Search Results

FM is almost history. In more and more countries. Governments, broadcasters, receiver manufacturers and last but nowhere near least the listeners realize that radio is one of the most important medias we have and that it cannot be the only one that has not been digitalized with all related advantages. OK, so FM is about to retire. That might be about time after 77 years. But what will be the replacement? That’s an easy question to answer. DMB, DAB and DAB+ are all part of the same family of standards. This family is now the de facto standard out there for digital radio and mobile TV and is more than ready to take over the job from FM. It is also an open standard and available to all, as opposed to i.e. HD Radio which is proprietary and controlled by iBiquity Digital Corporation or DVB-H (Death of a Standard) which never made it as it, among other reasons, was controlled by telecom operators which acted as an gatekeeper between the broadcaster and the listener. DMB, DAB and DAB+ will take over and secure a digital and future compatible radio transmission for more and more people. A lot of people will have to get new receivers or to modify the existing ones, but the switch offs are necessary and positive for radio as a media. Due to a number of reasons. I have listed 21 whys below. DAB and DAB+ are for radio, whereas DMB is mainly for mobile TV (although it can also be used for radio). DMB, DAB and DAB+ are however all flavours of the same family of standards. They do in other words work together and make each other stronger through increased flexibility and versatility. I will hereafter in this blog post refer to them combined as DMB. The 21 whys. 1) BECAUSE OF TRANSMISSION COSTS. DMB is much cheaper for broadcasters that can now save money that is better spent on producing more and better radio and TV programmes as well as new services on the Internet and mobile. Let me use Norway as an example. The public service broadcaster in Norway is called NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation). It is license funded and reaches 84% of all Norwegian every day. The FM network that covers Norway consists of over 2000 (two thousand!) transmitters. And these monsters love electricity! It costs an estimated 15 million USD a year to keep feeding them with electricity. To reach the same 98,5% of all Norwegians (there are 4,9 million of them) with DMB will require around 500 transmitters. And that is not all. FM is a very old technology, so if FM is to be continued longer than a few years most of the transmitters must be changed or upgraded. That would cost millions and millions. Also relevant: DAB is 20 Times Greener Than FM. 2) BECAUSE OF CHANNEL AVAILABILITY. These 2000+ transmitters ensure access for most Norwegians to only 3 out of NRKs 15 radio stations. Those living in major cities get up to 12 NRK stations via FM. With DMB all 15 radio stations from NRK and 10-15 commercial radio stations will be accessible to everyone. Why? Because a single FM transmitter can only broadcast one radio station. A single DMB transmitter can transmit ALL radio stations and mobile TV channels. 3) BECAUSE OF USABILITY. To find a radio station on FM can take time. And to find out which radio stations that are actually available and how many there are of them. You will have to search for the right frequency, and most radio receivers do not show the name of the station. All DMB receivers have a screen where the name of the station is displayed. 4) BECAUSE OF HARDWARE COSTS. It has so far been very costly for broadcasters to aquire the needed hardware (encoders, servers) to be able to transmit DMB. This has been a burden especially for local or small radio stations. We have now seen a change in this field through the introduction of software based coders and other equipment. The EBU (European Broadcasting Union) has showed how a radio station can be put on air through equipment costing less than 4000 USD. 5) BECAUSE SALES ARE UP. Sales of DMB radios in those countries where DMB has been introduced and properly marketed have been increasing since the introduction of the technology despite the lack of an FM switch off date. This is the case both in Norway and other countries such as the UK, Denmark, Switzerland and Australia. 6) BECAUSE TV DIGITALIZED WITHOUT PROBLEMS. Television was digitalized almost with virtually no problems or complains from users. There has not been a drop in numbers of television viewers after the switch over, and virtually everyone has purchased a digital set-up box required to receive terrestrial TV. Naturally very few people purchased digital set up boxes before they were told that they had to. The same message is now very clear also for radio, although with a longer time perspective. 7) BECAUSE OF MOBILE TV. DAB/DAB+ is, as mentioned in the introduction, part of the DMB standard. If you buy a DMB receiver (called MiniTV in Norway) you will also get access to all the DAB/DAB+ radio stations. 8) BECAUSE BROADCASTING IS BEST FOR THIS PURPOSE. DMB is a broadcasting technology which makes it possible for an indefinite number of people to listen to radio at the same time. As opposed to web radio where bandwidth is limited and has to be shared with everyone using the Internet for other purposes. (Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything.) 9) BECAUSE OF MOBILE RECEPTION. DMB works well in speeds up to 900 km/h (tested on planes). Such broadcasts can via only one transmitter cover vast areas. And the radio station will not disappear when driving as the technology automatically always staus on the same station (given that there is coverage). 