FCC Proposal to Raise HD Power Levels

[pjc1961]

Six radio groups have submitted a joint filing commenting on an FCC proposal to raise HD power levels up to 10% of analog power,
with the proposal also offering "blanket authorization to originate digital broadcasts at different power levels on the upper and lower digital sidebands without having to request experimental authorization."

FCC Gets Loud And Clear Message From Radio: More Power For HD Stations Is Needed.

Broadcasters are giving full-throated support to a proposal under consideration at the Federal Communications Commission that would give digital FM stations the ability to increase their power. “Before consumers fully

www.insideradio.com

Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-61A1.pdf

***** ***** *****
But first, the aviation industry has raised its concerns about potential interference:

Before Liftoff Of Digital Radio Power Hike, Aviation Industry Seeks Deeper Examination Of Plan.

Broadcasters may overwhelmingly be in favor of a proposal that would clear the way for more power for digital radio stations, but there is a potential obstacle that may first

www.insideradio.com

 

[kevtronics]

I already have enough trouble with digital tuners which tune in sub-channel steps stopping 0.1 MHz below or above a station's channel when seeking, due to the HD sidebands.

 

[Kelly A]

I already have enough trouble with digital tuners which tune in sub-channel steps stopping 0.1 MHz below or above a station's channel when seeking, due to the HD sidebands.

Well hopefully, you'll have plenty more in the future.
Definition of a 'first world problem'.

 

[kevtronics]

If it hurts discoverability of the signal, then stations might think twice about it. Often when the tuner stops 0.1 below the frequency due to the HD sideband, if you hit seek again, it then stops 0.1 above the frequency, completely missing the station's actual frequency.

 

[Kelly A]

If it hurts discoverability of the signal, then stations might think twice about it. Often when the tuner stops 0.1 below the frequency due to the HD sideband, if you hit seek again, it then stops 0.1 above the frequency, completely missing the station's actual frequency.

You're thinking like a radio nerd again not a consumer. 99.9% of consumers hit the button on their preset. If something is there, they listen for a while, if not, they move on to something else.

 

[alok]

If AM & FM went all digital things would be better, but nope, radio missed the boat.
Too many people & groups failed AM & FM radio.

We still have old technology in AM & FM radio, while the rest of the electronic world passes radios old ways by with new technology.
If radio did this say 20 years ago it would have been accepted by people and like their Smartphone they'd know radio is all digital, but sadly it's not.

 

[Kelly A]

If AM & FM went all digital things would be better, but nope, radio missed the boat.
Too many people & groups failed AM & FM radio.

Not that anyone could convince you with facts, hasn't worked so far, but "people and groups" haven't failed AM and FM radio. New forms of media like social media, streaming, and ubiquitous smartphones became competition to time that used to be spent listening to the radio. That, and AM sufferers from vastly inferior quality, which younger people don't need to put up with.

We still have old technology in AM & FM radio, while the rest of the electronic world passes radios old ways by with new technology.
If radio did this say 20 years ago it would have been accepted by people and like their Smartphone they'd know radio is all digital, but sadly it's not.

If radio did what? Go all digital twenty years ago? In that case, 90% of the existing listenership would have gone away in one shot.
Listeners listen to the content they're interested in. Not because it's served up as digital or analog.

 

[davideduardo]

Not that anyone could convince you with facts, hasn't worked so far, but "people and groups" haven't failed AM and FM radio. New forms of media like social media, streaming, and ubiquitous smartphones became competition to time that used to be spent listening to the radio. That, and AM sufferers from vastly inferior quality, which younger people don't need to put up with.

If radio did what? Go all digital twenty years ago? In that case, 90% of the existing listenership would have gone away in one shot.
Listeners listen to the content they're interested in. Not because it's served up as digital or analog.

In fact, many studies in the pre-Internet have shown that most FM listening was not even in stereo. Car radios, in weaker signal areas, folded back to mono. In-car listening at most road speeds masked most stereo separation. Most home and work radios, icluding kitchen ones and clock radios, were not stereo.

Those benefiting the most from stereo were not listeners... they were component manufacturers.

 

[alok]

Not that anyone could convince you with facts, hasn't worked so far, but "people and groups" haven't failed AM and FM radio. New forms of media like social media, streaming, and ubiquitous smartphones became competition to time that used to be spent listening to the radio. That, and AM sufferers from vastly inferior quality, which younger people don't need to put up with.

You're kidding, you're not giving facts. As I said people and groups have failed AM & FM radio, you know it. You just don't like to admit it.
20 years ago there was less social media, streaming, cell phones - what did AM & FM radio do 20 years ago . . . nothing.
My point has been radio should have gone digital awhile back when you had less social media, less streaming, and a simple cell phone, and radio was still listened too & liked.
But no radio just set around and did nothing, now look at its state.

