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

[Don Juan]

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.

I don't think I said that. But most of the anti-HD noise os coming from hobbyists.

Neither do any of them think HD Radio is a good thing. And they're not in the minority, either.

It appears to me that the anti-HD people ARE in the minority.

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 -

And in my similar I have yet to meet any anti-HD people....most are unopinioated and are ready to let it run it's course.

If it's sucessful, so be it.

If it dies on the vine, well then it was probably not worth it.

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.

I never said the discussion was limited to a message board. I believe people who think they are being infringed upon truly believe that. Just like the guy with the business who had a one-way street change affect his business, he believes is rights and interests are being infringed upon.

The clock continues to tick while the world allows HD to deservedly fade into the mists of unwanted, semifunctional bad technological ideas.

I see companies embracing HD more and more....embracing a power increase, adding new formats, HD2 & 3 channels and allocating more money for programming.

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

Well, if we eliminated hobbysits from this discussion, it would probably be "three to three".

But thats the way discussions have to end with you apparently, by trying to marginalize anyone who comes to a different conclusion.

 

[radiotower40]

I was going to refrain from commenting any further in this thread, but; enough is enough.

I am not against this fraud known as HD because I'm a hobbyist, I'm against it because it IS causing
my stations damage. It IS interfering with our stations WITHIN our legally protected coverage
area!!!!! Especially during CH, which at this time of the year is morning and afternoon drive. We are
losing listeners and revenue because of it. Whatever textbook NONSENSE you keep trying to feed us
does not match REALITY!!! Stop telling me that this is about worthless nobody's listening outside of
our LEGALLY PROTECTED COVERAGE AREA! This is affecting our listeners within our 5mV contour, and
severely within our 2mV contour. As for our .5mV area, forget about, it all but does not exist anymore.
You are supposed to be people that are in the radio business, and care about it?


We have complained to the FCC, and have gotten no satisfaction, or the least bit of reassurance that
they will even look into our complaint's. Do you want to know the reason????? Because we our the little
guys who do not have teams of high price lawyers!!!

Enough already with the highbrow word twisting of everything someone who is against this fraud says.

As for the nobody is complaining about interference, except for 3 hobbyists on this board nonsense, you
keep on believing that DELUSION!!! MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW, OR CARE WHAT HD RADIO IS!!!!! All my
listeners know is that they can't hear our station well anymore because of a high pitched, annoying, squealing
hiss. They are NOT complaining their just not listening!!!! Some listeners will call and ask what is wrong
with OUR station, when we try to explain it's not OUR station causing the problem, guess what? Unless they
are people familiar with how broadcasting works, they don't believe us. They've accused us of not maintaining
our facilities or of lowering our power to save money during hard times. This is hurting our relationship with
our community. That really is going to do a lot to maintain listeners or foster new one's isn't it?????

The owner of my station has spent the last 45 years of his life putting his sweat and tears into building stations
that serve the community, give them the local news, sports, emergency weather and music that they can't get
anywhere else on the radio. Now as he looks at retirement, knows the reality of alternative mediums such as
the internet, Ipods, Iphones and the like changing the media landscape, should have to fight against this HD travesty?
He should be able to retire and look back at all the good work he has done instead of being treated like a "NOBODY"
little broadcaster who is not in a top 10 market so therefore is "statistically" unimportant, and have to fight just to
have the "right" to have his stations heard within their licensed coverage area.

As for the DX angle of this, you don't own the airwaves, you are issued a license from the FCC to use the airwaves
to serve the public interest. If someone decides they want to listen to a station in Nashville over the air in Chicago,
who are you or CBS to tell them they can't? They are just a minority, right? Minorities should not have rights in the
U.S.A. should they?

Go ahead now, start turning my words against me, start saying my points aren't valid because you have have a study
from stations on the planet uba that says that someone could hear 5Kw 970 AM wtru, that does not broadcast in HD,
while standing five feet away from the TX of 50Kw 950 AM wlie that broadcasts in glorious HD sound. Tell me that you stood
10 miles away from wtru's TX site and their was absolutely no hint of hiss or interference from wlie, and that while
standing there that money started falling from the sky. Tell me that your focus group said the same. Us THREE dx geeks
know the reality of what this charade is, and in the end the truth will prevail, over the distorted "facts".

The truly sad part about this is many people are going to have to suffer financially because of this, before it is proven
for what it is!

 

[Don Juan]

I was going to refrain from commenting any further in this thread, but; enough is enough.

I am not against this fraud known as HD because I'm a hobbyist, I'm against it because it IS causing
my stations damage. It IS interfering with our stations WITHIN our legally protected coverage
area!!!!!

Stop telling me that this is about worthless nobody's listening outside of
our LEGALLY PROTECTED COVERAGE AREA!

A whole posting and no facts.

What station is this? Where is the interference data?

You can make a post of entirely rants if you like, or you can provide some info.

