Switzerland to end 2024 with an analog FM broadcast-killing bang

Swiss radio listeners will soon have to toss out their old sets, as the country plans to end analog FM broadcasting on December 31, 2024, in favor of a total conversion to digital. The move has been a long time coming in Switzerland, which has largely already transitioned to Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB+, an evolution of …

[Neil Barnes]

The fundamental issue with DAB

or indeed any digital broadcast system, is that it doesn't know how to fail gracefully.

When the signal level is low, FM is still audible, if noisy, but digital systems either stop completely once the error correction can't get enough bits, or turn into bubbling soup, like DAB.

Which is a shame, because DAB was never built out and funded as originally designed, which would have hidden most of the signal strength issues. It didn't help that it was sold as permanently positioned domestic receivers, when it was designed as and often relies on a receiver moving between varying signal strength transmitters - lots of them, short range. Oh well.

[Martin-73]

Re: The fundamental issue with DAB

Indeed, DAB for site radios or fixed locations is fine, if meh quality* ; for stuff on the move, FM

* this isn't a fundamental issue with DAB, but the way they try to cram so many channels into one multiplex

[AlbertH]

Re: The fundamental issue with DAB

Despite the limited audio bandwidth of FM (15kHz at the top end), the quality is very significantly better than the highly compressed, limited bit-rate rubbish being foisted upon us by the greedy broadcasters. The previous poster was (mostly) right - DAB is capable of reasonable quality, but as implemented, it's usually unlistenable.

In my recent experience, the vast majority of in-car listening is to internet audio streaming stations, rather than DAB. The problems inherent with mobile reception of DAB aren't shared by internet radio streams - and these are usually received on mobile phones, and played through the car's speakers by Bluetooth connection. The reliability of a mobile phone connection far exceeds that of DAB!

[ChrisElvidge]

Re: The fundamental issue with DAB

IMHO the main issue is the amount of power the receivers use. 4xD cells in DAB radios they last days, in FM radios they last weeks.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: The fundamental issue with DAB

"IMHO the main issue is the amount of power the receivers use. 4xD cells in DAB radios they last days, in FM radios they last weeks."

Yes, the power saving the Swiss claim. I wonder how much of that will be negated by the millions of more power hungry DAB+ radios? Whether battery, mains powered or fitted to your electric car, they still use more power and therefore increase battery usage, increase the house power draw or reduce the range of the car by a small amount, multiplied by millions of users. I wonder if anyone has actually done those calculations? Do FM transmitters use significantly more power than DAB+ multiplexes? Many UK DAB stations are barely better quality than FM, often worse, and quite some number of "music" stations are only transmitting in mono so another channel can be fitted in.

[Andy3]

Re: The fundamental issue with DAB

Indeed. A couple of years ago I won (!) a nice Sony DAB portable. I used to listen to BBC radio for an hour or so before I got up, and at the end of the first week the radio went off. I thought it was faulty, but it turned out it had ground its way through the 4xAA cells in just 6 hours of listening. And this was at a volume level carefully adjusted so it wouldn't wake the family. I replaced the batteries (genuine Duracell) and tried again and got the same result. Batteries weren't cheap even then, so I put the radio away and went back to my analogue FM radio which runs for several months on the same type of battery.

It's the same story with the bathroom radio, a cheap AM/FM radio from Amazon. I can't remember the last time I put new batteries in!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The fundamental issue with DAB

Issue doesn't mean problem by the way.

https://languageandgrammar.com/2008/01/14/youve-got-problems-not-issues/#:~:text=A%20problem%20is%20something%20that%20we%20don't%20want.,that%20he%20has%20a%20problem.

[Martin-73]

Not sure whether to report this as an error?

But 'broadcasted'? Isn't the verb broadcast, or is this an Americanism?

[Inventor of the Marmite Laser]

Re: Not sure whether to report this as an error?

"Analog" is definitely a yankism.

[PRR]

Re: Not sure whether to report this as an error?

> ...nations with broader mobile data network coverage.

And corner-cases within "more sophisticated nations". My neck of the Maine coast can lose mobile data (if it even has it most days) with a single fault at several places. Tho frankly I prefer AM for public safety--- one AM rig can cover a lot of area and will cut behind mountains and some ways into tunnels.

> When the signal level is low, FM is still audible, if noisy, but digital systems either.....

Yeah well FM does that too. FM will generally start to degrade before digital, because there are few really good FM radios, but also broadcast designers fiddle bandwidth and datarates to give the numbers market leaders want to pay for.

And as Tron implies: an FM demodulator can be almost zero power, digital gotta suck digi-bits. I suspect it is "possible* to do millipower DAB, good hearing aids run complex algorithms in 0.002 Watts, but the market may not be driving that.

> 'broadcasted'? Isn't the verb broadcast, or is this an Americanism?

It is an old word, and good, in US and UK. More common before you were born? ngram for broadcasted

> "Analog" is definitely a yankism.

Apparently so. ngram for analog. Use the pulldown to pick a country.

> my cellphone will receive FM.

This was common but is fading on newer models.

> * at a range of ~700km.

