Wednesday 22 March, 2006, 10:16 - LicensedAccording to Isle of Mann International Broadcasting (IOMIB) around 75% of radios have the long wave band on them. But when was the last time you tuned into long wave? For the cricket coverage on BBC Radio 4? Or when Atlantic 252 was pumping out its 'You're never more than a minute away from the next minute' style of upbeat pop music? Other than that, unless you live outside the UK and keep in touch by listening to Radio 4, you probably rarely switch your radio to the 'LW' setting. But there are a number of broadcasters who are banking that they can start commercial services on long wave and get you to tune in to listen to their programmes - and their advertisements!
In the mid 1990's when Atlantic 252 was in its heyday, three other companies figured that they too could launch successful long-wave radio services for the UK. Of the three, two are still planning their launch nearly 10 years later and one has given up. A combination of political, financial and environmental obstacles have prevented any of the three stations from finally getting on-air and a question has to hang over the two who still have plans as to whether they will ever launch.
The aforementioned IOMIB (whose other web-site can be found at longwaveradio.com) plan to launch a service tentively named 'MusicMann279' on 279kHz with a power of 500kW. Their transmitter site was originally planned to be on the mainland of the Isle of Mann, however due to local objections and despite planning to use a Cross-Field Antenna which is much smaller than a conventional antenna (and some would argue that its performance is in proportion to its dimensions), they now plan to build a platform in the Bahama Bank just off the island. There have been various rumours about a possible launch date for the service and plenty of speculation about what kind of service it might be, but so far no real evidence of any progress. There most recent rumours circulating are that the service will launch in the summer of 2006 at reduced power under the name of 'Caroline 279'. I somewhat doubt this latest rumour as there are a couple of aeronautical navigation beacons (non-directional beacons or NDB's), one near RAF Northolt on 277 kHz and one near RAF Lyneham on 282 kHz which are still in operation and in daily use. The interference to these beacons from the proposed Isle of Mann service would be so strong that they would have to change frequency and... they haven't!
The station which has now given up the ghost was known as variously 'Delta 171' or 'The Lounge' and was intended to provide an adult orientated middle-of-the-road, 'BBC Radio 2' style service, broadcasting out of the Netherlands. In the same way as in the Isle of Mann, there were local environmental objections to having a 500kW (half a MegaWatt!) transmitter on the doorstep so Delta was forced to consider a platform in the North Sea. This proved too expensive and the project collapsed in 2000 when the licence for the long wave frequency which had been awarded by the Dutch regulator expired and was not renewed.
The final station which still claims to be planning a launch is 'Cruisin 216' which will carry Christian programming. Cruisin intends to operate out of southern Norway to put its signal into the UK, however the frequency they have of 216 kHz is shared with Radio Monte Carlo (RMC-Info) who use a powerful 1.4 MegaWatt transmitter from Roumoules in south western France. Cruisin's own web-site indicates that their signal in London will be approximately 13dB (20 times) stronger than that from RMC-Info, however the same article on their web-site also shows that this is insufficient for interference not to be a problem. The fact is that the RMC transmitter already puts in a good and listenable signal into London and most of the south eastern corner of England so the signal from Norway would have to be whopping to compete. In Scotland and the north of England they might stand a chance - of course being a religious station, there may be someone up there lending them a helping hand!
Thursday 9 March, 2006, 15:24 - Pirate/ClandestineWith all this talk of pirate radio, a question that often gets asked is, "But I've never heard a pirate station; where do I find one?". Yes, there are those who have yet to stumble across the skull and crossbones of the airwaves!
The best place to look is on the FM dial of your radio. But with so many stations around, how do you know if the station you are listening to is a pirate or a legal station? There are a few clues which even the least experience listener should be able to fathom:
1. The signal is in mono. Most pirate stations broadcast in mono, however, this is not at all conclusive as many RSL stations do this too and further, some pirates broadcast in stereo.
2. There is no RDS. Including RDS can be complicated for some pirates so they choose not to use it. This is still not totally conculsive though, as some RSL stations have no RDS either.
