Slashdot Mirror


Norway To Become First Country To Switch Off FM Radio (reuters.com)

Norway is set to become the first country to switch off its FM radio network next week, as it takes the unpopular leap to digital technology. Reuters reports: Critics say the government is rushing the move and many people may miss warnings on emergencies that have until now been broadcast via the radio. Of particular concern are the 2 million cars on Norway's roads that are not equipped with Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) receivers, they say. Sixty-six percent of Norwegians oppose switching off FM, with just 17 percent in favor and the rest undecided, according to an opinion poll published by the daily Dagbladet last month. Nevertheless, parliament gave the final go-ahead for the move last month, swayed by the fact that digital networks can carry more radio channels. By the end of the year, all national FM broadcasts will be closed in favor of DAB, which backers say carries less hiss and clearer sound throughout the large nation of 5 million people cut by fjords and mountains. Torvmark said cars were the "biggest challenge" - a good digital adapter for an FM car radio costs 1,500 Norwegian crowns ($174.70), he said. For the same cost, digital radio in Norway allows eight times more radio stations than FM. The current system of parallel FM and digital networks, each of which cost about 250 million crowns ($29 million), saps investments in programs.

303 comments

  1. DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the internet allows even more radiostations than DAB... keep the old FM going, everybody with highschool education can build a receiver from scrap parts for it, for DAB, not so much. I fail to see how DAB makes any sense at all.

  2. Less hiss and clearer sound by fisted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    carries less hiss and clearer sound

    Hahahahaha. Yes, sure. As long as you get a perfect signal, anyway.

    1. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. FM can get hiss and fade, but you'll still be able to hear it unless under the worst conditions. DAB is all or nothing.

    2. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Gilgaron · · Score: 4, Informative

      That was one thing I found interesting when TV went digital: a weak analog signal is just noisy, but easy for people to pick out the information from. a weak digital signal is chunky in ways my brain certainly isn't as capable of parsing through.

    3. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by FudRucker · · Score: 0

      analog FM broadcast signals are about 200 kilohertz wide, all they need to do is keep it analog and just change the bandpass to about 25 to 50 kilohertz wide and that would make room for more stations

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    4. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, DAB+ has error correction.

    5. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by jshipp · · Score: 1

      Hope it works out better than the digital television transition in the United States in 2009. I went from having 6 usable channels to about 20 unusable channels and 1 usable channel. I bought a huge 30' tall 10' wide outdoor antenna, a good amp, and tried 3 different brand receivers before giving up and getting rid of all my TVs and switching to torrented content. I would be in the middle of a show and it would start cutting out as the clouds moved by. It always cut out at the most frustrating times. I also hated the huge delay required to switch channels. I would be so pissed if they made FM useless. I guess i'd have to get an MP3 player for my car and spend a lot of time keeping it updated with the latest music.

    6. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      carries less hiss and clearer sound

      Hahahahaha. Yes, sure. As long as you get a perfect signal, anyway.

      Nice out-of-context quote! The entire thing went

      carries less hiss and clearer sound throughout the large nation of 5 million people cut by fjords and mountains.

      Clearly it is the fjords that cause the hiss! Obviously.
      The mountains sort of makes sense: if you do happen to find a valley in Norway that doesn't have (enough) people live in it, there is no need for its own DAB transmitter. At least, this is what is implied in TFS, right?

    7. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      carries less hiss and clearer sound

      Hahahahaha. Yes, sure. As long as you get a perfect signal, anyway.

      Well, OP is kinda right. If you have a really good signal, the results will be a nice clear hiss free result.

      If you don't, you won't hear anything at all. It's called the digital cliff. Less range, higher power requirements. A bold technological step backwards.

      There are emergency communicators who want to switch from FM to digital, and its maddening to hear people who want to have nice static free voice versus knowing a signal is there at all.

      We're moving into an age of pulling signals out from below the noise floor, and yayhoos are clamoring for pristine sound.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by jittles · · Score: 1

      That was one thing I found interesting when TV went digital: a weak analog signal is just noisy, but easy for people to pick out the information from. a weak digital signal is chunky in ways my brain certainly isn't as capable of parsing through.

      You should probably upgrade your MPEG decoder. When was the last time you upgraded your neural net?

    9. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by fisted · · Score: 1

      So do CDs, and presumably digital TV.
      What's your point?

    10. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by fisted · · Score: 1

      How was that out of context? Reading comprehension much?

    11. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by bgarcia · · Score: 1

      The difference is that a weak signal is very fuzzy and annoying in analog, but still crystal clear in digital UNTIL you hit a very low threshold where the digital becomes impossible to watch.

      I'm quite impressed by how weak of a digital signal still results in a perfectly watchable video.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    12. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stereo analogue FM broadcast signals are 53kHz wide - any extras beyond that are data subchannels like RDS/RDBS, HD Radio etc. You're talking about channel spacings, which are only 200kHz apart in North America, the ITU standard is 100kHz (which is part of the reason why the rest of the world is not interested in HD Radio).

    13. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      ha! I almost replied that in a way to state that humans weren't capable of parsing, rather than myself, but I decided that children used to digital signal drop would probably be better at ignoring it. So while my net isn't getting upgraded anytime soon, there are further generation products on the market.

    14. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not impressed. I've lost half the stations in the transition. It's better in the city, where people have options for what cable and internet service, but it, like most of these decisions, fucks rural people to make the rich richer.

    15. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      carries less hiss and clearer sound

      Hahahahaha. Yes, sure. As long as you get a perfect signal, anyway.

      This gets into one of the biggest problems with digital broadcasting - it's generally all or nothing. With analog, there's graceful degradation as the signal quality falls, and in an emergency situation that's preferable as people can still determine what's being broadcast even if it's very faint and low quality. With digital, if your signal isn't strong enough you'll get nothing.

      It seems to me that the best way forward for Norway would be to get rid of *some* FM stations to open up the bandwidth but leave others going. It's stupid to waste all the radios they currently own.

      If you live there, you might want to contact your parliamentarians to let them know that going through with this means they'll be looking for a job after the next election.

    16. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      a weak analog signal is just noisy, but easy for people to pick out the information from. a weak digital signal is chunky in ways [difficult for humans to comprehend].

      I have indeed found this to be true. When our TV signals went all-digital in our area, the distortion from weak signals was often found to be very strange and made the experience worse than useless in some cases by distorting the image in disturbing ways.

      I lost my appetite at one local mom-and-pop restaurant because the bad TV reception resulted in absolutely grotesque faces that gave me nightmares. Honest.

      The closest analogy I can think of to explain it is that Indian Jones scene where the guy's face melts off from the supernatural fire-balls, but add psychedelic colors. I wanted a sandwich, not an LSD trip.

      I think the error correction algorithm tried to glue the "puzzle" back together by filling in the missing pieces with older cached copies of segments and guess their relative movements to each other using the movement found in the good pieces. It may be good enough for some objects, but NOT faces. FAIL. (There may be a TV set option to fiddle with settings to turn off this auto-guess, but most consumers won't or can't find it.)

      I'm not sure if digital sound can also go bad in extremely haunting ways, but it can potentially still be highly annoying, sounding like the ghost of Max Headroom's and Yoko Ono's love-child on drugs. (Hmmm, can ghosts get high?)

      With analog signal weakness, usually you just get hiss and occasionally Dalek-like sounds. But I'll take that over LSD trips.

    17. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have CDs with scratches (both the ones that cause some diffraction (bottom) and where the information layer is missing (top)). This isn't a problem for playback, error correction to the rescue.

      BTW I also have CDs that are scratched beyond error correction repairs, it depends heavily on the size and orientation.

    18. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by fisted · · Score: 1

      yup, and when the laser comes across a section that is at the edge of, or slightly beyond what error correction can correct, what happens? You go from everything to nothing (or worse, looking at what real-world cd players do), and that sucks ass because it prevents the vastly superior analoge error correction, typically daisy-chained to the receiver unit, from functioning.

    19. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      a weak analog signal is just noisy, but easy for people to pick out the information from.

      The vast majority of people don't watch TV or listen to FM broadcasts to pick out information. They do it for enjoyment, entertainment, and to switch off their brains. A bit of hiss, pop, or a poor picture quality is more than enough to get most people to change the channel long before any real information is lost. I find digital to be far better in this regard. (e.g. I drive well into Germany with DAB+ without changing the channel whereas in the past when you get to the point where FM starts dropping back to mono, just the jump from mono to stereo to mono etc is enough to make me look for a station with a better signal).

      Now I completely agree with you on 2-way radio systems, or telemetry systems. These have significantly more range in the analogue realm where information is critical. But not for broadcast entertainment.

    20. Re:Less hiss and clearer sound by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      No, twice 53 kHz. The sidebands exist on both sides of the nominal center frequency.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. I hope they keep AM on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For talk radio with El Rushbo

    1. Re:I hope they keep AM on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For talk radio with El Rushbo

      Ditto! We love Big Brother!

    2. Re:I hope they keep AM on... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why can't he do XM like Howard Stern, so that one doesn't have to lose the station when driving out of a city's/state's limits?

    3. Re:I hope they keep AM on... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Perhaps someone at EIB thinks not everybody receiving Mr. Limbaugh's show thinks the convenience is worth $219 per year for the first receiver and $146 per year for each additional receiver.

      That's $15 per month for the first receiver and $10 per month for each additional receiver, plus 13.9% music royalty cost recovery fee, plus state sales tax on the order of 7% that varies from one jurisdiction to another.

    4. Re:I hope they keep AM on... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I get bombarded by Sirius for new receivers/equipment, and just ignore them. I have one in my car, and also listen to it on my iPad: b/w those 2, I have what I need

    5. Re:I hope they keep AM on... by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      Screw XM... most unreliable radio I've ever had. Next to a building... no signal. Going down a rural road... no signal. Maybe it is just my area, but god no.

    6. Re:I hope they keep AM on... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      There have been places - like if I enter a covered parking lot, no signal. But otherwise, when I'm travelling b/w cities, like say Charlotte and Atlanta, I don't have to fiddle w/ the stations to see which frequency something is on. Like Hair Nation in Charlotte is as clear as it is in Atlanta. Whereas El Rushbo - I'd have to check the EIB listings to find out every place in b/w which stations locally is it on.

    7. Re:I hope they keep AM on... by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      And it sounds worse than the worst mp3s from the Napster/KaZaa days. Unless you really like the hiss and squeeks from extremely aggressive lossy compression.

    8. Re:I hope they keep AM on... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      This might be a question of continuing contracts with terrestrial stations, where the contracts guarantee no competing station (i.e. no XM) in the station's vicinity. Stern's raunchiness keeps him off the family-friendly AM band, so Stern is stuck with the much smaller XM audience.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. Giving "progress" a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's this kind of change that gives "progress" a bad name. The signals can coexist, no need to rush to obsolescence for generations of both home and auto radios.

  5. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believed DAB failed because it was no big audio improvement since most people don't have high quality car stereos or just don't care.
    In the analog TV shutdown many people didn't changed TV but purchased a STB. There's no way to do that in cars where most people listen to radio.

  6. The real reason for the digitalization by cheetah_spottycat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... is monetization. They can sell more channel licenses, encrypt their radio streams, and sell paid subscriptions. This is the beginning of the end of free radio.

    1. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is the end of radio...which is the end of the music business as we know it. I am sure that I am not alone in that I will not pay for radio.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess radio nowadays only have value as a news carrier. As a music medium it's already half dead for a long time, given the vast alternatives.

    3. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by ninthbit · · Score: 1

      Not quite.... they want more channels so they can sell more ads. Sure, some paid sub channels may pop-up, but I would suspect they instead want more channels to play their back catalogs of content and generate more ad revenue.

      If broadcast services wanted to force a paid only model, then ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox would have turned off their antennas ages ago. The radio networks (iHeartMedia) have the same business model and want that same ad money.

    4. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SiriusXM proves that argument incorrect. Sure you are not alone in saying you won't pay but there is some market for paid radio.

    5. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This idea, if real, is stupid. The same number of people are going to be listening to radio/music either way all they are doing is changing HOW they listen or switching from station A to station B. So now they are still only serving 5 million people, and those 5 million people are just split over more stations. Now you have to produce more programs, sell more ad slots (at lower price because lower listening per station), maintain more websites, etc. all to serve the SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

      The reality is, at least for other versions of this (US TV Switch), is that the GOVERNMENT wants to have greater utilization of air waves because they can charge & sell more & use more for other purposes.

    6. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by unixisc · · Score: 2

      THIS!!! Previously, I had the same mindset of not paying for radio. Until I got Sirius XM w/ my car

      This was a godsend. W/ FM stations, I'd struggle to find a station that carries my type of music. Sirius has channels each dedicated to one's favorite type of music, making it a constant: I don't have to worry about certain songs disappearing. The icing on the cake - the name of the song and artist is on display as well, and that's how I've gathered quite a collection by downloading from youtube. Not just that - I've over the last 3 years lived in 3 cities, and never had any issues w/ resetting my car radio while moving. Plus when I am home, I continue listening to the programming on my iPad, if I'm so inclined.

      Paying for radio might sound like a waste, but it's been totally worth it. On the flip side, I don't have a TV, so all I pay Comcast (not my choice) is $40 each month.

