - FANSS
Federation of Australian Narrowcasting and Subscription Services - FARB
Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters - FCC
Federal Communications Commission (USA) - FM
Frequency Modulation - GSM
Groupe Speciale Mobile-Global System for Mobile Communications - IBAC
In-Band Adjacent Channel - IBOC
In-Band On Channel - IBRC
In-Band Reserve Channel - IFA
Internationale Funkausstellung (World of Consumer Electronics fair) - INR
Independent National Radio (UK) - ITU
International Telecommunication Union - kbps
kilobits per second - LEO
Low Earth Orbit (satellite) - NAB
National Association of Broadcasters (USA) - NEMBC
National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters' Council Inc. - NFBCA
National Federation of Blind Citizens of Australian - NTA
National Transmission Agency - NTL
National Transcommunications Limited (UK) - PCS
Personal Communication Service(s) - SBS
Special Broadcasting Service - SFN
Single Frequency Network - SMA
Spectrum Management Agency - TAB
Totaliser Agency Board - USA
United States of America - VHF
Very High Frequency (30-300 MHz) - WARC
World Administrative Radio Conference
- Document ID: 8817 |
- Last modified: 6 February 2008, 2:17pm