SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the elites-with-flawed-data-making-choices dept.
El Reg reports
With digital reaching its audience targets, the government set a 2017 date for the death of analogue FM radio in [Norway].
[...]However, the Norwegian Local Radio Association disputes the communications ministry's figure, pointing instead to Norwegian Government Statistical Bureau data that "listening to DAB radio is presently limited to 19% on a daily basis."
In an e-mail sent to Vulture South [El Reg's Australian operation], the association says the Minister of Culture's announcement swept up DVB-T and Internet radio to claim that "digital listening" had hit the 50 per cent target that triggers an FM switch-off.
The association also notes that an all-DAB nation would provide a lot less service to motoring tourists without digital radios in their cars. "This proposed change means that most visitors will not be able to listen to national channels or public radio for emergency alerts, traffic or other important information", the group said in a media release e-mailed to El Reg. It claims that a focus on large broadcasters would leave FM investments by community radio stranded.
The local broadcasters are backed by the Progress Party, a partner in the coalition government in Norway, [as well as by] the Greens.
Related: Norway to be First Nation to Switch Off National Analog FM Stations
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:33PM
If digital is truly better in every way then broadcasters will adopt it on their own as will listeners. I have not carefully examined the radio dial in Norway but in most of the world there is a fair amount of spectrum compared to the number of actual broadcasters so, unlike cable for example, there is no need to force this to relieve congestion. So allow people who think they can make a profit transmitting an analog signal to continue doing so. Eventually digital will either naturally replace traditional broadcasting or digital will die off as an expensive fad.
But of course governments can never allow a market to function without their interference because people might get dangerous notions.
In the end, it probably is a fight over spectrum as much as government meddling. Digital would allow double the number of streams in a fraction of the spectrum and if one were to look there is almost certainly someone waiting in the wings to buy up the 'unused' spectrum after analog radio is switched off. Follow the money, always.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by rondon on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:54PM
But isn't this the best case scenario for government?
1) A precious national resource is being used inefficiently for the benefit of a few.
2) The government requires those few to upgrade their systems in order to make better, more efficient use of the resource.
2a) The few, who have monopoly control (likely through the broadcasters coalition or some such) would never be pushed by the market to implement this change, because the resource they are using is not subject to a free market where it can be bought and sold as a commodity.
3) The country benefits from having its resources used most efficiently.
This entire exercise in Norway cannot be ruled by the free market, because the resource is part of the "commons" owned by everyone. Its use must be regulated to avoid the tragedy of the commons.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:09PM
Ok, that is a valid point. On the other hand if the broadcasters on analog are still profitable it is because the listeners (i.e. the citizens) are still using the analog equipment too. If government is merely a creature of the People and not an entity pursuing goals of its own (as progressives believe) then if enough citizens are still using the shared resource the original spectrum assignment probably makes sense.
It is a balance, if we want efficient spectrum use we have to keep assignments stable enough to encourage widespread adoption. If people become concerned that valuable investment in both transmitters and receivers (remember that many are integrated in large investments such as automobiles) will be obsoleted anytime some new tech gets some big money investors behind it we can end up with nobody adopting from that fear.
Also, I forgot one other major factor in the story. Here in the U.S., and likely there since these trends are global, digital radio adoption rates are low because the government standardized it by granting a sole source monopoly to one vendor of both transmitters and receivers, although for receivers I think it is just a single source of silicon and others can in theory buy them and integrate them into equipment. And that sole source demands per minute/stream royalties on the transmitters so broadcasters can't just take their existing station and throw up a digital stream in parallel along with several alternate streams and see if the audience will buy the receivers and start listening to the new choices, they have to pay up front for each additional digital stream.
In Europe that problem might not be as bad since digital has been operating there longer and the patents might be expired by now. But with the pressure to force adoption it would be worth following that money trail to see if it is part of the story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:34PM
Spot on. Unless and until a digital standard has either been used unchanged for 10 years, or has had only backward-compatible changes during that time, I'm not going to buy it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:35PM
because the government standardized it by granting a sole source monopoly to one vendor of both transmitters and receivers
Yes google around for "HD Radio(TM)" and ibiquity corporation in the USA, and DAB for pretty much the rest of the world.
DAB has its own unique problems, being so old it predates mp3, so logically an incompatible / semicompatible DAB+ has been released.
DAB is 100% free open and royalty free, and unsurprisingly everything ibiquity touches involves paying substantial licensing fees, including for receivers. They're pretty hungry for money considering how little they do compared to their DAB "competitors" who are free. Its pretty much a microsoft vs linux story.
ibiquity was pushing for all cell phones to have a FCC required broadcast radio in them awhile back. Because smartphone users listen to so much AM radio, of course, now that they have streaming internet usage, LOL.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:24PM
The question is whether it is indeed enough of an advantage that the cost is justified. The cost is that all FM receivers will turn into useless junk. For stationary, you'll probably be able to buy an extra box, like with TV, to add DAB reception, but for non-stationary ones that's not an option.
Case in point, I've got 1 TV, but 5 FM radios (only counting those I use regularly). And I don't even have a car radio. Of those radios, only one has an input for external signals, and three are designed to be portable, making them an inappropriate target for an extension box anyway.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:34PM
It's usually all about mobile operators wanting to occupy more radio spectrum..
Guess who will buy the new spectrum that becomes "free".
(hint: it's not citizens radio or amateur radio)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:55PM
You forget that radio frequencies are internationally agreed upon. You can not suddenly decide to start using these frequencies for something else.
The government proposal was for its OWN radio service, where they can simply stop broadcasting the analog portion, while still retaining the digital portion.
There probably isn't any coalation of broadcasters, because the debate is about state run radio, and the order only affects state run radio.
There is no efficiency to be gained, and no way to measure any efficiency even if you postulate it, because as I say, you can't simply start reassigning these vacated frequencies.
There may be an efficiency in transmitter power, but collapsing a wide analog bandwidth to a narrow digital one.
A country of Norway's size can't possibly have enough demand for FM radio that would require more stations. There really is no contention for this bandwidth.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:13PM
How can I put this in a way which the average Soylentil will understand? Ah, I know:
I hope that illustrates my point :-)
Unfortunately, the better option doesn't always win, for all sorts of reasons.
[sig redacted]