    7. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have plenty of mp3's and podcasts, but when I borrowed my Dad's car with XM for a month, it was very nice. And while I only really listened to 6 or so channels, it was very nice not losing the stations when you drove out of town.

      I'm surprised Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland didn't get together to create a satellite radio network. The countries are so big and sparsely populated in regions, plus the terrain sucks for radio antennas.

    8. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it is not. It is about reassigning the airways so neckbeards like you can enjoy their VR porn in 4K on their phone while in the middle of nowhere.

    9. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by unixisc · · Score: 1

      One more thing - if I miss a program within a few hours, I can revisit it on my iPad and listen to what played at the time I missed it. Like TiVo, but for XM

    10. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DAB is not XM.

      DAB and DAB+ is broadcast in the clear, and there are no radios on the market that can handle encrypted streams (even if it's technically possible to broadcast).
      That said, my experience in the UK is that DAB is mostly rubbish, and most receivers can't hold a lock on most signals in locations where the equivalent station is perfectly clear on FM.

    11. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by alleycat0 · · Score: 1

      End of radio - perhaps. End of music business as we know it - already well underway thanks to streaming & online purchases...

      --
      I am not a number - I am a free man!
    12. Re: The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of you build it, they will come

    13. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      At least here in the United States, I think Congress, as well as quite a large swath of the citizenry, would have something to say about broadcast media (radio or television) becoming 'subscription only', if for no other reason than having news and emergency information available to everyone at all times, for free.

    14. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress is for sale and any size swath of the citizenry is powerless to effect any change, so these things will proceed according to plan.

    15. Re:The real reason for the digitalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that nobody pays any attention to your weak attempts at trolling, right? We all just assume you're doing it ironically, LOL.

  7. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by Ost99 · · Score: 2

    DAB uses a different part of the spectrum. FM will be shut down to save on maintenance, not to make room from DAB.

    --
    ---- Sig. gone.
  8. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by rfengr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not those with a USA high school education. I'll wager most EE grads could not build an FM radio without a drawing.

  9. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DAB already uses a different part of the spectrum, particularly L-Band. The US and Canada got around this "problem" (it was mostly howling by the NAB and its members), by cramming in the digital signals with the existing analog AM/FM broadcasts using IBOC/HD Radio..... which hasn't been a success. Its actually harder to find aftermarket HD Radio tuners now then it was when it launched!

  10. Terrible audio quality thanks to 20+ year old tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DAB sounds like a great idea, and signal wise, it's even quite resillient too. But the problem with it is that it based on MPEG Layer 2 audio - The original DAB standard is some twenty two years old, and this was seen as the best candidate for the codec to use. Most stations broadcast at a low bitrate to squeeze extra channels into the spectrum. What you're left with is a selection of programming that is far below the 192~224kbps golden spot to achieve CD transparent audio with such an old codec, and lots of channels that sound awful! A good FM broadcast sounds infinitely better. DAB+ tried to fix this shortcoming by using AAC, but even then the decoders for this format seem few and far between, with adoption being slow. I hope that the UK don't consider switching off FM for a good few years yet!

  11. Re: Norway switching off FM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I wish it were an open standard, the HD Radio standard in the US allows the existing AM or FM analog signals to be broadcast while simultaneously transmitting a digital signal on the same band. This seems like a better approach, though it would greatly prefer this as an open standard.

  12. DAB is garbage. by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DAB is all or nothing.

    And compared to FM, DAB is mostly nothing. At a fraction of the range where you'd still be pulling in very usable FM audio. DAB is gone entirely, or slamming open and closed like a berserk doorman on meth.

    There have been a series of really bad decisions along these lines. In the US, CQUAM is available for AM stereo, and it, like standard AM, doesn't cause you to lose distant stations or take up extra bandwidth. So what do we see? AM digital stereo modes that take up three AM channels, plus they have the extra feature that they really don't sound very good, whereas CQUAM... well, it does. Analog television: same as DAB, in that you can catch a broadcast at distance and you can still get a picture, where at the same distance, digital television is long gone.

    Previous poster who said they should have maintained current infrastructure and put the new garbage elsewhere was spot-bloody-on. But, you know, government. They don't have to do anything well; they just think they have to do something, anything. If it wrecks a bunch of people's circumstance, well, so what. Besides, corporations were slavering to get at that bit of spectrum, and we know who really runs the government.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:DAB is garbage. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Previous poster who said they should have maintained current infrastructure and put the new garbage elsewhere was spot-bloody-on.

      Seems to me he was completely wrong as DAB is not even in the same part of the spectrum as FM. See the replies to his post

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    2. Re:DAB is garbage. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He wasn't completely wrong. They should keep the existing FM stations how they are. And nothing in the summary above mentions that the spectrum used is different. It says the decision was "swayed by the fact that digital networks can carry more radio channels." Most of us readers probably assumed it used the same spectrum. Especially since the American system does do that. And we were wrong in only that one aspect.

      And if digital audio broadcasting is anything like the digital TV broadcasting here in the US, digital FM is going to be a nightmare. We don't have cable TV at the moment (the past year so far), and my wife doesn't want to watch local broadcast TV because of the lousy reception. So we have Netflix and Hulu instead of free digital broadcast. With digital FM, I expect Norway is going to see a surge in music streaming, or maybe cassette decks will make a comeback. I still have tapes I can listen to.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:DAB is garbage. by operagost · · Score: 1

      We've had digital FM (aka HD Radio) for several years. I have a receiver in my truck. Like HDTV, it loses signal well before the analog broadcast is unusable. Of course, it also sounds better than the analog broadcast, and worlds better than XM radio.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:DAB is garbage. by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

      And compared to FM, DAB is mostly nothing. At a fraction of the range where you'd still be pulling in very usable FM audio. DAB is gone entirely, or slamming open and closed like a berserk doorman on meth.

      This is where commercial interests have won. DAB+ is actually quite nice in populated areas, more channels and better sound. We're building tunnel coverage and such so along the main roads it'll be okay. But when you start to consider the streaming capabilities of cell phones and particularly compared to the antenna and battery = power of a car we should have dropped radio altogether and just built out data transfer for streaming.

      Because the places you don't have good cell phone coverage DAB+ isn't very good either. Remote cabins, deep in the mountains, far out at sea out of cell phone coverage where you don't care about DAB+ and 20 channels of music. You want to hear the weather forecast and know if there's a storm coming. I'm sure we could find some other alternative for that.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:DAB is garbage. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      One should just use IP and the Internet for everything.

    6. Re:DAB is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and worlds better than XM radio.

      An Napstered 112kb mp3 from 1999 sounds better than XM.

    7. Re:DAB is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " They should keep the existing FM stations how they are" Do you have any idea as to what it takes to maintain a FM network in the mountains of Norway in the winter? These are not antennas of 30 feet on a dorm building. We are talking towers at mountaintops at -20F, miles from roads. It's nothing ou just keep running.

    8. Re:DAB is garbage. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      And switching to digital improves that how?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:DAB is garbage. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Good luck setting up an IP multicast to the entire city. Or are you recommending a unicast to each subscriber over cellular at $40 per subscriber per month (source: T-Mobile)?

    10. Re:DAB is garbage. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I'm mostly suggesting fiber and whatever generation cellular coverage and then delivery of whatever communication or media you want to consume over that.

    11. Re:DAB is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is different from where you live, but the U.S. has a dedicated Weather radio network. It covers most of the U.S. population and the vast majority of U.S. population. Two nice things about it is you can set a SAME code so you only receive alerts about your county or city; you can also set the radio to turn itself on or otherwise alert you if there are warnings or other alerts in your area.

    12. Re:DAB is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was pointing out that one can't keep the old system and the new without incurring a cost. According to a website for Norwegian journalists (journalisten.no) running FM is apporx eight times as expensive as DAB for a major station. ("FM-nettet er samtidig dyrt å holde i live for de store aktørene. I FM-nettet er kostnadene per rikskanal åtte ganger høyere enn i DAB-nettet, ")

    13. Re:DAB is garbage. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      We've had digital FM (aka HD Radio) for several years. I have a receiver in my truck.

      Because, of course, the inside of your truck is the perfect listening experience that absolutely demands the highest quality audio sources. Analogue FM simply isn't good enough for that environment.

    14. Re:DAB is garbage. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Outside of biggest cities, FM radio is useless too. It has very poor range. Anyone who actually wants information is tuned to AM radio, which works for hundreds of miles... or at night even a thousand plus miles.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    15. Re:DAB is garbage. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      At a fraction of the range where you'd still be pulling in very usable FM audio. DAB is gone entirely, or slamming open and closed like a berserk doorman on meth.

      I'm not sure if there's a difference between DAB and DAB+ in this regard but my personal experience can't be any further from your comment. I continue to pickup DAB+ stations in mountainous areas along after I would switch away from noisy FM. Now, FM audio is discernible at a greater distance, but it is very VERY far from usable. If anything it is a huge noisy distraction when the signal starts getting weak and in patchy areas DAB+'s buffering and error correction can ride through much better than any old analogue system used to.

      You comments would be perfectly relevant for communication designed to convey critical information, but that isn't the normal use of FM radio and it ceases to be "effectively usable" for the vast majority of the population when you're in an area where it simply drops from stereo to mono (i.e. a signal that is still well and truly away from dropping out is often more than crap enough to cause people to change the channel.)

    16. Re:DAB is garbage. by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      HD Radio (the form of digital broadcasting authorized in the US) on the AM band should never have been authorized. It wipes out reception of adjacent stations, has a limited reception range, and doesn't sound all that good. The last could be fixed if backward compatibility were not an issue. The problem is that iBiquity's proprietary codec doesn't sound very good; the same bit rate with HE-AAC or Ogg Opus would be far superior.

      HD Radio on FM isn't quite so bad. It sounds better (higher bitrate, not better codec). It still wipes out adjacent channels, but there are only a small number of locations where that matters because of the propagation characteristics of FM and the way the channels are allocated. One market where it DOES matter is some parts of Long Island, where signals from New York City and Hartford CT clash. Hartford is far enough away that it should be much weaker, but it's not because of the water-enhanced path between the areas.

    17. Re:DAB is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Mexico, digital air TV at my place hiccups every time a plane passes overhead. I'm under the approach cone of the Mexico City Intl Airport, so this is at certain times of the day every 30 seconds, and otherwise maybe every 5 or 10 minutes. The airport is still some 15 Km away, and the planes pass some 500m above; that's enough for the signal to do a hiccup: no audio for 1/4th of a second and garbled video each time; very annoying.

    18. Re:DAB is garbage. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      At any signal strength that makes AM intelligible, FM is superior.

      The difference between common commercial broadcast AM and FM is that the AM band is around 1 MHz ( 300 m ) and FM band around 100 MHz ( 3 m ). The 300 m wavelength means more power diffracts around mountaintops into valleys, compared to 3 m which will be more line-of-sight.

      However, total noise (man-made + atmospheric + galactic) is 30 to 40 dB higher at 1 MHz than at 100 MHz. This gives the 100 MHz band a tremendous advantage in open country.

      I live about 30 miles from the nearest transmitter, in southern New Hampshire. At any time, I can receive about 50 FM stations with good quality. During the day I can get about 5 AM stations in the intelligible-to-good range, and 10 or 15 at night. This is moderately hilly country with 500 to 1000 foot mountain ranges that it would seem would block FM reception in most directions, yet FM has a distinct advantage. (The exception is the ability at night to receive New York City stations 200 miles away; their signals bounce off the ionosphere.)

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re:DAB is garbage. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It takes roughly an 18 dB S/N ratio (for white noise) before any digital signal can deliver enough consecutive bits for digital audio to be useful, regardless of the error correction scheme. With an 18 dB S/N ratio, the FM "quieting" effect is already working, giving about a 28 dB S/N ratio (for mono). Even if the digital scheme is frequency shift encoded, FM retains an advantage near the noise floor. In places where the only radio is noisy FM, a switch to DAB means no radio at all.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    20. Re:DAB is garbage. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In places where the only radio is noisy FM

      Very few people listen to FM. No seriously it's a huge distraction having even an FM signal drop from stereo to mono.

      I concede that there's a public service / safety issue where people would turn to FM as their only source of information. But this covers a very VERY few set of use cases. Where the only radio is noisy FM, we listen to tapes.

  13. Giving "government" a bad name by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Progress has a great name. It's government that has a bad name - which it wholly deserves.

    Straight-up, this isn't progress. It's entropy.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how new gadgets and technology being pushed into the mainstream gets panned constantly on a site that's ostensibly for nerds.

      "Slashdot - Links for Luddites."

      "It's been around for years - nobody should touch it!"

    2. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Uh, if something works for somebody, why force them to obsolete it? It's like that forced move to digital TV years ago. They could have just taken the analog stations off the air, and left it to consumers to decide whether they were willing to buy new TVs

    3. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the government was able to sell off those frequencies and we have high speed cell phone data now. I bet if you polled people if they would rather have 4G data for their phones or let a few people not have to get a free digital OTA converter box or buy a new HDTV, the results would be pretty obvious.

    4. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by unixisc · · Score: 1

      That's fine - let government sell off those frequencies. But why tell people to get rid of their analog TVs? Just work w/ the broadcast companies to go all digital, and then let the consumers decide whether they want a new TV or not

    5. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I understand your point - "take the content offline, but don't force people to buy a new device." Isn't that *exactly* what's happening in Norway? Did I miss something -- are people being thrown in jail because they don't want to buy a DAB receiver?

