Sweden: "Royal Academy Rejects DAB Radio"

[KB1OKL]

In another setback to big radio's hope of spreading the scourge of useless digital radio, Sweden has decided to not shut of analog FM. Public opinion there has "mauled" the idea as they did in Great Britain which has indefinitely scrapped the idea. What does this have to do with HD radio? Plenty, digital radio HD, DAB etc. despite all the baloney that is posted here and elsewhere is not doing well anywhere in the world.

From Digital Radio FM Europe:

A severe setback for proposal to switch-off FM in Sweden

"The renowned Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) has promptly rejected DAB digital radio in response to the proposed roadmap for a transition to DAB+.
The "Digital Radio Coordinator" commissioned by the former center-right government presented her proposal Dec 1. The plan consists of a mutual launch, extension of the licenses for commercial radio actors to broadcast analogue and a conditional shutdown of FM transmissions 2016-2024.
However, the proposal has been mauled by the public opinion in the press and social media and widely criticized by experts outside the DAB sphere of interest. "

"The Academy has now joined this massive opposition to DAB "It's expensive and unnecessary to invest in on-air digital radio". In a statement, also published in Sweden's no. 1 newspaper Dagens Nyheter, IVA says that consumer needs are better catered to by today´s technologies. The days are gone when producers could decide how and information should be distributed and consumed."

"IVA recommends that radio can develop on-line, also in use with DVB-T2, and that today's FM network and receivers should be retained. Thus there will be no need for an expensive and bad DAB+ solution."

Strooby are you listening?

more refreshing truth at:

http://digitalradioinsider.blogspot.com/2014/12/royal-academy-rejects-dab-radio.html

 

[TheBigA]

digital radio HD, DAB etc. despite all the baloney that is posted here and elsewhere is not doing well anywhere in the world.

Depends. Digital radio over analog spectrum isn't doing well. Digital radio using satellite and the internet is about to exceed analog FM. And Nielsen just released a report this week that TSL for OTA radio continues to drop. Those listeners are going somewhere, and that somewhere is digital.

So people want digital radio...just not using traditional radio devices.

 

[KB1OKL]

Depends. Digital radio over analog spectrum isn't doing well. Digital radio using satellite and the internet is about to exceed analog FM. And Nielsen just released a report this week that TSL for OTA radio continues to drop. Those listeners are going somewhere, and that somewhere is digital.

So people want digital radio...just not using traditional radio devices.

First of all the internet is not radio, it is hardwired, nothing radio about it and anyone who reads this blog (HD Radio) and read the articles would know they are about OTA radio, and secondly I believe that the term OTA is misleading, redundant and incorrect and thirdly I specified HD, DAB etc.. See the following definition from
www.thefreedictionary.com/RADIO

ra·di·o (rd-)
n. pl. ra·di·os
1. The wireless transmission through space of electromagnetic waves in the approximate frequency range from 10 kilohertz to 300,000 megahertz.
2. Communication of audible signals encoded in electromagnetic waves.

 

[TheBigA]

First of all the internet is not radio,

You can think and quote anything you want, but the people who listen to radio on the internet consider it to be radio. No matter how wrong you might think they are, their numbers are being felt, and there will come a time when Nielsen will count digital streaming with OTA radio. Both advertisers and radio companies want it to happen, and so it will happen. The generation growing up now has no memory of listening to AM radio, and all they know is streaming radio. In fact, those who stream using their phone have a good case that they're using the same electromagnetic spectrum as AM & FM. Just a different part. Same with satellite. If it's wireless, it's radio. Webster has been known to change definitions, and I think that one is likely to change. Certainly the people aren't restricted by some definition. They don't care.

 

[KB1OKL]

You can think and quote anything you want, but the people who listen to radio on the internet consider it to be radio. No matter how wrong you might think they are, their numbers are being felt, and there will come a time when Nielsen will count digital streaming with OTA radio. Both advertisers and radio companies want it to happen, and so it will happen. The generation growing up now has no memory of listening to AM radio, and all they know is streaming radio. In fact, those who stream using their phone have a good case that they're using the same electromagnetic spectrum as AM & FM. Just a different part. Same with satellite. If it's wireless, it's radio. Webster has been known to change definitions, and I think that one is likely to change. Certainly the people aren't restricted by some definition. They don't care.

I'm just quoting a fact, the internet is hardwired and is not radio, a case can be made for Satellite as it does use electromagnetic waves but the internet doesn't.
By your definition wifi is radio. A plane uses fuel just like a car, does that make it a car?

 

[TheBigA]

By your definition wifi is radio. A plane uses fuel just like a car, does that make it a car?

Wifi IS radio. So are cell phones. Marconi himself described his invention as "wireless telephony."

As I said, it doesn't matter what books or facts say. What matters is how people use words. The people have spoken, and they are moving towards digital radio, regardless of the technicalities. And where the people go, so go the radio companies.

 

[frankberry]

Just my two-cents worth.
When radio internet streams can carry the same commercials as their on-air signals (without a financial penalty) .... I might consider the internet streams as radio.
Legally, internet streams are treated differently than over-the-air broadcasting.
They are not the same.
Internet streams are not radio at this time.
It's sad. The internet streams should not be held to a different standard than over-the-air broadcasting.

Frank

 

[TheBigA]

Legally, internet streams are treated differently than over-the-air broadcasting.
They are not the same.

This is not a legal discussion. This is about what the people want. They want digital radio, and they're getting it by deserting traditional broadcasting for other platforms. And radio companies are giving the people what they want, regardless of the government and the unions.

