A POST FOR BOTH THOSE WHO LIKE HD RADIO AND THOSE WHO DON'T.

[davideduardo]

And it's also important to remember that WNMB serves North Myrtle Beach, with a largely seasonal/second home population that isn't sampled by Arbitron. Yet these people do listen to the radio, respond to radio advertising, and put lots of money into the local economy.

Where does it say in the "Purple Book" that areas with seasonal residents are not sampled?

I have two "second" homes, and I have had Arbitron contact at each (as evidenced by phone messages). Were I not media affiliated, I could have participated in either survey as a bona fide resident at the time of the survey.

While hotel guests and transients are not sampled, persons with seasonal homes or second homes of their own can and do get sampled all the time.

 

[Play Freebird]

And it's also important to remember that WNMB serves North Myrtle Beach, with a largely seasonal/second home population that isn't sampled by Arbitron. Yet these people do listen to the radio, respond to radio advertising, and put lots of money into the local economy.

Where does it say in the "Purple Book" that areas with seasonal residents are not sampled?

I have two "second" homes, and I have had Arbitron contact at each (as evidenced by phone messages). Were I not media affiliated, I could have participated in either survey as a bona fide resident at the time of the survey.

While hotel guests and transients are not sampled, persons with seasonal homes or second homes of their own can and do get sampled all the time.

Did Arbitron call you on a land line at the second home? How many vacationers even bother installing seasonal POTS service at their summer homes any more, now that they carry cell phones? And in PPM markets, how many bother to take their sampling device to the beach?

I suspect Arbitron disregards a large portion of radio listeners in resort communities like Myrtle Beach.

 

[davideduardo]

Did Arbitron call you on a land line at the second home?

Yes, at both locations. In one, I got a letter in advance.

How many vacationers even bother installing seasonal POTS service at their summer homes any more, now that they carry cell phones?

All that I know do... for alarms while they are not in residence. Others, for internet connectivity, either via the telco or cable bundles. While not all have them, a significant percentage do.

And in PPM markets, how many bother to take their sampling device to the beach?

The amount of lost listening is going to be minimal. If you look at a lot of markets with beaches and PPM, like Miami, Tampa Bay, LA, etc., the bulk of beach goers are local residents so if anything is affected it is local listening.

I suspect Arbitron disregards a large portion of radio listeners in resort communities like Myrtle Beach.

And this may well be true... but they do get a sample of ones that own second homes or seasonal homes, just as they get a sample of fulltime residents.

Unless there is some indication that one format and one station alone overindexes among vacationers, the influx of vacationers and part-time residents does not affect shares at all... there are still only 100 of them in any market.

 

[TVradioguru]

But I still really would like to know your age, and your perceptions of Radio/TV before you envisioned working in broadcast.

I recognize your truth in the buisness end of making money.
Will you acknowledge the truths about RF interference?

Sorry the delay in replying as I've been traveling. To answer your question; I am 47 and no, I don't acknowledge truths about interference because to our customers; advertisers and listeners, it doesn't exist.

Unfortunately Mr. Wells there is a giant gap between your perception of a problem and the vast majority of radio listeners. In my business I pay-for and read a lot of audience research. In the last five years of research, I've yet to have read one single response from a listener complaining about "interference". Granted to be fair I don't do research in small or medium markets, but I'm confident in saying that only a handful of out-of-market listeners know anything about interference. Combine that detail with out-of-market listening being completely a waste of electricity.

What I have seen in research in responding to the question about AM listening include: 'Don't listen to AM'. 'Radio for Grandma'. 'Poor quality'. 'Nothing but talk shows'. 'No one I know listens to AM radio'. It got to the point where we didn't even bother asking about AM listening habits because well over ninety percent of the surveyed, replied negative. To us, why pay for research when nobody seems to care?

I will challenge you, in case you're newer, and never saw the earlier challenge, to state any example
of a digital system, that nature or "God" or evolution has developed, because of course if it is a better nature
then it would exist. Otherwise, you'd have to consider that particularly in MW, trying to make an inherently
low-frequency data WAVE, into a digital high frequency zero and one bitstream is so much pounding square pegs into round holes.

I have know idea what you're talking about there, so I'm unable to respond.

When was the last time I listened to an AM station? Probably about three months ago in Los Angeles, but it was for a traffic report then I tuned back to FM. New on AM? There is nothing new on AM. As I mentioned, AM has become a dumping ground for conservative talk, religious and brokered programming.