    6. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by sjames · · Score: 1

      Too bad we let the cell companies snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with their outrageous prices for that sata. They talk about gigabit speeds and paper over the fact that if you ever actually used that speed you'd blow your entire month's allotment in 30 seconds.

    7. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody told anyone to get rid of an analog TV. The government even gave away free converter boxes.

    8. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progress has a great name. It's government that has a bad name - which it wholly deserves.

      Straight-up, this isn't progress. It's entropy.

      What is the opposite of progress?

      Congress.

      -Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress...

    9. Re:Giving "government" a bad name by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The converter boxes are worthless even in "near fringe" areas; the signals just aren't strong enough for digital to work. Digital TV requires a minimum of -65 dBm to work barely acceptably, about -60 dBm to work reliably. http://copradar.com/dtv/index.html That's 32 uV and 58 uV into 300 ohms, respectively, which is not a small signal.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  14. Digital Killed the Radio Star by puddingebola · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm one of the minority of people who still like radio for music, news, and entertainment, but I don't think I'd spend $175 for a digital FM receiver. I bet Norwegians are switching over to AM,if they listen to radio at all anymore. Do you think they have crazed conservative personalities ranting about the fact they live in a Socialist welfare state there?

    1. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Knuckles · · Score: 2

      There is basically no AM radio in Europe anymore

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    2. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet against you on the use of AM, how much do you bet?

    3. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its even worse. $175 is just the equipment cost, mounting the antenna properly on the windshield is relatively complex (Unless you can live with a butt ugly cable in your face), so most people have to add ~$700 to that budget.

    4. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last DAB radio I bought was a whopping $30 US, works well, Android phones with DAB is also available. Bluetooth to existing car radio is trivial.

    5. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...Do you think they have crazed conservative personalities ranting about the fact they live in a Socialist welfare state there?

      Probably not to anywhere near the extent that you 'enjoy' those cranks in America. Socialist welfare states have the same corporate shills and their deluded hangers-on, but on the whole that rhetoric doesn't play nearly as well here as it does in the US.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    6. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      FM Radio is built into the SoC of many phones (Snapdragon) but only the budget models seem to enable it these days.

      I didn't know DAB+ was a common thing on phones; certainly LG made a fuss with their "LG Stylus DAB+" model recently.

    7. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      People keep saying that car radios have bluetooth now but I have yet to see it in any vehicle I have been in. Certainly none of my vehicles have bluetooth.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by operagost · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe if you only ride in 5+ year old cars without upgraded sound systems.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Which is probably 90% of vehicles out there.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Malc · · Score: 2

      That's not true: peruse through this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    11. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, 90% might well be an understatement.

    12. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And at LEAST 87.3% of statistics are completely correct!

      Approximately 40% of vehicles on the road are newer than 6 years old. Source: NADA statistics.

    13. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      5+? both my 10 year old cars have bluetooth.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Anti socialism cranks here are simply the result of the closing down of mental institutions back in the 80's and how bad our public schools are.

      When you have mentally deficient that never get education wandering the streets you get these kinds of cranks everywhere. Now they are old enough to confuse people into thinking they actually know something. In reality they all are simply that rambling nutjob screaming the world was going to end 10 years ago.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    15. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that is very biased by commercial vehicles. Rentals, fleet vehicles, not personally owned.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    16. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK is NOT Europe. It's part of a shitty little island filled with surveillance and people with bad teeth.

    17. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Geography is not your strong point obviously. And there are still plenty of AM stations in France too - I can pick a lot of them up from where I live in the UK.

    18. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Interesting side thought: Do you think that businesses will pay for DAB on their commercial fleet vehicles?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    19. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well presumably it would come with new vehicles, as FM comes with older vehicles.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    20. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe if you only ride in 5+ year old cars without upgraded sound systems.

      As of 2015, the typical car in the US was 11.5 years old.

    21. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      So does mine. It doesn't work, but, it has it.

    22. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. My 23 year old Mustang has bluetooth. $30 aftermarket head unit from Amazon. I'm very happy with it.

    23. Re:Digital Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much this. Mind you I think they're just going to decimate their audience. Why? Radio is a legacy medium. It survives on inertia of people who listen out of habit, just like they always did. Switch it off and you give people a reason to explore the alternatives: podcasts, streaming you can tailor to your tastes, itunes etc etc. Once you've experienced the alternative how many people are going to want to pay a significant amount to revert to a less functional alternative?

      Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, guys :).

  15. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by sh00z · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maintenance on what, exactly? It's not like the spectrum itself requires maintenance, and I haven't heard anything saying all radio stations are funded by the government, so as long as a particular business entity can continue to see a profit, while maintaining the same transmission hardware, why shut it down at all?

  16. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Tx · · Score: 4, Informative

    DAB here in the UK is a failure because we adopted it too early, and we are stuck with first generation DAB rather than DAB+. I hope Norway is a bit more advanced. Most of our stations including many music stations broadcast in 64kbps mono MP2 (no joke). So here, DAB sounds like shit, frankly, and because of the many DAB radios out there that don't support DAB+, it will be a long time before we can move on now. I have a good DAB radio in my car, but I primarily listen to internet streams and FM.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  17. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would I build one without drawing a schematic first? I'd at least have to calculate the values for the components - those would need to be recorded somewhere.

    --
    That is all.
  18. DAB portable radios have high power usage by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 3, Informative

    My DAB portable radio has a high power usage and chews through AA's at an alarming rate, far far higher than my old FM analog radio. I would be very concerned about the suitability of DAB in sitiations of emergency, where people are asked to have portable radios with a fresh set of batteries, they wouldn't last long at all! And one other problem with DAB, try tuning one in the dark, or otherwise looking at the display. Trying to navigate the stations is extremely difficult compared to a simple tune up or down. And if you have gone off onto a sub menu then it's really difficlt to find where you are. I spare a thought to think how blind or poorly-sighted people have to navigate DAB radio channels.

    1. Re:DAB portable radios have high power usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Got a crystal radio- no batteries at all. And it works cool!

    2. Re:DAB portable radios have high power usage by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Trying to navigate the stations is extremely difficult compared to a simple tune up or down.

      What the heck are you talking about? All of my DAB+ radios have the ability to go simple station up and station down. Bonus points for doing a background scan once a week when turned on and offering an alternative to dialling through loads of empty spectrum.

  19. Re:Terrible audio quality thanks to 20+ year old t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DAB+ tried to fix this shortcoming by using AAC, but even then the decoders for this format seem few and far between, with adoption being slow. I hope that the UK don't consider switching off FM for a good few years yet!

    Most countries that use DAB by now actually use DAB+. Also in Norway, about half the stations seem to use DAB+ now:
    http://www.worlddab.org/country-information/norway

    And I think it would be difficult these days to buy a DAB(+) receiver which is DAB-only, and does not support DAB+.

    Since you seem to be from the UK: the UK is the country where DAB (without '+') was already very popular, which is why the UK is now a bit slow to move on to DAB+ (lots of legacy receivers). In Germany, for example, DAB never really took off. Which is why digital radio was effectively "relaunched" in 2011 with DAB+. By now, there are basically no DAB stations any more in Germany, they all switched to DAB+ (or were started on DAB+).

  20. I have already tuned out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I still know a few musicians who play live around here, but honestly all I listen to anymore is videogame soundtracks, and most of them not newer than 2000. As a bonus I can now easily input it directly into the car stereo system and never have to listen to radio crap again... a bit bad if there is ever an emergency broadcast though, since I will never be tuned in to it.

    1. Re:I have already tuned out. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ... a bit bad if there is ever an emergency broadcast though, since I will never be tuned in to it.

      This is an important issue that is never considered. Airlines (hello, United) are walking into dangerous waters with their move towards aircraft that have absolutely no entertainment systems at all, or require paying for the DirectTV in the seatback. More and more people are moving to using PED (personal electronic devices) for their distractions, and NONE of those are linked into the aircraft announcement system.

      Imagine the scene in "Scully" where the announcement comes over the PA to "brace for impact" and the stews start shouting the commands repeatedly, but the majority of the passengers never hear it because they are listening to their pearPods or whatever. And those who do hear it only hear what comes out the pathetic speaker system, which is unintelligible most of the time anyway.

      It's a safety issue that will come home to roost sometime soon.

  21. DAB and DAB+ by worf_mo · · Score: 2

    Due to government requirements, our local public radio and television agency is soon switching to DAB+. This means that all devices that understand only DAB (without the +, very common until only a few years ago) will no longer be able to receive any channels and therefore be obsolete. Fortunately, FM will still be available, so my receiver from the 1980s will still be working fine. Everybody who bought into DAB too soon will have to buy a new device, though.

    1. Re:DAB and DAB+ by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Good. DAB was horrible in its inception and should have died much sooner. The sooner countries move away from it the sooner manufacturers will stop releasing that garbage. Currently it's stuck in a self-fulfilling loop.

  22. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It's a shame because I just got my first car with DAB, and it actually works really well. Better than FM in fact, at least for Radio 4 (talk only, they don't play much music so I can't comment on quality). Drops out less than FM did, especially in tunnels and rural areas.

    I know it sucks in many places, but if it had been done well it could have been good. I'm just lucky my area has good coverage. Such a missed opportunity.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  23. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Is DAB approximately the same thing as HD-Radio, just a different part of the spectrum?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by jeepies · · Score: 0

    On the one hand I agree with your argument. On the other, it's the reason why a lot of the US has poor internet speeds. Maybe "a company can continue to be profitable" isn't sufficient. I think the consumer impact/benefit needs to be considered as well. I wouldn't argue turning off FM provides much consumer benefit though.

  25. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DAB here in the UK is a failure because we adopted it too early, and we are stuck with first generation DAB rather than DAB+. I hope Norway is a bit more advanced.

    We were just as early adopters, but in an effort to give as many as possible the finger it will be exclusively DAB+. So if you bought a DAB radio it has both been born and died in less time than most FM radios have lived. If you live in a sane country and need FM radios you can probably get them for a few bucks + shipping, there will be literally millions of them thrown away. To my knowledge there will be zero effort made to recycle them other than as electronic trash, when you could have just put them in a container and shipped them to... anywhere but here, really and sold them cheap or given them to a third world country. We spend billions in tax relief for EVs... but trash millions of working radios, that's good environmentalism. /facepalm

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  26. Why DAB is a dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even before DAB came out on the market (at least in the UK), they were already speccing out and prototype building DAB2, which *would not be compatible with DAB*. Moreover, DAB's definition required fixed function, so no upgrading old receivers to take the new standard.

    And on a technical note, what is the point of DAB2, anyway? Selling a shitload more replacement recievers with the others being useless landfill?

  27. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    EE here... and I wouldn't be able to build or design an FM radio. Though my major was digital electronics. And I've never actually had a job as an EE...

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  28. "Democracy" by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sixty-six percent of Norwegians oppose switching off FM, with just 17 percent in favor and the rest undecided, according to an opinion poll published by the daily Dagbladet last month.

    Ah, "social democracy". Where they do what's "best for you", not what you want.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While, in the amazing U.S. of A only popular decisions are ever made, which explains why the dude with a couple million less votes wins...

    2. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nono, this is a case of "its good once in a while to be reminded of what capitalism does to you".

    3. Re:"Democracy" by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Please stop pretending that this is done for any social good and not motivated by business greed.

    4. Re:"Democracy" by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like the god damn socialist roads, fire departments, and fucking police departments.

      God dam socialists forcing themselves on me. Where they put the roads are stupid, and they should let most homes burn to the ground.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:"Democracy" by aliquis · · Score: 1

      "But we've got free schools and how would you want to live without health-care (or roads?)" is the typical counter argument.

      Since running a school or health-care somehow is impossible if not publicly funded.

    6. Re:"Democracy" by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I could only imagine how hard it would be to kill analog FM broadcasts in the US, considering that many NEW radios being produced still do not support the "HD Radio" digital signals yet. It's still considered to be a premium option for most radio models in this country.

      We would probably need a good 5 or 6 years to plan an analog to digital switchover, and the big media conglomerates like ClearChannel would not be happy about having to upgrade their receivers in rural markets.

    7. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, Obama.

    8. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not impossible, just a hell of a lot less shit.

    9. Re:"Democracy" by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      Because extremes are always the logical and rational argument... By extension of your argument every business should be entirely government run with regulated pricing, and regulated salaries to its employees. Otherwise a business might charge people more for a product than its "worth" and an employee might be paid less than another regardless of their poor performance.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    10. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if that "business greed" gives me high speed data and more cell phone coverage, it sounds like good progress to me.

    11. Re:"Democracy" by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Ah, "social democracy". Where they do what's "best for you", not what you want.

      Because in the US the politicians never do what people are against. You're like a guy in a wheelchair making fun of another man's limp. We voted for these clowns. We continue voting for these clowns. And if the latest polls are any indication we're moving to a more socialist government in this year's election. Democracy is working fine. The voters, eh.... but at least we haven't stooped to electing reality show celebrity billionaires.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:"Democracy" by tepples · · Score: 1

      I could only imagine how hard it would be to kill analog FM broadcasts in the US, considering that many NEW radios being produced still do not support the "HD Radio" digital signals yet.

