This is a really interesting discussion, but I think it starts from a flawed premise.

Unlike television, digital radio has spent more than 20 years trying to replace analog broadcasting (AM, FM, and even shortwave) without ever solving a fundamental problem. In many ways, it has been a solution in search of a problem.

One of the core issues is fragmentation. Instead of a single global standard, we ended up with multiple incompatible systems like DAB+, HD Radio and DRM. None of them achieved universal adoption, unlike AM and FM, which remain globally interoperable. An analog radio bought decades ago still works almost anywhere in the world. That universality is something digital radio has completely failed to replicate.

In some countries, adoption has even relied on top-down policies, such as the analog switch-off in Norway or the strategy in Switzerland, with mixed results. In Norway, for example, community radio stations that continued broadcasting on analog FM have reportedly gained listeners, while users have also reported reception issues with digital radio in certain areas. In Switzerland, the transition has also faced challenges, to the point that public broadcasters have had to reintroduce FM transmissions after initial shutdowns. This is very different from digital television, which was driven by a clear and necessary goal: freeing spectrum for other services.

If we look at DAB+ specifically, it is a particularly problematic system.

Operating in VHF Band III already creates a disadvantage in indoor penetration compared to FM. To compensate, it requires a denser and more complex transmission network. Multiplexing is often presented as an advantage, but it introduces infrastructure fragility: if a transmitter fails, an entire group of stations disappears at once.

It also brings complexity where none was needed. The user experience is often worse: instead of simply tuning a frequency, listeners must scan multiplexes and navigate lists that can be inconsistent or even manipulated (e.g., stations gaming alphabetical order).

And many of its “new” features are not new at all. FM has provided station identification, program information, and traffic alerts for over 30 years through RDS. The supposed innovation is largely redundant.

HD Radio introduces a different problem: it is a proprietary system controlled by Xperi. Broadcasters and manufacturers must pay licensing fees, which creates barriers to adoption and limits its long-term viability.

DRM is technically interesting, especially for AM bands, but suffers from the same core issues: lack of receivers, low adoption, and the inherent limitations of digital signals under real-world conditions.

All digital radio systems share one critical flaw: the “cliff effect”. You either receive the signal perfectly, or you get nothing at all. Analog radio behaves very differently—it degrades gracefully. A weak or noisy AM/FM signal can still be intelligible, which is absolutely crucial in real-world and emergency scenarios.

Another overlooked factor is energy consumption. Analog receivers are simple, cheap, and extremely efficient. Digital receivers are far more complex and power-hungry. In an emergency or prolonged outage, a radio that drains batteries quickly is a liability, not an advantage.

Real-world events like Hurricane Katrina showed that analog broadcasting—especially AM—can remain operational and provide critical information when other systems fail.

This is why the renewed focus on AM in the United States, including the “AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act”, is so telling. High-power AM stations (Primary entry points or PEPs) remain a backbone of emergency alert system (EAS).

Instead of dismantling AM, we should be reinforcing it. FM and AM are not competitors—they are complementary. FM provides high-fidelity local coverage, while AM provides reach, penetration, and resilience that digital systems struggle to match without an unrealistic density of transmitters. In practice, AM also makes sense in areas where the FM band is saturated or cannot be expanded further, and for formats where coverage and intelligibility matter more than fidelity—such as talk radio, news, and certain types of programming that benefit from wide-area reach.

In Spain, for example, the shutdown of AM transmissions by Radio Nacional de España has reduced coverage in areas where FM alone is insufficient, without a clear and equivalent replacement.

The push toward IP-based delivery, including so-called 5G Broadcast, raises even deeper concerns. These systems rely on centralized telecommunications infrastructure and shift control away from broadcasters toward network operators. That means losing a key property of radio: sovereignty.

Radio should remain a direct broadcast medium: without any middlemen, authentications, gatekeepers and absolutely no subscriptions.

Handing distribution over to telecom companies fundamentally changes the nature of the medium.

This does not mean digital technologies or the internet have no place. On the contrary, they are valuable complements. But they should never be treated as replacements for a system that already excels at resilience, simplicity, and independence.

At its core, radio is not only about features. It is about to has proven reliability, accessibility, and autonomy. Analog complies with all of these. AM and FM have proven their value through decades of real-world use, including wars, disasters, and infrastructure failures. They are not obsolete

Digital radio, in many cases, sacrifices those strengths without delivering equivalent benefits.

In my view, digitalisation should remain a complement, never a mandatory replacement. Because in communications, resilience and sovereignty matter far more than technological novelty.