I can frequently, on a good radio, despite our ragged rural overhead power lines, pull in WBZ-AM, 50KW on 1030kHz, from 330 km away. They have three transmitters, not impossible one of the standbys is valves; anyway two of my radios are tubes.

[FBee]

Good 'ol WBZ - Radio 103

At least that was the catchphrase 50 years ago...

[PRR]

Re: Good 'ol WBZ - Radio 103

> Good 'ol WBZ - Radio 103 --- At least that was the catchphrase 50 years ago...

Yes. Boston is not my hometown (I grew up with WFIL) but WBZ has been well known for near a century (first air date- Sept 19, 1921, @100 Watts). It blankets New England with semi-local strength up to Bangor ME. It has heavy coverage of Boston's heavy traffic. If you need to drive *past* Boston, WBZ tells how far out you want to be. They do their own weather which can be better than the govt weather.

But nobody else seems to remember that specific jingle/catchphrase? It's too appropriate to doubt.

[Downeaster]

Re: Not sure whether to report this as an error?

I also live on the far Down East Coast of Maine 60 miles from the Canadian border. I also like AM for emergencies. I can also pick up WBZ 1030AM from Boston as most of their signal goes over the Atlantic. We can lose cells service in our area if there are bad storms. Places that were hit hard by Hurricane Helene lost cell service for many days. FM still has its place along with AM. Both are a proven technology that work despite problems. AM can cover large distances and is a good source of information. FM can also cover large distances and has a good sound quality. FM signals fade and AM is subject to electrical interference. DAB I have limited experience with but what I my understanding of it it has many problems. If it is bad as American Digital TV signals that pixelate if too far from the transmitter or if you can't get the signal, it is worthless. I too like to stream radio but still would like to see AM and FM exist.

[Inventor of the Marmite Laser]

" an improvement for listeners"

Not on this bit of the planet. I've given up with DAB. Bubbling Soup sound, signal drops, signal drops followed by a second or so of repeat, are the main gripes.

ClassicFM made a lot of steam and frothy water about launching themselves on DAB+, touting "better quality sound". It'd have been better if they'd just concentrated on getting DAB pure and simple to - you know - actually work properly.

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be the point? Almost nobody who listens to Classic FM cares about audio quality. Or music for that matter. I doubt the Classic FM audience would be able to tell the difference between the sound quality of a decent FM or DAB broadcast and something coming out of an Edison-era phonograph.

[Neil Barnes]

BBC Radio 3, on the other hand... when I worked at the Beeb, years ago now, it was strongly rumoured that the BBC really wanted to drop Radio 3 - it had the lowest number of listeners and obviously cost the most per listener. But apparently all the listeners knew the Prime Minister's phone number...

(When I was there, I think R3 on DAB was getting the full 320kb.)

[andy gibson]

Radio 3 audience

Can't speak for everyone, but a lot of Classic FM listeners moved to R3 when Classic FM's DAB only signal was turned off. My DAB radio doesn't have an FM mode. When it was sold I was promised I wouldn't need it...........

[Dave559]

Re: Radio 3 audience

Radio 3 isn't just classical music (although I do enjoy classical music, I am definitely more at the "popular classics" end of the dial, and some of Radio 3's stuff is a bit too highbrow or obscure for me - although that's nevertheless exactly the sort of thing that a public service broadcaster should also be including), it also does all sorts of quirky, experimental and world music stuff, such as Late Junction, which is a real gem!

[Red Ted]

Radio 3 bandwidth

Radio 3 has 192kb/s allocated to it, the most of any DAB channel.

The other BBC radio channels are mostly at 128kb/s.

Most commercial stations are squashed down to 64kb/s.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the Radio3 snobs sit in their anechoic chambers with their armchair carefully located between a multitude of high end speakers and sneer at classic fm for the poor fools who don't even notice the sparrow farting 34 seconds onto the second movement...

I was fine with classic FM until the mobile app required a sign-in, presumably so they can sell the data and then they went DAB+ so my old DAB radio wasn't good enough. So no more classic FM for me.

I live in a large city with hills. Even at home radio signals are patchy and in the car dropouts are frequent. Longer wavelengths and older technology was simpler and more reliable - yes, in my youth I built one transistor radios and even a crystal set. Any signal is better than none.

[Peter Gathercole]

UK is generally bad for DAB

I find that DAB reception has got worse in my area of the UK (West Somerset).

I even upgraded to DAB+ radios to replace the most used old DAB receivers to try to continue using it, but surprisingly, they're not really any better. I think it's definitely failing in the UK.

