6 ms·

The article didn't talk about why? It's not as if the FM bandwidth is particularly valuable, being quite a low frequency. Unlike digital tv, there doesn't seem

The article didn't talk about why? It's not as if the FM bandwidth is particularly valuable, being quite a low frequency. Unlike digital tv, there doesn't seem to be a particularly pressing reason to do this; if broadcasters are happy to keep broadcasting on FM, why stop them?

krkoch 10y ago
It's because the infrastructure for FM is quite expensive to run. Because of all the fjords and valleys, you need many weak transmitters to avoid reflections. Also, because it's FM, they can't overlap in frequency. With DAB, two time-delayed signals (either reflections or multiple towers transmitting the same data-fountain) will enhance the signal. This means that you can have fewer towers.
- winter_blue 10y ago
  > It's because the infrastructure for FM is quite expensive to run. Won't the free market decide if it's too expensive to run? Or is even radio run by the state in Norway? Otherwise, why prohibit private companies from licensing & broadcasting FM radio? I mean the free market would decide stop to broadcasting when it's not profitable for them anymore. Or is everything state-run in Norway? When I read "one member of the ruling coalition was scathing" and "MP from the Progress Party", I'm thinking, the state (and these MPs) shouldn't even be involved and thinking about this, and should leave it to the free market.
  - cuchoi 10y ago
    Probably they have State infrastructure, maybe it was never profitable for businesses to invest in FM radios in that geography. They still CAN do it, but they won't.
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      The infra used to be state operated, under a cooperation between NRK and Televerket (that in the 90s was turned into Telenor). In recent years NRK has transferred ownership of this to Telenor, and instead rents capacity from them. So effectively it is privately owned and operated, under a "natural" monopoly.
      - vidarh 10y ago
        With the caveat that Telenor is 54% owned by the Norwegian government (as of September 2016) [1], with a further 5% owned by Folketrygdfondet (government run social security fund), and a further 0.8% by DNB Asset Management, a subsidiary of the bank DNB ASA, which is again 34% owned by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry... [1] https://www.telenor.com/investors/share-information/major-shareholdings/ https://www.telenor.com/investors/share-information/major-sh...
        digi_owl 10y ago
        And? The government has declared itself to be a hands off shareholder...
        vidarh 10y ago
        The government declares itself a lot of things until it declares itself something else. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying that implying it's entirely privately owned is a bit misleading.
        digi_owl 10y ago
        Given the number of debacles involving both Telenor and DNB mismanagement in recent years, one would have thought there would have been plenty of opportunities for the government as shareholder to take action. But so far none of that has materialized...
        vidarh 10y ago
  - wodenokoto 10y ago
    > Or is even radio run by the state in Norway? As a Scandinavian, that is kinda fun to read. Of course Radio is state run. I still get surprised when I hear commercials on the privately owned stations. Private radio stations pretty much became a thing after I grew up and stopped listening to Radio. When I was a kid, there were maybe one commercial station and they didn't air in my city. Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England, due to the former state monopoly. To many Scandinavians this is the most natural thing in the world.
    - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
      > Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England Apart from TV2 I think they all still are? Mainly to avoid restrictions on content in commercials (Norwegian ban on online gambling commercials etc).
    - Raphmedia 10y ago
      This makes a lot more sense. The article came off as a ban on FM. It's actually only that the state will no longer put money into FM radio and infrastructure.
      - gpvos 10y ago
        > The article came off as a ban on FM. Interesting cultural difference; I would never have it interpreted it like that. I did wonder whether the commercial stations would also leave FM. A large country like Norway is likely to have only state broadcasting in its more remote areas, but additionally commercial broadcasters in the more populated regions.
        kwhitefoot 10y ago
        As far as I can tell the commercial stations are leading the way.
    - winter_blue 10y ago
      > Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England, due to the former state monopoly. To many Scandinavians this is the most natural thing in the world A state monopoly is a restriction on freedom. I'm fairly libertarian-leaning (on some issues), and what you're saying sounds to me like: "our lack of freedom is the most natural thing in the world". It's like a slave who's lived in slavery all his life saying that "slavery is the most natural thing in the world". Doesn't matter if the slave master has treated the slave well and given him/her a comfortable life. A law that prevents private television broadcasters from existing is a violation of the people's freedom to organize and form their own broadcast networks. I find your acceptance and nonchalance at this honestly quite disturbing. There's nothing natural in a state monopoly. It's a restriction on individual freedom, and it's as simple as that. The thing I find unnatural is people not caring about their freedom, and willingly (and happily) surrendering it over to the state.
  - nucleardog 10y ago
    In a lot of places like this the infrastructure wouldn't exist in the first place if not for the state, so it seems natural to me that the public should retain ownership after paying to develop it.
  - gpvos 10y ago
    > Or is even radio run by the state in Norway? Radio and TV have been run by the state (in some way or other) in most European countries from the 1920s until the 1980s. There were exceptions, most notably Luxembourg, which transmitted commercial radio to all its surrounding countries.
w8rbt 10y ago
There is only one reason. It's much more efficient. Engineers have to keep slicing things thinner and thinner to accommodate more and more people and needs. This impacts everything. Food, water, shelter, medications, transportation, communications, etc. Efficiency is king. It has to be.
- mrswag 10y ago
  FM works, and doesn't need any addition when you increase the number of listeners. I don't get it. Why throw away millions of perfectly fine radios?
  - w8rbt 10y ago
    Digital is more narrow and compact and allows more efficient use of the spectrum in general. More transmissions, different uses, sharing, freeing space up for other allocations, etc. All of that is resource/demand driven. More people is more demand.
    - gpvos 10y ago
      While DAB transmission is more efficient than FM, the receivers are more complex and draw more power than FM receivers. I'm not sure the tradeoff is right in this case.
    - askvictor 10y ago
      I get that argument for tv transmission, but the FM bandwidth is tiny by comparison, so just doesn't seem to justify the switching pain (particularly regarding cars)
Johnythree 10y ago
It's because FM broadcast is at a relatively low frequency that makes it valuable. It has much better ability to penetrate into buildings, and through foliage, etc.

