Norway shutting down all FM radio stations by 2017

[Broomstick]

People still use those? I always thought that they had been fatally shot by the car cassette player, buried by the car CD player and had extra nails driven in by modern internet phones.

I use the one on mine for local weather and traffic reports, which are handy while traveling. Has saved me some aggravation over the years.

[Broomstick]

Overall, I just find it strange that anyone would even notice radio dying. It's just that in this day and age, really, a radio sounds like something that belongs right along side a steam locomotive and a horse and buggy.

Please don't tell that to my Amish neighbors... oh, wait, they're never on-line so they'll never know, right?

[Sea Skimmer]

This isn't about radio dying at all, they are killing traditional FM analog radio transmissions so they can make more radio content available, and use spectrum for other things like long range wireless coverage, and have stations which cover the entire country without tuning, due to the possibility of precisely synchronized broadcasts from multiple transmitters. Traditional analog AM and FM tech simply can't do that without unacceptable levels of garbage being created by interference from time lags.

DAB standards can generate new problems if too much is attempted on too little bandwidth, but its a far more advanced technology and the way of the future plain and simple.

[Gaidin]

That's actually interesting to consider. Especially if you consider about all modern cellphones have the ability to process those signals on the FM chip, but the companies don't want to. There's at least one state that's passed a law requiring them to unlock the FM chip, but hell if I can find the article. Every damn thing is about unlocking the phone. Talk about massive google-fu misdirect.

[The Infidel]

Norway may be an unusual case for some reason; their broadcast industry may focus on AM bands, or they may only have a very limited number of FM stations in each metropolitan area.

Just saw this thread. There are lots of FM stations in Norway, both nationwide and local ones, and DAB+ is catching up, but there is pressure to not close the FM net yet, so it might not happen quite yet.

Some are complaining that DAB+ is an old technology and that something better should be used. They also claim that if the DAB signal gets poor, the radio will fall silent, while the FM will still play, but at lower quality. I've never tried DAB, so I have no clue, but coverage is important, as Norway is a bit streched out and quite mountainious(?) at places.

Just for the record: Norway will use DAB+, not DAB. Don't know the difference, but I guess the "+" makes it better.

[Sea Skimmer]

DAB+ uses a different better codec and has integral error correction in the code, as is found in many other forms of digital wired and radio transmission systems. The core broadcast technology is the same, which is a huge advantage of digital technology in that mere software changes could implement this and future changes, but you need a different receiver on the user end because nobody makes small cheap radios upgradeable!

For any given level of transmitter power DAB will have superior range to an FM broadcast, and DAB can correct for things FM never could like multipath problems and rain fade. However you'll get problems if you try to actually reduce the number of broadcast stations compared to FM, as the range advantage is not great, and that's caused people to bitch and moan about DAB in multiple countries.

Actually you could get way more range out of DAB simply by boosting the transmitter power, simply because this much more acceptable with DAB then with FM because it uses so much less bandwidth, inherently reducing interference problems caused by skywave radio transmissions, but since transmitter cost rises faster then effective radiated power nobody really wants to do this. It also would become a problem in countries or groups of countries were FM and DAB are being used side by side. Also this would undermine the main point of DAB, which is freeing up radio bandwidth.

DAB isn't the end all of this, other formats are competing and a lot of interest is focused on formats which can simultaneously support video and audio on the same channel, which is why for example the US has not abandon FM radio yet even though it led the way on abandoning FM TV broadcasts, but sooner then later every developed country is going to go digital radio. We have no choice if we want to make long range wifi services for mobile devices work. All the radio spectrum is already spoken for; you only get more by adapting technology that allows more data in less frequency bandwidth.

[Simon_Jester]

One aspect of that which bothers me is that if we follow that trend, we end up with people having to throw away their radios for lack of backwards-compatibility in the new broadcast format. Which simultaneously forces everyone to buy new radios if they want to listen, and makes it harder to ensure that everyone hears.

[Zaune]

One aspect of that which bothers me is that if we follow that trend, we end up with people having to throw away their radios for lack of backwards-compatibility in the new broadcast format. Which simultaneously forces everyone to buy new radios if they want to listen, and makes it harder to ensure that everyone hears.

True, but it's not like FM radios are particularly valuable, or DAB radios can't be hooked up to an existing hi-fi system.