Cable and satellite TV is also treated differently than broadcast, yet people still call it TV.

 

[KB1OKL]

This is not a legal discussion. This is about what the people want. They want digital radio, and they're getting it by deserting traditional broadcasting for other platforms. And radio companies are giving the people what they want, regardless of the government and the unions.

Cable and satellite TV is also treated differently than broadcast, yet people still call it TV.

The people don't give a hoot whether it is digital or not, everyone has a computer, it is very easy to stream that's all.

 

[TheBigA]

The people don't give a hoot whether it is digital or not, everyone has a computer, it is very easy to stream that's all.

The point is that the world of analog radio is in decline. Why it's declining isn't related to the programming. If analog content is available on digital devices, the people will listen to it there. If it's not, they'll listen to something else. But they're going to digital devices, regardless of whether or not the motivation is digital.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Internet streams are not radio at this time.

I just finished a cycle of perceptual research projects and can report that phrases like "I prefer to listen to the radio on my (cellular) phone" and such were astoundingly common. When asked "what radio station is your favorite" or "what stations do you also listen to" Pandora came up often. And finally, when the person listened to a traditional radio station, and was asked how they listen to it, "on my phone" was a common answer.

As BigA said, when the consumer has a broad perception that any real time audio source that has no pictures is "radio" then we have to consider that the term has been redefined. And since stations are beholden to advertisers, who will instantly follow perceptions to reach as many people as possible, we have no choice but to consider streaming to be radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Disney is the latest media company that has deserted the traditional broadcast radio band, citing the fact that its audience was using other platforms. When the heritage companies creating the content are leaving the traditional band, perhaps that should tell you something.

 

[frankberry]

I just finished a cycle of perceptual research projects and can report that phrases like "I prefer to listen to the radio on my (cellular) phone" and such were astoundingly common. When asked "what radio station is your favorite" or "what stations do you also listen to" Pandora came up often. And finally, when the person listened to a traditional radio station, and was asked how they listen to it, "on my phone" was a common answer.

As BigA said, when the consumer has a broad perception that any real time audio source that has no pictures is "radio" then we have to consider that the term has been redefined. And since stations are beholden to advertisers, who will instantly follow perceptions to reach as many people as possible, we have no choice but to consider streaming to be radio.

Why are the major advertisers not on the radio internet streams? They have not "instantly followed the perceptions." I regularly listen to internet radio streams but I find it annoying that the streams break away from the over-the-air broadcasts and run Public Service Announcements and other crap because they can't put their over-the-air commercials on their internet stream. Many times, the web streams re-join the over-the-air audio late because the web commercials have run longer than the over-the-air commercial break.

 

[TheBigA]

Why are the major advertisers not on the radio internet streams?

AFTRA and Nielsen.

 

[frankberry]

The advertisers are not following the perception that internet streaming is the same as over-the-air broadcasting.
Perhaps AFTRA and Nielsen should re-evaluate the industry.
That is my entire point.
At this time, internet streaming is not the same as over-the-air broadcasting.

 

[DavidEduardo]

The advertisers are not following the perception that internet streaming is the same as over-the-air broadcasting.
Perhaps AFTRA and Nielsen should re-evaluate the industry.

AFTRA, which is now part of SAG, simply establishes rates paid union talent for different types of talent usage. They will, as historically proven, lag reality by years if not decades.

Nielsen has announced that they will consolidate electronic media, particularly radio and streaming, in a single report because "the industry and advertisers require it". This will aggregate all OTA and streaming audio in a single report... even satellite should the services be encoded.

At this time, internet streaming is not the same as over-the-air broadcasting.

It is to listeners.

 

[frankberry]

If the advertisers don't agree ... that's all that matters. A station can have huge online listenership. If they can't sell it to the national advertisers, the listeners don't matter.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Why are the major advertisers not on the radio internet streams? They have not "instantly followed the perceptions." I regularly listen to internet radio streams but I find it annoying that the streams break away from the over-the-air broadcasts and run Public Service Announcements and other crap because they can't put their over-the-air commercials on their internet stream. Many times, the web streams re-join the over-the-air audio late because the web commercials have run longer than the over-the-air commercial break.

SAG members get additional money for each kind of use that is made of SAG talent voice work.

Once Nielsen consolidates streams and radio into a single report (and overcomes the diffences in terms between "AQH" and "concurrent sessions" and so on) then advertisers will have a solid metric.

This is strictly a union rules issue. Local advertisers or agencies that don't use SAG talent allow and want their ads to run on streams. And they do.

Once Nielsen moves to a consolidated report, it is likely that the agencies will work with SAG to change the terms of payments to fit the new requirements. At the moment, radio has no choice or say in this as the financial consideration issue is between advertisers / agencies and SAG.

 

[TheBigA]

Perhaps AFTRA and Nielsen should re-evaluate the industry.

AFTRA's issue is largely political. They have sided with the RIAA against OTA radio in the performance royalty fight, and want to get paid an extra fee for streaming. It has nothing to do with "re-evaluating the industry." It's all about money.

 

[DavidEduardo]

If the advertisers don't agree ... that's all that matters. A station can have huge online listenership. If they can't sell it to the national advertisers, the listeners don't matter.

National advertisers are barely an issue for 90% of all US radio stations. Once you get out of the few top markets, most revenue is local direct or comes from local and regional advertisers and is not withheld from streams.

In fact, many stations substitute non-SAG talent spots, often local or regional, for SAG-talent spots to fill stopsets and get revenue there.