10) BECAUSE OF AN INCREASINGLY GLOBAL MARKET. More and more countries are introducing DMB. In 2011 there will be broadcasts on air in around 40 countries, covering over 300 million people. So this is not only about a few countries with weird ideas. 11) BECAUSE IT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. New DMB receivers consume less power than FM receivers. So do the transmitters (see point 1). Less power consumption is good for the environment and lowers your electricity bill. And it provides longer battery life in the case of a battery powered receiver. 12) BECAUSE OF SOUND QUALITY. This has been a controversial subject as a lot of people opposing DMB has spent effort critizising the sound quality. But feedback from listeners show that most of them prefer the digital sound. As it is crisper, they say. 13) BECAUSE LISTENERS WANT TO GET RID OF FINE TUNING. Forget the days when you have to fine tune into the right frequency in order to get a clear signal. With DMB you get a list of the available channels, by name, and just pick the one you like. It will thereafter stay on the same radio channel, even if you are driving, until you decide to switch. 14) BECAUSE OF PROVEN SUCCESS. We have seen an analogue radio switch off before. Radio via AM was switched off in Switzerland two years ago and replaced by DMB. There are now more listeners via DMB than ever via AM. 15) BECAUSE OF SOLIDARITY. Why do we need DMB when we can listen to radio via the Internet? The Internet cannot supply everyone with radio. It is not wide enough. Even less so when the household is far away from the switches that are located in towns and cities. You can currently listen to radio via the Internet without any problems because very few others do it. If everyone has to, no one can. Solidarity also applies to media consumption. More on related issues in an earlier blog post: (Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything.) 16) BECAUSE YOU GET EXTRA INFORMATION. You are via DMB given information on which station you listen to, and this is usually expanded to also provide information on which song that is playing, who is in the studio and breaking news. 17) BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES. There are vast possibilities for additional services when you can combine broadcasting with a return channel (i.e. the Internet). Some examples: a) Touch screen shopping (touch the sun glasses of Robbie Williams (on an album cover or a music video), change the colour and buy them) b) Voting (vote for your favourite Idol singer, or on which song to play next). c) Social media (like or dislike programmes and share your opinion with your friends). d) On demand programming (chose to watch or listen to the next episode of your favourite show (downloaded or streamed via return channel) after an exciting broadcasted cliffhanger). e) Touch the screen while listening to music on the radio to see the cover, read news about the artist and to buy and download the song or the album. 18) BECAUSE OF THE SELECTION OF RECEIVERS. There are around a thousand different DMB receiver models out there, and counting. Most of them lack a big screen, and are only for DAB/DAB+. But the standard being mature and internationally used makes it much easier for receiver manufacturers to produce receiver without taking big risks. And a big markets make receivers cheaper. Are we looking at a win-win situation? It certainly seems like it. 19) BECAUSE RADIO SHOULDN’T BE THE ONLY ANAOLGUE MEDIA LEFT. It just doesn’t make sense to leave the oldest media we have, an the second most popular after broadcasted television, as the only one that has not gone digital. Being the oldest doesn’t mean that it should be the only old fashioned one, without any possibilities for extra services, additional information or interaction with other media. 20) BECAUSE DOUBLE DISTRIBUTION IS WASTEFUL. Currently most radio stations broadcast via both DMB and FM. That is costly and a waste of resources. Broadcasters need to be able to plan ahead. 21) BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT UNDERSTANDS ITS ROLE. The government sees the need for letting broadcasters have a future that can be planned and budgeted. And they understand that some people will not get DMB receivers as long as there is an offer via FM. The government is now taking the responsibility and is helping contribute to a better and more versatile future for radio. Did I forget any reasons? Or are you not agreeing? Comments are welcome below. Do keep in mind that radio will not and should not be available only via DMB. I have earlier argued that combination is the new king, and I believe in a future in which distribution of radio and TV will occur on many platforms, including via the Internet. But radio is a medium which is best enjoyed by most people live, and live transmissions to many are superiorly performed through broadcasting. “Impending Retirement” What does impending retirement mean, by the way? Well, FM was patterned almost 80 years ago, and as is the case with everyone who has done a job for ages and who still loves their job, it is kind of difficult to make them quit entirely (nor do you always want them to). My guess is that the first countries will switch off FM around 2015. Great Britain has already indicated such a date, whereas other countries such as Norway, Netherlands and Germany has this high up on the agenda. On the other hand, it only took around two years from Norway decided to switch off analogue TV until the first transitter was silenced (the switch off was finalized in December 2009), and they didn’t lose a single viewing minute by doing that. So why not speed up the process? Listeners love quality radio and will be happy to contribute to more money being put into programming than into the distribution of it.