[Sea Skimmer]

If we listened to that logic on cell phones we'd have no internet on our phones you know. We had to abandon the original NMT standards to make that work. In fact if we'd not done that it wouldn't even be possible for everyone to have a cellphone the way they do today, the bandwidth simply wouldn't work.

Conversely if no attempt is made to switch to digital radio, nobody will buy new technology radios at all because companies wont have a reason to even make and sell them because who would want a useless product, or a FM/DAB radio which is more expensive for no useful reason. So we'd just be stuck in a unending luddite loop in which human progress is halted for the sake of technology from the 1930s not being made obsolete on a planned timescale. FM radio required 100% new radios in the first place!

Seriously, did going to digital TV cause some great disaster and horror? Last I checked it did nothing but give us more channels in several times the resolution! Shutting down FM with no notice would be bad, but nobody would ever propose that. Norway has been working at this for years already, giving two years of firm notice, and on top of that has enacted a clause in the law by which failure to establish enough stations for proper coverage or get enough radios to peopel will result in automatic delay to 2019. This is incredibly reasonable.

Norway has 5 FM broadcast stations right now. They already have 20 DAB stations. Each of the FM broadcast stations can turn into multiple new DAB channels, each of which can multiplex multiple actual stations depending on desired quality. If you don't mind low bit rates you can have one single frequency become ten DAB stations. The difference is just staggering. Of course they don't as I've said before, intend to do that because they want the bandwidth for other new services which cannot exist otherwise.

[Simon_Jester]

Eh.

I know this is strictly true. I guess my main issue is that I have an irrational (?) objection to the idea of abolishing effectively all the technologically "simple" devices in our lives in favor of more elaborate ones that rely on specific encryption and encoding and protocols that are susceptible to easy change.

I keep expecting that at some point in my old age, I'm going to start smacking into catastrophic widespread technological breakdowns, brought about by overreliance on programmable hardware that stops working when some necessary component of the surrounding digital infrastructure isn't there. The computer stops working because the operating system's on an inaccessible cloud. Or the cars stop working because of something wrong with the driverless vehicles' networking software that causes them to all stop 'for safety's sake.'

Things of that order, things that would be a trivial problem or a nonproblem for devices that aren't a doorstop as soon as the software malfunctions badly enough, but which can completely dislocate your life when they happen to devices that are.

This may well not be rational, but I fancy that it's at least understandable.

[Sea Skimmer]

Eh.

I know this is strictly true. I guess my main issue is that I have an irrational (?) objection to the idea of abolishing effectively all the technologically "simple" devices in our lives in favor of more elaborate ones that rely on specific encryption and encoding and protocols that are susceptible to easy change.

Easy in this case involves international treaties! But if you have that concern, worry a billion times more about the internet then about radio. After all the ARPANET replaced the hardwired analogue data links SAGE and several other successor networks used. But then also consider if you took that concern to its logical conclusion the internet would never exist and lets be honest for all of us, we'd probably know a tiny fraction of what we do know today. Seem so bad?

Also part of the advantage of digital radio is that once we go all digital we can multiplex different digital formats on the same channel if we want. It would actually work fine and is the long term plan in generalized terms. So if someone wanted to replace DAB+ with another format, we could use the same channel for that and it would work, as long as some very basic deconfliction programming was used.

I keep expecting that at some point in my old age, I'm going to start smacking into catastrophic widespread technological breakdowns, brought about by overreliance on programmable hardware that stops working when some necessary component of the surrounding digital infrastructure isn't there.

While it may not be universal at this point most FM radio stations already have digital back ends anyway, so this is not a super relevant consideration in the 21st century. Indeed not only are most using digital back ends, they are connecting the backend of the radio transmitter to the actual signal source in the radio station over the internet or by modern microwave relay, both very digital. Also digital radio is more resistant to atmospheric interference, including that induced by solar flares and nuclear weapons.

Radar made the transition the same way. Digital back ends appeared in the 1960s for the Sentinel ABM program and associated radars, fielded as Safeguard, but it wasn't until 1990 that the B-2 bomber had the first digital front end aka what we call AESA. Now we've spiraled down to commercial radio moving the same way. First the hidden stuff, now the more visible parts.

The computer stops working because the operating system's on an inaccessible cloud. Or the cars stop working because of something wrong with the driverless vehicles' networking software that causes them to all stop 'for safety's sake.'

