Redundant DAB sets?

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by merlinmaxwell

Or the needed WiFi!

Why is that a problem? Most 'phones will behave like a hotspot for Wi-Fi. I currently stream Solid Gold Gem AM into my comms system from the 'phone.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by mark2collection

Those 'Alexa' devices make me laugh, well actually, the owner of one such device, 'but it only listens when you say "hey, Alexa" ... erm, no, it's ALWAYS listening.

But he is more correct than you are! Alexa is indeed listening constantly, but only in the same way as your 'phone or webcam etc. There is no circuit open to the outside world at all. Prove it by turning off the router. Alexa will not flinch because it is only running a small routine which is comparing the audio input with four trigger words. When it finds a match, it THEN opens a circuit for the audio to be analysed and a response passed back. The circuit then closes and Alexa goes back to the local routine. So you see, no need for the tinfoil hat at all.

[dave walsh]

You seem to have a good knowledge base there Scimitar. Does that mean Alexa can't be programmed or reset to "listen in" by itself or could it [potentially] do that if set up or modified in a different way? Was it this technology in that make of TV sets that was supposed to be eavesdropping on us some time back?

I suppose concerns about losing the skill or will to do anything for ourselves might still apply but on the other hand, lots of other things have been lost already. If it wasn't for the retro fashions keeping them going, I suspect that few people would have the ability to operate a record deck any more. Some can't change a light bulb!

Ironically "listening in" is a term that often appears in early radio mags and I think [later] "looking in" as well re TV.

Dave W

[paulsherwin]

These devices are constantly 'listening in' but they don't do anything until they identify a trigger word like 'Alexa' or 'Hey Google'. They then send a sample of the phrase to a server where it is decoded and interpreted. The response is then returned to the device. This typically takes less than a second. The devices have fairly feeble processors and can't do much on their own.

It would be possible to reprogram these devices to send everything they hear somewhere, which is why I suspect they're not very common in places like GCHQ, but that's not how they normally work. What would be the point?

Broadcast vs. internet for power consumption, now there is a question.

[electronicskip]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

These devices are constantly 'listening in' but they don't do anything until they identify a trigger word like 'Alexa' or 'Hey Google'.

My wife has several Furbies! which listen and then suddenly start repeating what we say after a while!

[Bazz4CQJ]

An odd coincidence re this thread; listening to KQED in the US last night, their on-the-hour station id went "This is KQED on 98.4FM, at KQED.com and you can listen to us on your smart-speaker by telling it to 'Play KQED'".

I listen to that station and other NPR stations a few times a week but that is the very first time I've heard the suggestion to tell my "smart-speaker" to tune in! Of course, the Americans have already had Black Friday and I'd guess that after Xmas, the number of households with a smart-speaker will have increased dramatically. Listen out for Auntie Beeb directing you to your smart-speaker .

B

Most 'phones will behave like a hotspot for Wi-Fi

I aint got one and if I did what would be the cost per hour of radio?

[G6Tanuki]

Originally Posted by Bazz4CQJ

Listen out for Auntie Beeb directing you to your smart-speaker

Classic-FM has been doing so for the last year or so....

[Bazz4CQJ]

Curious; I would have thought that the minute one station did it, they would all do it.

[mark2collection]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

But he is more correct than you are! Alexa is indeed listening constantly

'He' may be more correct than me, but he knows what I do for a living and completely understands why, I choose not to have one in the home. Although I have a smart phone, I use it when I need it, to make a call, or take the occasional photo, as the camera is really rather good, it's never on wifi, never Bluetooth. It does have Siri, buts that and the location service are switched off, for any serious work or related 'stuff', the phone is left miles away, leaving no footprint.

I shall leave it there, but those gadgets have their place, and their uses. I get it, but for me, mmmm-no. What other 'trigger' words have been programmed in to open the mic for the monitoring world to hear, but not outwardly 'respond' in the home. Paranoia? Possibly, but if it keeps me and my family safe, woohoo!

Mark

[paulsherwin]

It's obviously a personal decision. Some people cover up the built in cameras in their phones and laptops because they're worried about surveillance.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

It's obviously a personal decision. Some people cover up the built in cameras in their phones and laptops because they're worried about surveillance.