3. The RDS is 'scrolling' (i.e. it is changing to display a message - as shown here on the right). Legal stations in Europe are obliged by the European Commission to use a static name on their RDS display to make sure drivers aren't distracted. Pirates, however, can change the name of the station to display messages on RDS equipped radios. A few legal stations (not in the UK though) do scroll or rotate the message on the RDS display so this too isn't totally conclusive, however reading the message might give a good indication. If it's advertising a party at a local night club then chances are you're listening to a local pirate!
4. The presenter doesn't have a middle-class accent! This is especially true on FM stations in the UK, where legal stations try to recruit presenters with unoffensive voices that won't turn listeners off. As pirate stations are usually there to promote the music or club nights, whether the presenter can pronounce 'Douglas St.John Farquhar' correctly really doesn't matter!
5. The phone number being given out to contact the station is a mobile number (all mobile numbers begin with '07' in the UK). How many legal stations do you know who would, or would need to, use a mobile number for calls to the studio? Further, if you're requested to leave 'missed calls', i.e. to phone the number but not let it answer, you're almost certainly onto a pirate. This is a way to show you are listening without having to spend a single penny on phone calls - quite smart really!
Of course there are other clues, such as the frequency being used (if it's in the middle of the band used for national BBC stations but isn't a BBC station then it's most likely a pirate), but the ones above don't require any technical knowledge. You're more likely to find a pirate station on FM if you live in, or near, a major city than if you live out in the countryside, but you might be surprised.
Another place to find pirates is in the radio no man's land just at the edges of the normal short-wave broadcast bands, especially the lower frequency bands. Why the lower frequency bands in particular - they're better for broadcasting to nearby areas and tend to be more reliable throughout the daily propagation cycle. Good places to listen for pirate short-wave stations are:
* 3800-3950 and 4000-4100 kHz, either side of the 75m broadcast band
* 5750-5900 and 6200-6400 kHz, either side of the 49m broadcast band
* 6800-7000 and 7350-7600 kHz, either side of the 41m broadcast band (avoiding the 40m amateur band too)
* 9300-9400 and 9900-10000 kHz, either side of the 31m broadcast band
And so on either side of the other short wave broadcast bands too... Though the use of frequencies above about 10 MHz is rarer, there are examples such as Alfa Lima on 15070 (± a bit) and 21900 (± a bit) kHz and WR International on 12256 kHz.
One final place you might come across a pirate station is on the medium wave (MW) band. Most stations prefer FM for local broadcasting as the antennas are smaller and the equipment easier to get hold of, but a few stations do use MW. Radio Free London used to put out a good signal across London on 819 kHz and there are quite a few stations (particularly in continental Europe) who inhabit the no man's land just off the end of the MW band between 1611 and 1640 kHz.
Of course I couldn't possibly condone any activity which would lead you to listen to a pirate and thus break the law in doing so. But at least now you might be able to stop yourself from committing this heinous crime before you get caught!
Wednesday 8 February, 2006, 12:10 - LicensedI used to supply VHF FM radio transmitters for Restricted Service Licence (RSL) stations in the UK. The licences allowed a maximum transmitter power of 25 Watts and a maximum antenna height of 10 metres above the ground. As such, the range of such stations was normally very limited compared to regular FM stations who used powers typically in excess of 400 Watts and with much higher antennas. To maximise the range of the RSLs, it was best to identify and use transmitter sites which were as high above the surrounding land as possible but in some areas the land was so flat that no such sites existed.
One question which was constantly asked by the operators of such stations was, "Should I broadcast in stereo?". On the face of it, stereo is the norm for FM broadcasts and most stations believed that if they weren't in stereo they would be seen somehow as inferior. However, what most failed to take into account was the fact that in order to receive a good quality stereo signal, the signal strength has to be 10 times (20dB) higher than that required to receive a good quality mono signal. This translates into a reduction in coverage area of 100 times, i.e. the coverage in stereo is only a hundredth of the coverage area achieved by the same transmitter in mono (ignoring topographical issues such as terrain and buildings).
