Search Results

There are huge differences between countries when it comes to broadcasting and how broadcasting networks must be built and operated. Topography, legislation, urbanization and the number of people all play a role when determining the strategy for a transfer from anaologue radio to digital radio. Why do these things matter? Topography and geography Mountains, bodies of water and big buildings reflect radio signals. Digital signals are strengthened through reflections, analogue signals are destroyed. The size of the country does also play an important part, so does neighboring countries. Legislation Some governments have set a preliminary switch off date for FM, others are merely following the market, yet others are expected to decide on one certain date and ensure predictability for both broadcasters and listeners. Legislation is also relevant when it comes to how powerful the radio signals can be (laws govern maximum radiated power from transmitters). Urbanization In some countries most people live in towns and cities which require few transmitters. Other countries have a much more rural population pattern which requires more transmitters and makes it much more expensive to cover the country. Population A big population increases the potential revenue base and lowers the cost per reached listener. To cover two countries with radio signals can never be seen as two identical operations. Even the type of trees in a forest or the temperature of water affects how signals are spread and therefore also how networks have to be built in order to provide good coverage to the end users.. 2800% I have listed examples from Denmark, Norway and the UK below to show certain differences. Let’s look at how many people an average transmitter reaches: The reach of one average FM transmitter 1) Denmark: 69,356 persons 2) UK: 52,219 persons 3) Norway: 2,421 persons The average FM transmitter in the UK does in other words reach 21 times more people than in Norway while the average FM transmitter in Denmark reaches 28 times more people. That’s a difference of 2800% per transmitter. The reach of one average DAB transmitter 1) UK: 124,700 persons 2) Denmark: 50,227 persons 3) Norway: 8,954 persons With DAB, the difference is cut in half between the UK and Norway, but not in Denmark where they reach fewer people per DAB transmitter than what is the case with FM. The reason is that the power for a DAB transmitter can be substantially lower and still give similar results (due to the robustness of a digital signal). Even with 50% additional DAB transmitters that give the listeners 200% more radio stations, the electricity costs still go down for the Danes. Cutting power, boosting choice The costs for Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) to transmit via FM is extremelly high, especially when you look at the cost per person. So much for being a radio broadcaster in the worlds most beautiful country in the world. In Norway 23% of the population lives in small villages or even more isolated from neighbours. And the country is among the 7 biggest ones in Europe area wise. In smaller Denmark and the UK a higher percentage of the population lives in towns and cities. The extremeties of Norway makes it natural for Norway to show the way, to be the first to switch off FM. Britain has already opened up for analogue switch off in 2015, but this depends on the willingness among Brits to get access to more radio stations and go green. Can Norway beat them to it? No shut off date for FM in Norway exists quite yet, but to get one in place and start telling people about the obvious benefits would greatly help the budgets of broadcasters and give them more money for programming. Plus provide many more radio stations to everyone, in a more environmentally friendly manner as NRK will only need half the electricity for many more radio stations when FM is history and DAB reaches everyone. Money will certainly also be saved also in Britain where we are looking at estimations that show electricity being cut to less that a third. Denmark is smaller and easier to cover, but even there estimated savings on electricity will amount to 20%. And if or when we see a successfull switch off in Norway, that may help pave the way for others. Why cover everyone? Of course, there is no need to cover everyone in a country. Those living on rural farms or islands have preety much chosen to do so themselves and should face the consequences. Shouldn’t they? Well, commercial broadcasters rarely reach everyone in a country with their signals. But public service broadcasters have an obligation through the way they are financed (the license fees) to cover everyone. The BBC, DR and NRK are all license funded public service broadcasters. I have used information made available online by the public service broadcasters in Denmark, Norway and the UK to examplify differences. The following estimates are based on my own counts, understanding of available information and calculations: Denmark Area: 43,094 sq. km. Population: 5,525,000 Persons per sq. km.: 128 Urbanization: 87% of population Terrain: Flat, some hills, no mountains. DR via FM (4 radio stations) Sites: 25 Transmitters: 79 Persons per transmitter on average: 69,936 Estimated power consumption per year: 3.3 million kWh Persons per kWh per year: 1.7 DR via DAB (18 radio stations) Sites: 55 Transmitters: 110 (2 multiplexes) Persons per transmitter on average: 50,227 Estimated power consumption per year: 2.6 million kWh Persons per kWh per year: 2.1 Norway Area: 323,802 sq. km. Population: 4,925,000 Persons per sq. km.: 15 Urbanization: 77% of population Terrain: Huge amounts of rugged mountains broken by valleys and fjords, small scattered plains. NRK via FM (1-5 radio stations) Sites: 1,179 Transmitters: 2,034 People per transmitter on average: 2,421 Estimated power consumption per year: 19 million kWh Persons per kWh per year: 0.26 NRK via DAB (13 radio stations) Sites: 550 Transmitters: 550 People per transmitter on average: 8,954 Estimated power consumption per year: 9.5 million kWh Persons per kWh per year: 0.52 UK Area: 243,610 sq. km. Population: 62,350,000 Persons per sq. km.: 256 Urbanization: 90% of population Terrain: Predominantly flat with rugged hills, some low mountains. BBC via FM (1-5 radio stations) Sites: 395 Transmitters: 1,194 People per transmitter on average: 52,219 Estmated kWh per year: 29 million kWh Persons per kWh per year: 2.15 BBC via DAB (11 radio stations) Sites: 500 Transmitters: 500 People per transmitter on average: 124,700 Estmated kWh per year: 8 million kWh Persons per kWh per year: 7.8 Sources: CIA – The World Factbook, IDAG, World DMB, transmitter maps from Denmark, Norway and the UK.