 

[Savage]

Don Juan: if you want to quibble and impose retroactive standards of proof to dismiss the various interference cases I cited, fine with me. The point wasn't the validity of various cited interference complaints (and several of them, such as the Citadel turn-offs, the Boston vs. Providence and Clear Channel AM cases, the San Diego case and the Philly-Chicago situation were all matters of public record in Radio World, radio-info-com, and RBR.) Go ahead and shoot them all down for your purposes if you want.

The point was: you said, quote, "very few stations have claimed interference." I cited a dozen examples of stations which have claimed interference. There are many others. Then you stated, quote, that there might be "maybe some special cases, (but) in most cases it (interference) is not an issue." Well, if there is a complaint, I guess it's "an issue" now, isn't it?

It's beyond question that IBOC imposes adjacent-channel interference. Otherwise the high-profile year-long debate over the digital power hike wouldn't have happened. I reposit my question here: what is to be done about it (other than ignoring those interference cases, which has apparently been the de facto policy thus far.)

You suggest that those case should just be worked out. Really? How? The only avenue open to interference victims is complaints to the FCC Enforcement Bureau which spikes them.

Ignoring credible interference complaints is counterproductive to everyone. If there was a good-faith effort to enforce the rules and mitigate the existing problems, HD would have less opposition. But since the whole thing is turning into a free-for-all like the 1920s and the days of the Federal Radio Commission, station operators are understandably very wary of HD. Why would anyone endorse a system which could turn on them and make them interference victims at any point in the future, trashing their investment in their stations?

It's just dumb for anyone to stick their head in the sand and deny that interference exists. If the adjacent-channel problems are intrinsic to HD, then the interference cases must be dealt with, as a real-world compromise. Otherwise the system is dead, even if HD's many other problems can be worked out. Trust me.

 

[Tom Wells]

I will dispense with quotes and answer naturally.
TVRadioG, I'm 48 so I can understand your viewpoint. I traveled for 20 years and I understand that too.
I don't think listeners would know to say interference, it's just not enough signal to listen to when it once was.
I lay major blame on GM Delco for making the awful-est AM section ever for the past 15 years, eliminating all consonants.
This seems intentional to me, as bandpass was limited past the point of intelligibility, but milions heard this as their first exposure to AM.
There are lots of good sounding AM radios out there, but I can understand at 47 if you hadn't been looking for one, you might never have
encountered one.

In the last 10 months, I go to work at 10 pm and arrive at work at 10:50. I greatly enjoy hearing things I've never heard before
on WSM 650 and CFZM 740. In the case of 650, I endure 670's hash unless a game is on, but AM 740is a wideband monster punch
of a signal that doesn't have to fight WGN on 720 anymore, and neither is WGN in analog a problem.
AM 740 has incredible processing that just never trips up.
So I guess you never look for music on AM.
It's out there, and it's where I've gotten most of the ow wow moments in my life.

If you're primarily involved in major markets, then your perspective is quite real.
80 miles out of town the perspective is quite different, even in big markets.

My challenge is based on the premise that radio "must" become digital. As if digital were better simply by being newer.
I DO call that into question, particularly when "adapted" into a range of spectrum where sufficient resolution does NOT EXIST or
there would be no need for so many subcarriers to exist and to be SO WIDE.
So, the challenge was define a case where digital processing has been previously developed by nature, God or evolution.
I see that we have developed many digital interfacings, but nature, life, and physics run along a different drift.
If you can see or cite an example of where life relies on a purely digital system, I will award a restored AM tube radio with 15 khz response.
You can't claim the eye-spot on a worm, segmeted or unsegmented, as a digital system, OK?

I deal with the "analog meets digital" divide on a daily basis so I have some experience.
I'd have liked very much that a digital radio system be allocated, where FM analog would hand off to a robust 86 mhz digital if the radio could do so, and AM would become more like the old days, as some AM would migrate with a digital 85 mhz signal, and would switch to that
if the radio could do that. But trying to make this system work at MW is foolish. At least in 100 mhz there's enough resolution to do the job.


If you give young people nothing to listen to on AM, they sure enough won't find it.

 

[Don Juan]

The point wasn't the validity of various cited interference complaints (and several of them, such as the Citadel turn-offs, the Boston vs. Providence and Clear Channel AM cases, the San Diego case and the Philly-Chicago situation were all matters of public record in Radio World, radio-info-com, and RBR.) Go ahead and shoot them all down for your purposes if you want.

