Norway becomes first country to kill FM radio

[OlavEmil]

6 hours ago, MMKing said:

The only reason i listen to the goddamn thing is because it's there. Now i have the choice between bringing CDs to the car, or actually going out of my way and pay money to get DAB+. It's all crap anyway. Modern music is only slightly more tolerable than not listening to anything at all, what the people on the radio says is not very intelligent and i can read the newspaper for free at work or read the news on the internet.

 

 

 

In that case you should definitely applaude the decision to close the FM radio. If you dislike radio in general, having the society pay immense amounts of money to withhold two standards sending the same intolerable nonsense to your radio must be unbearable.

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, OlavEmil said:

 

In that case you should definitely applaude the decision to close the FM radio. If you dislike radio in general, having the society pay immense amounts of money to withhold two standards sending the same intolerable nonsense to your radio must be unbearable.

Yes, some people dont understand that having FM running costs money.

[RocketFarmer]

So let me see, private companies in other countries do this regularly without issue, and these government run stations can't?  Perhaps the real issue is that government should not be in the radio business and they need to put that money to better use elsewhere.

 

Governments broadcast for free over privately owned radio stations as part of the licensing agreement in a lot of other countries.  It's part of the deal.  Governments are in the licensing business, not the radio business.  That's been an effective model for around 100 years.

[You_are_a_cunt]

Meanwhile I'm still too lazy to put music on my phone and I keep listening to the same shitty radio stations.

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

But why does Parliament even care?

Multiple reasons. Europe has a lot of public service initiatives including radio, so the state runs a lot of radio channels. Digital has a lot advantages over analog including the bandwidth required, so the government wants to free up valuable spectrum for other things. Sometimes the ecosystem needs a push when no else will do it because it requires an upfront investment.

 

Both consumers and private companies do not want to invest in improving things when the current thing works fine even if it has the potential to improve their experience or enable other improvements in other areas of wireless communication.

 

It's good enough you could say. Arguably in the same way that copper wires are good enough, so we don't need to pay for fiber.

[Trixanity]

3 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

My point was more why does the government care if other people use it. If digital really is superior it should start to take over the market anyways (maybe subsidize it a little to give it that initial investment inventive?)

If you have to buy something out of your own pocket that seems like it's not worth it and everything seems fine anyway, then why bother? That's why we still use good ol' copper for internet and people don't go to the dentist.

 

The government cares because it's their radio stations (theirs and the privately-run) that are affected by this and they want to push to digital to free up that spectrum and improve the experience for the listeners. Also, they're maintaining both analog and digital right now. Since they operate it and it's up to them to provide for the people, they would want to make sure that things move forward. Private radio stations also broadcast digitally, so it's just about the recipients having the equipment to receive digital which is where things get a bit muddy.

 

The place I lived in before still used their own private analog terrestrial equipment for TV despite the rest of the country having switched to digital many years prior. So worse quality TV and it was getting increasingly expensive to maintain the equipment but it would also cost a lot of money to move to digital so it was up to the tenants to decide if they wanted to spend the money to move to digital which was approved but it was a very reluctant 'yes'. No one wants to pay for these things but I think everyone appreciates it afterwards. Also, when the analog TV signal was turned off nationally, people complained that they'd have to buy a new TV or a new set-top box to receive a signal. Again: expensive to operate and maintain two platforms at the same time and the experience is better with digital but most appreciate it by now I'd say.

 

So to sum it up: radio stations do send both analog and digital signals but it's expensive to maintain both and the latter is mostly superior and could enable improvements in other areas as well by freeing up the spectrum used. This is the job of the government. They own and operate radio stations and broadcasting equipment so they have an interest in improving things. The government isn't only about radio transmissions though so they have to look at a bigger picture than just about radio hence the whole spectrum thing is a concern for them. Perhaps the space freed up by killing FM could be used for improved cell service? Or more spectrum for TV signals? A third use-case?

 

I'm losing coherency here so I'll end my tirade. 