Germany has decided to launch nationwide radio stations via DAB+, the de facto standard for digital broadcasting of radio and mobile TV. An agreement between various commercial radio stations and the network company Media Broadcast GmbH that will build and operate the network was signed today. The commercial broadcasters are: Die Neue Welle Rundfunk-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG Entspannungsradio GmbH i.G. ERF Medien e.V. Radio 97,1 MHz Hamburg GmbH (ENERGY) REGIOCAST DIGITAL GmbH Public broadcaster Deutschlandradio has also signed. In addition, all the regional public service broadcasters will broadcast their regional radio stations on DAB+. Other stations may join before the service goes on air. I am proud to announce that we have signed the agreements with MEDIA BROACAST concerning DAB+, says Helmut G. Bauer who has been representing the commercial broadcasters in the negotiations in an email. The radio stations are expected to go on air in September 2011. Germany will then have their first nationwide radio network in 65 years. Germany has over 81 million inhabitants and the decision will positively influence the market of DMB, DAB and DAB+ receivers as well as interactive services. This is very good news for broadcasters, but also for consumers. They will get access to more radio, and possibly mobile TV in the future. DMB, DAB and DAB+ will reach around 300 million people in 40 countries around the world by the end of 2011. Those countries include Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Vietnam, Malaysia, Korea, Qatar, South Africa and Australia. Some critics say that broadcasting of radio is no longer needed, as webradio will take over. This is however not at all true, as described in my earlier blog post: Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything. German radio industry agrees on digital radio deal. Digitalradio DAB+: Einigung in letzter Minute.

DVB-H was hailed by many as the solution for mobile TV. Most of whom worked for telecom operators. There are many reasons why DVB-H never took off anywhere. Despite millions and millions of dollars being put into marketing the technology and lobbying for it. Nokia was, for instance, rumoured to have employed 13 people full time in Brussels to make sure that the Commision headed by Viviane Reding would impose the technology on the EU countries. She tried hard, but was not successful as the EU never mandated the technology. In the end DVB-H ended up as one of many recommended technologies. As usual, it is the market that should decide. Why DVB-H never made it, while DMB is on the rise. DVB-H as a technology was being pushed almost exclusively by telecom operators and phone manufacturers (mainly Nokia). Broadcasters were virtually not involved, until TV content was needed. Telecom operators do not know television. Television broadcasters do. Whether the screen size is 3 inches or 52 inches matters much less. There are many countries without available DVB-H frequencies. In the countries where there in fact are frequencies, these are attractive also for HDTV and for mobile broadband. These frequencies are in the UHF band, which means pretty high up. That means that it costs more to build coverage, that it is more difficult to build such a network and that it will use more power. DVB-T is built for rooftop reception, DVB-H needs to be built the same way or DVB will have to be totally replanned. You are unlikely to want to enter your roof to watch TV. Coverage indoor and between buildings will be limited. DMB is an open technology and it is not tied to SIM-cards. DVB-H was controlled by telecom operators and mainly found in phones. Freedom of choice of receivers is important. The users should choose what kind of device they want, not be dictated by which phone models their telecom operators decide to subsidize. Many of the receivers launched had hardware problems and provided unstable reception. DVB-H can be limited to certain phone models by a telecom operator. for instance to only the 3 Nokia handsets that is subsidized. It is as if the internet would only work on Dell PCs or TVs only on Panasonic televisions. DMB is a more robust technology and can handle high speeds and all sorts of weather. Colleagues of mine and I have watched MiniTV in almost 900 km/h in several airplanes up to 9km above the ground. DMB is using the same distribution technology as DAB and DAB+, giving the audiences both radio and TV. In Norway there are over 20 channels available. DMB supports a range of additional services that also works for radio. There are many DMB devices available: mobile phones, GPS units, mp4 players, USB plugs, etc. There was and is a very limited selection of available DVB-H devices. DVB-H chipsets are tricky to make. One chip maker lost 20 million dollars on developments. A DVB-H chipset needs higher processing power and uses more energy than a DMB chipset. DMB is now being launched, tested or planned in many countries on four continents, something that makes receivers cheaper and opens up for experience sharing and the usage of the same applications and business models. There are ZERO DVB-H successes in the world. Stelacon, a Swedish independent research institute, reported this to the Swedish government in 2007: For 90% DMB coverage of Sweden only 2-300 transmitters are needed. For only 25-30% DVB-H coverage of Sweden, 3,000 – 11,000 transmitters are needed. And similar figures have been presented for France: DMB: 95% coverage to cost 2 million Euro per channel. DVB-H: 25% coverage to cost 8 million Euro per channel.