You even point out that AM radio suffers from vastly inferior quality . . . why, because AM & FM radio let itself down, going digital would have got rid of your vastly inferior quality comment today.

If radio did what? Go all digital twenty years ago? In that case, 90% of the existing listenership would have gone away in one shot.
Listeners listen to the content they're interested in. Not because it's served up as digital or analog.

Again you're kidding? People would not have gone away from radio, 20 years ago radio was in a better position to give its audience something new, as I pointed out above social media , streaming and cell phones were not as popular as today and just catching on, if radio went digital 20 years ago many people would have accepted digital radio and purchased new digital radios, cars would have digital radio, you're smart enough to know this is true.
They'd be no AM or FM . . . it would be digital. And sound good!

If radio was all-digital, radio would be able to compete better today, when it is needed the most, but no . . . the AM & FM radio industry let itself down.

 

[davideduardo]

You're kidding, you're not giving facts. As I said people and groups have failed AM & FM radio, you know it. You just don't like to admit it.
20 years ago there was less social media, streaming, cell phones - what did AM & FM radio do 20 years ago . . . nothing.
My point has been radio should have gone digital awhile back when you had less social media, less streaming, and a simple cell phone, and radio was still listened too & liked.
But no radio just set around and did nothing, now look at its state.

Radio's "state" is due almost totally to being an ad-sponsored one-fo-many medium in a world that wants on-to-one ad-free content.

You even point out that AM radio suffers from vastly inferior quality . . . why, because AM & FM radio let itself down, going digital would have got rid of your vastly inferior quality comment today.

AM, to move to decent digital, would have had to shut off the analog signal and go to a full digital one like DRM. 100% audience loss, instantly.

To the average consumer, meaning 99% or more of everyone, can't tell the difference between analog and digital FM.

Again you're kidding? People would not have gone away from radio, 20 years ago radio was in a better position to give its audience something new, as I pointed out above social media , streaming and cell phones were not as popular as today and just catching on, if radio went digital 20 years ago many people would have accepted digital radio and purchased new digital radios, cars would have digital radio, you're smart enough to know this is true.

Again, you are basing your opinion on pure digital sounding better than analog. To most, it does not.

Today if radio was all-digital,radio would be able to compete,but no . . . people let AM & FM radio down.

This is like the feeling, today, that FM beat AM because it sounded better and was in stereo.

Not true. FM beat AM because, in the later 60's and 70's FMs ran far fewer commercials and 90% or more of all metro area AMs did not fully cover their market day and night. Nothing to do with digital and not even much to do with stereo.

 

[radiofan2023]

I’ve been listening to streaming stations since 1998. I’d never buy a digital radio if stations went all digital, I’d just stream or listen to even more podcasts.

 

[alok]

for David...

If radio did this 20 years ago (went digital) it would be in a better position today, David you know that.
I disagree that radio would have lost listeners 20 years if it went digital.
If radio was digital it would do away with the one thing young people don't like today . . . noisy reception, especially on AM.
So digital would be better.
It would maybe cut out like a person's Smartphone does today, they'd love it.
They'd be use to it.

 

[alok]

I’ve been listening to streaming stations since 1998. I’d never buy a digital radio if stations went all digital, I’d just stream or listen to even more podcasts.

Good point, but still if it was the year 2000 and you were streaming content, I think a radiofan2023 would have run out and got a new digital radio . . . after all you are ... radiofan

 

[alok]

take care all . . . been fun, but it is time to eat.

 

[radiofan2023]

take care all . . . been fun, but it is time to eat.

Will you be having crow?

 

[Kelly A]

Will you be having crow?

I think he already has, because none of his comments so far have any merit.

 

[Kelly A]

You're kidding, you're not giving facts.

I am, because unlike you, I've worked, and continue to work in the media business during all the times you claim to know what happened. You're wrong on every one of your points. Just because you want them to be true doesn't mean they are.

As I said people and groups have failed AM & FM radio, you know it. You just don't like to admit it.

You're projecting your own reality on someone who actually knows the truth. It's fine to have your own delusional opinion. It's not okay to accuse others of thinking the same. Actually, when it comes to this topic; you're full of crap.

20 years ago there was less social media, streaming, cell phones - what did AM & FM radio do 20 years ago . . . nothing.

Twenty years ago social media was in it's infancy. Cell phones weren't supercomputers you can carry in your pocket. Some radio stations started running In Band On Channel (IBOC) digital called HD Radio. That was radio's attempt to provide a digital option to listeners. Fast forward to today; and HD radio became nothing more than a sidecar. There has been zero public interest in radio stations going all digital. In fact, one needs to look no further than some countries forcing stations to go digital via EUREKA and DAB. Many listeners were lost, because even back then, consumers weren't interested in purchasing new radios.
I'm not sure whether you've been living under a rock all this time, but none of what I've said here is exactly a secret.

