A Digital Radio Proposal that Deserves our Attention

[audioguy]

Have you seen this proposal from the Broadcast Maximization Committee?

http://radiomagonline.com/digital_radio_update/digital-radio-update-090308/?smte=wl#iboc

The complete text is available here:

http://www.ccbroadcasters.com/TV Channel 5-6 Radio Proposal.pdf

This proposal would go a long way toward resolving many of the problems with the AM band.

This is not exactly a new idea. Take a look at item 5 on page three of these comments filed in 2004:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516286272

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

It'll never happen. The NAB and their bought-and-paid-for acolytes at the FCC will make sure this proposal goes nowhere. If there's an organization in broadcasting less devoted to meaningful change than the NAB, I have yet to find it.

After all, it makes sense, and we can't have that...

 

[TheBigA]

This proposal has the same problem that all others have, which it requires the public to replace their radios in order to receive digital radio, and the FCC has discussed that option before and hasn't supported it.

 

[TheBigA]

If there's an organization in broadcasting less devoted to meaningful change than the NAB, I have yet to find it.

How about the RIAA?

How about the MPAA?

How about any union in America? Auto workers, teachers union, AFTRA, etc.

These groups are all about defending the status quo. That's why they're formed, and that's their pupose.

By the same token, even the NAB will defend change if it benefits its members.

 

[Carmine5]

There is a great interview with Bert Goldman, one of the members of the BMC, explaining the ins and outs of the EXB proposal in the latest issue of RW. The proposal breaks down this way:

First eight channels (87.0-87.7) NCE stations
Next 100 channels (77.0-86.9) Migrate AM stations
Last eight channels (76.1-76.8) LPFM

One channel (76.9) for NOAA/DHS use.

Using DRM+ each 100 KHz channel could accommodate 2-5 side channels.

A couple of points he made in the interview:

"The fact that Ibiquity is sponsored primarily by large broadcasters--I'm not sure Ibiquity will choose to play in this game if the plan gets favored by the FCC. I don't see that as a problem though because interoperable radios are not that big a of a deal. Once you have the digital signal processor built into the radio, it's just a matter of programming it for different standards." And then he mentions the new NXP chip as a possibility.

He also mentions that ABC/Disney, who have stations on channels 5 and 6, would be opposed to the plan but that most daytimers and small watt AMs (which are getting trounced with noise) would probably welcome it as it would give them parity with FM stations.

But it is a comprehensive, explains-it-all interview on a very intriguing, "repacking the band" proposal.

http://www.rwonline.com/

C5

 

[TheBigA]

This is all "inside baseball." It doesn't matter what Disney/ABC thinks. In ten years, they won't own TV stations any more. They're getting out of the ownership business.

It doesn't matter what iBiquity does.

And it doesn't matter what the broadcasters want.

The main issue is getting people to buy new radios, which they've been unwilling to do for 20 years. It doesn't matter how good it sounds, it doesn't matter what programming you put on these channels, or how much money you invest.

ANY idea that depends on the public to buy new radios is going to fail. Because they won't.

The only solution for AM broadcasters is to migrate to FM.

 

[Play Freebird]

The main issue is getting people to buy new radios, which they've been unwilling to do for 20 years. It doesn't matter how good it sounds, it doesn't matter what programming you put on these channels, or how much money you invest.

ANY idea that depends on the public to buy new radios is going to fail. Because they won't.

In fact, at least 165 million radios have been purchased by US consumers in the past 20 years, and I'm only counting those units factory-installed in new cars and trucks:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_12.html

Check the AM tuning range on any car radio sold in the past 10 years. I would expect over 90 percent of them cover the expanded AM band that was established around 1997.

If the FM band is expanded (as discussed in Bert's interview) shouldn't we expect similar receiver penetration to take hold?

Meanwhile, FM translators offer a great opportunity for daytime and limited night power AM stations to improve coverage at minimal cost -- but needless to say, FM channels aren't readily available in congested markets.

 

[mimo]

It goes back even further. I bought a sony home stereo back in 1991 that had the expanded band and a walkman that same year that also had it. I used to own a 1995 Toyota Corolla that had the expanded AM Dial on the factory car radio, and in the late 90's I lived in eastern Iowa and listened to 1630 KCJJ all the time along with 1650 KCNZ at times. We needed the expanded band radios as we had 4 stations available to us daytime above 1610 khz

 

[TheBigA]

In fact, at least 165 million radios have been purchased by US consumers in the past 20 years, and I'm only counting those units factory-installed in new cars and trucks:

Then they weren't radios purchased, but included as standard equipment in the cars they purchased. Big difference.

If the FM band is expanded (as discussed in Bert's interview) shouldn't we expect similar receiver penetration to take hold?

If you're only counting car radios, that only accounts for less than half of all radio listening. And based on normal replacement time for cars, we should assume 12-15 years for that transition to take place. Your figure says 90% replacement after 11 years, and that's about right. That's a pretty long transition period, don't you think? Especially given the rate of change in technology. Would you be willing to risk an investment in digital AM that wouldn't become widespread until 2020, given the current rate of change in other technologies?