I disagree, indeed the point was a question of the validity of certain complaints.

They are all matter of public record, and so are the rebuttles and responses.

I mentioned the complaints of RI NPR...and indeed the complaints were from OUTside of the protected contours. The one instance of a complaint from withIN the protected contour could not be duplicated.

The issue with WFMB, etc is the station involved is operating under an interference waiver from when 1968?

So, yes, indeed the validity of the claims IS the question.

The point was: you said, quote, "very few stations have claimed interference." I cited a dozen examples of stations which have claimed interference.

And if one looks at the entire picture, most of these claims are dubious.

There are many others. Then you stated, quote, that there might be "maybe some special cases, (but) in most cases it (interference) is not an issue." Well, if there is a complaint, I guess it's "an issue" now, isn't it?

Not really, you may file a "complaint" that your neighbors tree overhangs into your property...but if the law allows such, it is not "an issue"...it's just a complaint from a disgruntled neighbor.

The issues with Citadel were the co-owned stations and the problem may have been in DX-ville, which while Citadel may care about, is beyond protected contours.

It's beyond question that IBOC imposes adjacent-channel interference.

The question is...is the complaint worthwhile....or is it just a whiney neighbor who thinks his reasoning trumps everyone elses.

I reposit my question here: what is to be done about it (other than ignoring those interference cases, which has apparently been the de facto policy thus far.)

If stations are being operated properly within legal limits, nothing.

Again, maybe they are ignoring it, becuase they see no basis in it.

Ignoring credible interference complaints is counterproductive to everyone.

Again, back to the first point...the point is, are the interference complaints valid.

In most cases (like the RI NPR case) they are not.

It's just dumb for anyone to stick their head in the sand and deny that interference exists. Trust me.

So, is your sole complaint about HD based on AM radio?

I had engineers in my office long ago telling me that "stereo" degrades the signal...and that we should turn it off to increase our reach. It was a tradeoff and the technology improved. I had engineers telling me not to use SCA...because it would reduce reach, etc. I am glad I had the income from SCA over some tough years.

It will be a tradeoff as to the benefits of HD...against some of the complaints.

Again, there have been no widespread evidence of complaints of interference from listeners....and very few valid complaints from owners.

On another note, owners have always had to adapt to the changinf FCC engineering rules. Starting with when they first started breaking down the clears.

 

[Savage]

Well, you're going to have to pick an argument and stick with it. So far you've insisted (a) there aren't many complaints, (b) there are complaints but you think they're crap, and (c) there are complaints but the Commission agrees with you (notwithstanding the fact they haven't ruled on them when they're on record with the IBOC Report and Order of 2002 saying they WOULD do something with complaints.)

I believe that the record shows that the FCC didn't permit nighttime IBOC on AM until 9/14/07. There must have been a reason for that. They didn't proscribe it because back in 2002, it was a slow day and they didn't have anything better to do.

You also need to check your facts. Not a single example I cited had anything to do with "DXing." The complaints all had to do with interference received locally, within the victim station's protected contour (in the case of WYSL, THREE times our NIF.) The reason Martin Stabbert turned off Citadel's night IBOC was fear that suburban commuter listeners wouldn't be able to hear their AM 50kw signals clearly during winter drivetimes - LOCALLY. Stabbert's decision had nothing to do with some guy in Akron complaining he couldn't hear WABC at night any more. In the case of WRNI, check with the CE (I did.) Yes, there was interference within the WRNI protected contour, and the reason it wasn't "duplicated" is because it's strongly suspected that iBiquity and Greater Media maniuplated digital injection levels when 3-party tests were done later (hence the acrimony reported in the FCC comments in that case. This situation also got plenty of industry press.)

And you seem to be arguing that "nothing" is what should be done about adjacent-channel complaints. That's just not going to work, Don. And it will have the effect of stopping IBOC. It's only a matter of time (given the pending digital FM increase) that there will be an interference lawsuit - and then, it truly will be nighty-night for HD. So in a perverse way I kind of agree with you here (but for entirely different reasons.)

 

[Don Juan]

Well, you're going to have to pick an argument and stick with it.

No, I will dissect the argument into the things I see as right and wrong.


So far you've insisted (a) there aren't many complaints

There aren't many in the scheme of things.