Broadcasting as a technology has been around for more than a hundred years, and everyone reading this has listened to and watched broadcasted radio and TV programmes. To broadcast means to send data to everyone with a receiver within the coverage area and the technology has no limits when it comes to the number of receivers. But is it only possible to broadcast radio stations and TV channels? Not at all. All kinds of data can be broadcast, something that opens up for a number of new and stable services with increasingly congested telecom networks. Other examples of what broadcasting is great for: 1. Traffic information to cars You can get live and updated information about traffic conditions in the area you are driving through a broadcasting technology such as DMB (which includes DAB and DAB+). By broadcasting such info everyone will receive the info at the same time, ensuring immediate notification about traffic accidents, slippery road conditions or closed roads. This information is sent to your navigation device (GPS) which automatically reroutes you if that is safer or will save you time. To broadcast this info is many times cheaper than using telecom networks (GPRS/3G), something that will save the supplier and you money. This is a hugely popular service in Korea with 19 different traffic services, and some of them even offer an update of maps. The most common standard for such traffic info is called TPEG. 2. eMagazines to your phone or tablet If you are one of those who are subscribing to electronic magazines to Android tablets such as Samsung Galaxy Tab or Apples iPad you may have noticed that they take some time to download. Instead of sending out the magazine via WLAN at home (or a slower telecom network on your way to work), it can be broadcast to the memory of your device at the same time in the morning as everyone else gets theirs. This may be especially useful if the alternative is to download it via a slow telecom network. It may also save the publisher money as they will not have to pay for distribution via the Internet (at a cost of around 3 Euro cents per GB). 3. Films, videos and music You can even receive films or music tracks to your device, although you will have to settle for the files that are being broadcast into the memory of it. You can in other words not decide on your own, but will have to settle for whichever film or music files that are being broadcast. If you leave your device on overnight it may have however have been tanked up with several new blockbusters. And one night maybe, just maybe, Madonna might decide to give away her new album to those with the broadcasting device turned on. 4. Route information At many bus stops and smaller train stations there is a small info screen that tells you when your bus will arrive. A solution to do this via DMB is being introduced early next year in the Netherlands. This info has so far usually been distributed through telecom networks. There are two challenge with such solutions. The data transport is expensive. And GPRS/3G/WLAN receivers consume a lot of energy. So much that electricity has to be installed on bus stops that may not have been equipped with electricity. To hook all the bus stops up to the grid is very expensive. DMB receivers use very little power. So little in fact that these receivers will run on solar power. And in Germany you will get access to city bikes by buying a tram ticket. On the tram you will see info screens that tells you how many bikes there are nearby the next tram stop. If there are none, you will be told how many more stops you have to go before finding an available bike. This info is also being broadcast. B2B information will in many cases see broadcasting fit as their distribution in the future. 5. Radio relevant information When listening to radio you can also receive additional information on the programme through broadcasting. Who is interviewing who? Which song and artist is being played, and what does the covers look like? You may also receive photographs and the sudden textual breaking news alert. And if you want you can press the screen when a new favourite song is being played to buy and download it via the Internet. 6. Broadcast websites Do you remember Teletext or Text TV as it has also been called? It was introduced in the early 1970s and give you a certain number of pages with text and very simple graphics on your television screen. You navigate by tapping a page number (100-899) on your remote control. After using it for a while you remember all the “front pages” by heart. It contains news, sports, weather, stock quotes, programme infromation and more. It’s almost a mini version of the Internet, although with no links leading to outside this little walled garden. And it was hugely popular in many parts of Europe, even still remaining so in some countries. It has, of obvious reasons, never taken off in connected devices, but it clearly shows the possibility to also broadcast textual information. Books, photos or maps can also be transferred in this way. In fact, all known files can be transportted through broadcasting. The questions is just whether your device can read them. These are just a few examples. There are many more. Please list ideas or examples as commentaries underneath the blog post. Broadcasting can never replace the Internet. But everything that is available via the Internet can also be broadcast to the same kinds of devices. And if you know of files or info that will be massively popular, it can be broadcast to everyone out there, cheaply and without gatekeepers. Combination is king. Combination is key. The industries should work together and make their content and services available through all networks suited for the job. Different networks complement each other.

