Media: World's first FM switch-off confirmed for 2017

Thorhild Widvey, Norwegian Minister of Culture, has confirmed that
FM switch-off will happen in 2017. (Photo: Ilja C. Hendel)

And it is official. Norway will switch off FM in 2017, as the first country in the world. The government, represented by the Minister of Culture, announced today. The replacement? Digital Audio Broadcasting, usually referred to as DAB+.

Media: All requirements for FM switch-off fulfilled

765 DAB transmitting towers provide 99.5% indoor DAB+ coverage in Norway.

The radio listening figures for the last three months made Ole Jørgen Torvmark a happy man. Over 50% of Norwegians now listen to digital radio daily. That means that all the government's requirements have been fulfilled in order for a switch off of FM to happen in Norway 2017.

Retailers Should Stop Selling FM Radios

FM radios on offer in Moroni in Comores. They do however not have DAB signals in the air.

Norway will switch off FM as the first country in the world in January 2017. Digital Radio Norway is a non-profit organization that provides information about the shift in technology. It also deals with marketing of digital radio and consumer law considerations.

Media: Would You Pay 115 Euro Per Year for Radio?

Stockholm by night. CC licensed photo by linkahwai. 

Sweden is one of the countries that is now planning for an FM switch-off. Because FM is way passed its due date. But also because the internet cannot and will not deliver radio to everyone.

Media: Broadcasting 7 Times Greener Than Streaming

Broadcasted radio consumes much less power than streamed radio.

Sometimes even a non-scientist like me feel like doing some experimentation. To find out how long a mobile phone battery will last if I want to listen to the radio via streaming vs. via broadcasting.

Media: DAB vs. FM Coverage Comparisons

DAB is cheap enough to be used even by a small local radio station using only one transmitter, as shown before. That still doesn’t mean that this way of thinking is not valid for a larger area. It is, although the costs will of course be higher. The bottom line is that DAB will almost always be cheaper than FM.

Media: The Real Cost of Digital Radio

This is Naustdal, my home village on the West Coast of Norway.
My mother, who still lives there, can receive 5 radio stations via FM or over 20 via DAB. 

Digital radio is very expensive. Or at least so we are usually told by wannabe experts. I have previously shown that is not the case. To build a DAB+ network from scratch is actually cheaper than staying on FM. But what is the real cost of building digital radio in Norway?

Media: The FM Bets Are On

Which country will be the first to switch off FM? Norway has long been in the lead. Apparantly. It's been a little over two years since the government in the land of the midnight sun decided to switch off FM in January 2017. Given some preconditions. Denmark later followed with 2019 as a tentative FM switch-off date, whereas Sweden as the third Nordic country said 2022 only last month.

Why Remaining on FM is More ExpensiveThan Building DAB+ From Scratch

The Tryvann Tower, Oslo. 

I travel a fair amount and often speak to people about distribution related issues around the world. In most countries the attitude is that it will be very expensive to introduce digital radio via DAB+.

- Because we already have an FM network, and building a new digital network is much more expensive, they say.

They are wrong. Why? Because they forget to take into account that it costs a lot of money to run an FM network. You can build it, but it will not run for free. Far from it. An FM network costs more to run than a DAB+ network, a lot more if you want a selection of channels. FM needs one transmitter for every radio station while one DAB+ transmitter can broadcast up to 20 radio stations.

A real life example 

I will exemplify, using figures from Norway, where FM will be switched off in January 2017. Digital radio via DAB/DAB+ is already in place covering more than 80% of the population. By the end of 2014, DAB+ will cover more than 99.5% of the population with almost 20 radio stations  (only one radio station (NRK P1) currently covers the same amount of people).

Table: See the comparisons year by year.

FM now

Let us say that to transmit NRKs radio stations on FM costs 1,000 USD a year (the real figure is many thousand times higher). This gives one station (P1) to 99.5% of the people while P2 reaches 99% and P3 reaches 95%. Two additional radio stations (NRK mP3 and NRK Always News) reach 30% of the 
population and only those in the biggest cities.    

FM upgrades needed if not phased out

Of course, FM would need a total makeover if it were to be continued past 2016, and the price would then increase to 1,400 USD per year from 2015. This is a cost that is almost always forgotten by those not in favour of digitalization.

DAB/DAB+ now

To transmit up to 20 radio stations (NRK still has not decided exactly how many radio stations they will offer) to 99.5% of the people will then cost 1,030 USD, only 3% more than FM now but with up to 300% more stations and all those stations to everyone. 

Do note that this is 36% cheaper than if staying on FM! And I repeat, with DAB everyone gets the same stations, and many more so than with FM. Much more democratic and much more friendly to those living in the countryside.  