, (b) there are complaints but you think they're crap,

Not what I said. Most of the complaints are presented as one-sided, such as the RI NPR complaint. Yu have to look at both sides, such as the NPR-RI or KFMB complaint.

and (c) there are complaints but the Commission agrees with you

No, I have not compared my rationale to that of the FCC..so I dont know if they agree with me. It appears the FCC has not seen that the offending stations were doing anything wrong...and it appears they see no merit in the complaints.


I believe that the record shows that the FCC didn't permit nighttime IBOC on AM until 9/14/07. There must have been a reason for that.

There probably was a reason, and probably the unreliable nature of skywave.

You also need to check your facts. Not a single example I cited had anything to do with "DXing."

I believe the WLS and WABC issues are not within their protective contour, but within the wide aread of DX coverage that they both used to claim.

The complaints all had to do with interference received locally, within the victim station's protected contour (in the case of WYSL, THREE times our NIF.)

No, they didn't all have to do with locally The NPR-RI case had only one complaint about interference received locally, but that could not be substantiated. So, the complaints did NOT all have to do with interference recieved locally. ANd the KFMB case is a station operating under an interference waiver.

In the case of WRNI, check with the CE (I did.)

I read his complaint...and that was one side of the case.

Yes, there was interference within the WRNI protected contour

How do we know this when the only instance of it could not be documented or duplicated?

, and the reason it wasn't "duplicated" is because it's strongly suspected that iBiquity and Greater Media manipulated digital injection levels when 3-party tests were done later

Strongly suspected is not fact. And conspiracy theories don't play well when you want to have a honest discussion.

And you seem to be arguing that "nothing" is what should be done about adjacent-channel complaints. That's just not going to work, Don. And it will have the effect of stopping IBOC.

I don't think so, unless you are now a soothsayer who can see the future. And speculation is not a factual discussion.

Again, for the third time, are your complaints about IBOC simply based on AM?

It's only a matter of time (given the pending digital FM increase) that there will be an interference lawsuit - and then, it truly will be nighty-night for HD.

More soothsaying? You can see the future? Sorry that is speculation and not the factual discussion you had wished to have.

Again, it comes back to the issue of risk and reward. Is the added benefit of HD radio worth some of the issues that come with it? For the owner of WYSL, can understand it is not.

But, like zoning laws, they are made to make the whole community and landscape better.

The only thing I will speculate about the future is that AM is in trouble, and needs some innovation and help.

 

[Carmine5]

The point wasn't the validity of various cited interference complaints (and several of them, such as the Citadel turn-offs, the Boston vs. Providence and Clear Channel AM cases, the San Diego case and the Philly-Chicago situation were all matters of public record in Radio World, radio-info-com, and RBR.) Go ahead and shoot them all down for your purposes if you want.

I disagree, indeed the point was a question of the validity of certain complaints.

They are all matter of public record, and so are the rebuttles and responses.

I mentioned the complaints of RI NPR...and indeed the complaints were from OUTside of the protected contours. The one instance of a complaint from withIN the protected contour could not be duplicated.

The issue with WFMB, etc is the station involved is operating under an interference waiver from when 1968?

So, yes, indeed the validity of the claims IS the question.

The point was: you said, quote, "very few stations have claimed interference." I cited a dozen examples of stations which have claimed interference.

And if one looks at the entire picture, most of these claims are dubious.

There are many others. Then you stated, quote, that there might be "maybe some special cases, (but) in most cases it (interference) is not an issue." Well, if there is a complaint, I guess it's "an issue" now, isn't it?

Not really, you may file a "complaint" that your neighbors tree overhangs into your property...but if the law allows such, it is not "an issue"...it's just a complaint from a disgruntled neighbor.

The issues with Citadel were the co-owned stations and the problem may have been in DX-ville, which while Citadel may care about, is beyond protected contours.

It's beyond question that IBOC imposes adjacent-channel interference.

The question is...is the complaint worthwhile....or is it just a whiney neighbor who thinks his reasoning trumps everyone elses.

I reposit my question here: what is to be done about it (other than ignoring those interference cases, which has apparently been the de facto policy thus far.)

If stations are being operated properly within legal limits, nothing.

Again, maybe they are ignoring it, becuase they see no basis in it.

Ignoring credible interference complaints is counterproductive to everyone.

Again, back to the first point...the point is, are the interference complaints valid.

In most cases (like the RI NPR case) they are not.