A lot of telecom operators are afraid, or seem to be afraid of broadcasting as a technology. They fear losing control of their users who may then use another network than the telcos own telecom networks (i.e. GPRS, 3G or 4G) for access to radio and TV. At the same time the telecom operators experience a big challenge. Their telecom networks are filling up. That means that existing customers will get lower bandwidths and worse quality of service. Sometimes they are not even be able to make a phone call through the network. And a lot of potential new customers will certainly pick up on that, and remain just that, potential customers. One way of improving the situation is by improving the telecom network. Of course there is always a new solution that will solve everything just around the corner. As we have seen over and over again. We started with GSM that could only do phone calls and text messages (plus very slow line switched WAP). Then GPRS came about (opened up for packet switching and increased bandwidths). EDGE was a slight improvement before 3G came about to save the world (despite costing millions or billions in licences, depending on the country). And now LTE is the new kid in town. LTE stands for Long Term Evolution and will come in various versions. Of course, this is yet another three letter abbreviation to keep track of, so they prefer to call it 4G in order to easily make people understand that it is the next thing after 3G, only better. The problem is that it is not quite fast enough to be legally labeled 4G, something that creates a marketing problem. 3.9G doesn’t quite sound as fast, nor as new, groundbreaking or sexy. I have earlier earlier covered some problems with LTE under point 7 in the blog post “Why the Internet Won’t Solve Everything”. LTE is very expensive, has far lower bandwidths than what is being marketed (only the theoretical capacity is mentioned) and not suited for broadcasting-like content and services. Another way of improving the situation is by moving some of the traffic to another network. And what would then be better than moving the most traffic consuming traffic of them all, capacity hungry streaming of radio and TV? ¨ Broadcasting can save the day A broadcasting technology such as DMB (which also includes DAB and DAB+, making all three compatible) can take a heavy load off telecom networks without any cost to the telecom operator. All live consumption of radio and TV can be moved from the telecom networks, thus making them faster for other kinds of Internet usage via your phone or mobile broadband enabled computer or tablet. That could enhance the experience of those engaged in e-mail usage, social network updates, news consumption, on demand viewing of TV shows, gaming and internet banking. And by introducing interactive touch screen services you can initiate a lot of potentially revenue driving activities from DMB to the telecom networks. A few examples (please feel free to add more ideas through comments): Touch screen shopping (touch the sun glasses of Johnny Depp, change the colour and buy them, 199 USD) Voting (vote for your favourite Idol singer, 0.99USD). Social media (like or dislike programmes and share your opinion with your friends, 0,05USD). On demand programming (chose to watch the next episode of your favourite show (via 3G/4G) after an exciting broadcasted cliffhanger, 3USD). Touch the screen while listening to radio (DAB/DAB+) to see the cover, read news about the artist and to buy and download the song or the album 0,99/9,99USD) You would think that removing data traffic from the network, making sure that every customer watch and use the screen several additional minutes extra every day and increasing chances of consumer spending would be very appealing to most telecom operators. But up until recently there has not been a lot of interest from telecom operators to go down the broadcasting route (with the exception of DVB-H, a network which they owned and controlled). There are a few exceptions which I will come back to. Then and now Two years ago I was Director of New Media Developments at NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation) and we were in close talks with the Norwegian telecom operators. Telenor, which is the biggest, was particulary keen on mobile TV via 3G. So much so that they almost demanded that we gave them all our content so that they could make money via their 3G network. I have exemplified this below through their CEO, Mr. Jon Fredrik Baksaas (who we didn’t talk directly to). Only two years later (in 2010), the message seemed to have changed quite a lot, again as exemplified through Mr. Baksaas below. The 3G networks were struggling and Telenor had to do something. They are now only involved in mobile TV to a limited degree. The main challenge The biggest problem is currently the lack of mobile phones with built in DMB. In Korea almost 40 million devices have been sold, most of them phones from famous brands (Samsung, LG, Motorola), but none of these players have yet entered other markets with DMB phones. This is strange, and a lost opportunity for them to eat market shares. After all, millions of people live in coverage areas of DMB, DAB and DAB+ and it would be convenient and natural for them to have access to their preferred radio and TV stations in the one device they carry around. I believe that the first major player to launch a DMB phone outside Korea will seriously benefit, and lead the way for others. The question is just who it is going to be. Will Apple again have to lead the way and have everyone else chasing them, or will a competitor make the table change? We will soon see which brand will be first thanks to the growth of DMB, DAB and DAB+ , the fact that telecom operator will benefit from this and that consumers wish and demand such services in their phones (and tablets). The DMB, DAB and DAB+ market worldwide is increasing on four continents (Europe, Asia, Oceania and Africa), and we are, through IDAG (International DMB Advancement Group), involved in discussions with telecom operators as well as phone and tablet manufacturers internationally to ensure better terminal availability. To the benefit of broadcasters AND telecom operators (and of course the manufacturers themselves). Network Norway Norwegian Mobile TV Corporation (NMTV) has signed an agreement with Network Norway to cooperate on DMB and related services. Network Norway is the 4th biggest telecom operator in Norway. The hunger to grow and a seemingly natural curiosity for innovation make them open to new ideas and exciting new business opportunities. They understand that broadcasting can help them both save and make money. After all data traffic is expensive (even to the telecom operators) and too much of it can take down your networks. NMTV is also in discussions with other Norwegian telecom operators, whereas IDAG and it’s members are in discussions or have signed with telcos elsewhere. Partnerships between broadcasters and telecom operators are being prepared in some countries, and need to be agreed in others to make exciting things happen faster than what we have seen in the past and what can be feared yet again.

