Norway to switch off FM in 2017
radio.no
radio.no
FM (and AM) radio are great technologies. Just because they are "old" doesn't mean there is something better.
In the US, Internet streaming (of existing stations), digital HD radio, and XM satellite rarely achieves a fidelity that equals FM (when the FM reception is clear). All of them suffer from unpleasant distortion. FM is not without it's warts, but the "errors" are less distracting IMO. They also all suffer from binary operation. They either work or they don't. FM fails somewhat gracefully in that the signal just gets noisier the further from the source you are.
In my market, Clearchannel and friends pretty much screwed up the music stations and nobody listens to them by choice. They either played the same tired songs over and over, pumped so many commercials into their broadcast there was effectively nothing to listen to (and coordinated commercial breaks between various stations so there was no reason to switch) or "changed the format" of popular stations without warning or alternative, wiping out decades of legacy.
I remember when it happened with one of the most popular and historic stations in the D.C. Baltimore area, WHFS. I was driving to lunch, jamming out to some great music, they cut to a commercial break and the commercials suddenly started talking about the latest Latin American bands. I ignored it, until about 10 minutes later when I realized this was no longer a commercial, but the broadcast!
According to WP, the station's staff didn't even know about the switch until about an hour before it happened.
AOL, despite all the bad things you can say about them, was headquartered in the same market, and ran a large-ish (at the time) internet radio system. They ended up launching a streaming radio station with pretty much the same format. But HFS was gone.
The local alt/prog rock music market has never recovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHFS_(historic)
I've tried to listen to music radio recently, and I think during my hour long commute, I encountered maybe 4 songs, the entire rest of the drive was absolutely packed with commercials and station filler. I also found that stations try to coordinate their commercial breaks with each other, when one goes on break, good luck finding another station of any genre that's not on break. And the breaks go on for 15-20 minutes. It's just unlistenable.
Supposedly, everybody is broadcasting better things on HD radio, but I'm not even sure if new cars I'd by support HD radio, they only advertise XM.
I'm perhaps a bit biased-- I work as a program director for one of the bay area noncommercial stations (KZSU, 90.1 FM), and help with the Soundtap project.[1]
I also feel FM is a superior format to HD in most cases. The compression required by digital to fit into the spectrum is just too excessive for my taste. The only reason the stations are into it is so that they can sell the same commercial time multiple times for each of their digital sub-stations.
Put differently, there are lots of people that might listen to Latin American music, and very few of us who listen to prog rock. Prog is actively repellent to ~90% of people.
The real idea is that they want the most cheap to produce, easiest to sell commercial on format. I don't believe that they care much about who listens to it.
Even people who like Taco Bell don't eat it every meal.
I think a more challenging problem is that with radio rapidly dying, the music publishers still act like they're the prime advertising medium, and that online streamers should be brought in line with the traditional radio model. The industry is a mess and I can't help keep thinking that it's because they brought it on themselves.
In that case, which losers are paying for these ads?
Moving to use DAB is a mistake though, they should just remove them all and rely on regular internet transport.
I have yet to exceed the 5000 MB limit, but the provider I use also have a 8000 MB option for another 100 NOK.
In comparison, if you order a beer in Oslo you will probably pay 90 NOK for half a liter.
Nobody has claimed this, so why are you arguing against it? You've pretended someone has claimed something, and then you argue against that rather than the actual arguments made. This is called a 'straw-man'.
You're like a lunatic, arguing against an imaginary person.
source: http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline
Nobody has argued that the reason they want to replace FM is that it is old. So why challenge that argument?
"Thursday, the Ministry of Culture announced a national FM-switch off, to complete the transition to digital radio."
Does DAB not count ?
DAB typically serves minimal quality (is bandwidth inefficient), often picks up interference from LEDs/modern lightbulbs/low voltage circuits, and receivers are costly, people don't have them, and they use significantly more power than FM.
I was once privy to a document that showed how the 1.5Mbit stream was divided up into the channels. Some of the "better" channels got less than 32kbit/sec.
I reluctantly pay for XM. I enjoy some of the talk radio stations, but the music quality is sub-par. That said, if I had a $1 for every person that said they loved XM and thought it sounded great, I could buy... well not much but many people I've talked to think the SQ is great.
I think it's worse than: CDs, MP3s over 128kbps, cassette tapes, vinyl records, 8 tracks, and FM. They only think that it's maybe better than in terms of SQ is AM radio, but it still suffers from loads of high frequency distortion that is maddening - especially if you have a high end car stereo. AM doesn't try to be something it's not - there is a roll off starting around 4 kHz, but it's fine for talk radio and music just sounds dull, which is fine. XM sounds "bright" in that it has HF content, but it's distorted and "warbley" for lack of a better word. It sounds like the the HF is passed through a filter of moving water or a fan or something.