Canadians are in for a change when it comes to their surfing habits. Not those on the beaches of Vancouver Island, but rather those in front of computers, tablets and smartphones. The Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has allowed ISPs to charge Internet users per usage after 25GB (you should also read James Cridlands take on related radio aspects). This follows a recent move by Norwegian ISP and telecom operator Telenor that wants media houses to pay for the data traffic they generate through web TV and similar services. So is the Internet, as we know it, changing? Well, if we combined the Canadian and the Norwegian models outlined above, and we say that all television viewing and radio listening will take place through the Internet next year, we’ll get a pretty cruel scenario for little Norway. Let me start with some figures and background information. There are 4,925,000 people in Norway. Approximately 3.9 million of them are above 12 years of age. Every Norwegian over the age of 12 listens to radio for 101 minutes every day. 40% of this happens outside the home, much of it in cars. An average radio station takes up 128Kb per second. Every Norwegian above the age of 12 watches television for 183 minutes a day. 11% of this happens outside the home. More and more of all produced television content is in HD quality, typically taking up 5-6Mb per second. Let’s say 5Mb for this scenario. Viewing outside the home typically takes up 384Kbps as the screens are smaller than at home. Let us say that we can reduce the figures by an on average 35% as people often tend to view and listen together, thus reducing the needed transfer capacity. A pretty good negotiated price for data transfer for a broadcaster is 4.3 American cents (0.043 US dollars) or 3.2 Euro cents (0.032 Euro). Given the above, we’re looking at the following: Radio: Those 101 minutes every day constitutes almost 3GB per Norwegian per month. Television: Those 183 minutes a day constitutes 185GB per Norwegian per month. In total: The total data transferred per average Norwegian above the age of 12 is 123GB (given a reduction of 35% due to people listening/watching together). Let’s go back to the cap of traffic in Canada. They allow 25GB a month before you have to pay extra. Those 123GB a month adds up to 5.7 billion gigabyte a year. That equals 5.6 million terrabyte, 5500 petabyte or 5.35 exabyte To transfer 5.35 exabyte per year constitues a cost to Norwegian broadcasters of 250 million USD if all this traffic were to go via the Internet. But this is not all. Remember that the ISPs and telecom operators want to get paid from both sides – from media companies and from end users. That’s certainly a win-win situation, but only for one industry, thus eroding the normal meaning of win-win. So what kind of amounts are we looking at from the other sides, from all the end users out there? What will you have to pay? First of all, you’ll need a broadband connection. For a proper broadband connection of at least 7Mbps, you will be looking at 52-69 USD (297-399 NOK) per month, according to the Post and Tele Authorithy that operates a price overview for all ISPs and telecom operators in Norway. To get radio and TV via the Internet on the go, you will also need a mobile broadband connection (typically included in many phone subscriptions). Those will set you back 42-104 USD (239-599 NOK) per month. To get a basic package, you will have to pay 94-173 USD a month (although some companies will offer you triple play packages that will save you money). But of course, if the Canadian plan is to be followed, you will have to pay 1.9 USD for every GB transferred after you have exceeded the first 25GB, every month. That means 98GB times 1.9 = 186.20 USD. With the 123GB, we’ll be looking at the following costs (and I’ll use the cheapest possibilities): 94 USD for access (including 25GB) + 186.2 USD (for the remaining data) = 280.2 USD per average Norwegian. 3.9 million people paying 280.2 USD each means 1,092,780,000 USD. That is almost 1.1 billion USD. And that is not per year, but per month. Per year, we are looking at 13,113,360,000 USD, or 13 billion portraits of George Washington. But what about the win-win situation? The ISPs and telecom operators want to get paid from both sides, don’t they? So, we should really add up what the broadcasters will have to pay per year (250,000,000 USD) and what the end users will have to pay per year (13,113,360,000) to get their bandwidth related revenues. Well, 13.36 billion dollars per year sounds OK. It is actually more than OK, it is 3.2 percent of Norways GNP. But hang on, the entire scenario above would be impossible. The Internet cannot cope with those amounts of data. The Internet would go down if an estimated less than 5% of TV viewers and radio listeners were to use the Internet to get their radio and television versions of news, sports and entertainment. And then the Internet would not be able to accommodate all the others that want to check emails, use Facebook, watch Youtube videos or read articles. Who said we won’t need broadcasting also in the future? Related article: Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything.