Double distribution

Of course you will also have to take into account double distribution, of both FM and DAB/DAB+. The FM costs will be the same as mentioned above, although somewhat reduced the last two years as it is being phased out, saving 1400 USD as opposed to continuing with FM only. NRK currently has 15 radio stations that reaches over 80% of the population via DAB (coverage increases monthly and will reach 90% by the end of 2013 and 99.5% by the end of 2014).

To transmit DAB in addition to FM costs 250 USD in 2012, 600 USD in 2013 and 870 USD in 2014 (before reaching 1,030 USD per year from 2015). This additional cost of DAB for the five years of 2012, 2013, 204, 2015 and 2016 adds up to 3,780 USD. NRK will however save 1,400 USD in the same period on FM as it is being phased out. The real extra cost of double distribution for those five years is therefore 2,380 USD.

As DAB (1030 USD per year) is cheaper than an upgraded FM (1400 USD per year), NRK will start paying less per year already in 2017, while the accumulated costs will be lower five and a half years later, in June 2022. With a much more modern network with many more stations to everyone. And modern radio that can handle parallel and additional services too. Both NRK and the listeners win.   

Governmental reassurance is needed

Of course, NRK could not gamble on increasing DAB coverage to 99.5% unless the Norwegian government had actually decided to switch off FM in January 2017 (they decided to do so in May 2011). That decision made it possible for NRK to plan how to manage its distribution costs in order to give a much better offering to its audiences. Governments and broadcasters in other countries may find a useful lesson in the Norwegian example.

Work together and save more

What if you do not need up to 20 radio stations? Well, work with someone and cut your costs in half or less! Again, with FM, you will need one transmitter for each station, with DAB+ you can have 20 stations per transmitter. If you need 10 stations, work with someone else on the technical distribution and save 50%. If you need fewer stations than that you can save even more. Work together on distribution and technical issues, compete on content. Your costs will go down, your margins will go up.

And no. The internet will not take over for broadcasted radio.

Note:

For this example's sake, a price of current FM distribution was set to 1,000 USD per year. All other figures can be seen in relation to this. They are based on NRK figures.

Singapore's DAB Troubles Explained

Creative Commons photo by Augustin Rafael Reyes.

Digital radio via DAB will cease to exist in Singapore from December 1, 2011 it was reported today. That must be a major blow to those of us that promote DMB/DAB/DAB+, right?

Not at all. There is no drama here, as I will explain, although those opposing DAB will probably use this for what they think it is worth. There are several reasons why Singapore switches off DAB, a little over 10 years after their first broadcast. None of them are dramatic to DMB/DAB/DAB+ elsewhere.

1. Singapore is one of the very smallest country in the world, measuring only 693 square kilometers. That means that FM can cover the island state with a few transmitters per radio station. There is therefore not much money, in real terms, to save.

2. DAB has been a little on and off in Singapore. That means that there hasn't been much reliability for listeners. If there is no security, fewer of them will buy receivers. The government never initiated a switch off date for FM, nor a clear policy on the matter.

3. The available bandwidth has not been used efficiently. There has been 13 radio stations on air. In addition there are over 20 data services available, although these have been available to few people due to lack of compatible devices. The high number of services has affected sound quality and it has been like wasting bandwidth.

4. There are no stations available only via DAB. The 13 stations are all simulcast with FM, something that does not give people much of an incentive to buy DAB radios.

5. Media laws in Singapore are strict. They do have freedom of speech in theory and in their constitution. But reports say differently: "Freedom of speech is abysmal at best." Abysmal? It means "extremely or hopelessly bad or severe." Why would the government open up for a technology that gives listeners a wider range of choice, and potentially more critical news reports, if they can limit this effectively by limiting bandwidt as they are essentially doing by staying with FM?

6. The DAB network in Singapore seems to have been built in a less than ideal manner so that coverage is not great in all areas. Such problems create insecurity among listeners and slows purchases and thus uptake of the technology. (This point has been made after feedback from readers of this blog post.)

I still believe that this is a backward decision. DMB/DAB/DAB+ gives a wide range of opportunities and I have previously listed 21 reasons why FM should be switched off.

Half a billion people in over 40 countries are covered by DMB, DAB and/or DAB+ signals. My guess is that Singapore will launch DMB/DAB/DAB+ yet again within three years, although then better planned.

FM may not be built very well either
The following anonymous comments were posted to this blog post, allegedly from someone who knows Singapore.
In one part of Singapore FM cannot be received for some technical reasons all of the signals are mixed up so no FM station is clear. [...] This meant that a lot of people in the area went out and purchased very expensive DAB radios so they have radio. [...] I think the radio company has conveniently forgotten about their problem with FM in our area.

Why FM Must Go

I want a good selection of radio stations and merchandise in shops.
This little shop on wheels is in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq. 