A sock puppet bearing the name of an infamous lothario. Tsk, tsk, what has this discussion board come to.

Tell you what, Juan, why don't you show us how these interference complaints are not justified. And by "show" I mean site specific occurrences along with mV/m or dBu indicating that the interference is happening well outside the complaining station's protected contour.

I think that's fair. So far you've not really proven anything.

c5

 

[Don Juan]

A sock puppet bearing the name of an infamous lothario. Tsk, tsk, what has this discussion board come to.

No sock puppet here. But as is typical for this discussion, you will try to marginalize anyone who has a differing opinions and conclusions.

Tell you what, Juan, why don't you show us how these interference complaints are not justified. And by "show" I mean site specific occurrences along with mV/m or dBu indicating that the interference is happening well outside the complaining station's protected contour.

Tell you what Carmine, why don't you show us how these interference complaints are indeed justified....better yet! Why don't you show the FCC just how these interference complaints are justified! That would be much more productive and satisfying for you I'm sure!

I think that's fair. So far you've not really proven anything.

Who said I have to prove anything?

On the other hand, what have you proven?

 

[Carmine5]

Excuse me, Juan, but I wasn't the one questioning the veracity of these complaints. You were. There's nothing I need to prove.

But it's obvious that you cannot provide proof for your assertion that these stations are unjustified in claiming that their signal is being encroached on by a neighboring station's IBOC signal.

c5

 

[Don Juan]

Excuse me, Juan, but I wasn't the one questioning the veracity of these complaints. You were.

Yes, because they were anecdotal, with no data provided.

But it's obvious that you cannot provide proof for your assertion that these stations are unjustified in claiming that their signal is being encroached on by a neighboring station's IBOC signal.

The burden of proof is on the person trying to pursue the complaint. And again, it's hard to do if you are not providing any non bias data.

The example brought up about WRNI & WKLB is one I have seen the data about. The complaints (a matter of record) were OUTside WRNI's protected contours.

There was one complaint that was INside their protected contours, and that interference could not be verified or reproduced.

Facts are facts. Savage suggested this be a civil discussion. While I was wary if that was even possible. you seem to have a lot of anger. So take a chil pill. You have to realize that not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion as you.

 

[Play Freebird]

The example brought up about WRNI & WKLB is one I have seen the data about. The complaints (a matter of record) were OUTside WRNI's protected contours.

There was one complaint that was INside their protected contours, and that interference could not be verified or reproduced.

WRNI is an interesting case. Rhode Island may be the only state with no public (CPB-qualified) radio stations operating in the reserved band. The ability to operate within the 88-92 segment in that area is limited by a need to protect several powerful FM stations in Boston -- and until recently -- a local Channel 6 TV station. RI has a few college stations below 92, but none are full Class A, let alone B1 or B. So Rhode Island Public Radio had to settle for two licenses that were once commercial; an AM in Providence (DA-2 with some rather tight nulls) and this Class A FM on 102.7 in Narragansett Pier, about 20 miles south of Providence.

WRNI-FM was a Docket 80-90 drop-in and operates under 73.215, the contour protection rule, at less than full Class A power. But terrain to the north is favorable and I believe the station operates in mono, so it once provided a usable signal in many parts of Providence and communities across Narragansett Bay, outside the predicted 60 dBu contour. Of course, that's where most of Rhode Island's population is located.

A couple of years ago, I drove I-95 through Providence and observed heavy IBOC interference on 102.7 from WKLB, so severe that most listeners wouldn't tolerate it, and as far as I know, this was at -20 dB. It was bad enough then --but now, WKLB wants to increase power even further.

Needless to day, if a translator were causing this kind of interference, the FCC would have it shut down immediately. I realize the legal situation is different here (in spite of the fact that -10 or even -14 dB digital power violates occupied bandwidth standards), but do WRNI's listeners (who provide the station's financial support) understand the difference?

As Juan has said, it comes down to a tradeoff: Do the benefits of IBOC digital outweigh the harm caused to analog signals? So let's ask this question: Is increased coverage of WKLB-HD2 worth more than preserving WRNI's service across much of its home state, given the fact that WRNI is unable to acquire a better signal? Let's see -- the most recent Boston Arbitron has WKLB-HD2 with a 0.0 -- and according to David Eduardo's interpretation, that means no one is listening.

Come to think of it, does any HD-2 or -3 in any market show up in Arbitron?