My point has been radio should have gone digital awhile back when you had less social media, less streaming, and a simple cell phone, and radio was still listened too & liked.

And just like happened in Europe; would have caused massive loss of listeners. As David mentioned, this would have been a death warrant for ad-supported U.S. broadcasting.

But no radio just set around and did nothing, now look at its state.

What state? The fact that radio is still consumed by more people in the U.S. every week? Sure there are more competitors, but radio hasn't gone away like you seem to think.

You even point out that AM radio suffers from vastly inferior quality . . . why, because AM & FM radio let itself down, going digital would have got rid of your vastly inferior quality comment today.

Some stations in Maryland and Florida have announced some of their AM stations are/have gone MA3 digital. Again, there's no indication that consumers will go out of their way to purchase specialized radios to hear it.

Again you're kidding? People would not have gone away from radio, 20 years ago radio was in a better position to give its audience something new, as I pointed out above social media , streaming and cell phones were not as popular as today and just catching on, if radio went digital 20 years ago many people would have accepted digital radio and purchased new digital radios, cars would have digital radio, you're smart enough to know this is true.

No I'm not kidding. People don't go out of their way to purchase new radios. They haven't for years. Also, radio stations don't manufacture radios anymore, so there is no way radio stations or groups can control consumer electronics manufacturers.

They'd be no AM or FM . . . it would be digital. And sound good!

As David said; consumers think content is king. Not whether it's digital or not.

If radio was all-digital, radio would be able to compete better today, when it is needed the most, but no . . . the AM & FM radio industry let itself down.

Again, you're forgetting HD Radio. It's been around for over twenty five years. How do you account for the lack of consumer interest? How do you account for the loss of listeners during forced migration to EUREKA and DAB in Europe?

 

[davideduardo]

for David...

If radio did this 20 years ago (went digital) it would be in a better position today, David you know that.

No, I don't. I built the first FM station in northern South America in 1965. It went stereo in 1967, and friends told me how much better it sounded in stereo. I asked them if they had a stereo receiver; none did. It's just that saying "stereo" made it seem better.

If broadcast radio had gone digital 20 years ago, it would have made no difference at all. In fact, when digital HD radio was introduced a bit more than 20 years ago it was done out of fear of Sirius and XM. Extensive research with listeners showed that it made no difference.

In fact, studies of listeners showed what the listeners liked most was the fewer number of commercials. Satellite companies found this out in their own research and took the ads off of music channels.

Realizing that the digital element was not a USP, the big radio operators who had invested in satellite companies sold their positions and moved on.

I disagree that radio would have lost listeners 20 years if it went digital.

AM would have lost 100% of its audience on day one. And digital HD rolled out just about 20 years ago. Backwards compatible and... a true nothingburger!

If radio was digital it would do away with the one thing young people don't like today . . . noisy reception, especially on AM.

AM's issue is that most significant stations were granted in the early 1930s. Urban sprawl has made their signals, for the most part, very limited as population outgrew their coverage.

FM with or without digital does not have static and noise. The restraining factor is power and coverage. Digital does not change that.

So digital would be better.

No, it would not be. It would not solve the biggest issue with most AM and FM stations, which is coverage.

It would maybe cut out like a person's Smartphone does today, they'd love it.
They'd be use to it.

You don't understand why people like a multi-purpose device. A single purpose digital radio will not beat a multi-purpose smartphone or even monaural small-speaker Alexa devices.

 

[secondchoice]

IMHO the only way digital would have worked (too late now) was when they repacked the TV stations reserve the analog 2 thur 4 or possibly 5 for a digital service for existing AM and FM stations. The existing FM and AM stations would keep their facilities but have a digital number imbedded in the RDS or like PPM in the regular audio that directs the tuner to the "digital" channel if available. The "digital" channel would be narrow around 5k. Back in the day you could get over 50 k on a less than 4 k pots phone line. (I know some folks had crappy old lines but legally that what you were supposed to get). I am sure there are better digital compression systems now . They could have either one "community transmitter" for all of the stations in the market especially class B areas or individual services in rural areas. That way you don't lose any existing listeners. It would be sweet if "digital radios" were handed out or subsidized like the TV stations did during digital change.

I know this will never happen because the FCC allowed low power TV stations on the old analog 2 thru 5 channels. Had they reserved those channels for Radio back when they were moving almost all of the TV stations it might worked. The commission should have used "public, free or share ware" software for standards so it would not have discourage car radio and cell phone manufacturers putting it in their products.

 

[kevtronics]

If we were going to begin digital radio on a separate band, then we should have adopted DAB like the rest of the world. But it was a non-starter in North America because the 50 kW FM stations would never stand a 250-watt AM daytimer being on the same DAB multiplex and having the same coverage and audio quality as them. So IBOC DAB / "HD Radio" was invented as a way to sub-optimally shoehorn digital signals onto the existing AM and FM bands while keeping competitive positions intact.