Sure, its a concern in safety critical applications, but would you want a self driving car that worked on analog technology? I will also point out that all modern cars are 100% dependent on digital technology anyway, the engine control unit and the ignition control unit are both digital computers.

That is like comparing nuclear reactors to coffee makers anyway. I think we are all smart enough to see that different applications demand different standards! The basic reality is analog requires data loss. Digital does not. Bad digital formats can produce data loss anyway, but that's application specific and very predictable. Heck at this point many FM radios being produced are digital in the first place, I bought one for my mom ten years ago because at the time our apartment had very bad radio reception, I suspect because of the reinforced concrete walls and defilade from the world famous huge cluster of radio towers north west of Philadelphia, and the digital radio improved upon it. Its using an analog source but digital processing inside the receiver. Its technologically asstarded, but the advantage was very clear and real. All commercial radios have been partly digital since the 1950s, the very first use of transistors in the 1940s was for radios, commercial production following soon after. Ironically transistorized radios were common before FM broadcasting was even well established.

At the end of the day yes/no is easier to deal with then interpreting a curve! If you want simple and reliable, digital beats analog in fundamental terms. It takes some advanced semi conductors to implement it sure, but what difference does that make unless you know how to build your own radio in the first, and importantly, actually do it?

Things of that order, things that would be a trivial problem or a nonproblem for devices that aren't a doorstop as soon as the software malfunctions badly enough, but which can completely dislocate your life when they happen to devices that are.

Usually hardware on ROM chips doesn't malfunction. I sort of get where you come from but this is a really dumb subject to be concerned about. If our banks have already long been entirely dependent on digital technology and in some cases freaking GPS timing the last thing we need to worry about is our radios being more resistant to rain fade.

[cosmicalstorm]

Here in Sweden the DAB system has been slammed as a crazy idea by nearly all instances who were asked for their opinion. I have also read some pretty damning criticism from bloggers who are otherwise pretty mentally sane. It's looking like it won't come to pass. And if it comes to pass, it's looking like a fiasco.

[Broomstick]

If we listened to that logic on cell phones we'd have no internet on our phones you know.

Not everyone has internet on the phone. It's not like lack of it would be the end of the world.

Seriously, did going to digital TV cause some great disaster and horror?

Wouldn't put it that way, but in the old days a poor signal would give you a poor picture and sound... but a still usable one. Sure, maybe ghosting and muddled sound but you could still see and hear. Now? Everyone breaks into pixels and the quite.

Also - analog TV can be used as a crude tornado detector. Very crude. Interesting, though. Digital TV, alas only functions as a tornado detector if you're tuned to a weather report.

So... yeah, higher resolution but with a more sudden signal drop off and a loss of minor utility.

[Sea Skimmer]

Not everyone has internet on the phone. It's not like lack of it would be the end of the world.

Nor would complete lack of electrical technology, but what's the point?. It'd be a step backwards or a halt to progress for no reason. Mobile devices have become a huge part of modern life and for business and the military and government and we are better off with them. You couldn't have this many pure phones without digital standards. As it is I'd hard pressed to do my job without my phone and what I can do with it, and I am by no means well off in life. We can always make do with less. Digital broadcasting will use much less energy in this context, so long term it seems like it does that for society in a small way.

Wouldn't put it that way, but in the old days a poor signal would give you a poor picture and sound... but a still usable one. Sure, maybe ghosting and muddled sound but you could still see and hear. Now? Everyone breaks into pixels and the quite.

Well, technologically no reason exists why we couldn't program the radio to make fake static or play a white noise if that was really such a big deal. It already has the hardware to do it.

Still the point being the range to reach poor signal should be greater for same radiated power from any given station. The advantage being that power can carry more data at that point. Now if someone goes and replaces a 1 megawatt transmitter, about the most powerful anyone allows for this sort of broadcasting with one that is more like 20 kw to save money then you'll sure cause problems.
It's certainly not magic if your only getting your signal bounce off the side of a distant mountain.

Also - analog TV can be used as a crude tornado detector. Very crude. Interesting, though. Digital TV, alas only functions as a tornado detector if you're tuned to a weather report.

