Does What Happen in Norway, Stay in Norway?

[Carmine5]

The Norwegian Ministry of Culture has announced that FM broadcasting will be shut off in January of 2017. They use the DMB/DAB/DAB+ digital standard and are requiring that the population either purchase a new DAB-capable radio or a converter that changes DAB signals into FM. They will have 6 years to make the switch.

I know we've touched on this before, but can it happen here--should it happen here?

http://www.garfors.com/2011/02/norway-switches-off-fm.html

You might find this person's essay on why FM is obsolete interesting.

http://www.garfors.com/2010/12/impending-retirement-of-fm.html

 

[tomservo]

The commentary on why FM is obsolete may be valid in Norway, but not necessarily in the US. Norway, like the UK, has a state broadcaster running multiple services on a national network, paid by radio license fees, so it is easy to make a uniform switch to digital with much of the "national" infrastructure already in place. A limited slate of commercial stations also helps ease infighting.

The US is, of course, completely different. Developing the country to have "equivalent to existing analog" with a DAB+ system would be a nightmare unless it can be adapted to cover wide swaths of territory from just one transmitter with analoge-like reliability. We know from IBOC that such coverage is nearly impossible and I don't see DAB+ being much better at it, as it seems more suited to working in a cellular network fashion — lots of small sites giving strong, overlapping coverage areas for seamless operation.

Converting to digital with the proprietary IBOC system would just be a big fat cash gift to iBiquity, and frankly they don't deserve the handout. It COULD work, but the painful transition period would hurt radio for a long time. (I believe that IBOC stations running 'full digital' with no analog signal would be a lot more robust, but that's just a hunch.)

 

[Chuck]

Let's not forget that Norway has a relatively small and well –off population (less than 5 million). Dallas- Fort Worth alone has more people. It is one thing to convert a small affluent country that is one of the most expensive places on earth. It is quite another story to do it on a scale that would be required in the US.

Since the Norwegians had the sense to use a new band for their DAB broadcasts, that further simplifies the process. I wish we'd done that here.

 

[local oscillator]

The Norwegians can convert to smoke signals for all I care, as long as they keep it to themselves.

By the way, I rather enjoyed what recently happened in another country that several years ago was so damned smug about its conversion to DAB . . . Canada. So, as we lower that box into the ground, I must say a nice word about the deceased: At least it didn't interfere with signals to which folks actually listen. Amen.

Now the Canadians are diddling with IBOC. Talk about suspect dating on the rebound. Trading in one flavor of junk science for another far worse. Ignoring the warnings of so many of us and one of their own, Barry McLarnon. Just to satisfy their all-consuming thirst to be DIGITAL. Go figure.

When a form of digital radio that works better than analog FM comes along, I will support it. The fragility of digital signals is a mammoth obstacle to overcome. I'm guessing that in my lifetime, that's probably not going to happen (I'm 62).

 

[DaveBayArea]

Converting to digital with the proprietary IBOC system would just be a big fat cash gift to iBiquity, and frankly they don't deserve the handout. It COULD work, but the painful transition period would hurt radio for a long time. (I believe that IBOC stations running 'full digital' with no analog signal would be a lot more robust, but that's just a hunch.)

The other thing is that the IBOC system today is set to run on FM frequencies - 88 to 108 MHz. DAB operates in the high VHF band (174-240 MHz) or the L-band (1452-1492 MHz). The higher frequencies are much more suited to digital transmission due to less impulse noise. Those television broadcasters who were saddled with a low-VHF channel during the DTV transition found out about that problem in a hurry.

I honestly question whether it would work to the satisfaction of most radio listeners.

Dave B.

 

[tomservo]

I honestly question whether it would work to the satisfaction of most radio listeners.

The reason I think it might work in full digital mode is that would eliminate one of the big issues facing the hybrid mess we have today, and that is self-interference and interference to adjacent analog channels.

Dunno if any of this is in spec, but with the analog parent signal out of the picture, there is some potential to move the sidebands back over into the main channel, so each digital signal takes up little more room than the current analog signal. Or, leave the sidebands as they are and recoup the middle analog signal bandwidth for added digital use, increasing the bitrate of the streams in the process. Or adding error correction to what we have now.

Either way the power could probably be greatly increased, which would improve coverage.

The problem is getting from here to there involves jumping the English Channel with a dirt bike.

 

[w9wi]

I think as much as anything else, DAB was doomed in Canada by the decision of the U.S. to do it differently. They weren't going to get any DAB radios through the normal pipeline; the normal economy of scale wouldn't apply. I believe a contributing factor was the reluctance of the CRTC to authorize new program services on digital signals. ("subchannels" aren't allowed for digital TV either) You couldn't get any programs via DAB that you couldn't get with analog.

