Hello everyone! First and foremost, I am nowhere near a broadcast engineer. However, I have been doing some research into the recent DAB switchover in some of the Scandinavian countries, and can't wrap my head around why this switch was needed. Obviously, we switched from analog to digital television to free up much of the electromagnetic spectrum, but the spectrum allocated to FM broadcasting is pretty small already and really doesn't need consolidation. It seemed like there wasn't too much of a point in switching over when FM is already some of the best technology that we have. Why was this switch necessary?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
DAB (digital) radio: Why are some countries switching to this?
- Thread starter fordranger797
- Start date
To sell radios?
Who buys radios anymore?
It's less costly to operate a satellite transponder than to operate multiple high powered FM transmitters. Better coverage too.
Of course, they are putting all of their eggs in one basket. A satellite failure would shut down lots of stations. I guess that it's a chance that they are willing to take.
Of course, they are putting all of their eggs in one basket. A satellite failure would shut down lots of stations. I guess that it's a chance that they are willing to take.
If they're launching LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite(s) whether geosynchronous (multiple birds), or geostationary (single bird), the cost is about $2,500 per pound, SpaceX dollars. If you launch from Kazakhstan via a Proton Rocket, is about two thirds that price. For example; one of the more recent replacement birds for SiriusXM weighs around 12,500lbs. Even if you got the price down to $1,500 per lb, that's still $18,750,000 just for the launch. Depending on the configuration and design, the bird will cost anywhere between $150,000,000 to $450,000,000. The transponder output needs to have enough power to be received by smaller antennas than a traditional communications bird.
One could buy a lot of transmitters for that.
DAB was implemented in Norway to reduce costs to infrastructure. One DAB tower -- and one DAB transmitter -- could broadcast 12-20 DAB channels (I forget the number of channels they have), where a greater number of FM towers, along with a greater number of transmitters, would be needed to cover roughly the same area.
I am not sure how the programming is delivered to the transmitters but I think they're using the same means, as a lot of the broadcast towers are in the same geographic locations as the FM ones are... some more isolated than others, of course.
So, it wasn't just a push for "selling radios" or just because of the new technology. There was a practical reason they switched over. There was some pushback in Sweden, however, as opposed to Norway, so they have either postponed getting rid of FM, or junked the idea. But it's already taken place in Norway, and the results are positive to mixed. A lot of people use it at home, but vehicle usage varies apparently. Some have complained that the reception was better on the road with FM.
I am not sure how the programming is delivered to the transmitters but I think they're using the same means, as a lot of the broadcast towers are in the same geographic locations as the FM ones are... some more isolated than others, of course.
So, it wasn't just a push for "selling radios" or just because of the new technology. There was a practical reason they switched over. There was some pushback in Sweden, however, as opposed to Norway, so they have either postponed getting rid of FM, or junked the idea. But it's already taken place in Norway, and the results are positive to mixed. A lot of people use it at home, but vehicle usage varies apparently. Some have complained that the reception was better on the road with FM.
The real issue here is that in Norway most radio is controlled by the government or severely regulated by it. So if the "authorities" decide that they want to transition to a new system, whether it is traffic lights or radio stations, it will be done.
The US system... and in fact the system in almost all the Western Hemisphere (except Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua) is much more free market based.
In a free market system, station operators look at costs, whether listeners will follow the new system.
Canada tried it and abandoned it. I believe the biggest issue was that listeners and stations did not feel a need for a new band and system. DAB benefits operators with consolidated transmitters, lower costs and apparent better technology.
But, for example, ask the folks living in smaller towns, rural areas, ground floor apartments and the like in England if they like DAB. Hint: they don't.
The US system... and in fact the system in almost all the Western Hemisphere (except Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua) is much more free market based.
In a free market system, station operators look at costs, whether listeners will follow the new system.
Canada tried it and abandoned it. I believe the biggest issue was that listeners and stations did not feel a need for a new band and system. DAB benefits operators with consolidated transmitters, lower costs and apparent better technology.
But, for example, ask the folks living in smaller towns, rural areas, ground floor apartments and the like in England if they like DAB. Hint: they don't.
Most of the DAB was started by governments that also program the radio stations. For government broadcasters, having a single transmission facility broadcasting dozens of formats, makes a lot of sense. Problem was then, as it is today, consumers aren't interested in buying specialized radios to listen to what they used to via their existing radios. In the case of Norway, who gradually shut down traditional stations, moving to DAB meant listeners just didn't bother listening.
Thanks for the information everyone!
It sounds like DAB makes some sense for countries like Norway, but it probably wouldn't be a big hit in many other countries. Here in the US, we are barely getting to the point of having enough HD receivers in cars to make it somewhat viable, and HD seems like a better and more reliable system than DAB. If my DTV reception could serve even as a "taste" of what DAB radio would sound like here, I would be upgrading to satellite pretty quickly.
It sounds like DAB makes some sense for countries like Norway, but it probably wouldn't be a big hit in many other countries. Here in the US, we are barely getting to the point of having enough HD receivers in cars to make it somewhat viable, and HD seems like a better and more reliable system than DAB. If my DTV reception could serve even as a "taste" of what DAB radio would sound like here, I would be upgrading to satellite pretty quickly.
One could easily argue that DAB is much more reliable than individual HD stations with transmitters spread across an area or market. Think of it as a single high power DTV transmission facility. Now split up that single data stream carrier decoded into dozens of individual radio formats of equal quality and coverage. There is no perception of one format having better or worse coverage than another, because they're all coming from the same carrier.
- Status