It is telling that several years back, the UK penetration target for digital radio to trigger the turning off of analogue radio was changed from just counting DAB/DAB+, to including all forms of digital radio including radio on DVB and internet radio. The PTB are rolling back on DAB, and I expect that they will propose re-using the spectrum at some point in the near future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: UK is generally bad for DAB

yep its piss poor in the UK. We get ZERO dab at home, we live near the coast so are in the shadow sector for the main TV (and DAB) transmitter, at Caradon Hill on Bodmin moor. Even our terrestrial digital TV is transmitted (as most are around the coast) via a relay on the top of a hill above our village. The relays have never been upgraded to relay DAB and I doubt they ever will be.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: UK is generally bad for DAB

It's a cunning plot to eventually switch off all broadcast radio and sell the entire spectrum to $someone for $reasons and therefore $profit. Move everyone to DAB(+) then degrade the quality and convenience so listener numbers drop below some threshold so that they can claim "no one uses it any more". It's all bait and switch. Promise the world then renage on the promises and even provide a worse, but more importantly, cheaper "service". Sat and cable TV was going to provide "just pay for the channels you watch". That never happened, buy a bundle of stuff you don't want or do without. Digital cable and Sat TV? It's be better with sharp, crisp pictures and CD quality sound. Yeah...naaaa. It's compressed up the wazoo such that many so called HD channels or full of compression artifacts and worse by far than analogue in some case.

[Rich 2]

Re: UK is generally bad for DAB

Regarding degrading the FM signal so people switch over, that is actually what happened when digi TV was being rolled out

The analogue TV signal source was changed so it was actually a decoded version of the digital signal rather than being direct from the prime source. By doing that, it made the analogue picture look no better than the digital picture

These days, with HD and better compression etc the digital picture is much better then would be possible in the analogue world (without using heaps of bandwidth) so it could be argued that the end result justified the means. It was still very sneaky and dishonest though

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: UK is generally bad for DAB

> with HD and better compression etc the digital picture is much better then would be possible in the analogue world (without using heaps of bandwidth)

Shame about the digital artifacts being so much more bleeping distracting than the analogue; even on the HD channels (although it is better than the standard channels) there is pixel banding, moves and eyes moving left and right whilst foreheads stay in the same place...

And I way prefer ghosting or losing the colour to half the frame covered in incredibly garish squares.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: UK is generally bad for DAB

@Rich 2:

Not in the UK. I've had it confirmed by colleagues who were involved that BBC analogue distribution (itself a 155Mb/s digital signal unrelated to DTT) continued to the transmitters (except to the Channel Islands) and to other BBC sites for a number of reasons; not least that DTT did not contain teletext used for subtitles.

ITV used similar methods at 140/155Mb/s; C4 distributed a compressed signal at 34Mb/s. Channel 5 used satellite feeds.

[abend0c4]

The Bubbling Soup is a consequence of the way DAB does error correction. Digital transmission systems tend to degrade in a "cliff edge" fashion - you either get a signal or you don't. It was originally thought that it would be more acceptable (and more akin to analogue) if the audio quality degraded gradually as the signal became weaker and so DAB uses more error correction bits for sounds that are critical to intelligibility and fewer for the rest: the consequence is the burbling sound as some bits of the audio signal are preserved at the expense of others. DAB+ adds more error-correction so that a signal can be recovered in more marginal conditions, but brings back the "cliff edge".

So, the only way Classic FM could "improve" the quality of its audio (short of getting rid of the weird compression) was to ditch DAB altogether.

[Dan 55]

Also DAB uses MPEG-2 but DAB+ uses AAC+. Anything which uses MPEG-2 at 128 kbps or below is going to sound like crap, with or without errors.

[Fred Dibnah]

Agreed, although DAB uses MPEG-1 Layer 2, not MPEG-2.

</pedantry>

[Russ T]

USA leading the way

The way the US does digital radio is great.

HD Radio - sits alongside the FM band for extra channels

SiriusXM offering a plethora of channels and seems to be mostly ultra reliable.

DAB in the UK by comparison is pretty awful.

Also: “also eliminate maintenance costs of aging FM infrastructure”. Really? FM transmission is far easier than digital. Power argument; yes. Maintenance? I’m not buying it.

[Andy The Hat]

Re: USA leading the way

Power argument?

For a few transmitters, yes I agree power reduction with DAB compared to FM will be significant.

For receivers, replacing mW of basic power requirement with several watts of power requirement across tens or hundreds of thousands of sets ... how does that compare to the transmitter savings apart from the listener pays so is cheaper for the broadcaster?

[Zibob]

Funny in its ways.

Out kitchen stereo died a few years back so we replaced it with a nice JVC one with fancy DAB, thinking it would be nice not having the FM occasional static.

We get home set it up and start to try to find stations... Nothing not a scratch, we though maybe it needed an Ariel moving or something, tried quite a lot more than reasonable before looking it up online.

Turns out, DAB had a short life in Ireland and was shut down for some reason I can't remember.

Back to FM, and everything is great.

Not sure about DAB+ but it would seem we just gave up in general, no body bothered to set it up and stations didn't see the use, by the time it was reasonably available in home systems online streaming was already way ahead and no one on the street is likely to even know what DAB is at all, probably laugh thinking you are talking about drugs.

[Phil Ni'Sophical]

Re: Funny in its ways.

RTE shut that down to save a few 'pingin' in a previous cost cutting exercise. I would think we'll be the great international hold out on shutting down FM. It'll be "the death knell of rural Ireland" if we do!!

[heyrick]

Re: Funny in its ways.

I have a new car with a radio that supports MW/FM/DAB. I can get the usual selection of stations off of FM here in rural France, but scanning DAB gets exactly nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Funny in its ways.

