OK, so you switch off a completely fine technology with billions invested, rendering useless multi-millions of fine working radios. For what? I think this will be the death blow to radio. People will not go DAB if not absolutely needed, they will essentially try to go "internet" directly and thereby eliminating classic "radio". Maybe you'll use the DAB in your car sometimes, but I can't imagine it will happen that you replace every FM radio in your house (alarm clock, kitchen radio, TV, legacy hifi-systems, etc...) with DAB now. In those cases, you'll switch so a full online solution like one of the gazillions internet radio stations. FM is dead with DAB. My prediction: "Radio" will something you'll probably find in cars - but almost nowhere else. The user base will be crippled totally, rendering "classic" radio into something unprofitable, as revenue from ads will go down. But as I am a digital child, I also look forward: being a podcaster now in the right countries could be unexpectedly monetarily interesting.
It's not just a matter of the cost of switching either.
I own a synthesizer (OP-1) that has a built-in FM receiver for sampling and for fun. Creativity-vise, it's an ingenious feature. Essentially, you can pull new sounds out of thin air whenever you feel like it. No need to connect or set anything up.
Why does it work so well? The receiver is cheap, the radio service is free, the way it works is universal and it's something reliably present in most countries. DAB sounds like it will not have any of these properties initially, and it will never have all of those properties.
My point is that the combination of those features enabled companies to create innumerable innovative appliances that use radio (from cheap radio clock to my Swedish synth). Switching to DAB will not only make existing devices useless, it will also kill the possibility of having new innovative applications in the future.
...
This kind of stuff bothers me, because it's increasingly common these days. People replace reliable, working technologies with something "modern" and claim they are making progress, while completely ignoring higher level architectural considerations.
Consider another thing: the money spent on this kind of stuff can be instead spent on making better Internet infrastructure, which can house digital TV, digital radio, digital phones, but also websites, online games, (soon) connected VR spaces, and things we can't even imagine yet.
>My point is that the combination of those features enabled companies to create innumerable innovative appliances that use radio (from cheap radio clock to my Swedish synth).
I don't think your list is so "innumerable".
The radio clock was merely using FM radio transmissions as intended.
The OP-1 using FM for sampling is the niche-st of niches, and totally irrelevant for 99.99999% of the population.
Between those extremes there are not that many appliances that will miss FM radio transmittions that are not actual FM radios...
...and Cars are not there yet. We have strong campaign for DAB once a year here in Germany to remind people that there is something like DAB+. We had one this year again. Thats when I realized that despite using so many rental cars, I haven't seen one with DAB. So I guess it's an extra you have to pay for more then for FM.
I don't know anyone having a DAB radio. I guess people remember the DVBT debacle from a few years ago when they took away the analogue TV program. In the years that followed more and more TV stations dropped out of the DVBT portfolio which was also mostly only available around big cities. Now they come with DVBT2. New hardware, less TV stations and pay options for what you once got for free.
It's a sad rip off strategy and I'm really sorry for radio. Luckily the data plans over here are ridiculous and I hope the resistance will be stronger.
Digital TV in the US flopped, as far as I can tell. Broadcasters were killed by their own greed. If a Roku is cheaper than an adapter box, and some of the channels on it are also free-with-commercials, as well as cheap paid content, broadcasters push people away with the transition.
What? Digital broadcasts did not flop in the US. I cant' imagine how you come to that conclusion.
You only need an adapter box if you have a non-HD TV. If you have a HD TV all you have to do is plug in an antenna directly into the TV. The government subsided conversion boxes when the transaction happened, which was around 2008 IIRC.
If you have a non-HD TV you aren't going to have an HDMI port to plug your Roku into, so that's a moot point anyways. There literary is no "Roku vs conversion box" it doesn't make sense.
There is also waaayyy more channels with HD broadcasts than analog broadcasts. I'm saying that as someone who went through the transition personally. In 2008 I had a CRT TV and was using rabbit ears to pick up local stations (yeah, I was a "cord-cutter" way before it was cool). I bought a converter box (which the government paid for half of it) and switched to HD when they cut off my analog.