[MMKing]

14 hours ago, OlavEmil said:

 

In that case you should definitely applaude the decision to close the FM radio. If you dislike radio in general, having the society pay immense amounts of money to withhold two standards sending the same intolerable nonsense to your radio must be unbearable.

My rage was directed at the radio industry, who pushed for this (among others). Now they lost a customer.

[Mihle]

BTW. If someone doesn't know yet, private owned radio stations can continue to broadcast of they want. It's not a law that says they can't. But the government will shout down what they do and what radio stations they own on FM.

[RoddieRan]

to tell the truth i love listening music via FM radio much more than any other music player app. I feel that it is more interactive.

[Paranoid Kami]

I don't listen to the radio while driving. I prefer to concentrate on the road.

 

It's not as much of a problem as people are saying even if they do listen to the radio. Phone, MP3 player, portable speakers and so many other devices can play music for you. Your car can even charge your device off of it's own battery so it's not like you have to worry about that. Most people complain because they hate change, but things change for a reason.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Kami said:

Most people complain because they hate change, but things change for a reason.

This is such a cop-out argument and it really bothers me that it seems to be getting more and more common around here.

A lot of people have expressed reasons for why they don't like this change, and they are founded on facts. Nobody in here is just going "it's new so I don't like it", and the same goes for all the countless of 3.5mm vs Bluetooth, and Windows 10 threads.

 

For a lot of these things, people dislike change because the changes has some drawbacks, not because "it's new so it's bad".

A lot of times the argument is as simple as "what I use now works, so I don't want to spend money to keep using it". Dismissing that as "you just don't like it because it's new" is such a shitty counterargument from your side.

[OlavEmil]

7 hours ago, RoddieRan said:

to tell the truth i love listening music via FM radio much more than any other music player app. I feel that it is more interactive.

 

Me too. But what you seem to miss, is that there is no difference from the listener's point of view if the sound from the radio is sent by FM or by DAB (apart from DAB being crystal clear, without the frequensy noise). The change is purely technologigal.

 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

"what I use now works, so I don't want to spend money to keep using it".

 

Yes, that is the main arguement I hear. It is false, though, because the FM net isn't working by itself. It takes a lot of money to keep it running, and it will take conciderable investments in the near future to keep FM running. Changing to DAB+ is the only sensible thing to do from an economical point of view, as well as a user friendliness point of view.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, OlavEmil said:

Yes, that is the main arguement I hear. It is false, though, because the FM net isn't working by itself, it takes a lot of money to keep it running, and it will take conciderable investments in the near future to keep FM running. Changing to DAB+ is the only sensible thing to do from an economical point of view, as well as a user friendliness point of view.

Digital radio doesn't run on magic. It will need towers too, and the shift from analog to digital will cost a lot too.

 

From an economical point of view it will probably make sense in the long run but not short term (especially not for the average Joe which doesn't care about audio quality, and don't even know what a DAB+ is ad will have to hire people to fix it).

 

From a user friendliness point of view this is terrible though. You're going from something that "just werks", to something people will have to put time ad money into getting to work. And what benefit do they get? Better sound quality, which they probably don't care about that much.

[That Norwegian Guy]

Was just shut down 3 hours ago in my county.

 

First county in the first country without FM and life goes on.

 

Hopefully, TV is next lol

[Paranoid Kami]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is such a cop-out argument and it really bothers me that it seems to be getting more and more common around here.

A lot of people have expressed reasons for why they don't like this change, and they are founded on facts. Nobody in here is just going "it's new so I don't like it", and the same goes for all the countless of 3.5mm vs Bluetooth, and Windows 10 threads.

 

For a lot of these things, people dislike change because the changes has some drawbacks, not because "it's new so it's bad".

A lot of times the argument is as simple as "what I use now works, so I don't want to spend money to keep using it". Dismissing that as "you just don't like it because it's new" is such a shitty counterargument from your side.

