American digital radio a half a##ed system: John Anderson at #CBAA13

[davideduardo]

Thanks, David and BigA, for making such excellent points. I agree with pretty much all of it...and yep, in the book

So we've got this spectrum, and the system we've deployed as "digital" is a market failure. How about perhaps using it for something useful? Or lose/abandon it? As David said, "radio" means much more now. Why can't "digital"?

In quite a significant number of perceptual studies, I've found that digital is perceived to be mp3s, to some extent, CDs and of course anything that comes over a stream. So,to simplify, streams are digital. AM and FM are not.

I believe the perception is so locked-in that it won't or can't change. Ancient media can't possibly be digital in the listener's minds. So the idea of buying a "digital radio" is pretty much an idea of committing an anachronism.

Of course, to most people "digital audio" means 128 kbs mp3's. It does not represent higher quality... it is synonymous with accessibility and portability.

 

[diymedia]

I take issue with the use of "we." This is iBiquity's system.

Actually, I'm talking about the public airwaves...the spectrum on which it works. The system deployed on it is iBiquity's, but the airwaves are a public resource. Or is that an unrealistic perception nowadays, too?

You've said it should have been an "open system." That's not how the patent laws work. It was an invention, they own the patent, and seek to control it. But even if it had been an open system, the scientists say it would have just been lipstick on a pig. I usually believe scientists.

Considering the science on which the HD system was built, that's not saying much. And relative to other systems, iBiquity's is quite closed. There's a big continuum between "black box" and "open source," after all.

Good luck to you with your book. But when you write about a product very few people know about, you're aiming at a limited consumer base. You'd be better off writing about satellite or internet radio. More people would be interested.

I wrote the book about what I was interested in, and also because nobody'd written on it. It's an interesting story, even if it is a cul-de-sac in the history of radio. That said, it is also playing a role in the ongoing transformation of "radio" as we've known it, and that's also important in and of itself.

 

[TheBigA]

Actually, I'm talking about the public airwaves...the spectrum on which it works. The system deployed on it is iBiquity's, but the airwaves are a public resource. Or is that an unrealistic perception nowadays, too?

The iBiquity system is very separate from the public airwaves. It's licensed and approved by the FCC, but beyond that, it's private. Just like lots of other inventions that have sought to aid or augment transmission over the last hundred or so years. "We" have no ownership in it. The spectrum belongs to the public. The radio stations, the transmitters, the antennae, and the content belong to private companies. Water flowing in an open river is a public resource. Once a company has purified it and transported it into your home, it's a private product that we pay for.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The spectrum belongs to the public. The radio stations, the transmitters, the antennae, and the content belong to private companies. Water flowing in an open river is a public resource. Once a company has purified it and transported it into your home, it's a private product that we pay for.

While you're playing lawyer, work this little fact-oid into your explanation.

Circa 1960 some broadcasters found a use for the not-so-useful FM band in that era. They put music on the air that was more or less MUZAK or Muzak in style. There were station breaks... a few commercials, etc. They broadcast a sub-sonic tone that would signal certain receivers.

These broadcasters would then sell music service to retailers and offices. They would put in one of their receivers that could sense the sub-sonic tones. At home you hear ALL the content: music AND talk. In the store or office, you heard ONLY the music.

I don't remember the date, but probably mid-60's to 1970... the FCC write regulations that oprohibited this practice. The rationale was that broadcasting was not for proprietary uses and that the broadcaster must do NOTHING that would enable or disable the programming for some listeners.

So how does all that reconcile with your explanation of water meters?

 

[TheBigA]

So how does all that reconcile with your explanation of water meters?

That was a long time ago.

About ten years later, a company in New Jersey started doing the exact same thing with their licensed TV station. They broadcast first run movies on the station, and required users to buy a decoder, because the content on the station was encrypted. The encrypted content was only at night. During the rest of the day, the station was viewable without the encoder. Somehow, that was not against the law.

But what we're talking about here is ownership. HD radio is a private system that uses the public airwaves. Just because it touches a public resource doesn't make it public, owned by the public, with certain entitlements that go with public services. Users sign agreements with iBiquity, not the FCC, and their checks go to them, not the US Treasury.