Wikipedia defines consumerism as a social and economic order that is based on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase goods and services in ever greater amounts. Every year, more than 2.2 million mobile phones, 1.3 million small kitchen appliances, 600,000 television sets, 500,000 digital cameras and 250,000 DVD/Blue-ray players are sold every year in Norway according to the Organization of Consumer Electronics. Let’s look at the biggest group of electronics. Out of the 2,2 million mobile phones sold every year, only 36,000 are returned for recycling. That is barely more than a percent and a half. And keep in mind that the average life of a mobile phone in this country is less than 18 months. 77% of the phones that are sold have 3G capabilities, meaning that they are relatively advanced, probably costing at least 200 USD. And those who ‘need’ the best and latest can easily pay five times that for a phone. But people do not complain about having to replace their phone almost once a year. You may argue that it is due to personal choice, but most phones don’t last much longer even if you want them to. Not a surprise really, given that they are carried everywhere, switched on 24/7, recharged every night, spilled on, sat on, occasionally dropped and used for everything from internet surfing, game plays and navigation to phone calls, text messages and calculations. So it may be OK to pay 200-1,000 dollars every 18 months to get a new and fancier than last time. After allm they are also fashion items. Or so Steve’s people have made us believe. What’s that got to do with it? We are at the same time discussing the possibility to switch off analogue radio, or FM. That is causing some people to cry out load and object. Because that means that the radio receiver they have had for 4, 14 or 44 years and paid 44, 14 or 4 dollars for will no longer work. Disastrous! And not at all environmentally friendly, damnit! Neither is getting 1.3 million kitchen appliances every year. Well, by switching off FM, you will actually save millions and millions of kWh a year. That’s green! And the broadcasters will save millions of dollars that they can use to create better programmes to their listeners. Including you. Eveveryone will get access to many more radio stations, the DAB receivers are more user friendly than their FM brothers and you can even get higher sound quality if the broadcasters so decide (by providing enough bandwidth). You will not even have to get a new radio. As was the case with analogue switch off for television (did you complain about that too?) you can get an acessory, an extra box if you like, that receives DAB and retransmits the signal via a very low powered FM transmitter so that your existing FM radio can receive it. In Norway alone, 800,000 radios are sold every year (not including radios in mobile phones). How about if FM is swicthed off in 5 years? Most households will by then have purchased a new radio anyway – without buying a radio that you wouldn’t anyhow have purchased, why not make that new one a DAB radio? Also radio relevant: 2034 Transmitters are 1484 Too Many. DAB 20 Times Greener than FM. Help the BBC Save 74%.

How much will the BBC in Britain save on electricity by going from analogue radio transmission via FM to digital radio transmission via DAB? I have earlier looked at Norway with it’s very challenging topography and found that DAB is 20 times greener than FM. The mountains and valleys do however help digital coverage as the signals can bounce back and forth, making them stronger. The opposite is the case for analogue signals that are weakened or even killed in the case of reflections from mountains. There are few mountains in the UK. I do not have inside knowledge about the transmitters in Britain, but the BBC is open about such matters and have made the info on transmitters publicly available on their website. Based on this, I have looked at all their FM and DAB transmitters listed there. The figures listed are however in ERP (effective radiated power), whereas the actual power usage is typically 2.5-10 times lower. Here are the figures (based on my own count, estimates and calculations): FM, 99.8% coverage Number of sites (towers/antennas): 395 Number of transmitters: 1,194 Wattage: 2,349kW Average wattage per transmitter (not ERP): 1.97 kW Increase in power needed due to amplifiers: 140% Electricity used per year: 28,829,694 kWh DAB, 86% coverage Number of sites (towers/antennas): 231 Number of transmitters: 231 Wattage: 107 kW Average wattage per transmitter (not ERP): 461W Increase in power needed due to amplifiers: 400% Electricity used per year: 3,736,836 kWh The 1-6 radio stations transmitted via FM (based on coverage areas) does in other words use 7.7 times more electricity than the 11 radio stations transmitted via DAB. But the coverage of some of the FM channels are better than for DAB in certain areas, so we have to take that into account. The current coverage of DAB is 86%, with 231 transmitters. It is always more costly to cover the last few percentages than the first, so let us assume that the BBC needs twice as many DAB receivers as today to cover 99.8% of the UK. That means 462 transmitters and sites. I’ll even round that up to 500. Based on the average wattage of the existing transmitters, we’ll then get the following scenario: DAB, 99.8% coverage (estimate) Number of sites (towers/antennas): 500 Number of transmitters: 500 Wattage: 230 kW Average wattage per transmitter (not ERP): 461W Increase in power needed due to amplifiers: 400% Electricity used per year: 8,088,390 kWh With this estimate FM still consumes 3.6 times more electricity than DAB. Electricity prices in the UK are typically between 6.5 and 12 pence per kWh. Let us say that the BBC has managed to bargain on the price as they use a fair amount of juice. I have calculated electricity costs based on three different scenarios. 