Why is there so much difference? The answer lies in the bandwidth which a stereo signal occupies compared to a mono signal. The audio bandwidth of an FM transmission lies in the range of 30 Hz to 15000 Hz (15 kHz). However the way that a stereo signal is generated expands this bandwidth to 53000 Hz (53 kHz). (Don't get this confused with the RF bandwidth of the signal which is 180 kHz for mono and 256 kHz for stereo).
How does the audio bandwidth extend to 53 kHz? Well the mono signal which is made by adding the left (L) and right (R) channels together - expressed as L+R - is transmitted as usual so that the resulting signal is compatible with mono receivers. The difference between the left and right channel (L-R) is amplitude modulated onto a carrier at 38000 Hz (38kHz). This produces a signal which occupies the audio frequencies from 23 to 53 kHz - above the standard audio range and thus inaudible on a mono receiver.
A 'pilot' tone which is a low-level tone at 19000 Hz (19kHz) is also added to this signal and then the whole lot is sent to the FM transmitter. In a stereo receiver the presence of the pilot tone triggers the stereo decoder to recover the original signals. The left channel is reproduced by adding the mono to the stereo difference signal (L+R+L-R=2L) and the right channel is produced by subtracting the difference signal from the mono signal (L+R-(L-R)=L+R-L+R=2R).
The noise received by an FM receiver increases as the square of the bandwidth of the modulated/demodulated signal and as such the increase in noise (i.e. the decrease in signal to noise) for a stereo signal is (53/15)˛ or 12.5 times. Some of this increase is counterbalanced by 'pre-emphasis' where higher audio frequencies are enhanced before transmission and then reduced at the receiver, reducing the effect of some of the noise. The resulting improvement leaves a difference of the factor of 10 mentioned above.
The question of whether to broadcast in stereo for a low-power RSL (or indeed a pirate!) FM station is therefore a question of quality and coverage. If you have a high site and can expect that most of the listeners you wish to target will receive a good strong signal, stereo is great. If not (which is usually the case), using mono ensures your coverage is maximised. Of course, in fringe stereo areas where the signal becomes 'hissy' the listeners could always switch to mono, but how many people actually know that this solves the problem, let alone know where the mono/stereo switch on their receiver is?!
There are some pirate stations I have heard who transmit only the pilot tone so that the stereo 'light' on receivers comes on, which looks nice, but don't actually transmit in stereo. This is the worst possible case, as all it will serve to do is reduce the coverage, without giving any additional benefit to the listeners!
Monday 19 December, 2005, 15:31 - LicensedFor some time now, I've been intrigued by suggestions that Ofcom (and its predecessor the Radio Authority) is toying with the idea of issuing further licences for FM radio stations in London. Whilst the FM band in London is undoubtedly alive with stations, there is still a relatively limited number of stations on-air compared to many other major cities and the variety of programming they offer is even smaller. There is certainly commercial scope for more FM stations in London.
Currently on FM in London there are 14 London-wide and 7 local stations which are, in frequency order:
88.8/89.1 BBC Radio 2 (the lower frequency is transmitted with a power of 4kW from Crystal Palace and the higher with a power of 250kW from Wrotham, on the eastern outskirts of London. The same pattern is true for the other BBC national stations and for Classic FM)
91.0/91.3 BBC Radio 3
93.2/93.5 BBC Radio 4
94.9 BBC London
95.8 Capital FM
96.9 Choice FM (South London)
98.5/98.8 BBC Radio 1
100.0 Kiss FM
100.6/100.9 Classic FM
102.2 Smooth FM
103.3 London Greek Radio (North London)
105.4 Magic FM
105.8 Virgin Radio
106.2 Heart 106.2
106.8 Time FM (South East London)
107.1 Choice FM (North London)
107.3 Time FM (South East London)
107.5 Time FM (South East London)
107.8 Radio Jackie
In addition to these stations, there are numerous other BBC and commercial radio stations whose broadcasts overlap from their primary coverage area into the outskirts of London, as well as many BBC relay stations to cover gaps in coverage from the main transmitter sites.
