4 ms·

>I doubt that 4G is capabable of replacing FM/DAB. Radio is broadcast, 4G is individual streams. For a whole morning queue full of cars, that's a lot of bandwid

by lb1lf 10y ago

>I doubt that 4G is capabable of replacing FM/DAB. Radio is broadcast, 4G is individual streams. For a whole morning queue full of cars, that's a lot of bandwidth. -True, but surely one could simply allocate bandwidth in the 4G network to multicast at least the most popular channels? (This may be a very stupid question; I know a thing or two about broadcast networks, but hardly a thing about computer networks. It all went downhill after Token Ring, as far as I am concerned. :)) That being said, I think it would have been smarter to stick with FM, but we should cut our politicians some slack - I think it would be unfair to expect them to realize in 1992-1993 or whenever the decision to go DAB was made that by the time it gained some traction, there would be a national, wireless, high-speed data network which could to a large extent provide the same service DAB does. DAB coverage is still spotty, though, claims to the contrary nonwithstanding - when I drive along one of the most heavily used routes in Møre og Romsdal county (E39/E136 between Ålesund and Vestnes), I get consistently good FM coverage and DAB with decent quality most of the time, but several dozen dropouts lasting from a few seconds to perhaps a minute.

catdog 10y ago
> -True, but surely one could simply allocate bandwidth in the 4G network to multicast at least the most popular channels? (This may be a very stupid question; I know a thing or two about broadcast networks, but hardly a thing about computer networks. It all went downhill after Token Ring, as far as I am concerned. :)) Such technology seems to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Broadcast_Multicast_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Broadcast_Multicast... I really don't understand why everyone builds broadcast networks using a separate technology these days instead of just integrating it into mobile broadband networks. Building separate infrastructures (even radio and TV broadcast typically don't use the same technology) seems insane. Also the model of having a few broadcast stations will most likely loose more and more dominance while users are shifting to streaming and non linear things so a technology which is flexible enough to adopt to that change in demand seems just right.
- falcolas 10y ago
  > instead of just integrating it into mobile broadband networks Because mobile networks are oversubscribed. They're simply not designed to support everyone using them heavily at the same time - it's why folks are advised to stay off cell phones during emergencies, or fail to be able to connect if they do use them. Much like other ISPs, there's little incentive for mobile providers to build out to properly support their customers when it works most of the time even when oversubscribed.
hzhzjsj 10y ago
Agreed, but when they had to throw out almost everything and replace it with dab+ they really should have reconsidered. All that money would be better spent building fiber optics across the country and tower sites (DVB-T money too). Space in these towers would be rented to operators at cost. Then we would probably have several 4G networks today with near full coverage (and other last mile tech) instead of only two partial ones.. And fibre in every village

by lb1lf 10y ago

catdog 10y ago

> -True, but surely one could simply allocate bandwidth in the 4G network to multicast at least the most popular channels? (This may be a very stupid question; I know a thing or two about broadcast networks, but hardly a thing about computer networks. It all went downhill after Token Ring, as far as I am concerned. :)) Such technology seems to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Broadcast_Multicast_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Broadcast_Multicast... I really don't understand why everyone builds broadcast networks using a separate technology these days instead of just integrating it into mobile broadband networks. Building separate infrastructures (even radio and TV broadcast typically don't use the same technology) seems insane. Also the model of having a few broadcast stations will most likely loose more and more dominance while users are shifting to streaming and non linear things so a technology which is flexible enough to adopt to that change in demand seems just right.

falcolas 10y ago
> instead of just integrating it into mobile broadband networks Because mobile networks are oversubscribed. They're simply not designed to support everyone using them heavily at the same time - it's why folks are advised to stay off cell phones during emergencies, or fail to be able to connect if they do use them. Much like other ISPs, there's little incentive for mobile providers to build out to properly support their customers when it works most of the time even when oversubscribed.

hzhzjsj 10y ago

Agreed, but when they had to throw out almost everything and replace it with dab+ they really should have reconsidered. All that money would be better spent building fiber optics across the country and tower sites (DVB-T money too). Space in these towers would be rented to operators at cost. Then we would probably have several 4G networks today with near full coverage (and other last mile tech) instead of only two partial ones.. And fibre in every village