There seems to be a common misunderstanding among a lot of journalists, experts, trend analysts and consultants that the Internet will solve all distribution problems in the world. In their opinion there is no need for broadcasting as a way of getting content to the thousands and millions and billions of people out there. This is a very tabloidized, and a very wrong picture. Unfortunately this seems to be creating a perceived truth among politicians, regulators, bureaucrats and other decision makers in a variety of countries. The perceived truth that the Internet can handle distribution of all content in the world. But why is this misconception a problem? Well, because the Internet cannot cope when a lot of people want to watch or listen to something at exactly the same time. That is why broadcasting was invented. A broadcaster (owning TV channels or radio stations) send the signals out in the air, and EVERYONE in the coverage area can receive the signal, even if EVERYONE means 300 million or a billion people. And because telecom operators are trying to lobby governments around the world into taking frequencies from broadcasters, handing them to telecom operators so that there will be more bandwidth for wireless Internet. If they succeed, there will be a shortage of available frequencies (space to broadcast) for broadcasters. The victims will be viewers and listeners not able to receive their favourite TV or radio programmes. – But broadcasting is old! The internet is new, the internet is the future, new media experts comment. The wheel is also old, but it still works perfectly for what it was designed to do and it will continue to do so in the future. So will broadcasting. There are various broadcasting standards for radio and mobile TV out there. In Norway we are using DAB and DAB+ for radio and DMB for mobile TV. For TV most countries have already chosen DVB-T, ATSC or ISDB-T. For radio and mobile TV there is only the DMB family of standards (including DAB and DAB+) that is open, accessible through widely available devices and that has allocated frequencies in most countries. I do therefore examplify broadcasting through the usage of DMB, DAB and DAB+. A list of 20 I have listed often neglected reasons for why broadcasting is still needed (updated from an original list of 8). A shorter version of this blog post can be found here. 1) Telecom networks go down if too may people use them. During emergencies and disasters, a broadcasting network is the only effective (and sometimes the only possible) way of getting information out to those affected. This is a reason why governments are considering legislation that will require a broadcasting chip in all mobile phones. 2) Broadcasters are in editorial control of their content, and should remain so. Having a gatekeeper acting as an additional editor or censorship manager is limiting democracy and free speech. A gatekeeper can be a government that cencors you through threats or force, an ISP or a telecom operator that limits content or users’ access to it or someone controlling what applications/contents/services that will be made available on their platform. James Cridland covers this issue (for radio) on his blog. There are however also other kinds of gatekeepers that can limit democracy and freedom of speech. Let us take Mark Thompson as an example. He ie editor of chief of the BBC, employing 30,000 people, many of whom are journalists. He is, and should be, the editor-in-chief. For some platforms, i.e. Apple or Facebook, he is not. These two examples are essentially walled gardens which are controlled by Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg. They suddenly become super editor in chiefs, above Mark Thompson, creating a less than free press as they will have to OK apps or feeds appearing on their devices or websites. In April 2012, support for this point came from a somewhat unlikely source. Sergey Brin, one of the cofounders of Google warned against a dedemocratization of the internet in The Guardian. The reason? Gatekeepers. 3) The Internet is vulnerable to hacking and sites may relatively easily be taken down or halted. A broadcasting network is more secure. Bigger operations will usually be needed in order to hijack a broadcasted signal or a broadcaster. Viruses are also plentiful on the internet, now also on Apple products. Viruses are easy to create, and stopping them through anti-virus software is a multi billion industry. 4) DMB consumes a lot less power than GPRS/3G/WLAN. It is in other words a greener and much more environmentally friendly technology. And it makes batteries last longer. A DMB/DAB/DAB+ chip uses 25-60mW. A WLAN/GPRS/3G chip uses 1-7W. That means that DMB chipsets use between (updated due to calculation error) 0.36% and 6% of an IP chip. 0,36% is one twohundredandeightieth (1/280). Do also note that this only covere the receiving end of things. The transmitters needed for connected devices (inernet capable gadgets) are much higher than the number of transmitters needed for broadcasting in the same area. 5) Broadcasters must pay around 3 Euro cents per GB that is being transferred from their server park to the Internet. This may not sound like much, but if Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) in little Norway with less than 5 million inhabitants were to distribute its radio and TV offering throughout a year via the Internet, we would be loooking at an amount of 4.9 Exabyte (which is 4,901 Petabyte or 4,900,662 Terrabyte). This is based on average viewing and listening times from NRK. The average Norwegian person over the age of 12 listens to NRKs radio stations over 35 hours a month and watches NRKs TV channels more than 40 hours a month. This would set the public service broadcaster back over 150 million Euro a year. This is highly hypotetical since there is no way that the Internet would be able to deliver this 6) Internet is not free and you have to pay for access. A subscription is needed (unless you find an open WLAN zone). If every average Norwegian was to watch TV via his/her mobile broadband subscription (the 11% of TV viewing that happens outside your home in Norway), the telecom operators would be generating 275 million Euro every month from Norwegian subscriptions (again given that the network could actually cope and that every Norwegian subscribed to the cheapest possible plan). Broadcasting is the most cost effective way to reach a vast number of people in a geographically large area. 7) The Internet is not wide enough when it comes to bandwidth. I will examplify this through some numbers which applies to mobile broadband. But of course LTE will solve everything. We are being told. There are some problems though. To build an LTE network (often referred to as 3.9G or 4G) for 90% of the population in the UK would 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 over 1,8 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. LTE furthermore has a capacity of 31,68Mbps (given a 10Mhz channel) per transmitter. If all the users are 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, something that severly lowers available bandwidth. LTE may need up to 11 modulation schemes to reach users at different distances and locations from the transmitter. 