 

[Play Freebird]

In fact, at least 165 million radios have been purchased by US consumers in the past 20 years, and I'm only counting those units factory-installed in new cars and trucks:

Then they weren't radios purchased, but included as standard equipment in the cars they purchased. Big difference.

So, if they're included in the purchase as standard equipment, that's a good thing, right? What could be more convenient for the listener?

A few reasons I'm encouraged by BMC's proposal:

• This system would provide much more reliable coverage than hybrid digital because it allows greater power, eliminates adjacent-channel interference problems, and supports the installation of on-channel gap fillers
  
  
  
• The proponents want to adopt an open standard such as DRM+, avoiding many of the royalty and licensing issues which have plague iBiquity's proprietary system
  
  
  
• A channel would be reserved in the expanded band for NOAA/DHS use. If public safety is part of the overall plan, then the Federal government could mandate inclusion of expanded band receivers in new cars, just as seat belts and other safety features are required. This provision also helps to justify reassignment of the 76-88 MHz broadcast spectrum from TV to radio.

By the way, the cell phone companies don't want this spectrum because the 4 meter wavelength is too long for efficient use in handheld devices. A cell phone is required to transmit as well as receive, and transmitter output capability of a handheld is quite limited due to battery life considerations. How would the phone radiate any significant power from a 0.03 wavelength internal antenna? And how big would the cell site antennas need to be in order to achieve the necessary gain and directivity?

If you're only counting car radios, that only accounts for less than half of all radio listening. And based on normal replacement time for cars, we should assume 12-15 years for that transition to take place. Your figure says 90% replacement after 11 years, and that's about right. That's a pretty long transition period, don't you think? Especially given the rate of change in technology. Would you be willing to risk an investment in digital AM that wouldn't become widespread until 2020, given the current rate of change in other technologies?

Remember that the BMC alternative eliminates the adjacent-channel interference problems inherent with AM IBOC. So my AM analog coverage can be maintained for 10 or 20 years, or however long it takes, without fear of degradation.

There's certainly risk involved in any new technology, but the potential reward of the BMC proposal is so much greater. AM licensees would end up with a lot more bandwidth, we would eliminate the daytimer penalty, we will also be able to take down high-maintenance directional arrays some day and give our listeners a digital system that actually works.

 

[TheBigA]

So, if they're included in the purchase as standard equipment, that's a good thing, right? What could be more convenient for the listener?

But my point is they weren't actual purchases.

Also, we have no reason to expect the auto industry will support this proposal. Even if the FCC approves it (which it so far isn't even considering), they have a long way to go before the auto industry actually installs digital radios in cars.

Remember that the BMC alternative eliminates the adjacent-channel interference problems inherent with AM IBOC.

We can already see how much a priority that was with the FCC. If they cared about it, they'd return Savage's phone calls.

It's obvious the FCC doesn't care about the future of radio. As one observer pointed out, they're already clearing the decks and probably won't consider anything else under this administration. The next President will be faced with a war, a depression, and a country in crisis. Digital radio will be way down the priority list.

 

[audioguy]

Well gentlemen; many good comments have been made. I don't think anyone expects something this complex to happen overnight, but I think it certainly is something that everyone who has an interest in radio should think about and contribute their constructive suggestions, whether they are a broadcaster, listener, FCC policymaker, or equipment manufacturer. And that is why I posted this topic.

Remember, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." -- Lao Tzu

If nobody ever gave themselves the freedom to dream, we might still be communicating with spark, as opposed to all of the myriads of new communications technologies we have at our disposal today.

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if it might be too late for terrestrial radio to even bother with over-the-air digital broadcasting.

Given the rapid rate at which other delivery methods are developing (and...yes...WiMax will be one of these)...it just may be that the industry's inability to see beyond the tip of its nose will seal the fate of terrestrial broadcasting.

AM's decline into 'shortwave-dom' is already self-evident, and it's unclear how much longer FM can hold out against its own inevitible decline.

 

[TheBigA]

All of these same things were said in the 50s when TV started to grow. Many of the famous radio stars left for TV. Same with movies. Why would anyone pay $12 to see a movie in a theater when they could buy or rent a movie for far less? Or newspapers...they've been obsolete since radio was invented.

Don't confuse growth of one media with the death of another. People typically use multiple devices and media in every day life. The only thing that is dying is radio's monopoly for the public's attention. And that really began 20 years ago.

 

[KB1OKL]

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if it might be too late for terrestrial radio to even bother with over-the-air digital broadcasting.

Given the rapid rate at which other delivery methods are developing (and...yes...WiMax will be one of these)...it just may be that the industry's inability to see beyond the tip of its nose will seal the fate of terrestrial broadcasting.

AM's decline into 'shortwave-dom' is already self-evident, and it's unclear how much longer FM can hold out against its own inevitible decline.

Of course it is too late and would have been even if a good system that actually worked was used, IBOC was doomed while it was still on paper. Big stupid experiment, I'm amazed anyone actually took this wrechnology serious, especially engineers who should have known better.