[krkoch]

It's because the infrastructure for FM is quite expensive to run. Because of all the fjords and valleys, you need many weak transmitters to avoid reflections. Also, because it's FM, they can't overlap in frequency.

With DAB, two time-delayed signals (either reflections or multiple towers transmitting the same data-fountain) will enhance the signal. This means that you can have fewer towers.

[winter_blue]

> It's because the infrastructure for FM is quite expensive to run.

Won't the free market decide if it's too expensive to run? Or is even radio run by the state in Norway? Otherwise, why prohibit private companies from licensing & broadcasting FM radio? I mean the free market would decide stop to broadcasting when it's not profitable for them anymore.

Or is everything state-run in Norway? When I read "one member of the ruling coalition was scathing" and "MP from the Progress Party", I'm thinking, the state (and these MPs) shouldn't even be involved and thinking about this, and should leave it to the free market.

[wodenokoto]

> Or is even radio run by the state in Norway?

As a Scandinavian, that is kinda fun to read. Of course Radio is state run. I still get surprised when I hear commercials on the privately owned stations. Private radio stations pretty much became a thing after I grew up and stopped listening to Radio.

When I was a kid, there were maybe one commercial station and they didn't air in my city. Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England, due to the former state monopoly.

To many Scandinavians this is the most natural thing in the world.

[Raphmedia]

This makes a lot more sense. The article came off as a ban on FM. It's actually only that the state will no longer put money into FM radio and infrastructure.

[gpvos]

> The article came off as a ban on FM.

Interesting cultural difference; I would never have it interpreted it like that. I did wonder whether the commercial stations would also leave FM. A large country like Norway is likely to have only state broadcasting in its more remote areas, but additionally commercial broadcasters in the more populated regions.

[kwhitefoot]

As far as I can tell the commercial stations are leading the way.

[semi-extrinsic]

> Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England

Apart from TV2 I think they all still are? Mainly to avoid restrictions on content in commercials (Norwegian ban on online gambling commercials etc).

[winter_blue]

> Commercial TV-station were still mostly broadcasting from England, due to the former state monopoly. To many Scandinavians this is the most natural thing in the world

A state monopoly is a restriction on freedom.

I'm fairly libertarian-leaning (on some issues), and what you're saying sounds to me like: "our lack of freedom is the most natural thing in the world".

It's like a slave who's lived in slavery all his life saying that "slavery is the most natural thing in the world". Doesn't matter if the slave master has treated the slave well and given him/her a comfortable life.

A law that prevents private television broadcasters from existing is a violation of the people's freedom to organize and form their own broadcast networks.

I find your acceptance and nonchalance at this honestly quite disturbing.

There's nothing natural in a state monopoly. It's a restriction on individual freedom, and it's as simple as that.

The thing I find unnatural is people not caring about their freedom, and willingly (and happily) surrendering it over to the state.

[wodenokoto]

Just to be clear, you are not "fairly" libertarian-leaning, you are very libertarian-leaning.

[cuchoi]

Probably they have State infrastructure, maybe it was never profitable for businesses to invest in FM radios in that geography. They still CAN do it, but they won't.

[digi_owl]

The infra used to be state operated, under a cooperation between NRK and Televerket (that in the 90s was turned into Telenor). In recent years NRK has transferred ownership of this to Telenor, and instead rents capacity from them.

So effectively it is privately owned and operated, under a "natural" monopoly.

[vidarh]

With the caveat that Telenor is 54% owned by the Norwegian government (as of September 2016) [1], with a further 5% owned by Folketrygdfondet (government run social security fund), and a further 0.8% by DNB Asset Management, a subsidiary of the bank DNB ASA, which is again 34% owned by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry...

[1] https://www.telenor.com/investors/share-information/major-sh...

[digi_owl]

And? The government has declared itself to be a hands off shareholder...

[vidarh]

The government declares itself a lot of things until it declares itself something else. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying that implying it's entirely privately owned is a bit misleading.

[gpvos]

> Or is even radio run by the state in Norway?

Radio and TV have been run by the state (in some way or other) in most European countries from the 1920s until the 1980s. There were exceptions, most notably Luxembourg, which transmitted commercial radio to all its surrounding countries.

[nucleardog]

In a lot of places like this the infrastructure wouldn't exist in the first place if not for the state, so it seems natural to me that the public should retain ownership after paying to develop it.