1) Great bargaining skills, paying an average throughout every day of the year of 5p per kWh. 2) OK bargaining skills, paying an average throughout every day of the year of 7.5 pence per kWh. 3) Poor bargaining skills, paying an average throughout every day of the year of 10p per kWh. That gives us the following costs, in electricity alone, per year. Scenario 1, 5p per kwH, 99.8% coverage FM: 1,441,485 GBP a year DAB: 404,420 GBP a year Savings: 1 million GBP per year. Scenario 2, 7.5p per kwH, 99.8% coverage FM: 2,162,227 GBP a year DAB: 606,629 GBP a year Savings: 1.6 million GBP per year. Scenario 3, 10p per kwH, 99.8% coverage FM: 2,882,969 GBP a year DAB: 808,839 GBP a year Savings: 2 million GBP per year. What’s the damage? BBC can in other words save approximately 1.6 million British pounds or 2.5 million USD a year, based on electricity costs alone in the least extreme scenario, if shutting off FM and transmitting only digitally. That is 74% less that what it costs for FM, in electricity that is. Note that the numbers of transmitters are lower for DAB, whereas the number of sites are actually higher. This is the opposite of what is the case in Norway. Why is this? Topography plays a role, as mentioned above. But if you look at the transmitters you can also see a major power difference. Some of the FM transmitters are very powerful, the most powerful ones outputting 250 kW. The most powerful DAB transmitter does in comparison only output 10 kW. FM can be shut off in 2015 if 50% of the listening in Britain happens digitally by 2013 (two years notice is required). You can in other words contribute to the BBC saving money (paid by you through the licence fee) on radio distribution and leave more money to quality programmes by listening to DAB instead of listening to FM. You will also help the environment and get a better selection of radio stations as a bonus. Go green and help the BBC save your* money. * Only applicable if you live in Britain and do pay the licence fee. Also relevant: DAB 20 Times Greener Than FM.

Telenor, Norways biggest ISP and telecom operator, wants to charge media companies to transport their videos to Telenors broadband users. This is being reported today in the financial newspaper Dagens Næringsliv. This would apply to Norwegian media companies such as Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) and VG, the biggest newspaper, but also international media companies such as Google/Youtube and CNN. Telenor predicts that data traffic will increase tenfold from what was the case in 2010 to 2015 as Norwegians increasingly use smartphones, laptops and tablets to watch streamed web videos and live tv. – We have to adjust our infratsructure to manage uncontrollable traffic levels. That means that we have to over-invest in infrastructure to be on the safe side. Unless media companies start paying for traffic, customers will have to pick up the bill, or only the big ISPs with financial muscle will survive, CTO Rolv-Erik Spilling in Telenor tells Dagens Næringsliv. Net neutrality threatened, and a remedy This is a very good example of how to threaten net neutrality. Telenor wants to charge big media to guarantee that their content is delivered when the users want it, whereas those not willing to pay will ruthlessy be pushed into the slow lane. Telenors ISP operations make their money by selling broadband subscriptions to users. The users pay for good connections because they want to be able to enjoy all kinds of services, including video and tv. The media companies that have been interviewed for the article quoted above say that they will refuse to pay. This case is an example that the Internet and the idea behind the Internet are starting to struggle, in part thanks to bandwidth consuming services such as video streaming. A good solution to help the situation is to start combining the Internet with broadcasting technologies such as DMB, DAB and DAB+. Then all live TV and radio will be broadcast to devices, something that will take a lot of strain off the Internet whilst improving quality of service to everyone. And possibly eliminating Telenors unreasonable demand of having media companies pay for this data traffic. In order to make devices capable of supporting broadcasting, a broadcasting receiver/chipset must be built in or added through a USB port. This has already been done in a wide variety of devices in Korea and Japan. Such a chipset measures typically less than 3×3 milimeters in size, consumes 20-60mW and costs around one dollar. The first tablets and phones supporting DMB, DAB and DAB+ will reach European, South East Asian and Australian markets in 2011 . I have previously covered this subject matter in this blog post: Why Telecom Operators Should Love, Not Loathe Broadcasting. I have also explained why the combination of the Internet and broadcasting is the future: Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything. Combination is the new king.