The Internet cannot substitute broadcasting as a distribution method for radio. I have covered this before: A Collapse of the Internet Narrowly Avoided - Why 4G is Hyped - 21 Reasons Why FM is Almost History - Internet Radio Expensive in France Too.

So has radio futurologist James Cridland: 3G - radio's future? - 4G for radio? No thanks.

Radio needs broadcasting. FM is broadcasting. Is radio via FM too valuable to society to be switched off and substituted by DAB/DAB+?

Before answering this question, let me ask and answer some others. Was analogue TV too valuable to society to be switched off and substituted by digital TV? No, this has already happened in most western countries. Why? Because television viewers demanded more channels of higher quality and analogue TV was too expensive and not advanced enough to provide this. And people watch more television than they watch radio in most western countries (182 vs. 101 minutes per day in Norway). Did viewers complain? Hardly at all.

So, how about radio? The FM frequencies are full. That means that there is no more room for additional radio channels. FM is very expensive due to high power consumption (one transmitter is needed per channel) and a lot of transmitters required to cover large areas. But maybe the existing radio channels are enough, maybe people are happy with the current selection. If that is the case, maybe FM is so valuable that it cannot be switched off.

But this way of arguing is like speaking for maintaining the shop system that has always been present in a communist country. The food selection consists of two kinds of cheese (both from the same valley), three kinds of bread (all white), one kind of butter (who needs low fat anyway?) and a couple salami types (made by a mixture of animals you don't even want to be able to name).

Who is satisfied by this? Well, the customers have never know that French cheese, brown bread and baguettes, Irish butter and hundreds of kinds of sandwich meat from a range of animals even exist. They have therefore never complained very much (unless the food was outdated or tasted worse than normal). Neither has the farmers providing the cheese or the bakeries making the bread. They have always seen very little competition. That is good for business. They are virtually guaranteed a profit, no matter how low the quality of their food. Why would they want to change this?

Let the fight begin
Competition forces better quality. That is also true for radio.

In Norway, Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) had a monopoly on television and radio until the early 90s. Most people (even those of us employed by NRK) think that the quality of programmes improved greatly after commercial competitors entered the scene. After all, people suddenly had a choice. That means that they don't have to pick your product or programme anymore.

I would like the same to happen again to radio. More frequencies. More choice. More possibilities for good radio, new related services, interactive radio and on demand too. And I live in a country of less than 5 million people. Imagine what the situation is like in other, more populous countries. Where the market for new top quality radio stations with talented on-air personalities may be blooming, but where there are no available frequencies.

In order to make more frequencies available and enable a fair competitive environment, FM needs to be switched off in a range of countries. Not only in Norway. So that there aren't possibilities for "communist shops" anywhere anymore. Not even where the listeners are too busy listening to their existing channels to even bother to try the new ones.

Radio channels should fight for their listeners. Before fighting you have to train. A lot. Those who train become better. Those who train the most usually win the fights. If both sides train equally much you get good fights. Let the fights begin, on even ground. Switch off FM. Give even better radio to the people.

So, is radio via FM too valuable to society to be switched off? Not more than "small communist shops." They are valuable to society if located inside a museum. The same is the case with FM which should continue to exist in a museum, where it is heading and where it very soon belongs.

The 2800% Difference

There are huge differences between countries when it comes to broadcasting and how broadcasting networks must be built and operated. Topography, legislation, urbanization and the number of people all play a role when determining the strategy for a transfer from anaologue radio to digital radio. Why do these things matter?

Topography and geography
Mountains, bodies of water and big buildings reflect radio signals. Digital signals are strengthened through reflections, analogue signals are destroyed. The size of the country does also play an important part, so does neighboring countries.

Legislation
Some governments have set a preliminary switch off date for FM, others are merely following the market, yet others are expected to decide on one certain date and ensure predictability for both broadcasters and listeners. Legislation is also relevant when it comes to how powerful the radio signals can be (laws govern maximum radiated power from transmitters).

Urbanization
In some countries most people live in towns and cities which require few transmitters. Other countries have a much more rural population pattern which requires more transmitters and makes it much more expensive to cover the country.  

Population
A big population increases the potential revenue base and lowers the cost per reached listener.

To cover two countries with radio signals can never be seen as two identical operations. Even the type of trees in a forest or the temperature of water affects how signals are spread and therefore also how networks have to be built in order to provide good coverage to the end users..

2800%
I have listed examples from Denmark, Norway and the UK below to show certain differences. Let's look at how many people an average transmitter reaches:

The reach of one average FM transmitter 
1) Denmark: 69,356 persons
2) UK: 52,219 persons
3) Norway: 2,421 persons

The average FM transmitter in the UK does in other words reach 21 times more people than in Norway while the average FM transmitter in Denmark reaches 28 times more people. That's a difference of 2800% per transmitter.