      In turn because "HD Radio" is heavily encumbered by exclusive rights, with parts patented and other parts a trade secret.

    13. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, try living in the USA. Last night they said Planned Parenthood has a 59% favorable rating. Congress has an 11% favorable rating. Congress is going to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood. They're also going to kill Obamacare and 75% of Americans either want it to stay the same or simply change it. Of those in the "change it" camp, a significant number actually wan MORE government involvement, not less. I think most Trump voters wanted to keep out the Muslims and Mexicans, not lose their benfits. They don't even listen to their own base.

    14. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you equal conservatives and social democrats, then sure. Otherwise, it's a bloody monarchy!! (shock-horror)

    15. Re:"Democracy" by sjames · · Score: 2

      As opposed to the nimble sole proprietorship like way that megacorps carefully manage? Where salaries are set by merit alone based on the manager's manager's manager personally knowing each and every worker and being intimately familiar with the quality of their output?

      Most of the problems you see in socialism are better attributed to the fact that management structures as we understand them do not work well on a large scale. Socialism has in the past tended to build larger organizations with all of the management failures that entails. These days though, the free market capitalist approach has caught up in the scale and failings, only it isn't even nominally for the public good (in direct contravention of the purpose of corporate charters).

      When the economy (Main Street's economy, not Wall Street's) is good, you can avoid some of those pitfalls by changing jobs, but with the economy ossified (or sclerosed if you prefer), that option is a bit threadbare as well.

    16. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a socialist immigration policy that restricts immigration in favor the people who are already living here. (Suck it, FWD.US.)

      I also want a socialist trade policy that blocks the importation of Apple products until they pay their taxes and move manufacturing into the country.

      It should also be a socialist policy to not hound Christian bakers to cater gay "not-weddings".

      That's the kind of socialism I like.

    17. Re:"Democracy" by DES · · Score: 1

      Ah, "social democracy". Where they do what's "best for you", not what you want.

      As opposed to the US, where government does neither what you want nor what is best for you, but whatever the highest bidder pays them to do?

      The negative public opinion of DAB in Norway is the result of a massive anti-DAB propaganda campaign orchestrated by a single man, Per Morten Hoff, who heads an ICT lobbying group. I don't know for sure what his motivation is. Perhaps he sees DAB as a competitor to streaming over the cellular network, which would benefit some of his constituents. Then again, Norway's larges cellular provider (Telenor) also owns and operates a significant portion of the national radio broadcasting network, and is a strong proponent of DAB.

      Note that Norwegian radio stations—at least the ones I listen to—are in favor of DAB.

    18. Re:"Democracy" by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      It's called the electoral college, so h-holes like California and New York do not dictate their horror to the rest of us.

    19. Re:"Democracy" by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      No. "Socialism" is government owning the means of production. Roads, fire departments, and police departments do not produce goods though they do provide services.

    20. Re:"Democracy" by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      Again, because extremes are always the logical and rational approach?

      Apply your extremist position to a guy who owns one auto repair shop. Or the family that owns a grocery store. Or a woman who makes exceptional lampwork beads, but can only sell them for X% over her cost to make because that's what's dictated by a government bureaucrat.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    21. Re:"Democracy" by sjames · · Score: 1

      We seem to be having different conversations here. What extreme position are you referring to? My belief that large scale management structures suck in general?

      You seem to have yourself created an imaginary extra authoritarian version of extreme socialism to act as a straw man.

      But just to play along, if they get crushed by a socialist bureaucracy, they fall back on their government mandated pay. If they get crushed by Wallyworld, they're just screwed.

    22. Re:"Democracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you firemen get off of my lawn!"

    23. Re:"Democracy" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Except that in a socialist bureaucracy, if you piss off the wrong guy or he just decides he wants to screw someone today, you end up bankrupt or in prison. If you piss off somebody at Wallyworld, you can go work for Home Despot instead.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    24. Re:"Democracy" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Socialism in practice is just another flavor of unlimited government power. Once the principle of private ownership of anything is abandoned, the private ownership of everything has lost its intellectual underpinning.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    25. Re:"Democracy" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Politicians try not to get caught doing unpopular things that they can be punished for, and that's very different. Beyond that, they are guided by money, personal axe-grinding, ideology, and party discipline. Thus Obamacare.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    26. Re:"Democracy" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      NPR is not a reliable source.

      Most people favorable to Planned Parenthood do not understand what P.P. does and what its philosophy is. I support nearly unrestricted abortion rights, yet I still know that Planned Parenthood is an evil organization and even if it weren't it still shouldn't get federal government funding.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:"Democracy" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Try pissing off the wrong cop or IRS agent, perhaps just by being there when he's having a bad day. Or perhaps they're just underfunded and figure a little civil forfeiture will fix that right up. It happens in the U.S. every day.

  29. All about money for Govt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a cash grab. Move the poor people out of their comfort zone and sell it off to the rich.
    Ain't Communism Great!
    5 million is a SMALL country. The use has cities with more than that.

  30. Misguided Priorities by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The NUMBER of Analog FM stations which the bands can accommodate are MORE THAN NEEDED.

    And switching them off is a major public detriment, Because of the loss of the major advantage which Analog FM radio has....

    Receivers for FM are CHEAP, UBIQUITOUS, Easy to receive transmissions, And Analog signals are very forgiving.

    Also, the relatively small NUMBER IS AN ADVANTAGE. When FM receivers are being used for THEIR MAIN PURPOSE, which.....
    Is to receive broadcast messages, potentially during a time of emergency when aLL THE DIGITAL STUFF is broken.....
    (E.g. Due to EMP)

    1. Re:Misguided Priorities by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Receivers for FM are CHEAP, UBIQUITOUS, Easy to receive transmissions, And Analog signals are very forgiving.

      That is precisely the problem. There is no money to be made anymore in making or selling FM receivers. It takes courage, to ditch the headphone jack and make everyone buy new hardware. It takes courage to obsolete (yes, I am verbing obsolete. BTW that also obsoletes rules regarding intransitive verbs.) all existing ubiquitous, cheap hardware and force every one to buy new hardware. And, think! Once people get used to the idea of monopolies (defacto or de-fiat) obsoleting hardware, we can force them upgrade at will, at more frequent intervals. Think of all the moolah to be made! Oooo! profit!!!

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:Misguided Priorities by DogDude · · Score: 5, Funny

      You SEEM to have an INTERMITTENT problem with your CAPS LOCK.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Misguided Priorities by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Analog AM is even cheaper and can be built with trash found in most homes. we should ditch this FM radio and go back to AM radio!

      and dammit Spark Gap is even more effective! I can eliminate pesky frequency tuning!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Misguided Priorities by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      You are making a really bad assumption - that they can't cut the FM spectrum in half, use the digital version to maintain the existing number of stations. That frees up VALUABLE spectrum to give to other technology.

      We desperately need radio spectrum for other services. Ever have trouble using bluetooth? Not enough spectrum. Cell phone can't connect? not enough spectrum.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Misguided Priorities by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You are making a really bad assumption - that they can't cut the FM spectrum in half

      Reducing the bandwidth reduces the range and eliminates the capability to receive weak signals.

      These are extremely valuable traits that analog radio has..... Under BAD conditions, you can still get a signal.

      The Digital audio is higher quality when you can get it, But when conditions are bad you don't hear static, it cuts out 100% instead.

      That frees up VALUABLE spectrum to give to other technology.

      The additional service that FM radio provides is more valuable than the other technology.

      Ever have trouble using bluetooth? Not enough spectrum. Cell phone can't connect? not enough spectrum.

      No..... There is plenty of spectrum. The trouble is largely a combination of cheaply made devices, bugs, and inefficient protocols.

      In the case of Cell phones not being able to connect; it's usually bad location with respect to the provider's towers which
      results in poor signal.

      Oh, poor signal conditions where Cell phones won't work because they're digital, but with an FM Radio you could still receive a signal (It would just have some static).

    6. Re:Misguided Priorities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ever have trouble using bluetooth?

      I've never had a problem using bluetooth that wasn't caused by a poor implementation.

      Cell phone can't connect?

      That has nothing to do with spectrum where I live, and everything to do with capitalism.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Misguided Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MY caPs LOck keY is FINe, BUT i WiSh mY HaMster, bUbbLes, didn'T USE It foR a POgo STIcK.

    8. Re:Misguided Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So edgy. Obsolete is used as a verb all the time, most often in the form 'Y obsoleted by X' or 'X obsoletes Y'. So don't get all too excited over it, ok?

    9. Re:Misguided Priorities by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      >> That frees up VALUABLE spectrum to give to other technology.

      Please tell me what makes 10 MHZ of VHF bandwidth (i.e.WAY too low for decent data rate) so desperately needed/valuable in Norway?

    10. Re:Misguided Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAYBE he is ZIPPY the PINHEAD. Yow!

    11. Re:Misguided Priorities by lazarus · · Score: 1

      Unless your FM radios are sporting vacuum tubes, you're going to have the same problem with EMP as its transistors will be toast.

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    12. Re:Misguided Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >THEIR MAIN PURPOSE

      So their main purpose is to receive emergency messages? Perhaps that was an original intent back in 1912 or something... but now its main purpose is to carry advertisements occasionally interrupted by talk-show hosts, music, or some schmucks opining on about politics or celebrities.

      Emergency messages are a tie-in. Appropriate and needed tie-tin, but not the original intent.

    13. Re:Misguided Priorities by sjames · · Score: 1

      So dead simple that in a pinch, a pair of headphones (even broken), a safety pin, a bit of rusted metal (traditionally, an old safety razor blade) and a pencil stub can be used to receive a strong analog signal.

    14. Re:Misguided Priorities by sjames · · Score: 1

      More spectrum won't help the no bars situation. A capital investment in more cell towers would, but that ain't happening.

    15. Re:Misguided Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or is it starting to look more and more like our economy is restructuring away from growing wealth, and towards a broken-window-fallacy upgrade treadmill?

    16. Re:Misguided Priorities by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I think so. Or is it transitioning to "You own nothing but you rent everything" - aka you're ALWAYS paying for a 'subscription fee' for something?

    17. Re:Misguided Priorities by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's just amplitude modulation

    18. Re:Misguided Priorities by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      NO he's just FAR away and it's the POOR signal quality causing PARTS of the transmission TO get LOUDER and quieter.

    19. Re:Misguided Priorities by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Unless your FM radios are sporting vacuum tubes, you're going to have the same problem with EMP

      Not really..... EMP from a Large solar flare is likely to nuke the integrated circuits in your television, your internet router, all the computers required for cell towers to work, and other devices with silicon microchips at the end of a long wire. There are many possible scenarios where most FM radios ought to be fine, and since broadcasters require much less infrastructure than cell phone towers, they can be more quickly got back online....

    20. Re:Misguided Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ejaculated SEMEN into your MOM'S mouth last NIGHT.

    21. Re:Misguided Priorities by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention another counterpoint here..... the Total Spectrum available for all FM broadcasters combined is miniscule compared to the amount of spectrum available for Bluetooth or a single WiFi channel..

      Furthermore, each frequency range has different propagation characteristics, And the spectrum allocated to FM broadcasters is not at all suitable for local applications such as Microwave frequencies used for Bluetooth, WiFi, and Cell phones.

      Because the FM broadcast band is in the VHF frequencies which are largely line-of-sight propagation; the transmitter requires a high antenna with a high-power signal for receivers to pick this up, and low-power signals are greatly attenuated by building materials, such as trees or wood, you need a few watts at least and a long antenna to get out just a couple miles. Compared to Microwave-range signals , where Cell phones require less than a watt of transmit power.

      In other words, these would not be useful for cell phones.

      It's also not suitable to reclaim for High-speed data applications, because of limited bandwidth...

      It would only be able to help Bluetooth, if say bluetooth was a 16-Kilobits per Second wireless technology. But it's not; Bluetooth requires more bandwidth than can be had from a few Mhz of bandwidth.

    22. Re:Misguided Priorities by mysidia · · Score: 1

      People referring to "spectrum" As if it was just some random commodity, and different frequencies didn't have different characteristics.

      For starters; Assuming everybody on planet earth agrees to throw away their cell phone that does 800mhz and 1600mhz and buy a new one that adds a VHF radio that can work the band whose upper end is 88 Mhz.

      One of the first things that has to change is the Cell phone Transmit power has to increase from 500 mW to more than 1 Watt.

      The second thing that has to change, is your Cell phone's antenna has to increase in size.
      Because the wavelength is changing from 38 centimeter or 15 centimeter All the way up to 2.7 Meters.

      This means that the Required antenna length increases from approximately 6 to 16 centimeters (5 to 6 inches) all the way up to about 1.7 meters, Or 5.5 feet, before it can be resonant across the broadcast range.

      The required transmit power will go up two more times further if you use a less-efficient antenna.... E.g. Loading coils to electrically double the antenna length, so you can make it physically shorter.

      Finally, the amount of spectrum is so miniscule, that it won't be useful for significant data applications ---- You could support a few 19200 baud streams over the entire 20 Mhz range, Or possibly 100 simultaneous voice conversations across the whole range.

      But seriously, the existing more than 200 MHz already allocated for Cell phones and more than 600 MHz a is plenty adequate for local wireless technologies. Destroying a valuable radio service provide at most a potential 1% increase in available frequencies just don't make any sense.