There are many reasons (21 Whys FM is almost History) why governments around the world should command broadcasters to switch off FM as soon as possible and go for DMB, DAB and DAB+ instead (do note that this blog post is slightly technical). One major reason is costs, as much fewer transmitters are needed, but also since DMB/DAB/DAB+ transmitters consume a lot less electricity than FM transmitters. Why is that? Mr. Tore Øvensen, is the former Director of Technical Development and currently a senior advisor for NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation) and one of the leading experts on network planning in Norway and beyond. He has helped me understand this through thorough explanations. The planning of DMB, DAB and DAB+ networks took place at the RRC-06 conference in Geneva in 2006. It was then decided that the reception sensitivity for a digital receiver (incoming voltage on the receiver) should be ca. 8,5 µvolt. This minimum value is based on mobile reception (reception while moving which is quite challenging) in areas with very high signal reflections from surrounding terrain, also known as the worst case scenario in radio planning. Reception of FM in such areas is virtually impossible as the analogue distribution cannot cope with both signals that reflect or bounce off mountains or big buildings and the signals coming directly from the transmitters. The signals are there, but they cause interference with each other and are totally destroyed due to what Øvensen calls destructive reflections. For digital radio, all these bouncing signals do however strengthen each other, creating better reception conditions. This is being called constructive reflections. A great example of this was shown in the county of Sogn of Fjordane, where there are loads of mountains. The DAB signals bounced so far up the valley of Lærdal that areas where there had never been FM reception before suddenly had good DAB coverage. FM, on the other hand, is depending on many smaller transmitters (repeaters or gapfillers) in order to strengthen the signal up the same valley. The local Volkswagen dealer who drove a lot in the area even said that he would never again sell a car without a built-in DAB radio. In areas without mountains or big buildings, mobile reception is not a problem, given that your FM receiver gets incoming voltage of ca. 50 µvolt (typical figure for a very good stereo FM receiver – many receivers require more). DAB is, as a system, both much better at receiving much weaker signals and capable of exploiting positive signals refected from the terrain. That is because the signal is digital and that it contains powerful error protection of the transferred data. Modulation The type of modulation used does also directly affect the reach of the signal. The incoming voltage needed is much lower for digital radio due to DABs COFDM coding and the extremelly strong bit-error protection it possesses. That means that the receiver can decode very weak signals as well as exploit reflections from the terrain. The FM reception is easily destroyed by omnidirectional propagation and needs a directional antenna in order to surpress reflecting signals. That is the reason why FM reception is especially difficult in areas with mountains or in cities with high or big buildings. What is the difference? Based on the explanation above, FM transmitters need between 5 and 6 times more power than DAB transmitters (and that is with a good FM receiver). But there is more, especially in topographically challenging countries such as Norway where big mountains and forests interrupt FM coverage while strengthen DAB coverage. To counter this a lot more transmitters are needed for FM than for DAB. A common main transmitter for FM is 10kW, while an FM transmitter can use 70% of the amplifier effect and will therefore draw around 14kW from the power grid. A common main transmitter for DAB is 2kW, but a DAB transmitter can only use 25% of the amplifier effect, thus drawing 8kW from the power grid. But, as mentioned in an earlier blog post (2034 Transmitters Are 1484 Too Many) one FM transmitter can only transmit one radio station while one DAB transmitter can transmit 10-30 stations (depending on quality and usage of DAB or DAB+). The power consumption per main transmitter is as follows: FM: 14kW/1 channel = 14kW per channel. DAB: 8kW/10 channels = 0.8kW per channel. One radio channel transmitted via FM does in other words need 17.5 times more power per transmitter than a radio channel transmitted DAB station. Or put in a different way, one DAB channel uses only 5,7% of what is the case for one FM channel, per transmitter. But that’s not all Since many more transmitters are needed for FM than what is the case for DAB (2034 vs. 5-600), the difference in power consumption between FM and DAB is even higher. Not all FM transmitters are however 10kW. The smallest ones are only 20W, whereas others are 50, 100 or 500W. For DAB the smaller ones are 40, 125, 250 or 500W. I have not had the time to go through all 2,034 transmitters, but to cut 1,484 transmitters will certainly save some wattage. We can safely assume that to cover Norway (99.8% of the population) with digital radio is more than 20 times more environmentally friendly per channel than to do the same with FM, when looking at power consumption. And finally, the chipsets used for DMB, DAB and DAB+ have improved greatly when it comes to power consumption and a modern DAB chip (25-60mW) now consumes the same amount of power as what is the case for an FM chip (30-60mW). And work is being undertaken to further cut power consumption of DAB. A chipset manufacturer I talked to said that their short term goal is 20mW, which will then be substantially below FM. DAB. Much Greener Radio.