The reach of one average DAB transmitter
1) UK: 124,700 persons
2) Denmark: 50,227 persons
3) Norway: 8,954 persons

With DAB, the difference is cut in half between the UK and Norway, but not in Denmark where they reach fewer people per DAB transmitter than what is the case with FM. The reason is that the power for a DAB transmitter can be substantially lower and still give similar results (due to the robustness of a digital signal). Even with 50% additional DAB transmitters that give the listeners 200% more radio stations, the electricity costs still go down for the Danes.

Cutting power, boosting choice
The costs for Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) to transmit via FM is extremelly high, especially when you look at the cost per person. So much for being a radio broadcaster in the worlds most beautiful country in the world.

In Norway 23% of the population lives in small villages or even more isolated from neighbours. And the country is among the 7 biggest ones in Europe area wise. In smaller Denmark and the UK a higher percentage of the population lives in towns and cities. 

The extremeties of Norway makes it natural for Norway to show the way, to be the first to switch off FM. Britain has already opened up for analogue switch off in 2015, but this depends on the willingness among Brits to get access to more radio stations and go green. Can Norway beat them to it? No shut off date for FM in Norway exists quite yet, but to get one in place and start telling people about the obvious benefits would greatly help the budgets of broadcasters and give them more money for programming. Plus provide many more radio stations to everyone, in a more environmentally friendly manner as NRK will only need half the electricity for many more radio stations when FM is history and DAB reaches everyone.

Money will certainly also be saved also in Britain where we are looking at estimations that show electricity being cut to less that a third. Denmark is smaller and easier to cover, but even there estimated savings on electricity will amount to 20%. And if or when we see a successfull switch off in Norway, that may help pave the way for others.

Why cover everyone?
Of course, there is no need to cover everyone in a country. Those living on rural farms or islands have preety much chosen to do so themselves and should face the consequences. Shouldn't they? Well, commercial broadcasters rarely reach everyone in a country with their signals. But public service broadcasters have an obligation through the way they are financed (the license fees) to cover everyone. The BBC, DR and NRK are all license funded public service broadcasters.

I have used information made available online by the public service broadcasters in Denmark, Norway and the UK to examplify differences. The following estimates are based on my own counts, understanding of available information and calculations:

Denmark
Area:  43,094 sq. km.
Population: 5,525,000
Persons per sq. km.:  128
Urbanization: 87% of population 
Terrain: Flat, some hills, no mountains. 

DR via FM (4 radio stations)
Sites: 25
Transmitters: 79
Persons per transmitter on average: 69,936
Estimated power consumption per year: 3.3 million kWh
Persons per kWh per year: 1.7

DR via DAB (18 radio stations)
Sites: 55
Transmitters: 110 (2 multiplexes)
Persons per transmitter on average: 50,227
Estimated power consumption per year: 2.6 million kWh
Persons per kWh per year: 2.1

Norway
Area: 323,802 sq. km. 
Population: 4,925,000 
Persons per sq. km.:  15
Urbanization: 77% of population  
Terrain: Huge amounts of rugged mountains broken by valleys and fjords, small scattered plains.

NRK via FM (1-5 radio stations)
Sites: 1,179
Transmitters: 2,034
People per transmitter on average: 2,421
Estimated power consumption per year: 19 million kWh
Persons per kWh per year: 0.26

NRK via DAB (13 radio stations)
Sites: 550
Transmitters: 550
People per transmitter on average: 8,954
Estimated power consumption per year: 9.5 million kWh
Persons per kWh per year: 0.52

UK
Area: 243,610 sq. km.  
Population: 62,350,000
Persons per sq. km.: 256
Urbanization: 90% of population  
Terrain: Predominantly flat with rugged hills, some low mountains.

BBC via FM (1-5 radio stations)
Sites: 395
Transmitters: 1,194
People per transmitter on average: 52,219
Estmated kWh per year: 29 million kWh
Persons per kWh per year: 2.15

BBC via DAB (11 radio stations)
Sites: 500
Transmitters: 500
People per transmitter on average: 124,700
Estmated kWh per year: 8 million kWh
Persons per kWh per year: 7.8

Sources: 
CIA - The World Factbook, IDAG, World DMB, transmitter maps from Denmark, Norway and the UK.

Why Doesn't Consumerism Apply to Digital Radio?

Wikipedia defines consumerism as a social and economic order that is based on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase goods and services in ever greater amounts.
Every year, more than 2.2 million mobile phones, 1.3 million small kitchen appliances, 600,000 television sets, 500,000 digital cameras and 250,000 DVD/Blue-ray players are sold every year in Norway according to the Organization of Consumer Electronics.

Let's look at the biggest group of electronics. Out of the 2,2 million mobile phones sold every year, only 36,000 are returned for recycling. That is barely more than a percent and a half. And keep in mind that the average life of a mobile phone in this country is less than 18 months.