    23. Re:Misguided Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mind him, he's just been on a Beneath a Steel Sky binge.

    24. Re:Misguided Priorities by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Quite often the inability to get cellphone service is do to local government preventing siting of towers. In turn, that is usually the result of public pressure, either widespread or from a small activist group. The usual excuse is "eyesore."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    25. Re:Misguided Priorities by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "low-power signals are greatly attenuated by building materials"
      Are you implying that high power signals aren't attenuated by building materials by the same ratio?

      A standard FM antenna 3 km line-of-sight away from a 1 watt transmitter should get about 1 microwatt at the antenna terminals. That's about 80 dB above the noise floor.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    26. Re:Misguided Priorities by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      EMP does not magically destroy all semiconductors. There are design techniques to limit the effects of EMP that will prevent the destruction of components in most cases.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:Misguided Priorities by mysidia · · Score: 1

      A standard FM antenna 3 km line-of-sight away from a 1 watt transmitter should get about 1 microwatt at the antenna terminals.

      That's not a good accomplishment; Typical cell tower spacing is 5 to 10 miles. That 3km is less than two miles, and there's no way the cell phone companies can justify the cost of building additional VHF cell sites to that density across the continent for a mere 20 Mhz of bandwidth. Cell phones using the existing bands have a range of more than 15 Miles.

      Are you implying that high power signals aren't attenuated by building materials by the same ratio?

      No. Higher Frequency signals aren't attenuated by building materials by the same ratio -- the function is nonlinear, and many frequencies less than the UHF range have a higher chance of being absorbed or reflected, But the 20-Fold increase in antenna size is a huge problem for having a compact mobile device. You cannot just increase cell phones from 500 mW to a full Watt, or 2 Watts..... The POWER your cell phone can transmit is fixed by the size of the device, Human safe RF exposure maximums (since phones will be held to the head), battery capacity, and the weight of materials within the phone whose purpose is to conduct energy and safely dissipate heat.

    28. Re:Misguided Priorities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Quite often the inability to get cellphone service is do to local government preventing siting of towers.

      Well, our local government is as old-boys as it comes, so that's not the problem. I just live in the sticks, and it's not profitable to install enough towers to get halfway decent coverage here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    nope, looks like the same FM broadcast frequencies, it is the mode of modulation is changed from analog FM-Wide to Digital Audio Broadcast

    http://radiomap.eu/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  32. Radio and broadcast TV for old people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looking and listening at the advertisements I hear on those mediums, they are mostly aimed at older - retired - people. At the very least, the advertisers are under the impression (they have the data) that radio and broadcast TV are for the older generations.

    Shortwave is for religious programming here in the States - the BBC shut down all of their N. American SW broadcasts a few years ago. AM radio is mostly political crap. And FM here is getting crappy - at least in my market area.

    My 2015 Subaru has so many different media options - radio is like 1 of 5 or 6 and that's BOTH AM and FM bands.

    It's just technology changing.

    What's going to suck though, is that broadcast is strictly advertiser funded. These other media double dip frequently- advertiser AND subscriptions.

  33. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by operagost · · Score: 2
    You haven't heard about the FM radio spectrum spring cleaning?

    FM Cleaning

    DO NOT CONNECT TO FM RADIO FROM MARCH 31st 23:59 pm (GMT) UNTIL 12:01am (GMT) APRIL 1st.

    *** Attention ***

    It's that time again! As many of you know, each year FM radio must be shut down for 24 hours in order to allow us to clean it. The cleaning process, which eliminates dead left-wing talk radio and inactive top 40, classic rock, and adult contemporary stations, allows for a better-working and faster FM.

    This year, the cleaning process will take place from 23:59 pm (GMT) on March 31st until 00:01 am (GMT) on April 2nd. During that 24-hour period, five powerful FM radio-crawling robots situated around the world will search the FM radio and delete any data that they find.

    In order to protect your valuable data from deletion we ask that you do the following:
    1. Disconnect all terminals and local area networks from their FM radio connections.
    2. Shut down all FM radio servers, or disconnect them from the FM radio.
    3. Disconnect all disks and hardrives from any connections to the FM radio.
    4. Refrain from connecting any computer to the FM radio in any way.
    We understand the inconvenience that this may cause some FM radio users, and we apologize. However, we are certain that any inconveniences will be more than made up for by the increased speed and efficiency of the FM radio, once it has been cleared of electronic flotsam and jetsam.

    We thank you for your cooperation.

    Interconnected Network Maintenance Staff
    Main Branch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Sysops and others: Since the last FM radio cleaning, the number of FM radio users has grown dramatically. Please assist us in alerting the public of the upcoming FM radio cleaning by posting this message where your users will be able to read it.

    Please pass this message on to other sysops and FM radio users as well.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  34. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2

    DAB uses the MPEG-1 Layer 2 codec due to being an earlier standard. HD Radio and DAB+ use HE-AAC based codecs. The biggest difference is DAB usually has dedicated spectrum, vs sharing the FM band. Also, HD Radio is patent encumbered and has tons of licensing fees while DAB is an open standard. Norway could be planning on re-farming the FM band for something else, or moving existing DAB broadcasts there and freeing up the current DAB broadcast band.

  35. Re: Norway switching off FM ? by Megane · · Score: 2

    Except that the HD Radio """standard""" is full of patents, so even if you knew how to make a digital receiver, you couldn't sell it without paying license fees.

    And they call it HD to make you think "high definition" when in reality it's barely up to the quality of a 128K MP3. The HD stands for "Hybrid Digital". There is really no need for it to exist other than ZOMG DIGITAL.

    Also, nobody cares about stereo on AM anymore, so there's no need for it there, either. AM (in the US) has become talk radio and low-income music for people who don't give a fuck about audio quality. (The AM band is full of Mexican-style music down here in Texas, with the occasional country or rap station in between.) It is also extremely susceptible to RFI, making the sound quality even worse. I even know of two talk radio stations that have LP FM simulcasts so you can get better audio within the metro area limits.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  36. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by bobbied · · Score: 2

    the internet allows even more radiostations than DAB... keep the old FM going, everybody with highschool education can build a receiver from scrap parts for it, for DAB, not so much. I fail to see how DAB makes any sense at all.

    Um... FM reception is a bit tricky actually... And I'm an Extra Ham Radio operator who has a BSEE. I seriously doubt high school grads would posses the necessary technical knowledge to bias the detector properly, much less build a proper FM receiver that requires more than a handful of discrete parts or a pretty complicated IC...

    Now AM... THAT'S easy to do with a pretty low parts count... With a set of high impedance earphones, a razor blade, wire and a variable capacitor you can whip up one of those...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  37. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DAB+ won't help. They'll just turn down the bitrate to get more stations in until the average person starts complaining about the quality. That'll be a loiwer bitrate for DAB+. so they'll be able to get more stations in. This is exactly what has happened with digital TV.

  38. "I don’t listen to the radio much either."-G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An actual politicians viewpoints.

    Not to be political, but I I just heard this exchange between Lindsey Graham and James Clapper this week:

    GRAHAM: Would you agree with me that Radio Free Europe is outdated?

    CLAPPER: I’m frankly not up on —

    GRAHAM: Well, it says “Radio,” and a lot of people don’t listen to radio like we used to.

    CLAPPER: Well, actually radio is a very popular mode in many places in the world.

    GRAHAM: Radio is big in your world?

    CLAPPER: Hmm.. my world? Not so much.

    GRAHAM: Yea, I don’t listen to the radio much either.

  39. This is to early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Car manufacturers should have been equipping cars with DAB+ Reivers as a default rule for by the government for at least 10 years already - then a switch over can be done.

    Don't really understand why they do that with so little preparation - 2 Million car's not able to receive the new technology. What about visitors from other countries (car tourists..) Car's in Austria are for instance right now still not equipped with DAB+ technology. (okay probably i would switch to internet radio there anyway) Though this means also Navigation systems - TMC will not work anymore there.

    It is just not very consumer friendly. Hope they decide to take more time

  40. It's bitztream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll

  41. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DAB uses a different part of the spectrum. FM will be shut down to save on maintenance, not to make room from DAB.

    Save on maintenance, or make take more of the spectrum to auction off to cell phone companies?

  42. why do you need more stations by bigmo · · Score: 2

    when they all play the same thing? Generic music, generic news, generic humor.

    1. Re:why do you need more stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when they all play the same thing? Generic music, generic news, generic humor.

      This is exactly how I feel. I haven't listened to FM radio in years. I'd rather listed to something from off my phone, or maybe stream something, but FM radio (to say nothing of AM) is simply out of the question. I'd rather listed to my car motor or the tire noise from the road.

      The last time I was forced (by lack of an alternative) to listen to FM, I remember going through all the presets and every single one of them was playing an ad, so I shut it off.

    2. Re:why do you need more stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when they all play the same thing? Fake music, fake news, fake humor.

      FTFY

    3. Re:why do you need more stations by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      when they all play the same thing? Generic music, generic news, generic humor.

      Because they don't. Almost universally in countries where FM has moved to DAB+ there have been a huge rise in the number of special purpose radio stations, or special content stations from existing broadcasters due to being able to put more content on the same frequency bands.

  43. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Yes, after a little under 3 months from now we'll have that cleaning too.
    After that we'll know who forgot that will be April 1st.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  44. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of stream by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

    And DAB+ is obsoleted by internet streaming for home use. In cars there's no need for the digital sound, FM is good enough.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  45. Swedish radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose that you could tune in Swedish radio stations, but who wants to listen to ABBA all day.

    1. Re:Swedish radio by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Didn't they move to Ace of Base already?

    2. Re:Swedish radio by tepples · · Score: 1

      I can not see where your joke is headed.

  46. DAB is awesome by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Lower powers can transmit farther, so it really makes a difference in the RF background noise.

    And honestly, I blame the turdtastic car makers putting in garbage radios and "infotainment" that does not support HDFM. it's been a standard for well over 10 years now. so it's high time the car makers and car stereo makers are forced to put it in place.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:DAB is awesome by scsirob · · Score: 1

      I have both DAB+ and FM in my car (Swedish Volvo), and I live in the Netherlands, a small, totally flat country. These circumstances should be perfect for DAB+. Even so, it drops out at random places where FM works just fine.

      Looking at Norway, unless they plaster the country with transmitters, there's no way they can arrange proper coverage for DAB+.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    2. Re:DAB is awesome by bytestorm · · Score: 1

      DAB is not HDFM. DAB uses MP2 @
      DAB also transmits 9-12 channels in a single 1.5MHz transmission that must be simultaneously received (expensive), then the stream you want can be decoded from the digital data. HDFM uses normal 200kHz-wide channels or subchannels of normal radio transmissions. This guarantees battery life is always going to be worse for portables decoding DAB and DAB+ than HDFM, and both will be a lot worse than demodulating simple FM directly.

      All that aside, I could care less about what they do to commercial radio as long as they leave AM weather and emergency radio alone. Were I Norwegian, it would bother me that the government is effectively forcing the use of a patented codec because the out-of-patent codec allowed by the DAB standard sounds like shit compared to FM.

    3. Re:DAB is awesome by bytestorm · · Score: 1

      Note to self, no < signs.

      DAB is not HDFM. DAB uses MP2 @ ~128kbps; DAB+ is the same bitrate except HE-AAC (under patent); HDFM uses up to 300kbps, also HE-AAC.

    4. Re:DAB is awesome by fisted · · Score: 1

      note to you, it's &lt; or setting your posting mode to plaintext.

    5. Re:DAB is awesome by DES · · Score: 1

      Looking at Norway, unless they plaster the country with transmitters, there's no way they can arrange proper coverage for DAB+.

      DAB coverage in Norway is about as good as FM coverage. There are gaps in both networks, but not necessarily in the same places. So for every person that says “DAB sucks because I can't get a signal at my favorite fishing spot”, there's another that says “FM sucks because I can't get a signal at my favorite fishing spot on the other side of the same hill”.

  47. Re: Norway switching off FM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same AC. I noted that it was proprietary, which I criticized as a major disadvantage. Sure, the HD is a marketing ploy, but there is an advantage to in band simulcasts. The advantage is that, by operating simultaneously on the same frequencies, it removes the incentive for the FCC to discontinue analog radio broadcasts. There are no frequencies to sell off, and so the FCC is unlikely to see a benefit to discontinuing the analog broadcasts. Although there are advantages to digital broadcasts, analog transmitters and receivers are simpler. Radio has value in disseminating information in the event of emergencies, and it might be better to have something that's simple and just works. It also doesn't suffer from the digital cliff, which is an added benefit. If you want better audio quality, satellite radio is a viable, though expensive, alternative. Digital terrestrial radio has the advantage of making more efficient use of the bandwidth.

  48. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It depends on the signal strength - a crystal radio is so simple, you don't need a schematic. BTW, for the skeptics out there, a simple non-linear element such as a germanium diode can actually demodulate a FM signal if you tune to slightly beside the carrier.

  49. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To my knowledge there will be zero effort made to recycle them other than as electronic trash, when you could have just put them in a container and shipped them to... anywhere but here, really and sold them cheap or given them to a third world country.