I've heard that one before when I was a kid, but it looks like they are basically at chance levels of accuracy. You can also get a automatic weather alert radio for real cheap, and it'd be easy to integrate that functionality into digital radios if we went and made NOAA digital too. Which will eventually happen. The US military is well on track to elimination of non digital radios, if they can make that work we can make it work for anything. You can also now get texts to your phone cued to your location as determined by digital cell tower. With digital TV around here we roughly doubled the number of channels we got so it feels like a serious win to me.

Anyway since I'm being uselessly wordy as ever, you can find fault with specific plans, but we seriously want to move forward on this sort of technology. Everyone will some day or another.

[The Infidel]

Norway has 5 FM broadcast stations right now. They already have 20 DAB stations.

I like what you write, quite insightful, but I have a nitpick: Norway has quite a bit more FM channels than those 5. What you mention, sounds like the nationwide channels from NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Company, kinda like BBC).

Here is a list of radio stations in the Oslo area, both FM and DAB. Some share the same frequency, but airs at different times, and Norway is a heck of a lot more than Oslo.
http://radiomap.eu/no/oslo

My old car radio is from 1996 (as my car) and is about to break down, so I will need a new one soon. I can get a nice one without DAB for about $80, or one with DAB from about $120. I'm leaning towards DAB now.

[Sea Skimmer]

I like what you write, quite insightful, but I have a nitpick: Norway has quite a bit more FM channels than those 5. What you mention, sounds like the nationwide channels from NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Company, kinda like BBC).

Yeah okay 5 national channels. DAB in Norway also actually has national 22 channels and the network as planned now is expected to support up to 42 total.

It appears in fact that the low power local FM stations, typically 3-4kw radiated power, are not being required to shutdown which is why the ~5 shutdown number is being thrown around and new articles claiming this is a total FM shutdown are simply false. If you share the same frequency though at low power your need guzzling bandwidth, but you will have a shitload of areas with mutual interference. At least we certainly do in the US.

Norway also put numbers on how much money this will save a year, about 25 million USD, which might not sound like much but it amounts to the new transmitters being expected to cost 1/8th what the existing more numerous gear does to operate. Even if this is optimistic that would really start to add up over the whole planet. A lot of that is saved electrical power meaning less carbon emissions too.

[Borgholio]

Seriously, did going to digital TV cause some great disaster and horror?

The thing about digital TV is that you could buy a $20 digital box and hook it up to your existing TV. It didn't make all existing TVs useless, just the antennas. So you replace the antenna (combined with a small digital box) and you're set. It was really easy. To convert a car radio from FM to DAB, you need to buy a converter for $100 (or more) and then pay a mechanic to install it. Or you can buy a cheap thing that sits on your dashboard for $75 and rebroadcasts to your FM radio. In either case, it's more expensive than the digital TV conversion and not as simple.

[Broomstick]

I just wanted to counter your yay, digital radio, all positive.

Not everyone has internet on the phone. It's not like lack of it would be the end of the world.

Nor would complete lack of electrical technology, but what's the point?. It'd be a step backwards or a halt to progress for no reason. Mobile devices have become a huge part of modern life and for business and the military and government and we are better off with them.

Sure... except for the vehicle accidents caused by people phoning or worse yet texting while driving, the distraction, and so forth. Yes, there are some nice things about smartphones but don't ignore there are negatives, too.

You couldn't have this many pure phones without digital standards.

Once upon a time we didn't "need" as many phones.

Wouldn't put it that way, but in the old days a poor signal would give you a poor picture and sound... but a still usable one. Sure, maybe ghosting and muddled sound but you could still see and hear. Now? Everyone breaks into pixels and the quits.

Well, technologically no reason exists why we couldn't program the radio to make fake static or play a white noise if that was really such a big deal. It already has the hardware to do it.

Back to front, twit - no one wanted the static and noise, the point is that the signal didn't just drop off into uselessness immediately. It degraded, but was still usable.

Really, that is the biggest frustration with digital TV we've had - when bad weather/high winds hit you just can NOT get a usable signal. Either shattered pixels or nothing. In the old days the reception wasn't great but you got something you could see and hear.

When conditions are perfect digital is superior - but in the real world conditions aren't always perfect.

Old days, you get a bad weather alert you could still make it out through the mess. These days? You get "SPECIAL ALERT, WE ARE REPORTI--" and then nothing so WTF good is that?