77% of the phones that are sold have 3G capabilities, meaning that they are relatively advanced, probably costing at least 200 USD. And those who 'need' the best and latest can easily pay five times that for a phone.

But people do not complain about having to replace their phone almost once a year. You may argue that it is due to personal choice, but most phones don't last much longer even if you want them to. Not a surprise really, given that they are carried everywhere, switched on 24/7, recharged every night, spilled on, sat on, occasionally dropped and used for everything from internet surfing, game plays and navigation to phone calls, text messages and calculations.

So it may be OK to pay 200-1,000 dollars every 18 months to get a new and fancier than last time. After allm they are also fashion items. Or so Steve's people have made us believe.

What's that got to do with it?
We are at the same time discussing the possibility to switch off analogue radio, or FM. That is causing some people to cry out load and object. Because that means that the radio receiver they have had for 4, 14 or 44 years and paid 44, 14 or 4 dollars for will no longer work. Disastrous! And not at all environmentally friendly, damnit! Neither is getting 1.3 million kitchen appliances every year.

Well, by switching off FM, you will actually save millions and millions of kWh a year. That's green! And the broadcasters will save millions of dollars that they can use to create better programmes to their listeners. Including you. Eveveryone will get access to many more radio stations, the DAB receivers are more user friendly than their FM brothers and you can even get higher sound quality if the broadcasters so decide (by providing enough bandwidth).

You will not even have to get a new radio. As was the case with analogue switch off for television (did you complain about that too?) you can get an acessory, an extra box if you like, that receives DAB and retransmits the signal via a very low powered FM transmitter so that your existing FM radio can receive it.

In Norway alone, 800,000 radios are sold every year (not including radios in mobile phones). How about if FM is swicthed off in 5 years? Most households will by then have purchased a new radio anyway - without buying a radio that you wouldn't anyhow have purchased, why not make that new one a DAB radio?

Also radio relevant:
2034 Transmitters are 1484 Too Many.
DAB 20 Times Greener than FM.
Help the BBC Save 74%.

Help the BBC Save 74%

How much will the BBC in Britain save on electricity by going from analogue radio transmission via FM to digital radio transmission via DAB?

I have earlier looked at Norway with it's very challenging topography and found that DAB is 20 times greener than FM. The mountains and valleys do however help digital coverage as the signals can bounce back and forth, making them stronger. The opposite is the case for analogue signals that are weakened or even killed in the case of reflections from mountains. There are few mountains in the UK.

I do not have inside knowledge about the transmitters in Britain, but the BBC is open about such matters and have made the info on transmitters publicly available on their website. Based on this, I have looked at all their FM and DAB transmitters listed there. The figures listed are however in ERP (effective radiated power), whereas the actual power usage is typically 2.5-10 times lower. Here are the figures (based on my own count, estimates and calculations):

FM, 99.8% coverage
Number of sites (towers/antennas): 395
Number of transmitters: 1,194
Wattage: 2,349kW
Average wattage per transmitter (not ERP): 1.97 kW
Increase in power needed due to amplifiers: 140%
Electricity used per year: 28,829,694 kWh

DAB, 86% coverage
Number of sites (towers/antennas): 231
Number of transmitters: 231
Wattage: 107 kW
Average wattage per transmitter (not ERP): 461W
Increase in power needed due to amplifiers: 400%
Electricity used per year: 3,736,836 kWh

The 1-6 radio stations transmitted via FM (based on coverage areas) does in other words use 7.7 times more electricity than the 11 radio stations transmitted via DAB. But the coverage of some of the FM channels are better than for DAB in certain areas, so we have to take that into account.

The current coverage of DAB is 86%, with 231 transmitters. It is always more costly to cover the last few percentages than the first, so let us assume that the BBC needs twice as many DAB receivers as today to cover 99.8% of the UK. That means 462 transmitters and sites. I'll even round that up to 500.

Based on the average wattage of the existing transmitters, we'll then get the following scenario:

DAB, 99.8% coverage (estimate)
Number of sites (towers/antennas): 500
Number of transmitters: 500
Wattage: 230 kW
Average wattage per transmitter (not ERP): 461W
Increase in power needed due to amplifiers: 400%
Electricity used per year: 8,088,390 kWh

With this estimate FM still consumes 3.6 times more electricity than DAB. Electricity prices in the UK are typically between 6.5 and 12 pence per kWh. Let us say that the BBC has managed to bargain on the price as they use a fair amount of juice. I have calculated electricity costs based on three different scenarios.

1) Great bargaining skills, paying an average throughout every day of the year of 5p per kWh.
2) OK bargaining skills, paying an average throughout every day of the year of 7.5 pence per kWh.
3) Poor bargaining skills, paying an average throughout every day of the year of 10p per kWh.

That gives us the following costs, in electricity alone, per year.