31,68Mbps would 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.). The LTE estimates were presented by Arqiva, a British company building and running various kinds of networks in October, 2010. 8) The Internet works poorly when the receiver travels at high speeds, or some times if moving at all. And a lot of people are listening to radio and watching TV while on the move. In cars, trains, trams, boats or even by walking. Streaming services (when large amounts of data are transferred continously as is the case with TV and radio) do not work well, even if there is coverage. And big areas are difficult and expensive to cover with Internet technologies. In Norway, 40% of radio listening is experienced outside peoples own homes, in most cases while travelling. DMB, DAB and DAB+ works well in speeds up to 900 km/h (tested on planes), and such broadcasts can cover vast areas. 9) The Internet through broadband is neither broad nor stable if you are far away from a switch. That includes a lot of households in rural areas. They have always had much poorer quality on their Internet connection than people in cities, sometimes the ISPs even refuse to give them a connection due to costs that they will never recoup. 10) Broadcasting is not only for live radio or TV, but is a very universal distribution technology. Any file can be broadcast, either for live consumption or to the memory of a device. This can include an eMagazine to a tablet (delivered simultaneously to everyone each morning), traffic information to your navigation/GPS device or films and music to your phone. I have covered this in more detail in the blog post Broadband Isn’t Only for Radio and TV. 11) The Internet may not be open in the future as the net neutrality is being challenged in various countries, including in the United States, Norway and Canada. The more people want to use the Internet, the more bandwidth is becoming a luxury (see point 7). As with almost all forms of goods and services, a luxury market will then emerge. But the Internet has limited capacity, so if certain websites are going to be able to pay for guaranteed bandwidth, the bandwidth will have to be taken from the available bandwidth of others. Even though all content providers (websites) currently should in principle have the same possibilities to access end users with their content and services. As long as certain websites will be able to pay a premium to reach the end users, that will hamper free competition and the principle of net neutrality. Some ISPs now also want to charge in both ends. Meaning from both the consumer and the companies providing information there (i.e. Youtube, CNN, NRK). Update: Telenor Takes on Google. 12) In order to cover a big country as Norway (area wise) with DMB between 500 and 600 transmitters are needed as the reach is good and as the signal is error protected and robust. A DMB signal that bounces off a mountain or a big building is also strengthened, while an analogue signal that bounces is destroyed. To cover the same 99.8% of the country (as the 500-600 DMB transmitters will do) with Internet, many more transmitters are needed. 13) The Internet is vulnerable. Imagine that all infrastructure has to go in or on top of the same ditch. Water, electricity, sewage, cable TV, telephone lines, Internet, roads, railroads, etc. If you have to repair only one of these networks, you will have to disrupt all of them. If all distribution of content and services is to be forced into the same ‘cable’ the scenario is similar. It is easy to shut down, as seen in Egypt and Libya (updated in February, 2011). Only one distribution channel for everything means no backup. Always have a backup plan. 14) Several countries have introduced The Data Retention Directive, EUs Directive 2006/24/EC. This states that all electronic communication will be stored for up to one year (half a year in Norway) in order for national governments (specifically police, security agencies, etc.) to have access to everything in order to prevent crime. Isn’t that nice and caring of them? This has however not prevented crime anywhere, and it totally changes the widespread and much stated doctrine from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent.” In a digital world, everything you do will leave a trace and you cannot hide. The consumation of broadcasted content is still an exception. You can watch or listen to anything without anyone knowing about it. This is now no longer the case on the Internet. I’d recommend you to read more about the directive here, in the words of Peter J Milford, Southampton Business School. Norwegian readers can also find a lot of well formulated thoughts on the issue by NRKs lawyer, Jon Wessel-Aas. 15) It is neither economical, effective nor attractive to continue doing double distribution. The Internet cannot cope with enormous amounts of concurrent viewers or listeners. Broadcasting will therefore be a needed technology “forever.” To build a net that is capable of delivering live television or radio to hundred of millions of users at the same time (as during Super Bowl or the Eurovision Song Contest) will never prove a viable business model. 16) We are still seeing an explosion in data traffic passing through the internet. More data was transferred over the internet in 2010 than all previous years, according to Intel. And the growth is not going to slow down. First of all, we are seeing an explosion in cloud services. People and companies store their data in the cloud rather than on their hard drives. That demands a lot of capacity. And the number of internet capable devices is skyrocketing. In 2011 there were 5 billion connected devices in the world. That number is projected to reach 15 billion by 2015 and 50 billion by 2020. A much higher number than the number of people, in other words (there are 7 billion people in 2012, there will be 7.3 billion in 2015 and 7.6 billion in 2020). How? There are a lot of M2M (machine to machine) services being introduced, i.e. automatic registration of electricity usage or cars that are equipped with an internet connection. To want to transfer all radio and TV traffic to the internet in addition to everything else that is going through that infrastructure does not make any sense, nor will anyone want to fund that. And of course, one of the buzz words of 2012 is cloud computing. Many people and companies put all their data in the cloud (accessible via the internet). This increases the bandwidth needed manifold. 