Good job on not quoting the rest of my post where I give alternatives to getting radio. Also good job on ignoring that while it doesn't cost more on your end to keep FM radio up, it costs more on someone elses end. I take it you're one of those 'argue endlessly' people on the internet who will just latch onto a single sentence and then ramble to death.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Kami said:

Good job on not quoting the rest of my post where I give alternatives to getting radio.

Yes, and it was a decent list. I didn't quote it because I didn't have anything to add to it.

It is possible to agree with some things someone says, but disagree with other parts.

 

1 hour ago, Paranoid Kami said:

Also good job on ignoring that while it doesn't cost more on your end to keep FM radio up, it costs more on someone elses end.

I'd like to see some math supporting that. What you have to remember is that digital radio does not run on magic. Does this new infrastructure that needs to be built and supported cost less than just keeping the analog radio running?

I don't know the cost of building and doing maintenance on a digital radio tower compared to just doing maintenance on the existing analog radio towers. For all I know, digital radio might be far more expensive in the long run too (it most certainly is in the short run).

 

1 hour ago, Paranoid Kami said:

I take it you're one of those 'argue endlessly' people on the internet who will just latch onto a single sentence and then ramble to death.

Well I will argue against things I disagree with.

The argument that people are just against this because "they just don't like change!" is bullshit.

[CtrlAltELITE]

On 08/01/2017 at 11:50 AM, samcool55 said:

Well, i hope they realize this is a bad idea.

When war happens again (which is always a matter of when, not if, look at history :p) knowing what's going on is very important.

And getting an AM/FM receiver going is very easy, DAB+ is like,awful. Hopeless.

 

Also as mentioned, cars! Some cars just don't have a DAB+ option at all, no support, nada.

Not even aftermarket ones are available...

 

I wouldn't even say war, without sounding like a crazed prepper, a simple, cheap and widely adopted means of emergency communications is extremely important during times of national disorder, such as civil unrest, war or natural disaster. Digitisation adds layers of complexity and cost to the most basic of communications systems.

[OlavEmil]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Digital radio doesn't run on magic. It will need towers too, and the shift from analog to digital will cost a lot too.

 

From an economical point of view it will probably make sense in the long run but not short term (especially not for the average Joe which doesn't care about audio quality, and don't even know what a DAB+ is ad will have to hire people to fix it).

 

Okay...

 

Yes, the implementation of DAB+ costs money. It is estimated to ~ $120,000,000, or NOK / SEK ~ 1,000,000,000. However, it is not a question whether we need an alternative to FM or not, we definitely do (our FM frequency is packed). The question is, do we keep the FM running in parallell with a proper working system for the future, investing what it takes to keep it running (which will soon reach the same as the implementation of DAB+)? Or do we focus on the one frequency that will actually work for the future, spending the rest of the money on sensible things?

 

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

From a user friendliness point of view this is terrible though. You're going from something that "just werks", to something people will have to put time ad money into getting to work.

 

Huh? DAB+ radios works in a much simpler way than FM radios. No need to put time and money into getting it working, apart from the obvious "buying a radio" part, which of course goes for an FM radio as well.

 

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

And what benefit do they get? Better sound quality, which they probably don't care about that much.

 

Surely I can't be the only one in the world who have been annoyed with radio stations clipping and straight out disappearing when driving from one place to another? This is not an issue with DAB+. This is also what I meant by crystal clear sound, not the sound quality itself. Aparently, the sound quality sent by DAB+ is poorer than what is / can be sent at FM, but that is a purely academical discussion, as you would never get the same sound clarity on FM that you get on DAB+.

[LAwLz]

22 minutes ago, OlavEmil said:

Okay...

 

Yes, the implementation of DAB+ costs money. It is estimated to ~ $120,000,000, or NOK / SEK ~ 1,000,000,000. However, it is not a question whether we need an alternative to FM or not, we definitely do (our FM frequency is packed). The question is, do we keep the FM running in parallell with a proper working system for the future, investing what it takes to keep it running (which will soon reach the same as the implementation of DAB+)? Or do we focus on the one frequency that will actually work for the future, spending the rest of the money on sensible things?

