Why UK FM Needn't Be Killed For Broadband

superglaze writes "Alarmed by rumours of the UK telecoms regulator Ofcom considering a shut-down of FM radio in order to give more spectrum over to broadband, ZDNet UK's Rupert Goodwins has proposed another idea: the reuse of the mostly disused 'Band I' and the creation of a new, national open mesh network — a plan that could bring internet connectivity to everyone at very low cost."

Comments

Way too logical

[tqft]

No revenue for kickbacks
No gatekeeper to charge ISP fees
No gatekeeper to monitor who is being naughty or nice

Quick do it now and do it fast before Rupert or Richard snaffle it.

They can't kill FM any time soon

[Nick Fel]

I don't know what Ofcom is thinking. Take-up on digital radio is low, costs are still high, and the benefits to the consumer are minimal when compared to digital TV. I really can't imagine people retrofitting every car and replacing every alarm clock.

Re:They can't kill FM any time soon

[Anonymous Coward]

There's one other huge issue - digital radio works via multiplexes, where single TX companies handle many transmitters. You can't run a single station on DAB; you have to go pay a multiplex. This costs huge amounts of money. Community radio and low power FM/restricted license FM (for event coverage, for instance) still have to be able to broadcast, even if you say you're going to put all commercial stuff on DAB, but DAB isn't a replacement for FM just yet. A lot needs to be done in organization and legislation to make sure it's an even playing field; right now, companies get the say over where you can broadcast if you want to, as opposed to right now where Ofcom decides that. Not good.

Re:They can't kill FM any time soon

[mattsday]

Exactly this. I have a DAB (Digital) Radio in my car. However, I find myself using FM (or even AM) about 20-30% of the time just to get a good signal.

Problems I've had:

• No graceful degradation of quality. There are three modes - good, awful and "no signal". By 'awful' think a poorly encoded MP3 from a scratched CD downloaded in ASCII mode.
• Semi-frequent drop-outs. I read that most people listen to the radio in their cars these days. However, even sticking to the UK Motorway system, I end up with "No Signal" quite frequently, even along major routes.
• Time lag - DAB lags more than a couple of seconds behind FM, so when I'm using the 'pips' to set my watch it's off by a long way (minor grudge I guess)

In short, I'm someone who went and bought in to the DAB idea and I like some features (e.g. having 5 live and Absolute Radio available in most places not counting the above). However, I think DAB needs some serious re-thinks before it can fully replace FM. Unless you can drive the length of the country and experience the same reception and quality as FM then it shouldn't be replaced.

Re:They can't kill FM any time soon

[itsdapead]

Contrary to that most people belive, you do NOT have a god-given right to listen to radio on a device that was sold before the semiconductor was invented.

Whereas people do have a god-given right to wireless broadband wherever they choose to live?

Anyhow, the issue is not people having to replace the 1930 cat's whisker rig in their living room: its people having to replace all the cheap, modern FM radios in their bedrooms, cars, boats, showers, potting sheds, phones/personal audio players with expensive DAB sets which might not even be able to receive a signal and offer few other advantages.

Don't do it over night, but set a clear deadline, ie. 2015, 2020.

...and people will ignore it until right before the deadline :-)

You also need to have a viable alternative in place - currently, DAB is not that alternative.

Re:They can't kill FM any time soon

[itsdapead]

I don't know what Ofcom is thinking. Take-up on digital radio is low, costs are still high, and the benefits to the consumer are minimal when compared to digital TV. I really can't imagine people retrofitting every car and replacing every alarm clock.

Hmm. Is the DAB band any good for broadband? If so, I think we have a winner.

DAB is a waste of space: its redundant in the living room, with many of the radio channels available in better quality over DVB or internet radio, and its a non-solution to the problem of cheap portable radios with widespread reception. Kill it with fire.

Re:They can't kill FM any time soon

[Teknikal69]

I don't rate digital radio at all it's worse quality than FM not to mention the radios themselves suck up way more power and seem to break incredibly quickly. Of all things digital I can think of digital radio is the only one that's really a step backwards in my opinion.

Wouldn't suprise me if they forced this through anyway though for a short term profit.

Re:They can't kill FM any time soon

[mr_jrt]

A friend of mine who works for the BBC was discussing DAB with a colleague of his and me, and pointed out that apparently, DAB was designed to be used with a satellite acting as in-fill to give the expected blanket coverage. The half-arsed implementation means they skimped on the satellite bit, so that's why you get spotty DAB coverage. Not to mention the ancient crappy codecs.

Re:They can't kill FM any time soon

[cpu6502]

No offense intended against Europeans, but your UK (and later EU) politicians really screwed digital radio. DAB simply doesn't work correctly.

Over in the US we have a hybrid analog-digital system that uses the same frequencies as FM, and every station is independent of the other. No centralized multiplex that excludes low-power stations, and no downgrading of quality from Stereo to mono-aural. Plus each station can subdivide itself into 7 different programs, providing tons of variety.

And eventually when 90% of americans own FM-digital receivers, the analog half can simply be shutoff, as was done with our analog TV cutoff. A nice smooth transition without confusing or inconveniencing the listeners.

killing radio for broadband?

[Computer Whisperer]

yeah, cause killing analog TV here in the states went just fantastic! now i get half the channels i could previously.

Re:killing radio for broadband?