There's not many DAB muxes in France outside of the big cities like Paris and Lyon. Around the alps I used to get some Swiss DAB, not much else.

[Bebu]

Re: Funny in its ways.

According to the viamux.com site they are running a small scale DAB+ pilot in Dublin but the site might be pre the RTE DAB shutdown.

In AU we have DAB+ in the capitals and some larger regional centres and works quite nicely if you live in these. The receivers themselves normally also have FM which covers most of the rest of the population.

The national broadcasters (ABC, SBS) also broadcasts some of their radio stations ever digital tv channels which extends their coverage.

The DAB+ receivers were originally more expensive (> 4 times the price eg AUD120 v. AUD 20) of comparable AM/FM receivers which meant a slow uptake. Living in Sydney when the rollout started I managed to purchase a cheap (AUD100) Grundig receiver which is still going strong and was a decent FM radio for the decade I was in the countryside.

Unfortunately my not being blessed with golden ears, I cannot really detect the difference between identical FM and DAB+ broadcasts although the slight time delay between the two is a little eerie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Funny in its ways.

being at home you can just use a internet based "radio"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Funny in its ways.

> we though maybe it needed an Ariel moving ... DAB had a short life in Ireland and was shut down for some reason I can't remember.

It was Calibanned[1]

[1] would have worked better if you were on the west coast of the US instead of Ireland, could even have worked in a line about DAB being read it's Miranda Rights as it was hauled away: "Book him, Sergeant Prospero".

[kuiash]

Resilience

You'll prise my home-brew crystal set from my cold dead hand.

[steviebuk]

Re: Resilience

I was going to say that. DAB is fing annoying. Driving round and hit dead spots so it just goes silent. At least with FM you can make a crystal radio set, never going to happen with DAB or DAB+.

I thought they were turning off FM in the UK but hopefully that's out the window considering DAB signal wise ain't great.

[Spazturtle]

Re: Resilience

No date for FM radio, they will hold another review in 2030 to check usage. TV does have a shutdown date, terrestrial TV (Freeview) is going in 2030 and Freesat/Sky is going in 2029.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Resilience

Do you have a reference for those shutdown dates? All I can find is that there's a commitment to freeview until at least 2034.

[Spazturtle]

Re: Resilience

The spectrum licence runs until 2034, but there is a break point that Everyone TV (BBC, ITV, C4, C5) can trigger at 2030. The licence is costing Everyone TV a fortune which is why they have started pushing people towards their new streaming service "Freely", for the BBC streaming also has the benefit that they can enforce that you have an account with a licence in order to stream, this is especially important given that the BBC charter expires in 2027.

There are technically 4 licences, 2 were due to expire in 2022 and 2 in 2026, in 2021 Everyone TV asked for them to be extended until 2030 but the Conservatives under pressure from lobby groups for older voters told Ofcom to extent them to 2034.

Freesat/Sky is going in 2029 as that is when the current satellites will be decommissioned and nobody is talking about launching any more.

[abend0c4]

Re: Resilience

This is fascinating. As far as I can tell, in a world where there are existing TVs and other media devices already capable of receiving streaming content (both live and on-demand), they're proposing people buy new TVs so receive their proprietary IP-based broadcast service. Have I understood that correctly?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Resilience

I think that unlikely. Streaming services can by behind an account login already, using both existing TVs that support it or "tv box" add-ons, just like during the digital switchover when many people had UHF analogue TVs and bought a digital FreeView box.

[abend0c4]

Re: Resilience

The reason I ask is that if you look at the Together TV website, it talks pretty much exclusively about its hardware partners building the technology into their TV sets.

Although digital swtichover started the same year as the first version of BBC iPlayer, streaming at that point was not a viable option for replacing analogue TV so people were generally prepared to buy a box (and, indeed, new aerials in some cases).

Streaming now is pretty much ubiquitous and the number of people watching off-air, linear TV has dwindled dramatically, particularly amongst young people. I'm wondering how they're going to be persuaded to buy new hardware to watch the same on-demand streaming services they're already watching online and linear TV services they clearly don't want.

[Like a badger]

Re: Resilience

TV does have a shutdown date, terrestrial TV (Freeview) is going in 2030

I'll believe that when it happens. Politicians will intervene to push that back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Resilience

yep you'll get the old "think of the old people, its a life line" argument

[Spazturtle]

Re: Resilience

We have this election and the next where the baby boomers are a significant voting population. After that I fully expect the political parties to start screwing them.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Resilience

"I thought they were turning off FM in the UK but hopefully that's out the window considering DAB signal wise ain't great."

It's better than it used to be, but still not great. There's an entire stretch of the M6 through the Lake District where there's no DAB whatsoever. Mind you, if you do a scan on FM, it'll go through the entire band and eventually settle on ClassicFM 'cos that's all there is. MW/AM works ok though. Not sure if there's any phone signal, I'm just passing through so am not using the phone while driving anyway, but I'd assume it's poor at best and unlikely to work with streaming on mobile data :-)

[bazza]

Re: Resilience

You can’t make an fm crystal set. AM only…

[martinusher]

DAB, now totally obsolete

When DAB was first conceived it was back in the days when 'broadcasting' meant 'central site transmitting a unidirectional stream of data to numerous receive only stations'. This type of broadcast still has a place but not the kind of digital based multichannel service that DAB provides. That's now more than adequately covered by streaming, streaming being available in one form or another for 25 years or more and is now practical to use while mobile. This has left DAB as a technology that's obsolete before it became fully developed, enduring because of institutional inertia by the broadcasters and vested interest by the equipment manufacturers.