    "Giving" your toxic waste to third world countries is neither charitable nor an environmentally friendly alternative to dumping them in your own landfills. WTF is someone living in the third world going to do with an obsolete DAB radio? They don't have DAB stations to listen to, and if they ever get them, they are far more likely to be the same HE-AACv2 DAB+ signals that have triggered you into throwing your radio away than the original MPEG-1 layer 2 based DAB that the radio can receive.

  50. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hmm, another McDonalds burger flippen EE wallowing in the 'STEM shortage'?

  51. Maybe Team Rock can move to Norway by bazorg · · Score: 1

    Team Rock Radio was the only station I listened to when I had DAB in the car. Then they decided not to renew the £1M per year rent for the use of that space, and a religious organisation took over their frequency. Just before Christmas 2016 they had to shut down what was left of the business. Internet radio is also a tough place to be, even without paying rent to the DAB people.

  52. Courage by thatjavaguy · · Score: 2

    This is a courageous decision. They should also ban 3.5mm jacks whilst they are passing legislation.

  53. Internet plus StreamTuner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I want is an internet connection and StreamTuner. DAB is just a waste.

  54. Re:"I don’t listen to the radio much either. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Graham is a retard. It's one thing to say that Radio Free Europe is outdated b'cos Europe (aside from Russia) is already free, making this program redundant. It's another thing to say that it's outdated b'cos it should go to another medium, like TV or DAB.

    But then again, this is someone who like Obama thinks that Russia, rather than the world Jihad, is the biggest threat to the US, and who would have the US brownnose countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, while opposing Russia everywhere they can

  55. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't DAB on L-Band officially dead now? Everywhere that has actually deployed is using Band III, and L-Band frequencies have been auctioned off for LTE use in many countries that were previously considering using it for DAB.

  56. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sigh, because an FM radio can be build with about 5 components that you can make yourself in a few minutes. AM radio takes 2 or 3 and is self powered.

    EE here, though admittedly an EE who spends all his time doing CS. I don't recall the exact circuits we did in the lab, but simple AM is what possible possibly with a high frequency op amp configured with bandpass, and maybe some way to tune that. After that you can presumably just use a diode and a cap to create a follower, then maybe another amp to get it to useable level. So that is what 1 chip, at least 4 resistors, tunable caps? something like that. That puts it at like 7 without the antenna, so 8 with the antenna. It is certainly not self powered, at least in any meaningful way. Your not driving a speaker with it at any rate. Power supply brings you to 9 at least, and again that would be a crap radio.

    You don't even really have to properly calculate the values of the components, you just have to get in the general ballpark and have a tuning coil and you can pick up anything from old analog TV signals, to FM radio, to aircraft radio.

    In short, if you can't build a functioning FM radio in a few minutes with random crap you can find laying around the house, then you simply aren't an EE and you know pretty much nothing about it.

    FFS, the CIA has build MECHANICAL AM transmitters powered remotely by microwaves being beamed at it.

    Meh, I couldn't build an FM radio that easily. I remember the lab was annoying. Could I do it? Sure. Would I do it? I seriously doubt it. I'd look to see if there is a module or chip that has that functionality and move on. Or just go to amazon and buy one.

    We have digital radio in the US, but amazingly most? Aftermarket car radios sold don't have it. I don't get that, but it is true. I'd think by now that the difference in cost should be marginal. We of course use the hybrid old + new, which I also agree shouldn't be a long term solution. I'd slowly phase out the one for the other, or just not approve new analog licenses.

  57. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You couldnt design this or something simlar to this?

    http://electronics-diy.com/simple-fm-radio.php

    Maybe there is a reason you have never held a job as an EE...

  58. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Different part of the spectrum, different modulation methods, different data encoding, different meta-data formats, and doesn't hang off the side of an analogue FM station, but otherwise, yes apart from the differences that pretty much encompass everything about it, it is the same as HD Radio.

  59. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, what ? I feel like my one EE class got me most of the way there. Do you mean a modern fm radio or just something that picks up a signal ?

  60. Longer range and more reliable reception by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    all they need to do is keep it analog and just change the bandpass to about 25 to 50 kilohertz wide and that would make room for more stations

    When you have a FM demodulator designed for 180 KHz (200 KHz is the channel width, not the sideband extent, which you can calculate using Carson’s rule), that same demodulator, when encountering half the width signal, will produce 1/2 the output volume; because FM encodes the audio waveform with frequency deviation. If the deviation is half, then so is the output waveform. Though I should point out that +/-75 KHz is the actual audio deviation, so really. 150 KHz.

    Additionally, within the standard FM signal, encoded at rates of deviation, there is a stereo pilot at 19 KHz, a stereo subcarrier at 38 Khz, as well as digital information (RDS/RDBS) and two mode narrow-band monophonic audio channels up higher yet.

    Another thing: The wide bandwidth is part of what gives broadcast FM its capacity for reasonably high fidelity. You drop down to 25...50 KHz total bandwidth, and you'd going to see some noticeable reduction in fidelity; cram a stereo subcarrier in there, and you'll see even more.

    So it's not a matter of "just make it narrower" because compatibility with older receivers, of which there are a huge number still happily being used by their owners, would be unable to make useful audio out of the signal and because audio fidelity and stereo imaging would suffer (and that's not what FM listeners would call an "advance".) Oh, and you'd lose the capability for the RDBS and the extra audio channels, too.

    The right answer is leave the current FM band alone. The FCC wants new transmission types with reduced range that won't work with the gear people already have in order to fluff the corporations? Fine. Put it somewhere where it won't wreck 70-ish years worth of radio gear owned by a huge portion of the population. Maybe someone will even listen. Stop forcing citizens to make expensive changes they have no need to make.

    Corporations drive these consumer-level stupidities. Of course, for the corporations, it's not stupid: They're intending to make a lot more money off of us citizens. And with the FCC (in the US) or whatever other government coercion backing their play, they will succeed, too.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Longer range and more reliable reception by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      of course you would have to redesign the radio receivers to use the narrower bandwidth, and i would suggest dropping stereo and just broadcast it in monoband, if someone wants higher fidelity they can go buy the CD/DVD of the music they like

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Longer range and more reliable reception by Nethead · · Score: 1

      As a broadcast engineer in another life, I must say you explained that well.

      I agree, it needs to be another service on another band. Take one of the VHF TV channels or pop it up in the 230MHz area. If it's digital it won't need more than 6-12MHz band anyway.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:Longer range and more reliable reception by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Thank you, suh. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  61. How can a nation "switch off" FM radio? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    "Norway is set to become the first nation to start switching off its FM radio network..."

    How???
    I've read read several articles and none of them describe the mechanism by which they will accomplish this. If it was only broadcasts by the state-owned "Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation" I could understand, but it seems like they're talking about all FM radio. It's not like they can just flip a switch and "turn off" part of the EM spectrum. Does it mean that the Norwegian government is going to make it illegal for anyone to do FM broadcasting?

    1. Re:How can a nation "switch off" FM radio? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Something like that I imagine. They'll probably just not renew the FM licenses of stations - they'll be forced to go digital if not already on it.

    2. Re:How can a nation "switch off" FM radio? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I'm presuming the Norewegian government's equivalent of the FAA will revoke/not renew licencing for that band.

    3. Re:How can a nation "switch off" FM radio? by DES · · Score: 1

      The company that operates the national broadcasting network (Norkring, wholly owned by Telenor, where the Norwegian government owns 54% of the stock) will stop broadcasting FM. Local radio stations with their own transmitters can continue to transmit FM if they want.

    4. Re:How can a nation "switch off" FM radio? by hackel · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you have no clue just how regulated the EM spectrum is around the world. The government absolutely can just flip a switch and turn off FM radio, cellular networks, or anything it likes, because the vast majority of the world does not operate like illegal, pirate radio stations. They have to abide by the law.

    5. Re:How can a nation "switch off" FM radio? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Norway has not learned from the lesson of England's offshore and pirate radio starting in the 1960s.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  62. DAB vs. Streaming by DrYak · · Score: 4, Informative

    the internet allows even more radiostations than DAB...

    ...but requires a working Internet connection. Please take notice that the summary speaks about Norway. A country that is in Europe, and not even in the EU.
    Europe is not a single country, but a lot of different countries, each with its local cellular service providers.
    As soon as you travel abroad, you're roaming, and internet connection can get quite expensive.
    Whereas DAB and FM are just available for free from the air.

    Also :

    - FM (RDS TMC) and DAB (TPEG) have very clear standard for emitting traffic informations, which - at least in Europe - is supported by the vast majority of hardware (in-vehicle infotainment, standalone GPS receivers, etc.)
    There isn't such a clear widely supported standard on internet. Google can provide a traffic overlay on their Maps service/app, but there's no standard way for that information to be propagated to your car's computer or your tomtom.
    (And again, there's going to be a lot of people use offline maps in their car or using a standalone device, because streaming data from the internet while not it your country costs a lot in Europe, and thus using Google Maps for driving direction isn't that much practical. - Not only less features, but also requires you to download maps in advance using their fugly clumsy interface. at which point a standalone device starts to sound much better).

    - FM and DAB also have a standard way to do to temporarily switch channels for some critical/emergency announcement (interrupt the radio you are listening to announce that there's an accident ahead on the highway you're driving on and you need to be careful to avoid the mess on the road. Or that because of the snow, there's a barrage of snow-plows driving at 30 km/h on the same highway where you're driving 130 km/h. You can't overtake them and you need to adapt your speed to avoid colliding).
    This standard is supported by nearly any in-car radio for the past 20 years (i.e.: even old FM radios that might not be able to take advantage of all the other information available on the RDS channel can at least interrupt your music for an announcement). It even works while other media sources are playing (if you're listening to music on an USB stick, modern cars will pause their own media player, have you listen to the radio announcement, then resume your music). Even works over bluetooth (with the car emitting "pause" and "play" commands over bluetooth before/after the announcement, if the bluetooth player supports it).

    As far as I know, Spotifiy on its own won't interrupt you for anything but advertisement (on free accounts). I doesn't support any traffic announcement. (and it would be problematic, because it would need GPS awareness and again costly data roaming).
    You still need the car being able to catch FM/DAB information to be able to interrupt the spotify playing on your tablet.

    - And that's the practical implication.
    Then there's the matter of taste. Some people acutally enjoy listening to radio. Because of the music program, because of the talking heads, because of the news, etc. which currently aren't provided by internet streaming alternatives like spotify.
    Only provided by web radios - ie.: radio that stream also on the internet - ie.: provide over costly internet connection what they also provide for free over the air with DAB.

    everybody with highschool education can build a receiver from scrap parts for it, for DAB, not so much.

    RTL-SDR would like to disagree with you.

    Yup, it's not the same concept of "scrapt parts" (you're referring to electronic component lying around: resistors, transistors, condos, etc.) (I'm referring on the kind of scraps I have around : RaspPis, Arduinos, etc.) but it's still quite close to what a modern geek might have lying around.
    Even if QAM / QSPK are much more complicated than FM, it's still possible to hack some at home, and is much more relevant in the modern world (Except for analog broadcast radio and a few legacy handheld radio "walkie-talkie", who the hell gives a damn about Frequency modulation nowadays ?)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re: DAB vs. Streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both DAB and streaming suck. The future is analog.

  63. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll just turn down the bitrate to get more stations in

    Sounds like Sirius/XM in the US. The quality of the music broadcasts is so terrible, but they just have to cram in more crappy stations.

  64. Ha-Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There goes the oil money, down the drain.

  65. DAB by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I believed DAB failed because it was no big audio improvement since most people don't have high quality car stereos or just don't care.

    There's a huge improvement that isn't qualitative but quantitative.

    Using DAB/DAB+ its possible to pack a fuckton more radio channels in the same amount of frequencies.

    That plays a critical role in the densely populated region that is continental Europe, where you might cross a border every few kilometers - each country having its own national radios, etc.
    e.g.: In central europe, you have regions where Germany, France and Switzerland are all within reach of each others radio waves. And the last one has *4 fucking official nationnal language*

    In other words, the FM radio frequencies are quite overcrowded. If you want to push yet another nationnal radio channel it's going to be difficult. Good luck if you're a small local indie radio - getting license for a FM frequency is going to be hell.

    DAB makes all of this much more easy: it's much more roomy for additional channels.
    even if your car speakers cannot notice the higher quality sound, the availability of radio channels is still something you can notice.

    In the analog TV shutdown many people didn't changed TV but purchased a STB. There's no way to do that in cars where most people listen to radio.

    It's just about swapping the DIN radio module in your car - can even be done by a motivated end-users.

    On the other hand, in expensive high-end autos that have a whole infotainment center directly built in, that's indeed more complicated.
    Either you need an extra player (that you connect with the front AUX port, over bluetooth, or connected to the back AUX/CD-Loader or handsfree connector) - i.e.: the in-car equivalent of a STB(*)
    Or you need to upgrade-swap the radio module, which is going to be much more expensive and complicated because instead of a DIN standard it's some custom solution, which is proprietary to the car manufacturer... and that's hoping that the manufacturer actually has an upgrade available.

    (*) : for technical reasons (catching traffic info over FM/DAB, some standalone GPS boxes have FM/DAB capability in addition to some MP3 player. So it might be possible that not even an extra box is needed).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  66. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by sandmaninator · · Score: 2

    Workers in 3rd world countries have few wage earning opportunities. This depresses wages and also makes it possible for companies to find workers to disassemble obsolete electronics at a (very) small profit and recycle any parts that have value.
    Personally, I think this work should be done in the 1st world countries where the obsolete products are disassembled by robots and in adherence with the strict environmental standards of those countries.
    Part of the attractiveness of sending those electronics to poor countries, in addition to low wages, are the lack of environmental protections.