Also - analog TV can be used as a crude tornado detector. Very crude. Interesting, though. Digital TV, alas only functions as a tornado detector if you're tuned to a weather report.[/quote]
I've heard that one before when I was a kid, but it looks like they are basically at chance levels of accuracy. [/quote]
A nearby tornado definitely screws with your reception. Of course, back then tornado warning times were nothing like they are now, crudeness was all we had.

No, now we have information - assuming the signal you pick up isn't fucked up pixels.

You can also get a automatic weather alert radio for real cheap, and it'd be easy to integrate that functionality into digital radios if we went and made NOAA digital too. Which will eventually happen.

So, will that NOAA digital radio go to fucking shit like broadcast digital TV when you need it most?

The US military is well on track to elimination of non digital radios, if they can make that work we can make it work for anything.

Why do you assume the civilian world will get the same hardware/software?

You can also now get texts to your phone cued to your location as determined by digital cell tower.

Which also makes it easier to track your whereabouts and habits. I'm not going to say that's all bad - that fact that if I call for help on 911 my phone pings my location is a good thing - but it opens up potential for abuse that just didn't exist 25 years ago.

While I am just as fond of my tech as the next person I don't have the illusion that this is an unalloyed good.

[Lagmonster]

I don't know about other regions, but here in Canada radio is a strong part of the media scene and likely will be until the Boomers are all dead. We have a national radio station that boasts extremely high listeners levels in our region.

[Sea Skimmer]

Sure... except for the vehicle accidents caused by people phoning or worse yet texting while driving, the distraction, and so forth. Yes, there are some nice things about smartphones but don't ignore there are negatives, too.

I am highly confident that all the times people used cell phones to dial 911 when they didn't have a land line within reach outweigh that. 175 years ago people commonly used to riot against simple machines in factories because they took away horrible dangerous jobs, but now we look back and know this was a tremendous advance in human progress. Society has always adapted to new technology and this isn't going to stop, nor should it.

Once upon a time we didn't "need" as many phones.

Or seat belts. or crash resistant fuel tanks, or vaccinations. And life expectancy was much lower. The hell is the point of this? You don't 'need' anything but food, water and some kind of shelter from bad weather, but that isn't a life most of us would like to try to live. Longer life expectancy is a huge negative for the environment and a huge cost to society too, because most medical costs are end of life for old people, and not for people who die of cancer or heart attacks, but would anyone consider someone who argued we should die sooner for those reasons to be anything but a nutcase?

Back to front, twit - no one wanted the static and noise, the point is that the signal didn't just drop off into uselessness immediately. It degraded, but was still usable.

And since as I have already said, and you have never actually disputed, digital has better range for the same power, and fewer zones of mutual interference. So this complaint is just pointless as an objection to digital technology and yet you keep repeating it. If your local TV stations decided to cheap out, well maybe your market isn't really worth anything to them. Welcome to capitalism.

Really, that is the biggest frustration with digital TV we've had - when bad weather/high winds hit you just can NOT get a usable signal. Either shattered pixels or nothing. In the old days the reception wasn't great but you got something you could see and hear.

If they changed the transmitter power or location that's no fault against digital technology. Do you know where the bad signal is being broadcast from? We can look up the transmitter power.

When conditions are perfect digital is superior - but in the real world conditions aren't always perfect.

And my experience is digital TV vastly improved the signal quality in my reinforced concrete apartment block. So I think this is a technologically pointless argument. I could not watch several channels at all, and then suddenly every channel worked plus a bunch of new ones.

Old days, you get a bad weather alert you could still make it out through the mess. These days? You get "SPECIAL ALERT, WE ARE REPORTI--" and then nothing so WTF good is that?

See above. Not the fault of digital broadcasting itself that you live somewhere that already had shitty reception or just have a shitty digital box, which is entirely possible. They aren't all equal like every single other piece of technology around.

A nearby tornado definitely screws with your reception. Of course, back then tornado warning times were nothing like they are now, crudeness was all we had.

Lighting strikes, enough rain and simple high wind also do the same thing though, shitloads of false alarms aren't generally considered good for emergency anything because they breed apathy in stupid people. You know the main reason tornado warnings are better now is digital radar technology meanwhile. Among other things that allows us to field higher power radars without jamming TV channels, which was a major problem back in the 1950s and 60s due to poor planning and poor technology.

So, will that NOAA digital radio go to fucking shit like broadcast digital TV when you need it most?