And how were "broadcasters killed by their own greed?" How is broadcasting TV for free "greedy?"
Oh, and the transition was mandated by the FCC and Congress (with the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005) not "greedy TV stations." It was done in order to free up spectrum for other stuff. The amount of spectrum the Earth has is finite. Duel broadcasting digital and analog of the same content at the same time was taking double the spectrum. Verizon bought some of the previous analog spectrum to use for their 4G network.
Finally someone talking sense in this thread. Just cause Dvb has the capacity for many more stations doesn't mean the spectrum will be used for that purpose. There are so many better uses (WiMAX, metro wide internet) of the new freed up spectrul can now suit.
Genuinely curious, but what are you using to measure this, or better asked: how do you define flopped? A year ago before I finally had everything in line to drop out of the workforce and go to Grad school I spent a lot of time in rural America and I met a LOT of people who didn't have Cable, but relied on rabbit ears plugged into converter boxes to get digital TV.
Heck, for a while I even used it-and preferred it, forced me to do something other than sitting on the couch staring at a big rectangular box. Got me my local stations, which were more than enough to have soap opera / background filler noise on while I worked from home and got my Sunday football fix.
When the switch was made to digital I was really surprised at the picture quality and the number of channels available with just rabbit ears, for free. This was in LA so it could definitely be different in less populated areas.
I live five miles outside of downtown Minneapolis and have trouble picking up anything inside my stuccoed house. I've tried many many antennas and short of poking a hole in my wall and running an antenna outside nothing has worked. I was able to watch many many analog stations without issue.
Flopped? I dropped cable and went entirely with over-the-air (plus Netflix) in part because OTA digital broadcasts looked better than the overly compressed video that the cable company was pushing - compression artifacts were very visible and annoying.
In my social circle a lot of people have canceled their cable service and gone back to broadcast since since the digital switchover. There are dozens more channels than there used to be, and with better quality. If digital TV has flopped you wouldn't know it here.
Radio as being the primary source of audio-only data has been long dead, and the audio-only source has also seen competition of TV, RL (due to easier & cheaper forms of travel), and the Internet. In that sense even TV is dead thanks to the Internet. Both deaths are relative, not absolute.
Radio is however very much alive in the sense that audio-only is alive. Just look at streaming services such as Spotify, and the diversity possible with it. You can make your own playlist, follow someone else's, or collaborate. You can have multiple playlists, too. For a mere 10 EUR a month you even get rid of all the advertising (15 EUR for family pack of 6 people). I'm not advertising for Spotify here; its just one of the many options available and I happen to be familiar with it.
My Nokia N900, an experimental device from 2009, had a FM transmitter on it. One could tune in on car audio, to receive the signal send from the Nokia N900. One could power it up with the car's charger.
We're now in 2017, 8 years down the line. Its not far fetched to have a FM to Bluetooth or FM to WiFi converter. Exactly for situations where backwards compatibility is desirable. It might also be worth it to upgrade the car to more recent standards e.g. an Android mini computer made for the car.
> OK, so you switch off a completely fine technology with billions invested, rendering useless multi-millions of fine working radios.
FM is amazingly cheap, and green. You can reach millions of listeners with high quality sound. In many cases, you can reach tens of millions for exactly the same cost. Until you need another mast, the extra cost per user is $0.
Smartphone chips already include FM so there's no extra cost to reaching mobile users, with no extra bandwidth consumption. (Not FM's fault if some smartphone makers don't use the FM capabilities and make users consume expensive and limited cellular spectrum instead.)
The drawbacks with FM are (1) the limited number of stations and (2) users can't choose their own music. That's why there's a market for different services.
However, there's still a market for live radio: it's free and has billions of listeners. It's also a very efficient way of handling phone-ins and live commentaries on sports events, among other things.
Well, there is a very good reason to use analogue: it's already in place and working, and there are hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of analogue radios.
The problem is that attempts to introduce digital systems have generally not been successful.
If radio didn't exist, you'd obviously start digital services. But it does exist, and it's deeply entrenched.