Scenario 1, 5p per kwH, 99.8% coverage
FM: 1,441,485 GBP a year
DAB: 404,420 GBP a year
Savings: 1 million GBP per year.

Scenario 2, 7.5p per kwH, 99.8% coverage
FM: 2,162,227 GBP a year
DAB: 606,629 GBP a year
Savings: 1.6 million GBP per year.

Scenario 3, 10p per kwH, 99.8% coverage
FM: 2,882,969 GBP a year
DAB: 808,839 GBP a year
Savings: 2 million GBP per year.

What's the damage?
BBC can in other words save approximately 1.6 million British pounds or 2.5 million USD a year, based on electricity costs alone in the least extreme scenario, if shutting off FM and transmitting only digitally. That is 74% less that what it costs for FM, in electricity that is.

Note that the numbers of transmitters are lower for DAB, whereas the number of sites are actually higher. This is the opposite of what is the case in Norway. Why is this? Topography plays a role, as mentioned above. But if you look at the transmitters you can also see a major power difference. Some of the FM transmitters are very powerful, the most powerful ones outputting 250 kW. The most powerful DAB transmitter does in comparison only output 10 kW.

FM can be shut off in 2015 if 50% of the listening in Britain happens digitally by 2013 (two years notice is required). You can in other words contribute to the BBC saving money (paid by you through the licence fee) on radio distribution and leave more money to quality programmes by listening to DAB instead of listening to FM. You will also help the environment and get a better selection of radio stations as a bonus.

Go green and help the BBC save your* money.

* Only applicable if you live in Britain and do pay the licence fee.

Also relevant:
DAB 20 Times Greener Than FM.

2034 Transmitters Are 1484 Too Many

This transmitter on Røverkollen north
of Oslo is one of 53 big ones. Neither
of those will be taken down, but
remain in use for digital radio.  

There are currently 2,034 FM transmitters in use to broadcast the radio stations of NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Cooperation) in Norway. What does that mean, exactly? Is that a lot or not? Well, there are 4,925,000 inhabitants in the land of the midnight sun, a very rural country with a lot of villages and remote farms, deep fjords and wild mountains. The topography and geography makes the country very hard to cover with any kind of a signal. Thanks to the stunning but challenging nature (especially in Northern Norway (where I was born :) and on the West Coast (where I grew up ;)), one transmitter is needed for every 2,421 persons, on average.

Let us compare with Denmark, a country with 5,525,000 inhabitants. Norway is 7.5 times bigger area wise and Denmark has no mountains (barred a few hills stretching less than half the height of Empire State Building), so the comparison is not quite fair. Nevertheless, they only need 79 transmitters to cover their country with four main channels. That means one transmitter for every 69,936 person on average. A slightly less expensive country to cover, in other words.

Let's return to Norway where the 2,034 transmitters have been put up on 1,179 sites (there are 25 sites in Denmark). A site is a tower or an antenna.

Why are there more transmitters than sites? 
There are more transmitters than sites because one FM transmitter can only broadcast one radio station. So if you want two radio stations in an area, you will need two FM transmitters, but only one site or antenna. In Norway NRKs three main stations P1, P2 and P3 are being broadcast via FM to 'everyone' while the two niche stations mP3 and NRK Always News are being broadcast in only 13 towns and cities. 'Everyone' means 99.8% of the population for P1, above 95% for P2 and above 90% for P3.

The situation is very different in a much better way with digital radio which, in 35 countries across the world, means DMB, DAB and DAB+. One such transmitter can transmit all the radio channels simultaneously. That saves electricity, but it more importantly ensures that 'everyone' will get all NRKs radio stations. 'Everyone' will in this case mean at least the same as what is currently the case for P1, NRKs main radio channel, an impressive 99,8%.

When the Norwegian government decides to switch off FM and digitalize radio as the last media, the number of sites will be cut in two to between 500 and 600. A similar number of towers can in other words be taken down and the equipment reused elsewhere or recycled. The number of transmitters will be cut in three or even four to the same number as sites needed to cover at least 99.8% of the population, between 500 and 600. That means a reduction of between 1,434 and 1,534 transmitters used for radio. The transmitters that are owned and operated by Norkring, a Telenor subsidiary, may in some cases also be used for other kinds of transmissions.

In addition to the three main radio stations and the two niche ones, NRK has eight additional niche stations (NRK Gold, NRK Sports, NRK Super, NRK Classical Music, NRK Jazz, NRK Folk Music, NRK Weather and NRK Sami (in Lappish)) that are available via DAB and web radio. By digitalizing radio, everyone will get access to all thirteen radio stations (plus additional commercial radio stations). Some people would call that democratization, others would call it choice.

DAB: Everyone Gets Everything (Alle får alt).

Also relevant:
DAB is 20 Times Greener Than FM.