 

[KB1OKL]

Of course the general public has also for the most part stopped buying radios of all kinds, including table radios, satellite radios, digital internet radios, and portable transistor radios, and the electronics manufacturers are dead set against activating AM & FM in cell phones. If we were to follow the general public, we'd come to the conclusion that radio is dead. Yet 230 million people listen. How is that possible?

This has probably been made redundant from what's been posted already but John Q Public is happy with what he's got, there are a glut of radios out there, just because no one's buying them does not mean they are not listening, the public just doesn't care about HD radio, if they did they'd buy them. They buy all kinds of other listening gadgets, just not radios because they already have them.

 

[diymedia]

But what we're talking about here is ownership. HD radio is a private system that uses the public airwaves. Just because it touches a public resource doesn't make it public, owned by the public, with certain entitlements that go with public services. Users sign agreements with iBiquity, not the FCC, and their checks go to them, not the US Treasury.

Absolutely true. I do know the difference between the spectrum and the systems that are deployed on it. But the *principle* is that those systems make optimal use of the spectrum, no?

 

[Tom Wells]

Absolutely true. I do know the difference between the spectrum and the systems that are deployed on it. But the *principle* is that those systems make optimal use of the spectrum, no?

Ummm, but we've watched the optimal use "engineering" considerations thrown completely under the bus for decades now.

If anything, insisting that commmunications be "digital" has required additional bandwidth per signal because (RF) "square" waves always throw more byproducts
outside the intended bandwidth than sinewave modulation.

In HD operation, both modes seem to be proudly in the way of each other.
The only winner I see in the very local Chicago market is FM HD, which doesn't seem to suffer too much from airplane multi,
but the analog decoded FMs with iboc are fluttery with intrusions from airplane multipath sounding much like FM fringe did 'way back in the 70s.

At one time engineers did decide to figure out optimal use, but because of ITU agreements, the War Department (later renamed) etc, not enough spectrum has
ever been made available for the desired number of applications. Ideally there would be 3 "regular" broadcast bands.
What we got instead is too many stations for political reasons, well past any "optimal" anything regarding spectrum management.

 

[jhardis]

The iBiquity system is very separate from the public airwaves. ... it's private.

While you're contemplating the difference between the public and the private, let me set up a scenario for you. Imagine an area of public land. It could be the city "common" in urban New England, or it may be a forest wilderness in the West. Now, further image that in order to get to this land, in order to enjoy its benefits, you have to cross private property. For many years, that's not been a problem. But one day someone comes along and erects a tollbooth on that road to the public land. Is that a problem?

It could well be, under a doctrine called "trespass upon easement."

When you say that the iBiquity system is "private," the more common way of capturing that idea is to say that it's "proprietary," meaning that they have ownership rights. However, there are different flavors of "proprietary." The flavor called "patented" is not a problem, provided that the patent owner has agreed to license the patents on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms." iBiquity has so agreed. Another flavor is called "trade secrets." This is where the problem lies, as the encoding is protected as a trade secret. Unlike patents, trade secrets don't expire.

The public airwaves are more-or-less analogous to public land. Going back to the original scenario, I have no problem with the private land owner striking a deal with the Government that allows him to erect a tollbooth in exchange for improvements made to the road. An essential basis of such a deal is that the tolls must be "reasonable and non-discriminatory." However, being granted a right to operate a tollbooth in perpetuity (the economists would say, being able to "extract rents" forever) is inherently unreasonable. The FCC should not have allowed it, and it is completely unprecedented as best as I can tell. Never before has the FCC allowed a broadcaster on the public airwaves to use secret code (except for supplemental subscription services). Even worse, the record indicates that the FCC hasn't even thought about the issue in this context. That is, it's not clear that they realized that iBiquity intended to use secret code when they authorized IBOC broadcasting. (The issue was not discussed on the public docket except by a few people who complained about it, once the facts became known after IBOC was already on the air.)

- Jonathan

 

[TheBigA]

Absolutely true. I do know the difference between the spectrum and the systems that are deployed on it. But the *principle* is that those systems make optimal use of the spectrum, no?

Maybe. What does that have to do with "we?"

 

[TheBigA]

However, being granted a right to operate a tollbooth in perpetuity (the economists would say, being able to "extract rents" forever) is inherently unreasonable.