 

[Carmine5]

Excuse me, Juan, but I wasn't the one questioning the veracity of these complaints. You were.

Yes, because they were anecdotal, with no data provided.

But it's obvious that you cannot provide proof for your assertion that these stations are unjustified in claiming that their signal is being encroached on by a neighboring station's IBOC signal.

Facts are facts. Savage suggested this be a civil discussion. While I was wary if that was even possible. you seem to have a lot of anger. So take a chil pill. You have to realize that not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion as you.

No anger here and no pill needs to be taken in my case. Just responding to the tone of your posts.

c5

 

[Savage]

Don: the Commission proscribed IBOC-AM at night because "of the unreliable nature of skywave?" C'mon. The FCC believed nothing of the sort. You need to read the R&O. You also need to inform yourself of the facts regarding, for example, the Citadel situation. Simply typing out contrarian flat denials here doesn't change the facts. (For example, the nighttime "protected contour" of a Class 1-A 50kw AM goes hundreds of miles at night, in case you didn't know.)

Your comparisons of IBOC interference to common-law nuisance cases (I believe you cited a hypothetical about a tree hanging over someone's yard) and zoning are inapposite. They're entirely different scenarios. The FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over the EM spectrum and is supposed to be safeguarding the public's access to licensed radio stations, rather than promoting some commercial "innovation" to favor certain licensees at the expense of others. That's just wrong. It's a discredited Soviet-style indulgence for the politically-connected, not American style free enterprise. And the public is paying the price. Closed circuit for any Commissioners on the channel: when it comes to HD, maybe you should refresh by re-reading the Telecomm Acts of 1934 and 1996. If sentient members of Congress (admittedly an oxymoron in many cases) find out what you're up to with HD, your butts will be in a collective sling.

Don, you appear to be arguing in the alternative, thus: that (a) any HD interference complaint is inherently without validity, and (b) even if objectively valid they should be ignored and/or dismissed.

That doesn't leave much room for discussion or debate.

 

[TVradioguru]

But if any "interference" exists outside the DMA of the station supposedly being interfered with, what difference does it make? It's outside your DMA. And if listeners inside the DMA don't notice any issues (granted many have deteriorating hearing due to age anyway), again what does it matter? Answer: It doesn't.

It seems like any and all of this talk of interference from HD radio is limited to this one particular discussion board. Given the size of the 'choir; here, you wonder why nobody else cares, including the FCC? Assuming HD Radio is the downfall of human civilization as we know it, then where are all the thousand of complaints? Where is the lost business? Answer, there isn't any.

 

[davideduardo]

Simply typing out contrarian flat denials here doesn't change the facts. (For example, the nighttime "protected contour" of a Class 1-A 50kw AM goes hundreds of miles at night, in case you didn't know.)

Yet the only stations with anywhere near useful night signals outside the groundwave coverage area are the 25 former 1-A clears and, perhaps, a couple of the 1-Bs. That is well under 50 stations out of the 14,000 in the US.

Then we have fact that famous and near-legendary (former) 1-A's accept interference much closer than the theoretical night skywave interference free limits. KFI in LA has a Mexican station from Hidalgo del Parral, Chihuahua, chewing it up within 90 miles of the transmitter site most nights of the year. WSB in Atlanta has a 100 kw Venezuelan co-channel biting its skywave within 200 miles of Atlanta, sometimes closer. In fact, there is regular interference on nearly all those clears well inside the limits of the theoretical night protection area. Why haven't these stations waged a war of protest with the FCC and the State Department? It's simple: it's not worth it, since there is no revenue being protected. The only thing that matters is the MSA, and anything further away can be handled more reliably and with greater quality via web streams, podcasts, etc.

 

[Don Juan]

As Juan has said, it comes down to a tradeoff: Do the benefits of IBOC digital outweigh the harm caused to analog signals? So let's ask this question: Is increased coverage of WKLB-HD2 worth more than preserving WRNI's service across much of its home state, given the fact that WRNI is unable to acquire a better signal?

Again, we havn't proven that WKLB-HD2 causes any harm to WRNI-FM within their protected contours.

Don: the Commission proscribed IBOC-AM at night because "of the unreliable nature of skywave?" C'mon. The FCC believed nothing of the sort.

OK, but I really dont care why the FCC did what they did. That's not part of my argument.

for example, the Citadel situation. Simply typing out contrarian flat denials here doesn't change the facts.