21 Reasons Why FM is Almost History. 

21 Reasons Why FM is Almost History

FM is almost history. In more and more countries. Governments, broadcasters, receiver manufacturers and last but nowhere near least the listeners realize that radio is one of the most important medias we have and that it cannot be the only one that has not been digitalized with all related advantages. 

OK, so FM is about to retire. That might be about time after 77 years. But what will be the replacement?
  

NMTVs DMB transmitter being installed at Kolsås, outside Oslo.

That's an easy question to answer. DMB, DAB and DAB+ are all part of the same family of standards. This family is now the de facto standard out there for digital radio and mobile TV and is more than ready to take over the job from FM. It is also an open standard and available to all, as opposed to i.e. HD Radio which is proprietary and controlled by iBiquity Digital Corporation or DVB-H (Death of a Standard) which never made it as it, among other reasons, was controlled by telecom operators which acted as an gatekeeper between the broadcaster and the listener.

DMB, DAB and DAB+ will take over and secure a digital and future compatible radio transmission for more and more people. A lot of people will have to get new receivers or to modify the existing ones, but the switch offs are necessary and positive for radio as a media. Due to a number of reasons. I have listed 21 whys below.

DAB and DAB+ are for radio, whereas DMB is mainly for mobile TV (although it can also be used for radio). DMB, DAB and DAB+ are however all flavours of the same family of standards. They do in other words work together and make each other stronger through increased flexibility and versatility. I will hereafter in this blog post refer to them combined as DMB.

The 21 whys.

1) BECAUSE OF TRANSMISSION COSTS. DMB is much cheaper for broadcasters that can now save money that is better spent on producing more and better radio and TV programmes as well as new services on the Internet and mobile. Let me use Norway as an example. The public service broadcaster in Norway is called NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation). It is license funded and reaches 84% of all Norwegian every day. The FM network that covers Norway consists of over 2000 (two thousand!) transmitters. And these monsters love electricity! It costs an estimated 15 million USD a year to keep feeding them with electricity. To reach the same 98,5% of all Norwegians (there are 4,9 million of them) with DMB will require around 500 transmitters. And that is not all. FM is a very old technology, so if FM is to be continued longer than a few years most of the transmitters must be changed or upgraded. That would cost millions and millions.
Also relevant: DAB is 20 Times Greener Than FM. 

2) BECAUSE OF CHANNEL AVAILABILITY. These 2000+ transmitters ensure access for most Norwegians to only 3 out of NRKs 15 radio stations. Those living in major cities get up to 12 NRK stations via FM. With DMB all 15 radio stations from NRK and 10-15 commercial radio stations will be accessible to everyone. Why? Because a single FM transmitter can only broadcast one radio station. A single DMB transmitter can transmit ALL radio stations and mobile TV channels. 

3) BECAUSE OF USABILITY. To find a radio station on FM can take time. And to find out which radio stations that are actually available and how many there are of them. You will have to search for the right frequency, and most radio receivers do not show the name of the station. All DMB receivers have a screen where the name of the station is displayed. 

4) BECAUSE OF HARDWARE COSTS. It has so far been very costly for broadcasters to aquire the needed hardware (encoders, servers) to be able to transmit DMB. This has been a burden especially for local or small radio stations. We have now seen a change in this field through the introduction of software based coders and other equipment. The EBU (European Broadcasting Union) has showed how a radio station can be put on air through equipment costing less than 4000 USD.

5) BECAUSE SALES ARE UP. Sales of DMB radios in those countries where DMB has been introduced and properly marketed have been increasing since the introduction of the technology despite the lack of an FM switch off date. This is the case both in Norway and other countries such as the UK, Denmark, Switzerland and Australia.

6) BECAUSE TV DIGITALIZED WITHOUT PROBLEMS. Television was digitalized almost with virtually no problems or complains from users. There has not been a drop in numbers of television viewers after the switch over, and virtually everyone has purchased a digital set-up box required to receive terrestrial TV. Naturally very few people purchased digital set up boxes before they were told that they had to. The same message is now very clear also for radio, although with a longer time perspective.

7) BECAUSE OF MOBILE TV. DAB/DAB+ is, as mentioned in the introduction, part of the DMB standard. If you buy a DMB receiver (called MiniTV in Norway) you will also get access to all the DAB/DAB+ radio stations.

8) BECAUSE BROADCASTING IS BEST FOR THIS PURPOSE. DMB is a broadcasting technology which makes it possible for an indefinite number of people to listen to radio at the same time. As opposed to web radio where bandwidth is limited and has to be shared with everyone using the Internet for other purposes. (Why the Internet Won't Solve Everything.)

9) BECAUSE OF MOBILE RECEPTION. DMB works well in speeds up to 900 km/h (tested on planes). Such broadcasts can via only one transmitter cover vast areas. And the radio station will not disappear when driving as the technology automatically always staus on the same station (given that there is coverage).