17) Many ISPs and mobile network operators argue that the only way forward is to take frequencies from broadcasting and give them to themselves in order to provide people with more bandwidth. This would hardly help and would be very shortsighted. The usage of bandwidth is estimated to increase 70 times the next 15 years. So even if MNOs can access more spectrum (they are currently trying to get their hands on spectrum currently used by broadcasters), it would hardly help at all. Giving them that would only ensure that valuable means of distributing mobile data will end up in the hands of very few companies, creating monopoly like conditions. Who would want that? The report The Economic value of Broadcast Innovation – Impact on the U.S. Treasure, was publsihed by Business Analytix Inc. in November 2011 shows this clearly, and concludes. A linear increase in the supply of spectrum cannot solve a geometric increase in demand for mobile data. The projected growth in mobile data traffic is so great that re-allocation of television spectrum would provide only temporary and barely discernible relief. Broadcasting spectrum must remain in the hands of broadcasters that operate independently of MNOs and ISPs. 18) Broadcasting does not discriminate. The internet does. How can I claim such a thing? Personalization is about to make a divide between internet users. What you read, watch or listen to is more and more often influenced by your previous behavious online. What are your interests, what do you like reading, where in the world are you and who are your friends? Past behaviour on the internet while you are logged in to sites such as Facebook or Google or cookies monitoring your behaviour on behalf on sites you haven’t even logged into help websites personalize what you get to see and what you won’t get to see. Even a web search for the exact same phrase may return very different answers depending on who is searching and from where. This fragments web surfing and takes away the equality of users. I’d say it is like discrimination. When watching broadcasted TV, listening to broadcasted radio or even reading news via teletext (Ceefax) you will get exactly the same as everyone else within coverage, and at the same time too. Broadcasting threats everyone equal. Websites should offer users a “button” where they can switch off such monitoring, usually referred to as personalization which sounds like a helpful service. Websites do this as they make more money off advertising, but it may not be the best solution in the long run. More on this here. 19) Radio and television will “always” be best live. Not all content in all situations, of course, but the majority. Why? Neither sports nor news (especially breaking news) is well suited for watching or listening to “on demand”. If you don’t consume it live, you’ll be left out. Every program will also necessarily need to have a premiere and a lot of people want to be the first to enjoy it. Just as is the case with cinema premieres around the world. The rise in discussions during programmes via chats and soacial media is also due to the fact that people watch or listen simultaneously. Otherwise you cannot discuss something equally. Being served, as opposed to having to go get it youself is also an element. Live broadcasts are served to you while you relax in the sofa. Luxury! On demand programs you will have to find and start on your own. Linear stations will also surprise you. New programs, new genres or new music will suddenly appear. And they will do so regardless of your what you have watched or listened to before. Because broadcasting doesn’t discriminate. Everyone gets the same at the same time. And it has not even been personalized based on what you have done before, where you are or what your friends like or do not like. Not to mention emergencies. There are, in short, many reasons for the never fading success of live radio and TV. 20) If broadcasters cannot distribute their content via efficient and cost effective broadcasting networks they will have to fight over access via the internet and compete with everyone else that is depending on the internet for their services. These “others” may have built their business models purely on internet distribution. Unless there is an option to the internet, broadcasters will have to fight over bandwidth with these companies. That weakes the bargaining power of broadcasters in order to distribute radio and television programmes and channels, and also puts pressure on non-broadcasters. Combination is the new king Does this blog post mean that I am not in favour of the Internet? Of course not. The Internet is amazing and opens up for unlimited possibilities. But it is not constructed to be used as a distribution platform for the same content to many people at the same time. What I do believe in is a combination of technologies. Anyone with a little DIY knowledge knows that you need the right tool for the job. Broadcasting is great for some things, the Internet great for others. Combination is the new king. Combination of broadcasting and on demand content (the Internet), combination of content and services (when a return channel usually is needed, i.e. the Internet), combination of TV and radio and combination when it comes to partnerships between industries and even competitors. Not to forget a combination of technologies, also for live content that is being broadcasted. Some people will in certain situations or contexts prefer i.e. webradio to a stand alone kitchen radio. All the great TV and radio channels and programmes out there need be distributed unfiltered via at least one distribution platform, without any gatekeepers (i.e. ISPs, telecom operators, Apple) that in effect act as editors by possibly filtering out the content or as bouncers by turning the users away. The goal of this blog post? To contribute to a more fair and balanced discussion when it comes to distribution platforms. The Internet will not and cannot solve everything. A shorter version of this blog post can be found here. Follow @garfors on Twitter for notifications on new posts.