Broadcasting still has a place, though. Not DAB but old school broadcast technology. FM and even AM. Its not very sexy but its cheap, simple and easy to set up and maintain, the sort of technology that's going to be available after the infrastructure fails due to a natural (or man-made) disaster. This is at the core of an ongoing argument here in the US about the AM (medium wave) band in cars. Manufacturers of modern cars, especially EVs, would like to dump AM radio because the electronic packages make isolating the receiver from spurious emissions from the vehicle electronics difficult. The argument for keeping it is that this is a vital lifeline in case of a disaster, anything from a bridge out due to local flooding to a major earthquake. Building your entire communications infrastructure on complex components that are not easy to service (they have to be replaced) and, worst case, are susceptible to EMP is asking for trouble.

[mike.dee]

Re: DAB, now totally obsolete

The problem with DAB and DAB+ is that at home makes no sense, given the alternatives, streaming and satellite broadcasting, both have more bandwidth available, so there's more choice and better audio quality compared to DAB.

And now mobile streaming is available, and because DAB channels are transmitted at low bandwidth, the quality isn't a factor for DAB, and in mobile DAB requires more power compared wit FM and comparable with power used for streaming on mobile.

At the same time FM radio it's good enough to be listened in mobile, has low power requirement on reception and a receiver it's quite easy to build: An FM receiver could be made using eight transistors and two diodes, while for DAB a quite powerful microcontroller it's required.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: DAB, now totally obsolete

"That's now more than adequately covered by streaming, streaming being available in one form or another for 25 years or more and is now practical to use while mobile."

Practical? Maybe. Economic? Not so much. Data costs money. Over the air broadcast is "free at the point of use". Is it an improvement if I have to pay for extra mobile data just so I can listen to the "radio" while in the car?

[Detective Emil]

FM? Bah, humbug! DAB? bah, humbug²

Still listening to R4 LW*. Just hoping its valves don't blow.

* at a range of ~700km.

[Lon24]

Re: FM? Bah, humbug! DAB? bah, humbug²

I thought the BBC only kept Long Wave and The Archers going to fallstall a premature ejaculation by our Trident subs.

AFAIK DAB+ is still a bit flaky under the South Atlantic.

[Bebu]

Re: FM? Bah, humbug! DAB? bah, humbug²

I thought the BBC only kept Long Wave and The Archers going to fallstall a premature ejaculation by our Trident subs.

A beer for the idea that The Archers have been preventing WW3 all these years.

Omitting an early childhood in NZ, where, at that time the program was broadcast, I don't remember much other than nothing whatsoever seemed to happen and everyone talked like the residents of Invercargill (NZ.)

Not broadcast in AU I think but (chief) inspector Morse* religiously listened to the program (often the Sunday morning omnibus session) so I assume it must have had its merits apart from preventing (delaying?) nuclear conflict.

_{* who was also partial to an ale or three.}

[that one in the corner]

Re: FM? Bah, humbug! DAB? bah, humbug²

> (chief) inspector Morse* religiously listened to the program (often the Sunday morning omnibus session) so I assume it must have had its merits apart from preventing (delaying?) nuclear conflict.

Back when Morse listened, "The Archers" still gave out useful information about farming matters, such as Peggy worrying about the cost to the nation if ramblers refused to obey the Foot and Mouth restrictions.

Recently, the most educational it has been is when "More Or Less" calculated the height of the manor roof by the length of Nigel's scream.

[RAMChYLD]

Re: FM? Bah, humbug! DAB? bah, humbug²

What's on LW tho? Last time I tried to listen to anything on that band on an old Telefunken I only got static.

SW, on the other hand. that's where all the good stuff are. Get funky things like weird robotic voices announcing random numbers or loud Chinese music all the time.

And MW/AM is great if you fancy some Thai/Tibetian/Burmese/Vietnamese/Laotian radio alongside Voice Of America after dark, too bad it goes silent the moment daylight breaks.

[PRR]

Re: FM? Bah, humbug! DAB? bah, humbug²

> SW, on the other hand. that's where all the good stuff are.

At the top of Maine sits WBCQ SW, a very funky shortwave currently broadcasting flat-earth theory (and other topics) all around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBCQ_(SW) https://www.radioworld.com/global/wbcq-relies-on-high-power-shortwave-antenna

We found out about it because they are jacking our electric rates (again!) and the proprietor Allan Weiner came to a hearing as a Very Big Customer. He literally has coverage at his antipodes. I doubt he can actually be throwing 500,000 Watts (he is so far out in the woods and fields) but obviously could be a big electric bill.

[Spazturtle]

Re: FM? Bah, humbug! DAB? bah, humbug²

According to amateur radio forums it is 500KW of transmission, apparently with a test tone at 100% modulation it can transmit 700KW whilst drawing 1.2 megawatts from the grid.