There are currently 2,034 FM transmitters in use to broadcast the radio stations of NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Cooperation) in Norway. What does that mean, exactly? Is that a lot or not? Well, there are 4,925,000 inhabitants in the land of the midnight sun, a very rural country with a lot of villages and remote farms, deep fjords and wild mountains. The topography and geography makes the country very hard to cover with any kind of a signal. Thanks to the stunning but challenging nature (especially in Northern Norway (where I was born 🙂 and on the West Coast (where I grew up ;)), one transmitter is needed for every 2,421 persons, on average. Let us compare with Denmark, a country with 5,525,000 inhabitants. Norway is 7.5 times bigger area wise and Denmark has no mountains (barred a few hills stretching less than half the height of Empire State Building), so the comparison is not quite fair. Nevertheless, they only need 79 transmitters to cover their country with four main channels. That means one transmitter for every 69,936 person on average. A slightly less expensive country to cover, in other words. Let’s return to Norway where the 2,034 transmitters have been put up on 1,179 sites (there are 25 sites in Denmark). A site is a tower or an antenna. Why are there more transmitters than sites? There are more transmitters than sites because one FM transmitter can only broadcast one radio station. So if you want two radio stations in an area, you will need two FM transmitters, but only one site or antenna. In Norway NRKs three main stations P1, P2 and P3 are being broadcast via FM to ‘everyone’ while the two niche stations mP3 and NRK Always News are being broadcast in only 13 towns and cities. ‘Everyone’ means 99.8% of the population for P1, above 95% for P2 and above 90% for P3. The situation is very different in a much better way with digital radio which, in 35 countries across the world, means DMB, DAB and DAB+. One such transmitter can transmit all the radio channels simultaneously. That saves electricity, but it more importantly ensures that ‘everyone’ will get all NRKs radio stations. ‘Everyone’ will in this case mean at least the same as what is currently the case for P1, NRKs main radio channel, an impressive 99,8%. When the Norwegian government decides to switch off FM and digitalize radio as the last media, the number of sites will be cut in two to between 500 and 600. A similar number of towers can in other words be taken down and the equipment reused elsewhere or recycled. The number of transmitters will be cut in three or even four to the same number as sites needed to cover at least 99.8% of the population, between 500 and 600. That means a reduction of between 1,434 and 1,534 transmitters used for radio. The transmitters that are owned and operated by Norkring, a Telenor subsidiary, may in some cases also be used for other kinds of transmissions. In addition to the three main radio stations and the two niche ones, NRK has eight additional niche stations (NRK Gold, NRK Sports, NRK Super, NRK Classical Music, NRK Jazz, NRK Folk Music, NRK Weather and NRK Sami (in Lappish)) that are available via DAB and web radio. By digitalizing radio, everyone will get access to all thirteen radio stations (plus additional commercial radio stations). Some people would call that democratization, others would call it choice. DAB: Everyone Gets Everything (Alle får alt). Also relevant: DAB is 20 Times Greener Than FM. 21 Reasons Why FM is Almost History.

I recently overheard a discussion between two male music enthusiasts in their fourties in Oslo. They were discussing their hobby; Collecting music. About how it had almost been taken away from them. By the Internet. The topic matter caught my interest and I am guilty as charged in my continued eavesdropping. How could the Internet ruin their hobby when through it they can find pretty much all the music in the world via any connected device, I wondered. Well, that turned out to be the problem, as their discussion evolved. That everyone can get anything and everything. – It is no fun collecting anymore. Not when all my mates in an instant can easily find the exact same thing as I spent months searching for, one of the guys said. – And you can forget amout limited editions, mate, the other one replied and took a sip of his bottled beer, a Norwegian Ringes (drinkable beer made in Oslo, but nowhere near as good as Hansa from Bergen). – Those editions are becoming things of the past, surreal ideas, ghosts. And you can certainly forget having the artist sign your cover, as it does no longer exist anywhere but on a computer screen. And they continued with how the Internet threatened to take away the pleasures of going from shop to shop in a search for an album or a single, of knowing about those hidden shops, of exchanging albumss with other people. They continued with sound quality issues, and I left the guys alone with their beers and their discussion. Convenience and accessibility may not always be what it is all cracked up to be. Then again, they can always start collecting sewing machines or ninja stars, none of which are likely to go virtual anytime soon.

Current 3G networks in most industrialized countries are facing troubles these days. Usage of 3G has increased too much too fast for everyone to experience a good surfing experience via 3G. Why so fast? Well, thanks to the rather speedy introduction of smart phones, tablets and 3G modems for laptops. One network operator in Netherlands even experienced that 15% of phone calls (yes, the old fashioned sort) at peak times didn’t get through as the network capacity had reached the ceiling. And radio futurologist James Cridland writes a very relevant post about data consumption via telecom networks in his blog post: What a 500MB fair-use policy means for radio. A very good example of the increasing challenges that telecom operators meet as usage increases. So it is about time that we do get the ‘next thing,’ often referred to as 4G (now also officially after UNs ITU rewrote their definition of what 4G is, something even opening up for LTE and HSPA+). The ‘next thing’ is in most countries called LTE (Long Term Evolution). LTE only has a capacity of 31,68Mbps (given a 10Mhz channel) per transmitter. But that is only if conditions are ideal. First of all, all the users need to be located very near and with a direct view of the transmitter. If even one user is further away or behind a hill or a house, a different modulation scheme is needed. To have to use several modulations can lower available bandwidth all the way down to 1.06Mbps. LTE may need up to 11 modulation schemes to reach users at different distances and locations from the transmitter. That various modulations are requires makes multicasting