The "warbly" stuff is the artifacing in the AAC decoder. That's how compressed the stuff is. I can hear it and it drives me nuts. Many can't.
Protip: two of the best quality channels are the Preview channel (of course) and the classical music one.
The DTB standard in Europe advanced the possibilities of radio whereas HD Radio was something that was a sideshow to the failing FM radio business.
The basis of engineering for the last two decades has been mountains of Matlab code, among other things.
It doesn't mean that programming is in any less need of rigor or that it is any easier than any other form of engineering at scale.
This is the same license that electrical, mechanical, structural engineers get, with the same initial Fundamentals of Engineering exam followed by the subject matter (P&P) exam (usually after verification of a certain amount of experience).
- The initial requirement was for at least of 50% of radio listening to be DAB before January 1st, 2015. This requirement was changed in 2011 to "digital listening", including streaming radio over Internet and DVB-T in the statistic. The actual percentage for listening over DAB is not published individually.
- 25% of new cars sold do not support DAB. Cars in Norway have an average lifespan of 10.5 years.
- The majority of road tunnels do not support DAB, and will not support DAB before the FM network is switched off.
This last point means using radio to contact drivers in case of emergency won't be possible at all, because:
1. The 20% of cars using DAB will not be able to receive anything while inside the tunnel.
2. The 80% of cars not using DAB won't have their radio switched on, as there is no reception.
There was a similar raise of concern in Germany, when the insurances bought the emergency system of the autobahn, which resulted as a non-issue, because shortly after everyone had a cellphone.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_defense_siren#Norway
> https://www.worlddab.org/country-information/norway/history/...
There is also an app for that ^^: http://www.umsalert.com/about
- Someone in the booth. 24/7. No downtime. No autopilot. No sign-offs. No bathroom breaks without someone to cover. No excuses. If the weather gets bad, have at least two shifts in the station. Bring cots.
This has already been a problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minot_train_derailment
- A way to get information to the radio station when every other method of communication is down. Satellite is not an option, because Earth stations can be disabled by severe wind or heavy snowfall. Point-to-point microwave is killed by heavy precipitation (rain fade, boys and girls) or widespread blackouts. Blackouts also kill Internet links. That isn't even considering man-made disasters.
- Repeated, serious testing of this stuff, before it's too late, with real consequences for people who fail. And, yes, in this context, having a good reason is failure. Having a good excuse is failure. "Lessons learned" is always, always, always don't fail.
- And, finally, a guarantee that people will hear the message when it goes out, not when their brother's friend's wife's accountant's CPA tells them, and most certainly not over social media. If SMS is more effective than FM in this role, FM has failed at the task.
That's the bare minimum to be taken seriously as an emergency alarm and disaster broadcast medium.
I think you're overly focused on immediate emergency announcements, where you should not depend on normal consumer AM and FM radio, vs. in the US systems like sirens and NOAA radios with their alarm system. Local consumer radio is much more useful for follow on information, once people are alerted and desire to find out more information.
Except this is precisely the claim I was responding to: The idea that consumer AM/FM radio should be preserved for precisely that kind of prompt emergency announcement functionality, and to maintain communications after other communications methods have been knocked out in a severe emergency.
The Minot Train Derailment was a disaster for multiple reasons, as disasters often are, but my point stands: The FM station was unmanned, because it was part of a national network and broadcasting a satellite feed, and the local authorities falsely assumed there was someone there who could break into the programming to deliver an emergency message. The fact the sirens also didn't go off is somewhat beside the point I'm making.
You cannot be guaranteed mobile phone reception inside the tunnel. Coverage is typically done using a leaky feeder, relying on base stations on either end of the tunnel.
«55 per cent of households have at least one DAB radio, according to Digitalradio survey by TNS Gallup», which leaves 45% not currently having access to a DAB radio. Many of the having _one_ radio has this in their home and perhaps not in their most important place: the car.
In order to elegantly implement a DAB radio in your car you need to attach a dongle to your window and run cables into a (sometimes) new radio altogether. Whilst this may be a simple procedure for _some_ it's for the vast majority a huge burden - both in terms of time and money (often costing around 3000NOK - 380USD).
It's well and fine that they started the implementation of DAB in Norway in the mid-90s, but it's just in recent times that we've seen cars come with DAB reception by default. They should at least wait until 80-90% of all cars have access to DAB before switching over - which could take I'm guessing up to 10 years.