krkoch 10y ago

It's because the infrastructure for FM is quite expensive to run. Because of all the fjords and valleys, you need many weak transmitters to avoid reflections. Also, because it's FM, they can't overlap in frequency. With DAB, two time-delayed signals (either reflections or multiple towers transmitting the same data-fountain) will enhance the signal. This means that you can have fewer towers.

winter_blue 10y ago
> It's because the infrastructure for FM is quite expensive to run. Won't the free market decide if it's too expensive to run? Or is even radio run by the state in Norway? Otherwise, why prohibit private companies from licensing & broadcasting FM radio? I mean the free market would decide stop to broadcasting when it's not profitable for them anymore. Or is everything state-run in Norway? When I read "one member of the ruling coalition was scathing" and "MP from the Progress Party", I'm thinking, the state (and these MPs) shouldn't even be involved and thinking about this, and should leave it to the free market.
- cuchoi 10y ago
  Probably they have State infrastructure, maybe it was never profitable for businesses to invest in FM radios in that geography. They still CAN do it, but they won't.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    The infra used to be state operated, under a cooperation between NRK and Televerket (that in the 90s was turned into Telenor). In recent years NRK has transferred ownership of this to Telenor, and instead rents capacity from them. So effectively it is privately owned and operated, under a "natural" monopoly.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      With the caveat that Telenor is 54% owned by the Norwegian government (as of September 2016) [1], with a further 5% owned by Folketrygdfondet (government run social security fund), and a further 0.8% by DNB Asset Management, a subsidiary of the bank DNB ASA, which is again 34% owned by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry... [1] https://www.telenor.com/investors/share-information/major-shareholdings/ https://www.telenor.com/investors/share-information/major-sh...
      - digi_owl 10y ago
        And? The government has declared itself to be a hands off shareholder...
        vidarh 10y ago
        The government declares itself a lot of things until it declares itself something else. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying that implying it's entirely privately owned is a bit misleading.
        digi_owl 10y ago
        Given the number of debacles involving both Telenor and DNB mismanagement in recent years, one would have thought there would have been plenty of opportunities for the government as shareholder to take action. But so far none of that has materialized...
        vidarh 10y ago
- wodenokoto 10y ago
  > Or is even radio run by the state in Norway? As a Scandinavian, that is kinda fun to read. Of course Radio is state run. I still get surprised when I hear commercials on the privately owned stations. Private radio stations pretty much became a thing after I grew up and stopped listening to Radio. When I was a kid, there were maybe one commercial station and they didn't air in my city. Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England, due to the former state monopoly. To many Scandinavians this is the most natural thing in the world.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    > Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England Apart from TV2 I think they all still are? Mainly to avoid restrictions on content in commercials (Norwegian ban on online gambling commercials etc).
  - Raphmedia 10y ago
    This makes a lot more sense. The article came off as a ban on FM. It's actually only that the state will no longer put money into FM radio and infrastructure.
    - gpvos 10y ago
      > The article came off as a ban on FM. Interesting cultural difference; I would never have it interpreted it like that. I did wonder whether the commercial stations would also leave FM. A large country like Norway is likely to have only state broadcasting in its more remote areas, but additionally commercial broadcasters in the more populated regions.
      - kwhitefoot 10y ago
        As far as I can tell the commercial stations are leading the way.
  - winter_blue 10y ago
    > Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England, due to the former state monopoly. To many Scandinavians this is the most natural thing in the world A state monopoly is a restriction on freedom. I'm fairly libertarian-leaning (on some issues), and what you're saying sounds to me like: "our lack of freedom is the most natural thing in the world". It's like a slave who's lived in slavery all his life saying that "slavery is the most natural thing in the world". Doesn't matter if the slave master has treated the slave well and given him/her a comfortable life. A law that prevents private television broadcasters from existing is a violation of the people's freedom to organize and form their own broadcast networks. I find your acceptance and nonchalance at this honestly quite disturbing. There's nothing natural in a state monopoly. It's a restriction on individual freedom, and it's as simple as that. The thing I find unnatural is people not caring about their freedom, and willingly (and happily) surrendering it over to the state.
- nucleardog 10y ago
  In a lot of places like this the infrastructure wouldn't exist in the first place if not for the state, so it seems natural to me that the public should retain ownership after paying to develop it.
- gpvos 10y ago
  > Or is even radio run by the state in Norway? Radio and TV have been run by the state (in some way or other) in most European countries from the 1920s until the 1980s. There were exceptions, most notably Luxembourg, which transmitted commercial radio to all its surrounding countries.

w8rbt 10y ago

There is only one reason. It's much more efficient. Engineers have to keep slicing things thinner and thinner to accommodate more and more people and needs. This impacts everything. Food, water, shelter, medications, transportation, communications, etc. Efficiency is king. It has to be.

mrswag 10y ago
FM works, and doesn't need any addition when you increase the number of listeners. I don't get it. Why throw away millions of perfectly fine radios?
- w8rbt 10y ago
  Digital is more narrow and compact and allows more efficient use of the spectrum in general. More transmissions, different uses, sharing, freeing space up for other allocations, etc. All of that is resource/demand driven. More people is more demand.
  - gpvos 10y ago
    While DAB transmission is more efficient than FM, the receivers are more complex and draw more power than FM receivers. I'm not sure the tradeoff is right in this case.
  - askvictor 10y ago
    I get that argument for tv transmission, but the FM bandwidth is tiny by comparison, so just doesn't seem to justify the switching pain (particularly regarding cars)

Johnythree 10y ago

It's because FM broadcast is at a relatively low frequency that makes it valuable. It has much better ability to penetrate into buildings, and through foliage, etc.