impossible. That is yet another reason why LTE cannot replace broadcasting for live radio and TV. More about that here: Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything. Note that 31.68Mbps will only give 78 users mobile TV at the same time (at a bitrate of 384Kbps) if all of them were very close to the transmitter and no one was using the same transmitter for any other kind of Internet surfing (mail, news, Facebook, downloads, etc.). LTE is furthermore not very efficient. One transmitter can only cover 0.75 square kilometers properly. And LTE is very costly. To build an LTE network for 90% of the population in the UK will require 16,000 transmitters (and then a lot of roads and railroads would still not be covered). To cover the same with DMB, DAB and DAB+ would take less than 300 transmitters. Every LTE transmitter costs around 250,000 USD with running costs of around 60,000 USD every year. That requires an investment of 4 billion USD and operation costs of 1 billion USD a year. If a telecom operator was to build such a network, 4 million customers, each paying 550 USD a year would be needed to break even. These prices were valid in October 2010 (according to British network operator Arqiva), while the rise of new Asian competitors on the infrastructure side will most likely cut costs greatly. That will again make the business model more attractive to network operators. Do not get me wrong. More capacity is clearly needed, and 4G networks will help do this, especially in densely populated areas. 4G networks also reduces latency, something that means that webpages load faster and that applications or services respond faster. But 4G networks will soon be as congested as what is the case with 3G. The more capacity you are given, the more you will use. And with the amount of smartphones and other capacity hungry now being sold, so will ‘everyone’ else. It is like the roads in China an India. More and more people now buy cars, and the roads (networks for cars) cannot cope, even not with 10, 12 or 14 wide mororways. If everyone insists on driving instead of using alternatives (trains, busses, boats, trams, feet) the user experience for those on the road will hardly ever be a good one during peak times. 4G networks are needed, but they are also very much hyped as they are currently marketed as the (only) solution. 4G networks need assistance, or life saving, to be as successful as the industries need them to be. It will be advantageous, even necessary for everyone in the value chain that the pressure on these networks is relieved when possible. Some of it is already being done by the usage of Wifi where available. But even Wifi networks have bandwidth constraints when many people use them. And all networks that are being used to transfer Internet traffic are limited by the backbone structure they are connected to and that is being shared by other networks. Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything. Old fashioned broadcasting technology is there as an option for all sorts of data (Broadcasting Isn’t Only for Radio and TV) that is to be transported at the same time to the users, although this is an option hardly ever mentioned by network operators. Why Telecom Operators Should Love, not Loathe Broadcasting. Rather than pretend that broadcasting doesn’t exist, innovative telecom operators and handset manufacturers should look at all the apparent advantages and find out how they can be combined with the Internet in order to create even better services and user experiences. Combination is key, partnerships are powerful and satisfied customers secures cash. It isn’t very hard to understand, really, but too many seem too arrogant to initiate the first contact in order to start cooperating.

DMB, including DAB and DAB+, will cover almost half a billion people in over 35 countries by the end of this year. More here: DMB to Cover 445 Million People in 2011

Comparatively speaking that is. The Norwegian Newspaper Aftenposten today reported that 18% of Norwegians wants a tablet by the end of 2011. The newspaper stated: ‘Now, ‘Everyone’ Wants Tablets.’ The respondents were asked: Are you considering to buy a tablet such as iPad, Samsung Galaxy or Amazon Kindle the next year? A high number, you say? Well, I agree. But let us compare with another survey. In late 2009, Norwegian Mobile TV Corporation (NMTV) hired Norstat to talk to 828 people in the Greater Oslo region (the coverage area for MiniTV)- They asked a number of questions, among others the following: How likely is it that you will buy a MiniTV (DMB) device, given that the price is reasonable? The respondents could answer: Very unlikely, Unlikely, Likely, Very likely or Neither/Don’t know. 56% of males answered that it is very likely or likely that they’ll buy such a device, while 44% of females answered the same. What you answer to such a question is not necessarily relevant as you don’t commit to anything when answering, and as you may want to perceived differently than what is the case. More people will buy tablets than DMB receivers in Norway in 2011, at least until DMB receivers come implemented in mobile phones and tablets. Why are the surveys so inaccurate? Marketing and media coverage play the biggest roles and help generate interest or hype which is required in order to introduce a successful product or service. I also think that a fair amount of tablets will be sold the next 12 months, but I do not think that tablets will make people want to pay for electronic versions of newspapers or magazines, as argued in Cry Wolf, Cry Pad. Other surveys Let us look at some less extreme examples. They are much more similar to the tablet survey mentioned above. In a survey from February 2010 we asked the following: Are you considering to buy a MiniTV device the next year? 23% answered yes. And in two surveys from 2008 and 2009 the Norwegian media industry asked about digital radios (DAB or DAB+). Are you or your household considering to buy a DAB radio the next year? 13.1% answered yes in 2008, 12.9% said the same in 2009. I do not yet have the numbers from 2010. This makes the 18% saying that they want to but tablets seem less extreme. The newspaper article from Aftenposten could in other words have been modified to say that the same number of people that want to buy other gadgets also want to buy tablets. That’s not very tabloid though. Comparisons But what did people actually buy in Norway in 2009, according to research company TNS Gallup? Flatscreen television: 18.6% PVR 8.9% Videogame console 6.6% DVD player (without recording capabilities) 4.2% DVD player (with recording capabilities) 2.7% Home cinema 3.2% Will as many people buy tablets in 2011 as the number of people who purchased flatscreen televisions two years earlier? We’ll know in a year.