IBOC is now authorized there, but I only know of one station claiming to use it. (possibly three if the two CBC stations that were testing it in Toronto are still running digital) The one station that claims to use IBOC was claiming to do so before it was authorized, there is some skepticism as to whether this station really is running a digital signal.

I think Zach has a point: IBOC in full digital mode really has some potential, at least on FM. Really, the coverage we have with IBOC right now is pretty darned decent when you take the low power into account. If you could get rid of the need to protect analogs (your own and the adjacents) you'd stand a fair chance of replicating - or even exceeding - analog coverage.

But Zach also has a point in that there's no way to get to full digital mode. Any station doing so would have to "commit suicide", sacrificing the 99.9% of its audience that doesn't have a digital receiver.

(I wonder what the FCC would say if a booster licensee decided to operate their main transmitter -- which only serves jackrabbits -- in IBOC full-digital mode -- while running the booster in analog? It would be an interesting technical experiment...)

 

[Savage]

Run a full-power primary in IBOC digital-only, so you'd have an excuse to put on a 250-watt analog translator.

I don't know what YOU guys call that, but I call it "using a ViseGrip and long-nosed pliers to tie your shoes." And paying for the privilege.... :

 

[w9wi]

Run a full-power primary in IBOC digital-only, so you'd have an excuse to put on a 250-watt analog translator.

I don't know what YOU guys call that, but I call it "using a ViseGrip and long-nosed pliers to tie your shoes." And paying for the privilege.... :

Absolutely, for the vast majority of stations it would make absolutely no sense.

There are said to be a few (no more than three) stations in outlying areas of the Salt Lake market that are operated for the sole purpose of having theoretical coverage in Salt Lake City, so that they can run on-channel boosters in town. From what I've read they don't really expect anyone to be listening to the full-power primary -- there's very little population in the vast majority of the primary coverage area -- but they have to operate that primary in order to be allowed to run the booster that people actually listen to.

They'd be interesting test boards for seeing how well full-digital would work. With two problems: 1) I strongly suspect the FCC wouldn't buy it; 2) since there's almost no audience in the primary coverage area, you don't get enough sample points for a decent study...

(but I wouldn't be surprised if they'd issue a STA for a few weeks' testing)

 

[local oscillator]

"Jumping the English Channel with a dirt bike" and "using a ViseGrip and long-nosed pliers to tie your shoes" . . . well said, indeed!

And the booster situation is a non-starter; it would apply to only the tiniest percentage of FMs in the country.

We need to stop trying to force the digital square peg into the radio round hole. It's a "solution" for a "problem" that doesn't exist. As I've said before, when something comes along that's really better, we'll know it. The likes of the FCC, NAB, and iBiquity won't have to drag us kicking and screaming toward implementation. I think the concept is called "market forces." ;D

 

[Savage]

Yeah. A/K/A "freedom." Or, the principles upon which the American free-enterprise system was built for about 200 years.

And the principles which are under relentless attack from policy-freak lawyers, most of whom have never had a real job even once in their lives.

Please note that most of the resistance to HD Radio comes from career broadcasters, most of whom have decades of practical experience in engineering and operating real radio stations. People....with a sense of reality.

 

[w9wi]

And the booster situation is a non-starter; it would apply to only the tiniest percentage of FMs in the country.

The booster idea is strictly an experiment. Absolutely, it would never provide real service. It could, maybe, be useful data to determine whether full digital mode actually works.

Although that doesn't address the issue of how you get from analog to full-digital if you can't afford to shut down the analog until everyone has a digital radio -- but nobody will buy a digital radio until you have full-coverage digital signals -- but you can't have full-coverage digital signals until you shut down the analog...

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Any forced conversion of analog FM to any form of digital would bankrupt many, many small operators that can barely pay the electric bill now.

 

[Play Freebird]

Dunno if any of this is in spec, but with the analog parent signal out of the picture, there is some potential to move the sidebands back over into the main channel, so each digital signal takes up little more room than the current analog signal. Or, leave the sidebands as they are and recoup the middle analog signal bandwidth for added digital use, increasing the bitrate of the streams in the process. Or adding error correction to what we have now.

As the full-digital spec is currently written, the first-adjacent digital sidebands won't go away, they will actually INCREASE in power relative to the additional digital carriers that would take the place of the analog signal.

Compare the spectrum plots on pages 6 and 7 of this document:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/SG/NRSC-5-B/1026sE.pdf

 

[radioskeptic]

In Reply #1, Zach said

Converting to digital with the proprietary IBOC system would just be a big fat cash gift to iBiquity, and frankly they don't deserve the handout. It COULD work, but the painful transition period would hurt radio for a long time. (I believe that IBOC stations running 'full digital' with no analog signal would be a lot more robust, but that's just a hunch.)