And simply typing claims without any data doesn't change the facts either.

Your comparisons of IBOC interference to common-law nuisance cases (I believe you cited a hypothetical about a tree hanging over someone's yard) and zoning are inapposite. They're entirely different scenarios.

Not really...it's very similar.

The FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over the EM spectrum and is supposed to be safeguarding the public's access to licensed radio stations, rather than promoting some commercial "innovation"

Is that why they mandated Digital TV? The FCC has always been involved with promoting innovation.

That's just wrong. It's a discredited Soviet-style indulgence for the politically-connected, not American style free enterprise.

Anytime the FCC makes a ruling, someone is unhappy. Just as if the City Council changes the street my business is on to a one-way street and my business is affected.

And the public is paying the price.

The public is not "paying the price". There have been no widespread reports of "the public" getting upset with IBOC.

Don, you appear to be arguing in the alternative, thus: that (a) any HD interference complaint is inherently without validity, and

The few cases that have been brought up, have been without reliable data. The case I am familiar with, as a copy of the data came across my desk, is the WKLB-WRNI situation, of which the claims of interference are dubious.

(b) even if objectively valid they should be ignored and/or dismissed.

Who will consider them objectively valid? I believe thats the FCC's job isn't it? Your opinion, or my opinion, your lawyers or my lawyers, your engineering firm or mine..wouldn't be considered objective would it?

It's the FCC's job to decide such, and there is no way to make everyone happy. Just like when someone gets a zoning law changed.

That doesn't leave much room for discussion or debate.

When two people look at a situation, and come to differing conclusions, sometimes thats the end of it. Sometimes people have different opinions.

Howoever, I am glad you didn't turn this into name calling, etc....as has been common with HD discussions.

 

[Savage]

The attempts to marginalize HD critics by suggesting that the interference issues "are limited to this discussion board" are transparently fallacious. It's a ridiculous thing to say. Not that guru, Juan or Gleason will be willing to consider the point, but:

The whole issue concerning interference has been the focus of ongoing and often heated debate among HD Radio's "joint parties," the FCC, NPR and various leading industry figures and engineers. Martin Stabbert, Bob Neil, Watt Hairston, Jerry Smith, Barry McLarnon, Jerry Arnold, Bill Sitzman, Steve Callahan and Freebird (without divulging his identity, he's a major-market CE, contract engineer, consultant and part-station owner) are not idiots, loons or technology-obstructing "naysayers." Neither do any of them think HD Radio is a good thing. And they're not in the minority, either.

In point of fact: In my going-on-44 years in the industry I've made scores of professional friends and acquaintances. I don't know a single one who is an HD believer - not even among ranking staff at Alliance stations. Most openly deplore it as destructive, stupid and unnecessary.

So a couple of you think the interference issue is just a isolationist rant on a message board? You're the ones living under the Rock Of Denial, not HD opponents.

Over two years ago I predicted the number of stations using HD on AM would never exceed 300 - out of 4700 licensed on AM. Today it's stuck at about 265, actually down from the high of 292 a year or so ago, with more turning it off all the time (before you screech "Proof! Proof!" go read the trades. I'm not wasting my time paging through them to cite articles which you'll use 500 pounds and 5000 words of sophistry, hairsplitting and affronts to common sense to dismiss.) FM HD installs are pretty much where they were a year ago - 15% of all licensed. Know why? Fears of interference. Adjacent-channel problems and self-interference chopping car listening - arguably the only place where radio still has an edge.

In the numbers war, the stats starkly favor the "no, thanks, HD" side of the controversy. So, help yourself: go ahead and tell us we're kidding ourselves.

The clock continues to tick while the world allows HD to deservedly fade into the mists of unwanted, semifunctional bad technological ideas. The system is fatally flawed and was outmoded the day it was authorized, and is almost universally suspected within its host industry. Even its few remaining supporters feel the necessity to hedge in making public statements about HD, on the order of Eric Rhoads, who spent three paragraphs explaining his longstanding reservations - before launching into his web pitch for the Mighty Red portable knockoff.

If HD were so great, there wouldn't be these discussions. Everyone would be installing it - like they did FM 1960-1980, which contrary to revisionist history read here and elsewhere engendered no controversy whatsoever. None. Zip. Zero.

Best wishes, three HD supporters, as you tell the rest of the world the rest of us can't recognize reality.