Of course we should move forward and start using DAB (although I do think DAB+ is less than optimal and if you are going to change a thing like this you should do it right from the start).

I am all for the move to digital radio, but I do think that people are brushing the complaints under the rug, and I do think that switching off the FM network could have waited a few more years.

 

25 minutes ago, OlavEmil said:

Huh? DAB+ radios works in a much simpler way than FM radios. No need to put time and money into getting it working, apart from the obvious "buying a radio" part, which of course goes for an FM radio as well.

Do you have any idea how tech-savvy the average person is? They will have a hard time changing the time on their microwave, and now you want them to invest time, energy and money into researching, buying and installing a DAB in their cars? No, "buying a radio" does not go for the FM radio as well, because they already have an FM radio.

It is never user friendly to force people to change from what they already have and works, to something that costs time and money to get working. It is the exact opposite of user friendly. The end result might be better, but the process of getting it working is not. Most people will probably have to consult someone else to get it fixed for them.

 

28 minutes ago, OlavEmil said:

Surely I can't be the only one in the world who have been annoyed with radio stations clipping and straight out disappearing when driving from one place to another? This is not an issue with DAB+. This is also what I meant by crystal clear sound, not the sound quality itself. Aparently, the sound quality sent by DAB+ is poorer than what is / can be sent at FM, but that is a purely academical discussion, as you would never get the same sound clarity on FM that you get on DAB+.

Never had clipping before, but I have had channels disappear during a long drive.

But dude... You're being very misleading if you by "you would never get the same sound clarity on FM that you get on DAB+" and "crystal clear sound" mean "the sound fidelity might be worse, but at least it doesn't cut out".

But anyway, you will probably get higher sound fidelity from DAB+.

[Prysin]

5 hours ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Was just shut down 3 hours ago in my county.

 

First county in the first country without FM and life goes on.

 

Hopefully, TV is next lol

Analogue TV is already dead... only NRK1 and SVT1 sends analogue

[Pitou]

i personally mostly use youtube red through aux in my car, but i can see why people would be upset. I mean hearing your favorite song come on the radio is 200% more fun than just streaming it

[OlavEmil]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Never had clipping before, but I have had channels disappear during a long drive.

But dude... You're being very misleading if you by "you would never get the same sound clarity on FM that you get on DAB+" and "crystal clear sound" mean "the sound fidelity might be worse, but at least it doesn't cut out".

But anyway, you will probably get higher sound fidelity from DAB+.

 

In that case, it is probably a language barrier. What I am talking about is the FM sound you always get unless you are standing right next to the FM mast (skurring or susing, as we would say in Norwegian). You definitely don't have perfect sound in your FM radio all the way until the channel disappears on long drives.

 

I don't know what sound fidelity is. Perhaps that is what the sound experts are talking about, being better (or at least having potential to be better) in FM. Either way, a normal consumer will find the sound in a DAB radio better than in an FM radio.

 

As for the rest, I guess we mostly agree. Yes, change is inconvenient (and not just because "change is bad"), but it is a necessary change, and it is without doubt a change for the better in the long range. I do however feel that this is a good time to discontinue the FM frequency in Norway. 99.7% of our population has DAB coverage for the public channels (NRK) at their homes today, and 92.8% has the same for commercial channels. Our public roads are also very well covered, and will continue to be improved in the time leading up to the closing of FM in the different regions. Personally I have noticed a great improvement in the last year, from often losing DAB connection when driving, especially in tunnels, to basically never having that happen today.

[Paranoid Kami]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Well I will argue against things I disagree with.

The way you argued though pretty much was worded to provoke me into responding. You were being excessively rude and only latched onto some sentence I decided to just add on to the end after the main thing that I wanted to say was done. I don't know what the actual costs are or if there is a health problem of any kind from having too many signals in the air or whatever it is they may be talking about. I would love to have that kind of information though so I can know the reasons for both sides of this issue, but I don't. I added that sentence about people not liking change because it is an issue for some people (not that it's for all). As an example, old people with computers or younger people dealing with a balance patch in the video game they play.