10) BECAUSE OF AN INCREASINGLY GLOBAL MARKET. More and more countries are introducing DMB. In 2011 there will be broadcasts on air in around 40 countries, covering over 300 million people. So this is not only about a few countries with weird ideas. 

11) BECAUSE IT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. New DMB receivers consume less power than FM receivers. So do the transmitters (see point 1). Less power consumption is good for the environment and lowers your electricity bill. And it provides longer battery life in the case of a battery powered receiver.

12) BECAUSE OF SOUND QUALITY. This has been a controversial subject as a lot of people opposing DMB has spent effort critizising the sound quality. But feedback from listeners show that most of them prefer the digital sound. As it is crisper, they say.

13) BECAUSE LISTENERS WANT TO GET RID OF FINE TUNING. Forget the days when you have to fine tune into the right frequency in order to get a clear signal. With DMB you get a list of the available channels, by name, and just pick the one you like. It will thereafter stay on the same radio channel, even if you are driving, until you decide to switch.

14) BECAUSE OF PROVEN SUCCESS. We have seen an analogue radio switch off before. Radio via AM was switched off in Switzerland two years ago and replaced by DMB. There are now more listeners via DMB than ever via AM.

15) BECAUSE OF SOLIDARITY. Why do we need DMB when we can listen to radio via the Internet? The Internet cannot supply everyone with radio. It is not wide enough. Even less so when the household is far away from the switches that are located in towns and cities. You can currently listen to radio via the Internet without any problems because very few others do it. If everyone has to, no one can. Solidarity also applies to media consumption. More on related issues in an earlier blog post: (Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything.)

16) BECAUSE YOU GET EXTRA INFORMATION. You are via DMB given information on which station you listen to, and this is usually expanded to also provide information on which song that is playing, who is in the studio and breaking news.

17) BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES. There are vast possibilities for additional services when you can combine broadcasting with a return channel (i.e. the Internet). Some examples:

a) Touch screen shopping (touch the sun glasses of Robbie Williams (on an album cover or a music video), change the colour and buy them)

b) Voting (vote for your favourite Idol singer, or on which song to play next).

c) Social media (like or dislike programmes and share your opinion with your friends).

d) On demand programming (chose to watch or listen to the next episode of your favourite show (downloaded or streamed via return channel) after an exciting broadcasted cliffhanger).

e) Touch the screen while listening to music on the radio to see the cover, read news about the artist and to buy and download the song or the album. 

18) BECAUSE OF THE SELECTION OF RECEIVERS. There are around a thousand different DMB receiver models out there, and counting. Most of them lack a big screen, and are only for DAB/DAB+. But the standard being mature and internationally used makes it much easier for receiver manufacturers to produce receiver without taking big risks. And a big markets make receivers cheaper. Are we looking at a win-win situation? It certainly seems like it.

19) BECAUSE RADIO SHOULDN’T BE THE ONLY ANAOLGUE MEDIA LEFT. It just doesn't make sense to leave the oldest media we have, an the second most popular after broadcasted television, as the only one that has not gone digital. Being the oldest doesn't mean that it should be the only old fashioned one, without any possibilities for extra services, additional information or interaction with other media. 

20) BECAUSE DOUBLE DISTRIBUTION IS WASTEFUL. Currently most radio stations broadcast via both DMB and FM. That is costly and a waste of resources. Broadcasters need to be able to plan ahead.

21) BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT UNDERSTANDS ITS ROLE. The government sees the need for letting broadcasters have a future that can be planned and budgeted. And they understand that some people will not get DMB receivers as long as there is an offer via FM. The government is now taking the responsibility and is helping contribute to a better and more versatile future for radio.

Did I forget any reasons? Or are you not agreeing? Comments are welcome below.

Do keep in mind that radio will not and should not be available only via DMB. I have earlier argued that combination is the new king, and I believe in a future in which distribution of radio and TV will occur on many platforms, including via the Internet. But radio is a medium which is best enjoyed by most people live, and live transmissions to many are superiorly performed through broadcasting.

"Impending Retirement" 
What does impending retirement mean, by the way? Well, FM was patterned almost 80 years ago, and as is the case with everyone who has done a job for ages and who still loves their job, it is kind of difficult to make them quit entirely (nor do you always want them to). My guess is that the first countries will switch off FM around 2015. Great Britain has already indicated such a date, whereas other countries such as Norway, Netherlands and Germany has this high up on the agenda. On the other hand, it only took around two years from Norway decided to switch off analogue TV until the first transitter was silenced (the switch off was finalized in December 2009), and they didn't lose a single viewing minute by doing that. So why not speed up the process? Listeners love quality radio and will be happy to contribute to more money being put into programming than into the distribution of it.