[jpapon]

I don't live in the States anymore, but it worked pretty well for my parents. They certainly get a much better looking picture, and like 15 channels.

Re:killing radio for broadband?

[Computer Whisperer]

I don't live in the States anymore, but it worked pretty well for my parents. They certainly get a much better looking picture, and like 15 channels.

digital TV is great if you live pretty close to the transmitters.... i live thirty minutes outside the cities, so my analog was not always the best picture, but at least i could get a picture, even if the reception was not that great. now it's either there, looking great, or not there at all, and it sucks when right in the middle of your show, it just goes black, coming back on only after you missed something important! oh well, it's much better not having TV at all, i suppose.

Re:killing radio for broadband?

[Bob_Sheep]

It is possible to get good digital TV reception at long range. I get a very good signal from a transmitter about 40 miles away, you just need the right combination of a decent grouped (not wideband) Yagi and an amplifier.

Re:killing radio for broadband?

[mcgrew]

It might be ok in Chicago or LA or other large market, but in the middle of any state it sucks. I had a dozen analog channels, now I can get four digital channels, and one of them is a shopping channel and one is country music videos, leaving me with two -- and when the analog signal would ghost, the digital signal goes away completely. It's like it was in St Louis in 1960, albeit with a clear color picture if you get a picture at all.

I suspect in the middle of a large city it would be even worse, with interference and signal echoes from large buildings that would give you a ghost in analog and no picture whatever with digital.

Maybe if they boosted transmitter power, but I suspect that would introduce problems of its own.

What I wish they'd have done was kept the analog signals and added digital ones.

Would Government approve and open mesh?

[Thnurg]

Please correct me of I'm wrong, but an open mesh network would completely decentralise internet connectivity leaving the Government with no way to implement website blocking and three-strikes laws etc.
While a truly democratic government would support open mesh in the public interest I doubt our lot would approve it.

The real reason behind killing fm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK government (and, well, various lobby groups of course) is rooting for rolling out digital radio (the already outdated and creaky DAB) and since few listeners care for a worse listening experience ("mud bubbles") at the price of more expensive radio sets with shorter battery life, any other reason to kill FM radio is welcome.

And yes there's plenty of unused spectrum available now so that FM needn't be killed. In fact, there's a consultation going on right now about 600MHz which basically poses the question "what the bloody blazes shall we do with it? Any ideas? Anyone? Puhleeze?!?" virtually with exclamation marks and all.

Re:Um... Antenna size?

[Anne Thwacks]

Most houses in the UK still have a band I dipole left over from 405 line TV.

I know dipoles radiate quite well, cos I have tried it :-)

Digital radio fails at being better

[Midnight Thunder]

My issue with digital radio is that it isn't really solving any problems and actually introduces some. This is really the antithesis of what technology is about, the sense it should be improving in what went before.

FM radio degrades nicely, is of sufficiently good quality for all intents of purposes, is relatively low demand on power (transmission and reception) and uses cheap electronics. Add to this that in an emergency scenario it is relatively reliable.

Unlike HDTV pictures, I haven't ever heard anyone say their digital audio transmission is better than FM. What I have heard is that some people feel the content is crap, and that is usually from people living in the USA.

Re:FM service is a Bliss

[Midnight Thunder]

FM is also good enough. I really don't see what problem digital radio is solving? Instead I can see all the problems it introduces: increased component cost, rapid signal degradation, increased power use and problematic during emergencies.

As to sound quality, FM radio sounds good enough for most needs.

If you live in the UK and are unhappy with this move let your MP know.

You in fact do.

[VAElynx]

Digital radio has negligible benefits for normal people compared to AM / FM, and public broadcasting services should serve people's interests.
The real purpose of these changes is mainly just to force people replacing perfectly good devices or buy digital decoders to enrich the pockets of a select few companies. (with the TV, it also provided the rich with better image to look at on their fancy plasma whatever screens.)
Oh, did i mention digital emitters are less efficient too, because they require class AB amplifiers with a max efficiency of about 78% as opposed to class C which can do something over 90% ?

I repeat it once again, dear Anonymous Coward

[VAElynx]

Stop hiding behind the "we" and state who really needs it - manufacturers and sellers of DAB, and assorted companies to carry out the conversion of emitter stations...
Even though some problems can be addressed, things like inherent high power consumption of digital devices and the fact that a digital signal doesn't degrade well (and having more error recover codes means you have to transmit more signal per second worsening the first problem) will stay here no matter what you use. (the last will probably force building more emitters... or doing it the US way of not giving a crap about those too far)
And why the fuck is "analog age coming to an end" ? I thought it's best to use whatever technology does the best job.. but then i have the outdated 20th century belief that technology should serve man and not the opposite.

Re:graceful degradation of quality

[sznupi]

Scalable Video Coding H.264 extension, apparently spearheaded by Vidyo and used by (there's a mention of Vidyo tech when downloading browser plugin) Gmail / Android / Jingle video (and presumably also by Google+ Hangouts)

I didn't play with Vidyo stuff, but I guess SVC might be one of the reasons why Gmail video is probably the best choice on slow & unreliable connections (like it was also with Gtalk / Gmail audio; quite a few of VoIP codecs seem to do what you ask about)

Which isn't such a problem for DVB as compared to DAB; at least TVs are generally stationary...