Tinfoil will never go out of fashion it seems! I'm not casting perspirations toward anyone here, but I do get wound up at (for instance) comments on newspaper websites where these new ideas are reported on. So many people totally refuse to do the slightest amount of reading about it, to get the facts yet spout authoritatively about how RF will make everyone grow extra limbs and give them cancer etc. Pointing out the MegaWatt UHF TV transmitters that feed them their peurile conflict and misery soaps appears to make no impression on them. There is no point trying to educate them either, perhaps mentioning the inverse square law because they have their tinfoil hats pulled down firmly over their sensory organs!

There is no point trying to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work and the pig doesn't like it.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by merlinmaxwell

I aint got one and if I did what would be the cost per hour of radio?

Not a lot. I use it for about an hour a day six days a week. With my other 'net use I get through about 1Gb per month.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by dave walsh

You seem to have a good knowledge base there Scimitar. Does that mean Alexa can't be programmed or reset to "listen in" by itself or could it [potentially] do that if set up or modified in a different way? Was it this technology in that make of TV sets that was supposed to be eavesdropping on us some time back?

Alexa's AI is totally different to the software that Smart TVs run and found to be vulnerable to attack over the network. Bear in mind that Alexa only runs a very small and dumb subroutine when untriggered. All it can do is compare received audio with one of four trigger words. The routine is so small that four options are all that it can recognise. One of them was provided for the benefit of Trekkies and is "computer...".

It would be possible to upload a malicious firmware to the device of course and the technique has been shown. However, it requires physical access to the device, it can't be done over the internet because it hasn't got a connection unless triggered. Unlike routers and computers that can easily be turned into surveillance devices.

Originally Posted by dave walsh

I suppose concerns about losing the skill or will to do anything for ourselves might still apply but on the other hand, lots of other things have been lost already. If it wasn't for the retro fashions keeping them going, I suspect that few people would have the ability to operate a record deck any more. Some can't change a light bulb!

That's a fair point of course. I can only tell you how many benefits Alexa brings to my household and to that of my parents. My father is totally negative about anything new and initially brings down the glass wall. He is now happily using his iPhone and loves his Alexa devices. He has even sold the idea to his "bit of fluff" who also bought some.

Just like a satnav doesn't have to replace your brain, Alexa can enhance your daily life without making you incapable. Doubtless, like the satnav example there will be those who consider it a replacement for their brains. 'Er indoors for example.

[mark2collection]

I always take any device connected on-line as a security vulnerability, having been told in the past software has no vulnerabilities, doesn't rely on 3rd party dependencies and has no loop-holes only to discover, it does, and yet some of the things people 'do' online would make some folk shiver.

I've seen first-hand the things the humble Raspberry Pi can be 'told' to do. No tinfoil hat require, though as to sloppy media coverage be it online, ghastly TV et al, I take it all with a pinch of salt, I cannot believe people take those formats as gospel.

So you see, for me and my line of work, vintage radio is complete escapism, innocuous and outwardly completely unassuming Heeeeee, and I'm happy with that.

Mark

[Andrew2]

At the risk of taking this thread even further off-topic, I understand that the smart speaker devices only 'listen' for a trigger word to wake them up and to go online.
But who's to say that's all it does? What if - while it is listening for the trigger - it is storing handy stuff like brand names and product names? Then, when it goes online it sends those names to the advertisers who then target you with relevant ads?
I'm not normally a tin-hatter, but give these people the technology and they will always abuse it.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by Andrew2

But who's to say that's all it does? What if - while it is listening for the trigger - it is storing handy stuff like brand names and product names? Then, when it goes online it sends those names to the advertisers who then target you with relevant ads?

Sometimes, you have to examine the actual capabilities of a product and then trust that if it was doing something dodgy, that it would be discovered very quickly by those who spend all their time looking for such things.

Alexa devices (I know nothing much about Google's devices) Have a tiny processor and tiny amounts of memory, just to run the local subroutine. The chances that it does any more than said is highly unlikely.