Given that NOAA has just over a thousand dedicated transmitters, and the ability to use many TV transmitters for emergency functions using technology originally implemented for nuclear attack warnings that seems unlikely to be a problem for a proper implementation. I'd be a bit more concerned about the roughly 5% of the population whom presently are not covered by NOAA radio stations at by system design, which is from the 1970s. Since digital broadcasting is cheaper going digital would eventually mean we could fill in those gaps without spending more money year after year. I'm not expecting this to happen for a few more decades though.

Meanwhile the USCG now monitors its email for emergency calls from the sea, because at long ranges people's cell phones can send emails when they can't get a good enough signal for a voice call. That's actually saved lives a couple times so far that I've heard of.

Why do you assume the civilian world will get the same hardware/software?

Why do you assume we would actually want the exact same hardware and software? The average person doesn't need a radio that works in a sandstorm. You missed the point. You can make this stuff work in the most demanding possible conditions of weather and durability, and work better then analog tech can. Everything else is details, and as I said before specific implementations can have problems. That's a reason to make better technology, not cling to the past.

Which also makes it easier to track your whereabouts and habits. I'm not going to say that's all bad - that fact that if I call for help on 911 my phone pings my location is a good thing - but it opens up potential for abuse that just didn't exist 25 years ago.

Conversely the record of the location of your phone is also a way to provide evidence in favor of an alibi a lone individual would never have had in the place.

You have a choice to carry a phone, you have a choice to keep that phone on, you have a choice to cover it in metal or not, but 25 years ago you did not have a choice to have 911 service in say, a local park with no phones. You seem to be in favor of choice, so what's the problem on that? Governments are perfectly capable of abusing the population without the aid of modern technology.

[Broomstick]

I am highly confident that all the times people used cell phones to dial 911 when they didn't have a land line within reach outweigh that. 175 years ago people commonly used to riot against simple machines in factories because they took away horrible dangerous jobs, but now we look back and know this was a tremendous advance in human progress.

Those folks weren't rioting because they liked the "horrible dangerous jobs", they rioted because they were losing their livelihood. There's a difference.

And since as I have already said, and you have never actually disputed, digital has better range for the same power, and fewer zones of mutual interference. So this complaint is just pointless as an objection to digital technology and yet you keep repeating it. If your local TV stations decided to cheap out, well maybe your market isn't really worth anything to them. Welcome to capitalism.

Digital transmitters have fuck-all to do with antennas and buildings vibrating in 150+ kph winds - which we get on a regular basis around here. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Having adjusted both analogue and digital antennas the digital ones are a heck of a lot more sensitive to placement and wind vibrations.

Really, that is the biggest frustration with digital TV we've had - when bad weather/high winds hit you just can NOT get a usable signal. Either shattered pixels or nothing. In the old days the reception wasn't great but you got something you could see and hear.

If they changed the transmitter power or location that's no fault against digital technology. Do you know where the bad signal is being broadcast from? We can look up the transmitter power.

Since in good weather with calm weather we get excellent reception I don't think power is the problem. As I noted, the high winds we get in this area on a regular basis are probably the biggest factor, although when we get high winds during storms you also have torrential rain, hail, and airborne debris to contend with. Granted, analogue antennas are not immune to problems under such conditions but they seem better able to provide usable signals under such circumstances, which are inescapable where I live.

[His Divine Shadow]

Revisiting this decision in 2021, the result? A pointless clusterfuck! A waste of money, destruction of working technology, pissed off people!

And to polish it off it's clear by now that DAB is a dead man walking already, it sucks as a technology and nobody wants it except the people who sunk monyy into it and countries and companies are abandoning, it's days are numbered. It's also not better than analog FM in any meaningfull way and is actively worse (shorter range for instance).

The countries who are adopting digital radio are going with the superior DRM and DRM+ solution. If we in the nordic countries wanted to adopt digital radio we would do well to consider DRM and repurposing the now empty MW band for it while not touching the analog FM band and so minimize any disruption. The medium wave band (and the short wave band) has several advantages over the FM band, you can reach much farther with a much smaller transmitter and thus for less money you can reach more people. DRM technology allows more channels on the MW spectrum with FM quality sound and a range that could be international in good conditions.

http://digitalradioinsider.blogspot.com ... radio.html

Norway stuck it's foot in it with DAB and this is what happens when you follow lobbyists and pursue technology for technologys sake, rather than keep what works. To be honest, I would ideally just see analog MW and SW stations make a comeback, one can simply give them a bit more space on the spectrum to increase the radio quality and there are analog techniques for stereo AM.