[Tron]

DAB is shite.

It eats batteries. My Sony Walkman lasts for ages with a single AAA receiving FM. The resilience of the DAB signal is also rubbish compared to FM.

Take away FM in the UK and I won't be listening to radio any more. All those retro radios stretching back nearly a century will become paperweights. And a major route into electronics for youngsters vanishes into a surface mount black box.

Damaging peoples lives has a cost to it. Check out the next election in the UK, and see what happens to those who are hated by the general public for damaging our lives and taking things from us.

Leave FM alone.

[martinusher]

Re: DAB is shite.

...and just as a sort of "By the Way", my cellphone will receive FM. I think many do, at least the ones that support wired earpieces (needed for the antenna).

I suspect supporting DAB on cellphones would need a serious licensing package for the technology.

[Korev]

Re: DAB is shite.

I don't think any iphones have ever had it, just a subset of Android phones

[Dave 126]

Re: DAB is shite.

No, iPhones have never supported FM, though I believe their Qualcomm modems were technically capable of it. I might be misremembering, so don't quote me.

[My other car WAS an IAV Stryker]

Re: DAB is shite.

Some iPods (nano?) had FM, even pulling song data that you could "save" to build an iTunes queue to purchase the tracks.

[Mage]

Re: don't think any iphones have ever had it

Likely by the time the WiFi & BT chip used by Apple included FM radio for "free" there was no headphone socket. The earphone cable is the VHF aerial. I had a Lenovo 10" tablet big enough for an internal aerial, but still needed the external cable for VHF radio to work.

Receiver power is a big issue with DAB.

All the RTE stations that were on DAB are on DTT (and satellite, but that's not portable), which works nationwide with a €15 USB TV stick, even on some phones and tablets.

[blackcat]

Re: DAB is shite.

I've given up on DAB and gone back to FM and for long car trips I stream. The original DAB standard was barely half-arsed with a very crap codec. Anyone who was an early adopter like me now has a pile of kit that can't receive anything.

There wasn't even a very good selection of stations anyway. Most non-beeb stations are now run by Bauer Media, all the local stations are being turned into Greatest Hits. Anything else is Nation radio.

The FM band in the US is positively crammed compared to UK radio.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: DAB is shite.

"The FM band in the US is positively crammed compared to UK radio."

US radio has always been better and with much more choice than UK, mainly because they don't pay royalties on every track they play. That's a significant reduction in running costs meaning it's much cheaper to set up a station. And broadcast licencing aside, quite a few US stations are almost if not completely automated, especially the music stations and have almost zero running costs.

[steviebuk]

I assume

this is also a push from the music industry to try and stamp out pirate radio maybe?

[Mage]

Re: I assume

It's easy to run a pirate DAB station, but there is no demand.

The Norwegian change and now Swiss change is political. The advantages only apply to national stations with multiple channels. It's not even a power saving if you want the same coverage.

[jezza99]

Australia uses AM for emergency broadcasts

FM (VHF) does not have the frequency or coverage to be useful for emergencies. I doubt that DAB+ would cut the mustard either.

AM (medium wave/MF) can propagate hundreds of kilometres in the right conditions, over hills and down valleys. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) uses this for emergency broadcasts when required, or predominantly talk radio the rest of the time.

If you live in a bushfire or flood prone area it is essential to have a battery powered AM radio. The second service to usually fail is the cellular network and internet, right after the power fails.

[NATTtrash]

Re: Australia uses AM for emergency broadcasts

The second service to usually fail is the cellular network and internet, right after the power fails.

Very, very true. I would even venture to say that they go before base power fails. But that is a bit difficult to understand for a generation/ society that doesn't dare to leave the house without a mobile glued to their hand. Will be interesting though if somebody in the future strikes that Pompeii-like archeological find from the 21st century: "They met their end apparently, sitting in the corner, staring passively at in their hand. We are not sure about this behaviour, it might be something religious..." Ah well, if it doesn't appear on the screen of your mob, it isn't true any way...

[Bebu]

Re: Australia uses AM for emergency broadcasts

"...sitting in the corner, staring passively at in their hand. We are not sure about this behaviour, it might be something religious..."

Some years ago one evening, when I was walking past a backpackers hostel which had a large refectory table outside in the front courtyard, I spied over a dozen young people seated around the table all apparently deeply engrossed in prayer.

Then I noticed the telltale glow of a led display reflected in all their faces and I could not stop laughing, discretely moving quickly on my way.

[withQuietEyes]

Well that's a bit dumb.

I found and watched the reporting on this from one of the big radio/tv groups here, and only about half of currently used cars have DAB+ radio. In a country where the radio is regularly used to warn about traffic hazards, jams, closed tunnels.

This'll go well.

Plus there's a 10% of the population who don't use it yet, especially for local stations, and that's an awful lot of people to shove off their favorite channels.

[Mage]

DAB+ also cuts down on "electrosmog,"

Such nonsense.

DAB actually needs more transmitter sites closer to the the population than FM.