This is like only supporting Chrome on important governmental sites - which would rightly cause an uproar on HN. Radio should be about accessibility and content, not the medium - which should change naturally and over time.
The UK is in a roughly similar position, but our govt is unlikely to switch off FM until 2020-ish at the earliest (was 2015, then 2018... now "whenevs").
It's sad to consider how governments foisted DAB on listeners exclusively for the benefit of state broadcasters - the list of fails is extensive here: DAB gives you demonstrably worse reception, poorer sound quality, more expensive hardware, added costs to replace old hardware, added costs to run (4x power consumption), etc.
The magic carrot of 'more channels/ more choice' thing never happened either: thus, a bum deal all round.
I would guess the upside for broadcasters (cheaper infrastructure, more listeners) may have been significantly overstated too.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/25/digital-radio-s...
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/16/digital-radio-s...
24 problems with DAB (2010)
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/apr/12/dab-r...
A few years ago I bought a battery-powered DAB radio so I can listen to Radio 4 in the bath. It will zip through a set of high capacity AA NiMH cells in around 2-3 weeks, the old FM radio used such a small amount of power that Alkaline cells made more sense and would consume around two sets per year.
Right now it's become a typical "we can't stop right in the middle, so let's continue forward full speed"-situation. So much has been invested in DAB in Norway that stopping the transition would be just as expensive, if not more so.
You'd not choose DAB if you were doing digital radio today.
Right now most channels are being transmitted in either DAB or DAB+ (DAB+ devices can receive both), but DAB+ is the future and DAB is going away. It's going to suck for the early DAB adopters though, who's soon going to be left with incompatible radios.
- 20 % of private cars are equipped with DAB radio
Most phones in Europe* (not just smartphones) can get FM radio, because including it adds nothing to the cost. DAB, by contrast, costs too much and uses too much power to be included in phones.
So, Norway is not just giving up on car users, it is also giving up on mobile phone users, ie the next generation of potential radio listeners.
* Most US smartphones also include FM radios, because it's a standard element of radio (FM, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) chips. However, FM is often disabled by the manufacturer (eg Apple) or by the carrier.
See http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/04/16/400178... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7DoPkkDFjM
As the grandparent comment says, it's because the combo IC includes the functionality; here's an example of one that's quite common:
http://www.mediatek.com/en/products/connectivity/wifi/mobile...
Many of these handsets are based on the MTK reference platform, and since that includes the FM radio app, the companies that produce them see no reason to remove it - after all, it allows them to have "FM radio" as one of the bullet points in the feature list.
I'm pretty sure the reason they do it is because they have deals with iHeart Radio.
More likely: most US mobile phones not made by Apple also have FM, but the carriers block it. Hence http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/04/16/400178...
My old Note II had too.
http://radio.no/2015/03/en-fjerdedel-av-lyttingen-skjer-i-bi... (Norwegian article)
Also, why do the radios require a dongle?
That is actually the main argument in favor of DAB. The FM space in Norway only has space for 5 nationally broadcasted channels, DAB has space for 40 (22 already used).
This is not correct. Norway has just as large an FM segment as every other country in the world and could have just as many channels. They simply manage the spectrum questionably. DAB+ will not help that.
http://eng.nkom.no/technical/broadcast/analog-radio/fm-radio...
To me this is the real climate change denial-ism. Not the abstract argument over whether its real or not, but the steady stream of personal and political decisions people make to prioritize car culture over X.
FM is not nearly as simple to receive compared to AM (are they switching that off anytime soon...?), but I think the cost of receivers is a big factor in broadcast applications - affordable receivers is what made radio popular in the first place.
As far as I know. Norway has not been transmitting public radio on the AM bands for as long as I've been alive.(I'm in my 20s)
Even Svalbard/Spitsbergen is a part of Norway - FM and AM will continue on this islands.
A slot with only 100 kHz bandwidth will give you modem speeds, like 24,4 bits/s. So there's just not revenue to make so small speed for modern broadband networks since everyone need to share the channel.
The other issue is that the band 88-108 MHz have so big coverage, so there will be problems with the cell spacing.
So 4G via FM is not a business case. However, the DAB channels are already planned for 1,4 MHz LTE. So guess what will happend in the near future?
I guess codec proprietors will pocket some royalties.
Radio is an unidirectional broadcast. One transmitter, several clients, no upstream communication. Simple receivers. Limited bandwidth
If you want to use Spotify on your phone that's great, but that's a different service than radio.
"It's so much less energy efficient than current FM radios", not necessarily, yes, FM receivers (the receiver part) use very little energy, but consumption will probably go down as well with new receivers.