  67. To summarize Bruce Springsteen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More channels and nothing on

    captcha: degrade

  68. Re: Norway switching off FM ? by Aereus · · Score: 2

    Even if its only 128kbps MP3 quality, I can definitely hear the difference when the digital signal syncs. The soundstage sounds a lot broader.

  69. DAB/DAB+ : upgrades and scams by DrYak · · Score: 1

    DAB here in the UK is a failure because we adopted it too early, and we are stuck with first generation DAB rather than DAB+

    Lots of countries have upgraded to DAB+ since, you might be among the few remaining.

    The actual upgrade is pretty simple : DAB and DAB+ are more or less the same. The only difference is that some of the channels can provide an audio stream using a better error correction (Reed-Solomon) and a better codec (AAC instead of MP2). All the rest (signal modulation and packing audio-streams from different radio channels, into a single digital radio emitter) is still exactly the same. (And thus an emitter can still feature over a signle frequency a mix of DAB and DAB+ radio channels, and a legacy DAB reciever can still play the DAB channels).

    For anything but the simplest all-in-one low power SoC (e.g.: small hand-held radio with a single embed chip with a hardware MP2 decoder), the upgrade is purely a software one (a media device that is able to play music in MP3/OGG/AAC formats from a USB stick has already the necessary capability to play AAC encoded audio and could use DAB+).

    But for some weird reasons, lots of users got scammed into buying newer hardware... thus upgrading from DAB to DAB+ would seem a costly operation. And I think that's why some region haven't switched to DAB+ yet and wait for new hardware to slowly replace the old hardware.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:DAB/DAB+ : upgrades and scams by MaxVT · · Score: 1

      > For anything but the simplest all-in-one low power SoC (e.g.: small hand-held radio with a single embed chip with a hardware MP2 decoder), the upgrade is purely a software one (a media device that is able to play music in MP3/OGG/AAC formats from a USB stick has already the necessary capability to play AAC encoded audio and could use DAB+).

      For cost reasons, any consumer electronic device will usually be implemented on the cheapest possible SoC with the bare minimum of unused resources (eMMC, RAM, MIPS etc.)

  70. DAB vs DAB+ by DrYak · · Score: 1

    We were just as early adopters, but in an effort to give as many as possible the finger it will be exclusively DAB+. So if you bought a DAB radio it has both been born and died in less time than most FM radios have lived.

    Depends on the type of radio receiver.

    DAB and DAB+ are nearly exactly the same.
    Same modulation, same DAB emmiter data stream, same list of radio channel, same menu of available stations.
    Only once you select a station inside the list available at the emitter, if it's a DAB one, you'll get an MP2-compressed audio stream with some old data correction scheme, if it's a DAB+ one, the audio stream will be AAC with Reed-Solomon error correction.

    If you radio is a very low power one, with a single chip that handles everything in hardware (a portable hand held radio that should work with a few AA batteries), yup the SoC won't work with DAB+ because it only has a MP2/3 audio decompression hardware acceleration.

    If it's anything bigger that can also play MP3/AAC/OGG files from a USB stick or SD-Card, then it's already has all the capability necessary to play a DAB+ station from the list available at your emitter.
    It should be only a software/firmware update. If it's not availble, it's only the manufacturer's fault of being lazy / wanting you to rebuy new hardware.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:DAB vs DAB+ by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      If it's not availble, it's only the manufacturer's fault of being lazy / wanting you to rebuy new hardware.

      Which, as usual, changes nothing. Same reason phones don't have replaceable batteries and linux hasn't made it to the desktop. People are still screwed.

    2. Re:DAB vs DAB+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with some old data correction scheme ... [vs] ... with Reed-Solomon error correction.

      Isn't Reed Solomon "some old data correction scheme"? It is the dat correction standard for audio CDs, which predate DAB by over a decade.

  71. Club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "nation of 5 million"

    That's not a nation. It's a country club.

  72. Change for change's sake by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they wanted to reuse the FM band for some public service then I could just about understand it - but 20Mhz of VHF spectrum is useless for any modern data comms so I can't see who'd use it. Seems to me this is simply the worst kind of "we know best" patrician politics forcing people to go digital for no other reason that some political idiots think digital is The Future so must be embrased. By force if necessary. Never mind that analog is better in a lot of case particularly a mountainous country like norway and thats before we get onto the issue of electronic waste from all the junked FM radios.

  73. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course not the spectrum, is is the transmitters. Nearly all stations in Norway use a national radio grid of transmitting towers, normally built on mountain tops, a very expensive infrastucture to maintain. Space for antennas on these towers are valuable real estate, access to power and uoload links equally so. This infrastucture is what will stop supporting FM, local radio stations can continue broadcast at FM, but without major national programs, FM is for all practical prposes dead.

  74. Saps Investments in Programs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    saps investments in programs

    In other words, we can't run parallel analog and DAB because we need the money for welfare.

  75. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in an emergency, streaming is useless because of cheap Silicon Valley practices. Show me a streaming service with 99.99999% uptime (including client software and OS).

  76. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    "...cramming in the digital signals with the existing analog AM/FM broadcasts using IBOC/HD Radio..... which hasn't been a success."

    I'm probably incredibly stupid, but I never saw much point to US FM/HD. If the content broadcast on HD is already on the analog channel, the quality on the analog channel will be fine. Why do I need a super duper, new, digital technology to get an improvement I can't notice? And if they just want to broadcast alternate content there's subcarrier audio which works fine, still allows older hardware to get the main channel just like HD, and is actually compatible with some existing gear. The whole thing strikes me as change for the sake of change.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  77. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    Nope. I have seen that circuit or similar ones, but I couldn't recall them from memory. I might be able to come up with this from scratch if I brush up a bit on the theory. I've done very little in the way of analog circuit design in my life, but I've been doing digital electronics since the age of 7. Maybe that's how I ended up in IT (where my EE education has come in handy very often)

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  78. FM x AM by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    AM will still working, right? Or every car will need to be internet enabled to just hear new about the traffic?

    1. Re:FM x AM by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Wow, I miss entirely the DAB thing

  79. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

    To my knowledge there will be zero effort made to recycle them other than as electronic trash, when you could have just put them in a container and shipped them to... anywhere but here, really and sold them cheap or given them to a third world country.

    "Giving" your toxic waste to third world countries is neither charitable nor an environmentally friendly alternative to dumping them in your own landfills. WTF is someone living in the third world going to do with an obsolete DAB radio? They don't have DAB stations to listen to, and if they ever get them, they are far more likely to be the same HE-AACv2 DAB+ signals that have triggered you into throwing your radio away than the original MPEG-1 layer 2 based DAB that the radio can receive.

    I think he was referring to the FM radios as usable radios not trash. The problem is that even in some place like the USA where we still use FM radios, factory radios are worthless. Every car comes with one and most all of them outlive their cars so you can get one for basically free at any junkyard. Even if you shipped 1M of them to the USA, unless you either start installing used radio in new cars or selling new cars without radios, there will be no market for them.

  80. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by Fencepost · · Score: 1

    Fling them through the windows of members of Parliament? Perhaps the increased licensing fees from the commercial interests can cover new glass.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  81. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'll wager most EE grads could not build an FM radio without a drawing.

    Why would I build one without drawing a schematic first?

    I think rfengr was implying that recent graduates from U.S. electrical engineering colleges would have to look at someone else's existing schematic rather than creating an original schematic on paper.

  82. Can you get cellular data under $20/yr? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Or are you recommending a unicast to each subscriber over cellular at $40 per subscriber per month (source: T-Mobile)?

    I'm mostly suggesting fiber and whatever generation cellular coverage

    Say someone owns a car for ten years. Your suggestion of "whatever generation cellular coverage" will incur a recurring bill which totals thousands of dollars over those ten years. A $200 DAB+ radio is likely to be far cheaper.

    1. Re:Can you get cellular data under $20/yr? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      How many Norwegians doesn't have cellular Internet connectivity already anyway?
      $30 million for the FM network they say, I don't know what the digital cost but over 10 years that's $300 million for that or $60 / Norwegian. Then you do the same for TV broadcasts. Then you do the same for copper telephone cables. And then you add in the advantage of knowing you can trust that providing IP services is enough and that everyone can use them.

    2. Re:Can you get cellular data under $20/yr? by tepples · · Score: 1

      How many Norwegians doesn't have cellular Internet connectivity already anyway?

      I don't have statistics on that, and I live in a very different, much higher priced market. Here in the United States, there are many radio listeners whose phone service is landline-only or voice-and-text-only because of the price of cellular data service. Are there few enough such listeners in Norway that a government subsidy for phone service capable of streaming news and weather, analogous to the U.S. Lifeline program (sometimes called Obamaphone though it began in the Reagan era), would be advisable? And even then, someone who subscribes to a data plan with a small monthly data transfer quota would probably have to buy a bigger data plan to fit a replacement for FM radio.

      Then you do the same for TV broadcasts.

      I don't see how that can work over the limited RF spectrum until cellular begins to support IP multicast. Otherwise, a hundred users in the same cell watching the same scheduled programming would cause the tower to have to transmit the program a hundred times.

    3. Re:Can you get cellular data under $20/yr? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't know.

      I was the the Nordic University Computer Club Conference of 2002 where this guy from Swedish University NETworks talked about 10 mbps for everyone by fiber which was something he thought should be done. He estimated the cost to cover about the same amount of people as those covered by the electricity grid = "everyone" except if you do some very unique stuff would cost 50 billion SEK. Today that would be a bit above 5 billion dollar or on a population of 10 million bit below $500 / person. He meant the cost could be distributed over 20 years / the life-time of the fiber which pushes it down to $25 / year + interest (the interest rate on the national debt of Sweden today is about 0.3%.)

      $25 / year is $2 / month. That's a cheap cost for getting everyone fiber connectivity.

      As it work like in this municipality is that they have their own fibernetwork called "Stadsnät" which Kumla & Örebro runs together, if I wanted to be connected to that with my apartment it would cost 75 SEK / month or $8. What then happen is that you have like 10 service providers for that fiber network which offer different speeds and possibly other services such as telephone or TV too. Total cost including the fiber connectivity would be bit above $35 for 100 mbps.

      Market-forces discussed Internet over the electricity grid and people in cities got mostly connectivity through cable-TV-networks and those in more rural areas got through DSL so fiber to everyone never happened and Telia is still running copper cables for telephones and the terrestrial TV network was upgraded for digital TV and a few more antennas was built and Sweden still haven't started with DAB.

      In Sweden you can do quite a bit of communication with authorities over the Internet but for instance you can't vote yet. If they had built fiber to everyone for the cost of a bit above $2 / person and month they could had scrapped the telephone network, the TV antennas, and maybe FM and DAB too / let that be solved over cellular.

      Cellular Internet connectivity seem to be capped at about 50 GB / month or so so it may not be great for a radio you're running the whole time.

    4. Re:Can you get cellular data under $20/yr? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it is called 0bamaphone is that cell phones didn't exist during the Reagan era.

    5. Re:Can you get cellular data under $20/yr? by tepples · · Score: 1

      The expansion of Lifeline from landlines to cellular took effect in 2008, President George W. Bush's final year in office.

  83. Norwgian Blue by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn't he? Beautiful plumage!

  84. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Dad showed me how to build an FM radio when I was 5 years old, but that's because my Dad was an EE who learned his trade before the Internet existed.

  85. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would EE knowledge ever be useful in IT? What component calculations do you need to figure out user permission in Active Directory? How could digital circuit design help figure out why OSPF isn't sharing properly with the BGP gateway?

    I am not at all good at electrical engineering nor have a background in it but I did design and build an FM radio out of scrap when I was a freshman in highschool. I fudged the more difficult math and put another pot in to compensate. It wasn't hard.

    Your posts don't make any sense. An EE that can't design a basic circuit but can do IT. That is like a mechanical engineer not knowing how to change a tire but his education comes in really handy when operating a tower crane.

  86. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

    The biggest feature is HD Radio allows for sub-channels with additional programming. FM subcarriers are pretty low quality. One interesting loophole that broadcasters have been exploiting is using HD sub-channels to feed analog LPFM relays (which have different licensing requirements vs. a full power or traditional LPFM feed).

  87. but the cronies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cheap FM radio does not enrich cronies like the Norwegian plan does. This is what the plan really is about, corny enrichment.

  88. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by hawguy · · Score: 1

    In the analog TV shutdown many people didn't changed TV but purchased a STB. There's no way to do that in cars where most people listen to radio.

    Sure there is -- just use an digital tuner that retransmits on FM for your car - I used one of those for years to listen to my phone in my car (until the radio finally stopped working and I replaced it with a Bluetooth capable one). Wasn't the best sound quality, but was good enough. Though many cars have an AUX port that you can just plug the tuner into.

  89. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    Why? Because IT is more than administering AD. A lot of my work is in innovative environments, where it helps to be able to design and build prototype hardware. You might call that EE work but I see it as supplemental to what I do in IT. Having a good working knowledge of both domains helps both on the hardware and the software side, and the fact that I can do both parts is an immense time-saver (that holds true for many generalists in innovation). Also, EE provide a solid grounding in mathematics; useful when you have to develop algorithms or when working with complex maths or statistics applications, and which allows me to act as a generalist in another few nooks and crannies of IT.