I mean we're not using the spectrum at all as is and there are still a lot of modern radios around that can tune in AM transmissions along with FM. Nevermind all the vintage equipment that's popular nowadays. So it's strange to me we're not using it at all, independent stations could get a lot of reach for their money.

[His Divine Shadow]

Yea, but you can just tune on to those online for the most part.

Most mobile phone contracts don´t give you unlimited internet data, so I guess not everybody wants to spend valuable MBs on music you can get for free via an antenna. And then there are plenty of people who don´t have a smart phone at all.
Then there are people like me whose car only has a radio and a tape player and good luck finding tapes today.

Tapes have made a comeback actually.

[His Divine Shadow]

Here's another article from Oct 14th
http://digitalradioinsider.blogspot.com ... .html#more

I will quote this one in full since it's shorter.

Norway To Retain FM Radio For Another Ten Years
Good news for local radio but not for the DAB lobby

Today the government led by the conservative Erna Solberg was replaced by a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Center Party (Sp). The new government declaration clarifies that the focus is on local radio being able to continue broadcasting on FM until 2031. MP Åslaug Sem-Jacobsen (Sp) has supported local radio in the desire for extension and is very pleased with today's statement: This is something I have worked a lot with, and therefore I am happy that we in SP have had an impact on the platform, she says. Even if this coalition government will not have a majority in the Stortinget, Sem-Jacobsen believes that the proposal will be adopted.

Local radio outside the big cities was allowed to continue as before when the national radio channels left FM 2017. In the metro cities, commercial local radio was banned on FM, but there are still a number of local radio stations on FM in these cities. It is important for our media diversity that local radio gets the best possible framework conditions and the opportunity to develop in the way they believe is best. Local radio, together with other local media, is very important to us in SP, says Sem-Jacobsen to lokalradio.no

Facts and analysis

Norway is still the only country in the world which have replaced FM with the digital system DAB for national radio. The only other country with plans to completely replace FM with DAB is Switzerland. In the rest of the world, FM is retained. There is widespread impression that DAB has not become the success that was promised 20 years ago. The investment in Norway is considered a failure.

International experience has shown that a transition to DAB entails additional costs for radio listeners, but it will be particularly costly for those who run local radio outside the big cities. It costs approximately 26,000 euro to invest in a small size DAB transmitter in Norway, which will be an impossibility for non-profit community radio stations. Despite a state subsidy of 5,000 euro, for example, Radio DSF now has a local radio station in Finnmark that broadcasts on both FM and DAB and has now ceased local DAB in Troms.

The two international organizations for local radio Community Media Forum Europe and AMARC Europe have previously emphasized in a letter to the European Commission the importance of community radio retaining FM. The organisations are not against future digitization but rather advocates a different technology than DAB, namely DRM.

In the other Nordic countries and the Baltics, FM radio is still the main platform for both national and local radio. People who no longer listen to FM have mainly switched to radio on the Internet with its bonus add-ons as pod and play (on demand) services.

In Denmark, DAB has been around for 20 years with about 20% of listening. Sweden has also had DAB since 1995, but no listener figures have ever been reported. Finland has renounced the possibility of using allocated frequency band for DAB and has instead legislated for mandatory FM radio in cars.

The question is whether Norwegian local radio listeners can now breathe a sigh of relief. Regardless of which Minister of Culture held the post, the agenda for FM and DAB has for more than fifteen years been controlled by some senior officials in the ministry and NRK. Here you can find an explanation why Norway differs from the rest of the world in terms of FM radio.

It should also be reminded here that the problem with the ban on advertising in local radio on FM in the big cities has yet to be solved. Before the general election this fall, there was a political majority against this ban.

[Tribble]

Both AM and FM radio are alive and well in Canada, even with younger generations. Partly this is because long commutes + lots of drivers means plenty of listeners. It also helps that fewer cars have satellite radio, and you can listen to AM and FM for free. Plus sometimes it’s easier to find a good live dj on the radio than searching for one on the phone.

What I find interesting is that at least in the GTA news/ sports broadcasting etc tends to be more on AM, while music is predominantly on FM. Well, at least music made since 1950’s anyways