In early 2000 the Radiocommunications Agency, the Radio Authority (both now integrated into Ofcom) and the BBC conducted a study into the possibility of licensing more FM radio stations. The study considered the potential for additional stations in the FM band and sought, in particular, to identify allocations that might be used to provide new services in the London (and Leeds) area. To try and see whether it might be possible to fit more stations on the FM dial in London, the study made some very odd assumptions about what frequencies might be used in London. It took the assumption that instead of adding or re-planning stations to free up frequencies, that from 94.9 and 102.2 MHz upwards, there would be a station in London every 400 kHz (i.e. 94.9, 95.3, 95.7... and 102.2, 102.6, 103.0, etc...) and then looked at the impact that these stations would have on neighbouring stations to whom they would cause interference.
The study concluded that 'In the London area, it was found that there appeared to be some opportunity for the accommodation of further city-wide services, if the need for some re-planning of the network is accepted. For a small number of such additional services it may be that the 'cost' of the re-planning would be limited to changes in the frequencies of surrounding services and a relatively small loss of coverage by a few surrounding services. It should be noted that this study was not required to consider the constraints imposed by continental interference. If this is taken into account there will be less scope for additional services, particularly in the London area.'. Further it added that 'The scope for use of the BBC national network sub-bands was limited by the large number of high-power transmitters in this part of the spectrum. One frequency was identified, however, which might be used to provide additional London-wide service at the expense of current BBC coverage.'.
So what were the frequencies that were identified for potential new London-wide stations, and what has happened since? Well, the frequency which was identified that could be used in London with impact only on listeners in Reigate (Mercury FM on 102.7 MHz which would move to 103.6 MHz) and Chelmsford (Essex FM on 102.6 MHz which would move to 102.8 MHz) was 102.6 MHz (Fox FM in Oxford would also move from 102.6 MHz to 102.4 MHz), and the frequency in the BBC national sub-band that was identified was 92.5 MHz, which it was claimed would upset virtually all the listeners to the BBC Radio 4 service in Guildford on 92.5 MHz who instead of their current 4kW service would get a 50W low-power service on 93.7 MHz. It would seem that since the publication of this report, nothing has happened. No action was taken by any of the parties involved to instigate any changes which might bring about a new license.
Rumours have since surfaced that the frequency of 87.6 MHz might also be used in London. This frequency (actually any frequency in the band 87.6 to 87.9 MHz) is currently reserved for low-power RSL stations, however there is no regulatory reason why a new, high-power, London-wide service could not use this frequency (with the possible problem of the need to co-ordinate with RTL on 87.6 in Lens in northern France). Whilst this would restrict the potential for RSL stations, it would not cause interference to any other UK stations as the band is otherwise unused. Further, the 3 Time FM stations in neighbouring parts of south east London which were previously different stations could now be consolidated onto a single frequency and the band between 106.8 and 107.5 re-arranged to release another London-wide assignment. It has also been postulated that a frequency around 101.6 MHz could be used for a London-wide service (subject to finding a new home for Kent based KM-FM on 101.6 MHz and possibly Ten-17 in Harlow on 101.7 MHz). The original study did not consider the 107 MHz frequency range, nor did it consider 101.6 MHz.
So potentially there are five frequencies which could be released for new stations: 87.6, 92.5, 101.6, 102.6 and somewhere around 107 MHz. With the exception of 87.6 MHz, none of these provides an interference free answer to new London-wide stations, but there seems to be no reason why Ofcom could not look to offer new licenses in London. With the propensity of pirate stations in the capital, there is clearly excessive demand for stations, so why is Ofcom so reluctant to consider a new station or two?
Maybe there is pressure from the existing licensees not to introduce further competition, whilst there is clearly competition between the existing stations, working together as a cartel to block any additional competition is clearly in all of their commercial interests. Maybe Ofcom is busy with other things (for example the raft of community licences recently issued). Or maybe it's just that the people who looked at the problem in the first place have now moved on since the reorganisation that formed Ofcom and no one has been tasked with reviewing the study and taking the necessary action. I'm not sure that there's anything that can be done to 'gee-up' Ofcom, however I felt that raking up the old muck again might just stir some action somewhere.