    In a lot of cases, designing circuits comes down to remembering, modifying and combining basic patterns. Certainly in the case of that radio. And that's my problem: my memory sucks and I do not remember the basic circuits that I pretty much never had any practical use for (doing digital electronics), even if they were certainly part of the curriculum.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  90. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That puts it at like 7 without the antenna, so 8 with the antenna ... Power supply brings you to 9 at least, and again that would be a crap radio.

    I'm not an EE, but even I know how to build a crystal radio... Did you forget how?

    If you want to count parts, that's 1 diode, 1 speaker, 1 spool of wire (for the coil and antenna) That's three or four components, depending on how you want to count things.

    It is certainly not self powered, at least in any meaningful way.

    I'd say that it's ONLY self-powered in a meaningful way. It don't need a power supply.

    Your not driving a speaker with it at any rate.

    You'll very easily drive a small speaker with even the most amateur construction.

    Yeah, I have serious doubts as to that EE credential you've claimed.

  91. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of stream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea having kids burn electronics for the rare metals is not a good thing. The smoke they inhale is toxic as hell. I hear the average lifespan if you start as a kid is like 25 years. Which is probably a lot higher than other jobs in those same places.

  92. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    66% of Norwegians questioned are opposed. If you ask 3 people at a bar with old people, 2 will say "I'm opposed".

    That said, they turned off analog TV and people went to the store and bought settop boxes and nobody knew the difference. They watch the same three TV stations at their cabins in the mountains they watched for the last 80 years.

    People in Norway adopt technology at a faster pace then pretty much anywhere else.

    When Telenor refused to install anything better than ISDN in places like NÃtterÃy, the farmers broke out their plows and dug ditches for fiber to be laid so they could get high speed porn.

    There is practically 100% coverage for LTE or at least 3G on Norwegian roads and people can listen to radio on their phone if DAB isn't interesting.

    And 2 million cars on Norwegian roads? Really? WTF!?!?!?

    There are 5 million people in Norway with an average of 1 car per house with a Norwegian house containing about 2.8 people. Also, Norway has almost all newer cars as the cost of maintaining a car over 3 years old quickly becomes more expensive than buying a new car. Driving in Norway (at least the cities) tends to be like driving on a track displaying the latest vehicles being driven by toddlers.

    There may be a lot of service vehicles without DAB, but for 2000kr Norwegian, a new head deck can be installed or a 400kr device can be bought at Kjell & Co.

    They'll turn FM off and 10 people will make a lot of noise and the rest of Norway will simply move on.

  93. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by smithmc · · Score: 1

    On the one hand I agree with your argument. On the other, it's the reason why a lot of the US has poor internet speeds. Maybe "a company can continue to be profitable" isn't sufficient. I think the consumer impact/benefit needs to be considered as well. I wouldn't argue turning off FM provides much consumer benefit though.

    In market economies, consumer impact/benefit is generally what determines whether a company can continue to be profitable. If there's no benefit, customers won't pay, so there's no profit. The thing to remember, however, when it comes to commercial radio, is who the "customer" actually is (hint: it's not the person listening to the radio, unless it's a subscription service like SiriusXM).

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  94. Loss of analog broadcast radio would be sad by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Here in the U.S., you can still cobble together a simple AM radio receiver from 5 components (or less) plus some Hi-Z headphones and an antenna wire. It's not great quality sound, it's only monophonic, it doesn't have very sensitive reception (depending on your antenna) and is as basic as you can get -- but it's still got a certain magic to it that you can receive music, information, and news from a distance with such simple technology. So far as I remember, you can build something similar to receive FM broadcast radio with a small handful of components. It would be very sad, I think, if that all went away and you couldn't have your kid build, with some simple components, a working radio receiver, that doesn't requite a Bachelors' degree in engineering to fully understand the complete working principles of (which digital-only 'radio', essentially, does).

    If you call me a 'Luddite' then you clearly don't understand the spirit of what I'm saying here.
    'Newer' isn't always 'better', just like 'older' doesn't necessarily mean 'bad' or 'obsolete' or 'useless', either, and 'more complicated' has it's own connotations.

  95. This is why I like Swiss-style direct democracy! by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    Sure, people are perhaps idiots on average, but they have a better chance to choose something for themselves, than to have corporate shills make that decision for them. This is a clear case where a superior service or method (FM radio) is phased out SOLELY to allow for monetization and encryption of radio broadcasts. In Switzerland such decisions go to a plebiscite. Sure, corporate shills disguised as politicians will still try to sway the public to support something that is not in their interest, but people at least have some chance to get their wishes. In most other countries people are presented with fait accompli, and they can go fuck themselves for all the "democracy" that they have.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  96. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    As a guy on the spectrum I can confirm that it does not need maintenance to keep up.

  97. Why? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    I only read the summary, but why bother shutting down FM to begin with? They can roll out digital anyway, Or do they step on each other? Are there other plans for the FM spectrum? Does it go public?

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  98. Independence Day by jgfenix · · Score: 1

    In an alien invasion we will be screwed.

  99. Norway by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I think the real news is that Norway only has 5 million people in it! Am I the only one that just assumed the entire nation had more than a large urban city?

  100. Sirius / XM business opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would be a great opportunity for Sirius / XM

  101. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by sh00z · · Score: 1

    That is very interesting. Of course in the US, we don't and have never had such a grid (AM, FM or TV). The local affiliates obtain the national programs via satellite, all broadcast "locally."

  102. Re:Norway switching off FM ? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    That is very interesting. Of course in the US, we don't and have never had such a grid (AM, FM or TV).

    While satellite distribution for large networks has become standard (and it why so many small networks can be national), IN THE PAST a lot of systems distributed their signal by such a "grid". In Oregon, for example, with a few large cities and lots of open space, many broadcast stations used a system of translators to serve more rural areas. A receiver on a high spot picked up the main broadcast signal and retransmitted it locally on a different channel. The "PBS" in this state is one service -- OPB -- generated out of Portland and relayed to all the other transmitters. It is currently done vie the Internet, but it used to be done via TV. And much of the major network distribution was done via a microwave backbone. That's the "grid" you claim never existed.

    No, it isn't a national grid because "national" in the US is so much larger than "national" in Norway or many other places in the world, but there were grids doing it.

  103. Well, it is still FM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just coded.

  104. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by sjames · · Score: 1

    The problem is more in the frequency than in the modulation. A regular AM Rx tuned off center can decode a basic FM signal to a usable quality. Naturally, you won't get stereo or any of the extra data channels stuffed in to a modern FM signal that way, but you will hear it.

  105. This is preposterous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I blame the Danes!

  106. Consumers drive these stupidities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More consumers want faster cell phone service, so technologies like LTE are pushing analog aside by chewing up bandwidth - channel by channel. With rooftop directional antennas, filters, and boosters I can pull in around 50 local digital TV stations on a good day. That being said, I would prefer to stream local content from an Ethernet enabled HD Homerun strapped to a nearby skyscraper. Too bad that SCOTUS killed Aereo.

  107. Incentive for pirate radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like great incentive for operating pirate FM broadcasts, a massive number of people who have old receivers that are otherwise useless.

    Obviously the government would chase down any rogue signals, but isn't that half of the fun of operating pirate radio.

  108. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    that's good environmentalism

    Ultimately you're talking about a rounding error compared to the impact of computers, mobile phones, and all those other disposable electronics we have nowadays. This is the least of people's problems.

  109. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Are you criticising them for not re-inventing the wheel? Isn't that the opposite of what people do on Slashdot?

  110. DAB transmitters by dubidub · · Score: 1

    No one seems to have mentioned that each DAB multiplex uses the same frequency for all transmitters. The signal is buffered and syncronised. Neighbouring FM transmitters for the same station has to use different frequencies. This frees up a lot of spectrum.

  111. Re:Reasons DAB failed in the US by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    There was the chicken and the egg problem: Nobody would switch because there were no broadcasters. There were no broadcasters because no one would switch.

    The US government didn't work with device manufacturers and broadcasters like it did with TV to switch. There was no voucher program for buying devices for reception.

    People generally accept whatever radio comes with the car. There was no push by anyone to have DAB receivers in the radios that come with the car.

    If they had built DAB receiver technology into smartphones, that would have been a possibility.

    Devices to plug into an audio device and transmit short-range analog on a selection of FM channels exist. There could have been devices that received a digital signal and output an analog signal to the car stereo, but as far as I know, such a device was never made.

  112. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I have serious doubts as to that EE credential you've claimed.

    Admittedly its been about ten years, but I'm pretty sure we never covered ancient 1922 crap, but nice try at pretending to somehow be smarter. Also how again is any of this relevant to switching off FM radio? That tech is not used in modern radio afaik and i'm 99.999% sure it never will be. For that matter the typical antenna length I'm seeing is on the order of 10m, so generally not a car thing. (The longer the better to pull in more power since your not amplifying anything.)

    Seriously, I can't believe this was even mentioned in the same context as modern systems. The circuit i proposed certainly exists. a simple search yields link It is likely around $5 dollars in parts, and much less in bulk.

    Either way, I'd much prefer digital radio. Vastly more stations in the same bandwidth. Seriously are you proposing that we replace modern tech with 1922 trash? Most likely you can get most of the digital set down to very small board, or possibly just an IC with a few external components. They probably already have.

    Perceptual coding like in mp3 and all the rest, or maybe even some of the newer wavelet based variants is far better. You can add on error correcting information so you can lose a certain percentage of the bits and still get perfect reproduction of the original digital waveform.

  113. Turn off politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can an state regulate to 'turn off' FM !!!??? Why not turning off the prime numbers? What about turning off politicians?

  114. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'm criticizing them for not having the ability to reinvent the wheel if necessary, such as in a disaster that takes out local access to the Internet.

  115. Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of stream by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    My Nissan Leaf supports DAB, but I live in New Zealand and there isn't any DAB broadcasting as far as I know. But I rarely listen to FM either because the hilly topography means range is smaller and coverage poor...And any FM networks aren't in the same frequency from town to town and you don't where they are. I'll play music from my phone via Bluetooth if I turn on anything at all.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  116. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    such as in a disaster that takes out local access to the Internet

    I'm sure they could just look it up in a book, or disassemble something. The inability to design something with zero reference material is not something I ever consider an engineering trait. Engineering is about problem solving using a given set of knowledge. EE is a field with such an incredible breath and depth that I wouldn't criticise anyone for not knowing something regardless how simple it may be. e.g. some of the smartest HV transmission gurus probably couldn't tell a resistor from a diode when looking on a circuit board, but then most of the people who can would just look up and see a bunch of wires and not know much about them either.

    There's a reason there is such a level of specialisation in engineering, and that already starts at university.

  117. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by vandamme · · Score: 1

    I built one before I graduated from high school. But it was a superregen, does that count??
    That was in 1964. I think.

  118. Re:DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streamin by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    That design is super-regenerative, which means it's always oscillating and spewing interference everywhere. Abysmal quality and irresponsible.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  119. Cost reasons by DrYak · · Score: 1

    For cost reasons, any consumer electronic device will usually be implemented on the cheapest possible SoC with the bare minimum of unused resources (eMMC, RAM, MIPS etc.)

    Nowadays ROM chips with a custom firmware burned in cost too much (add maybe a 0.5$ per unit), firmware is flashed on built-in EEPROM inside the SoC.

    In theory, most of modern-day widgets have field-upgradeable firmware.

    In practice, no company bothers to do the necessary work, specially since by the time the firmware upgrade is necessary, the device has already been sold and the money has been earned. There is no big immediate advantage in providing upgrade. It's an eventual long term advantage for the end-user, but by then the end-user can only regret having spent the money on the gadget.
    (e.g.: Not exactly wireless DAB radio, but out of all the wireless bluetooth speakers I've seen, only Logitech/Ultimate Ears bothers to make regular updates that actually add new features. None of the DAB radio I've owned has ever bothered releasing a firmware upgrade, even if some did advertise the possibility)

    For lots of music usage (again, anything beyond the handheld DAB/FM receiver*) the "bare minimum SoC" is already quite powerful.
    e.g.: bigger multi-media device need AAC decoding capabilities (to play music from USB sticks / MP3 players in USB-Storage mode, etc.) - That's about what is needed to move a DAB-enabled device to DAB+.
    e.g.: In Vehicle Infotainment have a fuckton more processing power (Some high end device are the equivalent of a big over-powered tablet / a small netbook), that's way more than enough for playing DAB+ (or even support OPUS).

    -----

    *: the handhelds tend to be a single chip with a hardware DAB receiver piping its data straigh into a MP2/MP3 hardware core. There's no real CPU.
    This kind chip is designed to be used as a DAB solution for media devices.
    (e.g.: combine it with a CD player and a few such other parts, and you can make a cheap all-in-one audio device)

    But the micro-controller on this SoC can run a firmware that gives it limited stand-alone properties: it can handle a few bare simple menus and can be wired straight to an LCD with a couple of buttons.

    Thus, this kind of chip can be also useful to make dead-cheap handheld radios.
    (example of such radio: Revo Pico+ - though it wasn't sold at a cheap price back then)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]