They were not granted a right "in perpetuity." Their patent has a time limit. Also it's become clear that there are ways to bypass their toll booth. No one is required to use their technology. There is no HD Radio mandate. They can stream their signal on the internet.

 

[ChiefOperator]

My favorite quote regarding HD radio: "HD radio is a solution looking for a problem." I agree.

 

[jhardis]

You've said it should have been an "open system." That's not how the patent laws work.

Back on August 17, 2005, I filed Reply Comments on MM 99-325 that riffed on six different meanings of "open." Arguments about whether the iBiquity system is or isn't, should or shouldn't be "open" are pretty frustrating without being specific about which of the six are meant. Here, it's hard to tell which of the six you're using.

As for patent laws, under Jefferson's scheme, a patent is a two-way deal between an inventor and the government. In order to receive a patent, the legal requirement is that the inventor teach the public how to manufacture and use the invention. It's for that teaching that the patent rights—the rights to exclude others from manufacturing and using the invention—are granted.

The #1 definition of "open" in my riff was on being the opposite of "secret." And secrecy is exactly what one gives up in order to qualify for a patent.

In the world of technical standards, "open" means "open participation" -- that is, being able to have a say in the formation of the standard. It does not mean "non-proprietary," though the word "open" is sometimes used to mean that, as well, in other contexts.

- Jonathan

 

[jhardis]

They were not granted a right "in perpetuity." Their patent has a time limit.

I'm sorry, but you missed the point. They are not only relying on their patents, which have time limits. They are also relying on their trade secrets, which do not have time limits. The former is fine, the latter is not.

- Jonathan

 

[TheBigA]

I'm sorry, but you missed the point. They are not only relying on their patents, which have time limits. They are also relying on their trade secrets, which do not have time limits. The former is fine, the latter is not.

- Jonathan

If the product is poop, no one cares about their trade secrets. If it was an issue, and if they were using their "monopoly" unfairly, they could be sued for restraint of trade. They haven't because frankly no one wants to be in their business.

 

[TheBigA]

Back on August 17, 2005, I filed Reply Comments on MM 99-325 that riffed on six different meanings of "open."

Did you receive any response to your comments? It sounds to me like you believe they were granted a patent under false pretenses. That's pretty serious. What's your next legal step?

 

[jhardis]

Did you receive any response to your comments?

In the Comment / Reply Comment process there are no replies to Reply Comments. So no, there was no formal response. However, another person who also commented on the multiple meanings of "open" told me privately that he thought I explained it better than he did. The FCC took no action (and provided no analysis) on the question for which they sought the comments in the first place.

It sounds to me like you believe they were granted a patent under false pretenses. That's pretty serious.

That's an erroneous conclusion. Perhaps the confusion is that you might expect there to be a single patent that's one-to-one with the iBiquity system as deployed, as a whole. There isn't. The system is "covered" by dozens of patents, each teaching parts of it. However, the whole is more than the sum of those parts.

- Jonathan

 

[TheBigA]

The system is "covered" by dozens of patents, each teaching parts of it. However, the whole is more than the sum of those parts.

- Jonathan

So what's the problem?

 

[diymedia]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that HDC remains a black box (trade secret), therefore unencumbered by any of the niceties of patent expiration, allowing iBiquity perpetual control over a fundamental aspect of its system, with no recourse for future innovators, developers, or competitors.

Hardis fought a long and lonely battle on this and other issues in 99-325 (including the controversial redefinition of "interference" required to make the system palatable): at one point, all the major engineering-executives for the broadcasters backing HD cosigned a letter to the FCC that said, in effect, "he's just wrong." And in reply-comments proponents repeatedly castigated him as a sourpuss. It was like watching a gang of schoolyard bullies in action.

It doesn't help that the FCC's precedent for any of the IP questions dates to 1961, either. So he's absolutely correct in that the FCC hasn't even really thought about any of this.

Oh, and the "we" I was referring to was those of us who know what's going on, are unhappy about it, and would like to see some sort of proactive change.

 

[TheBigA]

Oh, and the "we" I was referring to was those of us who know what's going on, are unhappy about it, and would like to see some sort of proactive change.

But the key thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's a commercial failure. Some would also call it a scientific failure. So why so much time and interest about a flop? Like mounting an investigation into the Edsel.