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.
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.
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.
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.
Apart from TV2 I think they all still are? Mainly to avoid restrictions on content in commercials (Norwegian ban on online gambling commercials etc).
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.
So effectively it is privately owned and operated, under a "natural" monopoly.
[1] https://www.telenor.com/investors/share-information/major-sh...
Norwegian governments have decades of history of extensive interference in the markets (and today control ~1/3 of the value of the companies on the Oslo Stock Exchange)
Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily bad - it's generally worked well, and it's worked well probably largely because there certainly is tradition to stay hands off when possible. And during crises give them enough rope to either save themselves or hang themselves first - no politician wants to step into the middle of a scandal and risk being tainted...
At the same time influence can be subtle - because Telenor knows what is politically acceptable, they'd be highly unlikely to do anything that'd create political pressure to interfere. That can be as effective as direct control.
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.
It has much better ability to penetrate into buildings, and through foliage, etc.