The iPad and all its cousins will save the bottom line of digital media houses. Or so were we told. Sales figures (sales of e-mags have gone down by 20% despite a steadily increasing amount of iPads in the market) show that people are less willing to pay for iPad versions of content. Not after the initial honeymoon or curiosity phase at least. Why do I not think that pads or tablets will save the bottom line of struggling media houses? Some major, some minor reasons below. What you get isn’t exactly groundbreaking compared to what you have seen or experienced before. The tablet editions can in most cases only be viewed on one specific device or type of device. The devices need to be charged. They are are pretty big to be carried around. They can’t be folded and will hardly or not at all fit in your pocket. They need to be carried around as opposed to magazines or papers that can be thrown away (of course so can tablets, but that will be expensive in the long run). You cannot give the tablet editions of newspapers or magazines to someone else after you finish. They don’t feel or smell like paper. And can’t be touched, felt and ‘owned’ in the same way. The interesting articles or photos can’t be ripped out. You get pretty much all of it for free via the Internet anyway. These editions costs more than most people consider to be be fair. After all the free rides on the Internet have lowered their willingness to pay. The user experience is not much better, if at all, than what is the case with the Internet editions. They are attractive for thieves. They brake easily when falling to the ground. They can’t be recycled. Or at least they won’t. 2,4 million mobile phones are sold in Norway every year. Only 35,000 are returned to a recycling plant. They take a lot of energy to produce and has a lifespan of less than two years (estimate compared to mobile phones which last 18 months on average). I do need some help on this one. How much energy does it take to produce a tablet pc? How much energy will it take to keep it charged for two years? And how much energy does it take to produce a newspaper or magazine and to transport it to the average reader? Just a couple of comparisons: Researchers claim that 2,000 times more energy is required to produce bottled water than to produce tap water (http://www.physorg.com/news156506896.html). And to produce the ‘environmentally friendly’ car Toyota Prius takes the equivalent of 4,500 litres of petrol. Before it even reaches the dealer (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr/). They need an Internet connection to be updated. Or the devices will alternatively have to be equipped with a broadcasting chip in order to be updated that way, although they will then need to be in the coverage area. Broadcasting Isn’t Only for Radio and TV. They are not updated regularly. Neither are paper magazines of course, but consumers that are used to always updated news on connected gadgets might expect that. Screens are too small to give you ‘the full picture’ as you can get in a newspaper or a magazine. The devices are capable of so many other useful, communicative and entertaining features that reading no longer gives you the peaceful time you often are looking for. Printed material is easier to read than electronic magazines or newspapers on a tablet, and doesn’t strain your eyes as much. You can’t offer samples together with an electronic versions. Such as a fragrance in Vogue. Not being able to own a physical product diminished a lot of the value of it. This may be due to emotions and nostalgia, but it is nevertheless relevant. A newspaper or a magazine is a physical carrier of media. An electronic version is not. The pleasure of collecting a certain issue is taken away. Now everyone can download any issue via the Internet. Rarity disappears. The ads of an electronic version of a newspaper or magazine can be much more personal or intrusive than what is the case with a paper version. When you download something, the version of the electronic issue may be tailored according to what is known about you due to earlier behaviour and surfing on the tablet. They don’t really give you much that your phone and laptop didn’t already give you. Did someone say another gadget that you don’t really need? Is Greed Good? So what is the solution? Much of what is wrong is that you actually need a certain device that needs to be carried around in order to consume the content. I still think that it will be a good start to stop being greedy. People don’t mind paying for apps. Apps usually cost a dollar. Start looking into micro payments. If everyone can get an edition for 25 cents or a month worth for a fiver you may be on to something. At least in order to reach out to those people that don’t actually mind being forced into carrying around a device to be able to get their latest news fix. But will the tablets save falling revenues of media houses? They will contribute, but to a much lesser degree than what we are led to believe. I’d stop crying pad and start looking at other business models. I’ll furthermore argue that the gadget makers will need to become less greedy. Apple takes 30% of revenues for apps and content sold to their devices, Amazon takes an unheard of 65% for content to i.e. the Kindle. This is very similar to how telecom operators operated for years towards content providers, taking a percentage of revenues for content. Now we see the same walled garden story all over again. A story that never worked well in order to create a successful win-win mobil market. Media houses also need to understand what works better on paper than in an electronic version of an issue. Each media has it’s own strong sides. Realize what they are for paper and improve them. Use the characteristics of paper and the contexts of how it is used. It is all about understanding the user or reader. What do they want, how do they behave? Just Be a Great Pipe Gadget makers should already have made most of their revenues when selling the device. It is as if Porsche sells a car that can only run on a certain fuel exclusively found at Shell petrol stations, and where Porsche would demand a high percentage of the revenues from Shell for that certain fuel even though they didn’t even produce the fuel in the first place. Let gadget makers be great at producing gadgets, application producers great at producing apps and content providers great at producing content. And then cooperate. Two years ago I worked as Director of Development for Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK). Some colleagues of mine and I had a meeting with Eddy Cue at Apples HQ in California. Cue is now in charge of iTunes and the App Store and was recently the runner up in the 100 Most Creative People in Business 2010 Awards (after Lady Gaga). In 2008 he said the following about telecom operators; Be a pipe, just be a very good pipe. Very wise words indeed.