And in Reply #4, DaveBayArea responded

The other thing is that the IBOC system today is set to run on FM frequencies - 88 to 108 MHz. DAB operates in the high VHF band (174-240 MHz) or the L-band (1452-1492 MHz). The higher frequencies are much more suited to digital transmission due to less impulse noise. Those television broadcasters who were saddled with a low-VHF channel during the DTV transition found out about that problem in a hurry.

I honestly question whether it would work to the satisfaction of most radio listeners.

Actually, Dave, based on the experience of OTA digital TV, there’s really no question. It wouldn’t work.

Let’s look at the Philadelphia market. Only two of the four stations originally on VHF elected to move their digital signals to their original VHF channels when the analog signals were turned off. There were so many complaints about reception of WPVI on channel 6 (82-88) that, within a couple of weeks, the FCC authorized the station to quadruple its power!

While WHYY’s experience on channel 12 (204-210) has been better, that station occasionally has problems not seen in the UHF band. Even with high band VHF, I can lose audio and see freeze-framing for a second or two after switching on (or off) a table lamp next to the antenna wire. (Of course, that may be because I’m still using 300 Ω twin-lead, not 75 Ω coax.)

Remember, OFDM is no more robust than 8VSB. So if an OTA DTV signal in the VHF high band is that vulnerable to impulse noise, how can you expect a digital radio signal in the lower half of the VHF spectrum to provide dependable reception in cars, or on small radios with dangling wire antennas in homes and offices?

 

[tomservo]

As the full-digital spec is currently written, the first-adjacent digital sidebands won't go away, they will actually INCREASE in power relative to the additional digital carriers that would take the place of the analog signal.

Compare the spectrum plots on pages 6 and 7 of this document:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/SG/NRSC-5-B/1026sE.pdf

Thanks for the link… ouch! That won't solve the problems encountered in crowded radio regions at all. There will still be overlap between stations.

 

[Carmine5]

So at least the Norwegians can be applauded for seeing HD Radio for what it is, as a pay-for-play scam and for being keen observers as they take note of how IBOC is working out for us here in the states--which to say, it isn't.

The US got into digital radio way too early when, for various reasons, there wasn't any spectrum available for it. No doubt the idea of piggy-backing digital signals onto analog and all within bands already dedicated to broadcast radio must have been alluring for the FCC. But the cliche "no free lunch" really applies here.

Now that the Obama regime, I mean administration, is on the hunt for more spectrum and finding it (2,200 MHz at last count) now would be the time to seriously consider a digital radio standard and carve out 10 or 20 MHz for it in a band best suited for digital broadcasting from this newly found spectrum

The other side of the equation is public acceptance of digital radio. The Norwegians would not be a good example here but the British could be. So far British consumers have yet to whole heartedly embrace DAB radio. In fact, Brits have been pleading with the government not to take away analog FM. Several stations that jumped in early with DAB have since shut down their digital transmissions for economic reasons.

So, as Mr. Savage pointed out, we need a clean sheet of paper and some clean spectrum if digital radio is ever going to be truly viable.

 

[nd2023]

I can think of at least 1 booster that serves a populated area that boosts a main signal from the middle of nowhere: 94.5 The Vibe. Its main transmitter is 70 miles northeast of Las Vegas, and its co-channel booster is on a mountain overlooking Las Vegas. The main transmitter could run 100% HD on the sidebands, and the analog booster could remain. Would be interesting to see how the HD reception in the populated area will be.

 

[radioskeptic]

THIS JUST IN!!!

I just received this e-mail from England:

I’ve been in touch with my contact in Norway, and it’s a simplification of the situation (inevitably). Norway has adopted almost the same switchover criteria as the UK, but is aiming to achieve them 2 years later than the UK. As we know, the chance of those criteria being successful in the UK is close to zero. As in the UK, the costs of DAB in Norway have not been determined or funded. So a lot of this is seems to be wishful thinking from a government that is following along with what the state broadcaster has demanded of them. For commercial radio (as in the UK), the money is simply not there to make it happen.

So my English friend thinks it's just a tempest in a teapot!

 

[SirRoxalot]

Let's face it. The future of "digital radio" is in the hands of cellular providers and radio streaming. What's the advantage to deleting a service that's ubiquitous, and well received? FM analog is just fine, and AM would be fine if they'd go back to the original bandwidth and dump IBOC like the trash that it is.

WiFi radios are already available for those who want digital delivery, and there's plenty of bandwidth opening up as the cellular providers buy up former TV spectrum and re-engineer their cell systems to serve 3G and 4G users.