Still, the issue of shutting it down seems like a strong case of "just because"
Radio broadcast will never be able to compete with Facebook and Google without big data in the future.
DAB is a good replacement for what radio essentially is, not for "listening music" which, while is a use case of Radio, it's not related to the technology.
Here in Russia it hasn't even launched, and there are no plans for it; and I certainly haven't heard worldwide news about it for a while.
The BBC has radios 1, 1Xtra, 2, 3, 4, 4Extra, 5Live, 5Live Sports Extra, 6Music, World Service, Asian Network, and the BBC local services all on DAB. Radio 3 (love music and the arts) uses best quality, others use eiter lower quality or mono or both.
And then there are a bunch of non-BBC stations.
Linear radio is an artifact of the transmission medium. I'd guess many won't bother with it when most of Norway is already draped in internet access.
Not sure what the state of the art here is, but IIRC multicast introduces significant extra state into every router and switch involved, and with limited ability to control who is able to transmit to a multicast group.
On the radio network side, I don't think IP multicast has any specific support in e.g. LTE, so even if a mobile client could subscribe to a group its bandwidth usage over the air would be equivalent to a unicast stream. Guess this was omitted for the reasons from the previous paragraph.
LTE has something called multicast but AFAIK it's totally unrelated to the IP/Ethernet concept.
edit: whoa, apparently 802.11 networks handle multicast properly - stations don't generate layer 1 ACKs for reception like they handle unicast traffic. There's a ton of cool stuff you could build with this on a LAN!
Streaming internet delivery, by contrast, consumes finite and expensive mobile phone bandwidth. And if you're listening to "linear radio" as distinct from a service like Pandora, consumes bandwidth to absolutely zero benefit.
Even consuming "linear radio" over a data connection has a substantial benefit over something like FM broadcast, namely that you can support far more variety in the same area. FM is limited to, what, a few dozen channels in a single urban area? Maybe a couple hundred if you add HD radio? Streaming over a data connection can support hundreds of thousands of different stations, instead of forcing people to choose from twenty examples of the least common denominator.
The UK has no plans for the FM frequencies except to keep using them for FM broadcasting. The difference is that, after the switchover, they'll be local instead of national FM radio stations.
There's also close-to-zero demand for large numbers of radio stations (most people only listen to two or three), and such "variety" is inordinately expensive.
Broadcast is never going to compete with Spotify, Pandora etc for personalized radio.
If radio is going to be for emergencies, make sure it's guaranteed to work in emergencies:
- Mandate local control. No more networks piping music in over a network line. Network lines go dead, and then where is your radio station? More to the point, if there's no one in the booth, there's no way to get someone to tell everyone else there's an emergency. This has already happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minot_train_derailment
- Mandate that people be in the radio booth 24/7. No more late-night autopilot, and certainly no sign-off. Have cots or similar if the weather starts to get bad, so multiple shifts can stay at the station. (Hospitals already do this.)
- Mandate that radio stations have their own generators. Multiple redundancy. No excuses.
- Create a way to get information to radio stations even if all other information transmission infrastructure is down. Because that is what we're talking about, right? Radio as an emergency last-ditch information transmission medium? Satellite communications can get jammed by bad winds blowing Earth stations around, point-to-point microwave is killed by serious snowfall, and this isn't even considering man-made emergencies.
So, unless you do that, you're just playing at being an emergency service. That represents the bare minimum to be taken seriously.
On the other hand, even if all the things you list aren't in place, if you have the basic infrastructure including massive penetration of receivers you can jury rig the rest given a little time and luck.
Imagine that instead of some message on the radio (which you may or may not hear) or a single alarm noise which tells you nothing beyond the existence of an emergency you received a push notification telling you exactly what the issue was, how it would effect you (e.g you don't have a car so here is where the bus stops for the evacuation busses are), and anything special you needed to know. You could make this infinitely personalised.
Nothing like this is possible with linear radio, which can only give you general information, or specific information that is unlikely to be relevant for you.
First of all: Commercial radio will die, however in Norway they will die first. Commercial radio is not able to sell big data on conventional FM, DAB and AM services.
Facebook and other services using the Google PREF are able to give exact personal commercials on a very specific local level. Conventional broadcast radio can't beat this. UNLESS the broadcasters goes pure play. Broadcast radio do send unicast streams, and have still not made it possible to create revenue from it, even you can track what the listener looks like and know his needs are.
In the old days there were high powered AM stations (also known as border blasters) such as Radio Luxembourg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Luxembourg_(English)