Also if they want to save money, then turn off DAB. Like Ireland did. DAB in Ireland was only going to benefit the National RTE and they couldn't afford to add enough transmitters for full coverage. Adding the high sites first only gave about 45% coverage.

The UK would need 100s of small DAB fill-in relays to give the existing FM coverage.

Actually some Broadcasters, run by accountants, think the best way to instantly save costs is to turn off all transmitters and only stream on the Internet. The Internet streaming is expensive if it's not niche content and of course perfectly tracks who is listening to what. Broadcast is ideal for mass market as a surge in listeners has no effect on distribution quality or costs.

[mike.dee]

Re: DAB+ also cuts down on "electrosmog,"

In my experience the electrosmog and power consumption arguments are true, but simply because the DAM transmitters are of lower power and because of this have lower coverage compared with FM transmitters in the same sire. Broadcasters and advertisers are more interested to cover big cities rather than small villages in the middle of the mountains.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DAB+ also cuts down on "electrosmog,"

Transmitter power is usually given as peak radiated power (EIRP). You can't directly compare digital and analogue power levels, since digital transmitters run at 100% output all the time, but analogue ones rarely hit peak power. Most digital transmitters are sized to match the average power of the analogue one, to give the same coverage.

[andy gibson]

Car DAB+ figures

"FM receivers in automobiles are nearly completely gone in Switzerland, with 99 percent [PDF] of vehicles sold in the country shipping with DAB+ radios as of 2019."

So you're saying that 99% of cars in Switzerland are from 2019 or newer?

A 2022 report says that the average age of a car in Switzerland was 10 years old.

[naive]

Tossing away working stuff must be environmental friendly these days

My 1973 Yamaha CR-800 works like a charm, being in use 365*8, if not more.

[Dickie_Mosfet]

Re: Tossing away working stuff must be environmental friendly these days

That's the first thing that occurs to me when people make the "environmentally friendly" argument: What about the hundreds of thousands of junked FM radios?

P.S. I was curious about your CR-800; what a fabulous looking tuner! I have a 1980s Toshiba radio cassette in the kitchen.

[Goonar]

MR

Sweden paused the DAB+ tech indefinately, with all right!

All the claims that it would minimize the electrosmog is BS,

DAB+ technology has such bad coverage you need to place relay senders all over the place.

The technology of multiplexing radio channels makes it so costly that the small local radio stations can´t afford it, diversity is stumped.

It is a technology and product from the previous millenium - before napster, spotify, podcasts and internet radio and flat rate 4G - 5G internet coverage.

Honestly, from which rock pool are the advocates of this moldy technology crawling out from?

They are flogging a dead horse!!

[therobyouknow]

Digital AM - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) - can't censor radio like internet

I really wish Digital Radio Mondiale was supported by more widely known manufacturers and broadcasters.

Being AM, it can be long range.

Modern codecs mean that decent quality audio can be achieved over really small bitrates. If using the Opus audio format it's license free.

Being original radio over the airwaves, it cannot be censored like the internet can. Something to consider with current conflicts around the world.

There are some "pirate" radio stations like Radio Caroline that have invested in increasing their coverage over AM: https://www.redtech.pro/radio-caroline-increases-coverage/

Instead I would have thought they should be promoting Digital Radio Mondiale, perhaps a partnership with Raspberry Pi / supporting vendors to provide a DRM HAT module to make the receivers abundantly available.

[Dickie_Mosfet]

Re: Digital AM - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) - can't censor radio like internet

@therobyouknow: I have a friend who works for the BBC World Service. He told me years ago about a new technology that would digitally encode radio broadcasts on the AM band, combining very distant reception with much better quality. I'd completely forgotten about it until I read your post. Unfortunately, it seems as though it didn't make much of an impact in Europe...

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

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=digital+radio+mondiale

[therobyouknow]

Re: Digital AM - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) - can't censor radio like internet

Yes, it DRM hasn't taken off.

Among reasons suggested here, I'd say there's another: commercial incentive/pressure.

Just imagine, a community radio setting up a low power digital AM transmitter (DRM), the range would be much further than they would get with FM (where they are restricted by Ofcom in terms of tranmission power). Shrewd community stations get planning permission to plonk their antennas on top of tall buildings in their community. Shrewd stations, also apply for a license in an area where there is high population density. Both of these maximise audience.

But is over the air still relevant today, with good bandwidth internet on mobile meaning radio has converged with mobile? (another example of convergence of computing with telephony). I'd say it could be relevant today, particularly vast continents in Asia and Africa where internet coverage may not be continuous. Also the censorship reason. But also, unless there's another application for the AM bands (SW, MW, LW) then why not use it for this. DVB/DTV Digital Television over the air will be phased out so I understand, as Freely takes hold. That spectrum is potentially lucrative for mobile network band expansion. AM band? Not aware of other potential uses, so why not modernise with DRM.