On the other hand, the latest run of internet cameras all use a Chinese managed server (even if it is on AWS) so your constant video feed could easily be available to those who may be interested. Strangely enough, I have never seen any negative comment about that! One that I have works very well, but my bandwidth has gone through the roof (100Gb in 3 weeks). Makes me wonder, so I will look into why that is happening, rather than just make paranoid accusations. I know that we have had a few Windows updates and they are pretty big.

[bikerhifinut]

Originally Posted by Paul_RK

This one will be perfectly redundant at the DAB switch-off: DAB only, and no connections except mains input and the aerial socket. It seems to have been the first self-contained DAB set brought to market, briefly as only 300 were made: it couples Pure's tuner of the day with a stereo amplifier and pair of speakers, in a small but fairly heavy box, and sold out in about an hour in December 2001 at its heavily subsidised price of £100.

I'm waiting for one of the clever boffins on here to design a simple to build "pantry transmitter" or set top adaptor for DAB and DAB+, seems like a good idea to me and no doubt it could be configured to transmit at the full bitrate feasible on DAB.

I read with interest the post from the chap who receives DAB in Ullswater, the simple reason for this is that there is a fairly low power DAB repeater on Beacon Hill just on the east edge of Penrith which is able to transmit the DAB signal more or less straight up the Eamont valley which is why it can be received with relative ease as its only about 10 miles crow flight fashion. It;s the same reason we on 't other side of beacon edge in the steep sided Eden valley can receive very good DAB but B_______R all in terms of FM or MW. This would be remedied by a low power repeater in said location but sadly it isnt. And the irony of it all? The local BBC station which isn't as bad as some local stations and I prefer its afternoon output to the inanities of BBCR2 is'nt transmitted on DAB, mind you its still broadcast on 756 kHz MW thankfully which makes it receivable all along the A66 where everything else disappears west of penrith until you get back into the range of Caldbeck after Keswick, something to do with a girt big 3000 ft mountain in the way. It's also the reason why the garage radio is an early 60's PYE transistor set, it sounds amazingly clear on MW and gets through a PP9 a year. I really should wire up one of the 9V adaptors i have cluttering the place.
Mobile phones don't work either to any reliable extent so internet listening isnt an option and even at home with 70 meg broadband I get really frustrated with drop outs on our internet speaker and also online via PC or the squeezebox gizmo I use with the stereo. And thats hard wired to the router. BT maintain theres no faults with the line but I have my doubts and thats why we ain't getting internet telly in.

A.

[Junk Box Nick]

Transmitter to receiver is such a neat and simple solution that I feel no reason to go beyond that except in certain circumstances. For everyday use I am in the DAB camp purely because of the reliability of signal in my location outweighs other considerations. In the car I rely on AM/FM. (Of my vintage radios only the Bush has VHF and only up to 100MHz).

I have turned to online for a handful of stations at home/when working because, unfortunately, I find much of the terrestrial landscape barren, and online augments the few 'traditional' stations I use. However, unlike when I was a kid and couldn't live without Radio Caroline every waking hour, I wouldn't want to listen to these stations all the while and so when in the kitchen or in the car I can usually find something acceptable to listen to. Sadly, after many years I've given up Radio 2 but then I accept that I am beyond that station's target demographic.

I like the idea of tradional live radio with news and varied music programme presentation that make suggestions to me. This gives me a problem with computer controlled atations that have a stock of a few hundred oldies in constant rotation and indeed, to a certain extent, Classic FM and Jazz FM. I use 'listen again' services, however, I find this falls into a similar habit to that of the video recording that you make but never get around to watching. I don't think that live radio is going to go away any time soon - the essence of this is what broadcasters of old were taught: imagine you are talking to just one person. I like this idea of 'companionship'.

I have no desire to use a voice operated gadget - I am happy to use the computer to search for what I want - and am uneasy at having a live microphone in the room - and certainly not in the bedroom! There are circumstances where I might find such a gadget useful: in the car where having to fiddle with knobs and glance at displays can be a dangerous distraction it would be something of a boon. The only other instance might be (God forbid) that I become incapacitated to an extent that I cannot operate controls on conventional equipment.