[doublelayer]

Re: Digital AM - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) - can't censor radio like internet

They've had decades to try to make something that could receive it reliably and they failed. Any receiver you can buy likely hits at least two of the deathly triad of lasting an hour on battery, costing an order of magnitude more than something else, and not being able to pick up the signal anyway. In theory, it's a great idea, but there's only so long it can be the next new thing with one of the key parts of the system absent and no indication that it will appear any time soon. It has been used for some purposes, for example long-distance communication to a small number of more expensive receiving locations, and it can still be used that way. For the intended use, broadcasting to a large number of people, often people who cannot afford expensive receivers, it's not working. They've had years to turn this around and we're still pretty much in the same place we were in 2020 or 2015 or 2010.

[jonfr]

Broadcast power of DAB+ compared to FM broadcast

The problem, best I can see with UK DAB and DAB+ broadcasts is that there are too many small transmitters. Based on this website that monitors transmitters.

Largest transmitters with DAB+ are running at 10kW. Largest FM transmitters can go up to 100kW (I don't think they go any higher for technical reasons in Europe).

Bandwidth in Mhz for DAB+ seems to be limited to 1.5Mhz and that is not a lot of bandwidth for high quality music in digital format. FM has maximum bandwidth of 270kHz with RDS.

https://www.ukwtv.de/cms/grossbritannien-dab.html (DAB information)

https://www.ukwtv.de/cms/sender-tabelle/sender-tabelle-ukw.html (The FM transmitter table for UK has been removed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting (FM Radio technical stuff)

Time of FM radio broadcast is probably just ending, like analogue phone in homes and other old technology. Its going to take a while to happen in all countries.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Broadcast power of DAB+ compared to FM broadcast

Bandwidth in Mhz for DAB+ seems to be limited to 1.5Mhz and that is not a lot of bandwidth for high quality music in digital format. FM has maximum bandwidth of 270kHz with RDS.

That 1.5MHz figure is for a DAB+ multiplex, which carries many stations within it, usually 10-12. The figure you quote for FM is for a single station, and isn't the maximum bandwidth (FM theoretically has infinite bandwidth) but simply a convenient approximation, you can work with less. As for power output, the characteristics are different, you can't assume that 10kW FM and 10kW DAB have the same broadcast characteristics or range.

[Bbuckley]

Unfortunately Ireland has gone in the wrong direction - backwards

Ah pity poor Ireland. Land of 'saints n' skolars'. The Irish tax-funded broadcaster, RTE ('Radio and Television Eireann, be-god!') cancelled DAB here when they were found out for gross corruption, fraud and epic stupidity. Yes. here in Holy Oireland, we have cancelled DAB in favour of 'the olden ways, ooh arrgh!'.

[Andy3]

Does it really save power? A typical DAB 'kitchen radio' will consume about 3 times the power that a standard analogue radio uses, so some of the 'savings' are actually being paid for by the user via his energy bill. And what about portables? OK, I know teens no longer walk about with a transistor radio clamped to the side of their head, but they do still exist and are in use by outdoor workers, builders etc. The batteries in these DAB portables don't last very long so they are replaced far more often than those in the old analogue types, leading to more waste and more expense for the user.

When it comes to sound quality, I find the big broadcasters like the BBC are generally OK as they use a fairly high bitrate, but most of the locals are squeezing their output into very low bitrate transmissions and the sound is harsh and unpleasant. After the smoothness of good ol' fashioned analogue FM, it's quite a shock. This is our national default sound broadcasting system and it shouldn't be allowed to abused like this. We deserve better!

[Bartholomew]

DVB vs FM

I use to work with an elderly man who used to go for walks on the beach in the evening after work to clear his mind about the crap he would have to deal with all day long. And he would listen to a FM radio. Life was great.

Then one birthday his girlfriend bought him a brand new DAB player, which he thought was fantastic, amazing sound quality compared to FM, so after work he would walk along the beach and at the exact same point along his walk his new DAB radio would go silent. He attributed it to the DAB needing crazy amounts of power. So he turned off and the next day he would start his walk with a new set of batteries, and at the exact same spot every single day ths new DAB radio would go silent. So he turned it off and put it away, and finish his walk in silence. He just could not understand how his old FM radio would last for months on a single set of batteries and DAB just drained them so fast.

Of course it is obvious to anybody what was happening. The batteries were fine, but his life experience was that if the radio goes silent the batteries are dead, you need to replace/recharge them. What was in fact happening was he was reaching the outer limit of the DAB transmitter and the DAB radio unable to use the FEC (Forward Error Correction) codes because they were so weak would just go silent. He turned off the radio and would not power it back on again until he had bought replacement batteries, or recharged his batteries! And he replaced them inside an area where the FEC and DAB transmissions were both fine. So in his mind new/recharged batteries always fixed the problem!

About a year later he was explaining how fantastic the sound quality was from his DAB player was but that it really eats through batteries like crazy! And he explained how it would always die at the exact same spot along the beach every single day like clockwork! It was outside of his life experience, and nit his fault. He got real mad when I explained what was happening, and that all those batteries he had recycled/recharged were probably all nearly fully charged.

[Bartholomew]

Re: DVB vs FM

Sorry the title should have been DAB, and not DVB.

[MachDiamond]

More room for meeeeee!

There's still loads of FM sets in people's hands and an FM transmitter of middling power isn't hard to whip up (or buy on Aliexpress). The trick is finding a way to monetize to keep a bandit station going.