 

[calstymes]

Savage, TR1992, Carmine5, Tom Wells and others: May I suggest that you ignore Don Juan? His purpose and mission is to obfuscate, confuse, trivialize and pick fights. He and TVradioguru likely have been positioned here to try and get under our skin. They have obviously been succeeding because you are all getting rather agitated. Late last week, they almost got me agitated enough to the point where I was ready to post several things that I would have ended up regretting this morning.

Remember, Mr. Juan you can't fool everyone all of the time. You are a very slick fellow and your friend TVradioguru is almost as slick as you are, except I think he really believes his own propaganda. We have good and very capable engineers on this message board. I believe that you are here strictly to destroy their character.

IBOC's day of reckoning will come, with or without the help of the FCC. This can't last forever. People are wising up faster than you think, Don. (May I call you "Don"?)

 

[Savage]

I loved John Gorman's comment that HD is "the Terry Schiavo of broadcast technologies." LMFAO!

Sooner or later, economics or pragmatism will cause the ventilator to be shut off. Or an interference lawsuit. Just the filing of an action and commencement of "discovery" in the case will kill what's left of HD; the eventual outcome of the suit won't matter. So let's bring on that digital power increase!!

Sage advice for "a certain well-known poster of about 15 thousand comments:" Suggest you pester the administrators of this board to establish a "Why I Hate AM Radio" board and a "Central and South American Radio Board" so you can give it a rest here, where the rest of us are debating and discussing HD Radio.

(Oh, wait: there already IS a South America Radio board. See, above.)

 

[BRNout]

But most of the anti-HD noise os coming from hobbyists.

It appears to me that the anti-HD people ARE in the minority.

I'd like to briefly address these two points. For one thing, your statement about anti-HD "noise" coming from "hobbyists" is likely because:

1) You're probably surrounded by corporate types who have a vested interest in the IBOC technology - so it's plus, plus, plus with them (kind of like the NYT columnist who, in 1972, was shocked that Nixon won because she'd never met ANYONE who would vote for him);

2) The average, passive, listener doesn't spend enough time or effort to have any interest in HD radio's pluses or minuses as judged by HD Radio's absolutely anemic sales. If their local station doesn't sound as good because of interference or background buzz (often self-induced on AM), they give little thought to why; it's either ignored or they punch the station out. Either way, YOU won't hear it.; and,

3) The so-called "hobbyists," combined with station personnel who are adversely affected by IBOC are among the few who track such things and who actually know why many analog signals now sound crappier, why fringe signals are gone and what that buzz is. If the average dolt knew what we know, you'd be hearing a lot more noise.

That's why.

 

[Tom Wells]

Savage, TR1992, Carmine5, Tom Wells and others: May I suggest that you ignore Don Juan? His purpose and mission is to obfuscate, confuse, trivialize and pick fights. He and TVradioguru likely have been positioned here to try and get under our skin. They have obviously been succeeding because you are all getting rather agitated.

I'm not agitated, I'm invigorated. I signed up for this abuse years ago as the only listener-engineer who had read the Digital Radio white papers.
My late alma mater rises within and demands I speak truly and with as much precision as I can muster.
I could hear the hiss in the host signal, the first and second adjacent just reading the specs. It's exactly as I'd imagined.
No better, no worse. I remember exatcly where I read it. I was in Livonia, Michigan, and listening to a fine oldies AM behemoth from "Walled Lake", MI.
They were small, but sounded huge..... and as I read the description of the AM sidebands, I thought,"Well, that'll never fly".
Even the main signal listeners will hear ~THAT~! Sheesh!" And here we find ourselves a dozen years later.
And here we are..... .... Jim... have you got turntable one line UP? I'm hanging. Jim?

Anyway, I love the debate and wouldn't dare miss a minute of refuting or/and rebuking those who wist not RF.
<intro of School's Out by Alice Cooper, fade out b/f vocal>

<fade out T/B 1, back to mic full>
Yes, you're right BRNout, the hobbyist in this case knows more than the general public, and the general public is not predisposed to complain
about radio interference. They tune elsewhere.
Turn up that fire! That frog don't even look worried!

< back up on T/B 1 with Alice Cooper's School's Out , already in progress.>

 

[KB1OKL]

And in my similar I have yet to meet any anti-HD people....most are unopinioated and are ready to let it run it's course.

If it's sucessful, so be it.

If it dies on the vine, well then it was probably not worth it.

Jeez Don, I meet people like that all the time too. People who have never heard of it, in fact I have never personally met anyone who has, and have never met anyone who owns one besides me. This little fizzle of a lead balloon will stay around invisible to the vast majority of radio listeners invisibly polluting the airwaves while it slowly dies off........

Key of C and covered by IBOC HASH:

Whoosh...... "Happy trails to you, until we meet again."
(43 second drop out)

"Happy trails to you, keep smilin' until then."

(distorted by digital artifacts)

"Who cares about the clouds when we're together?
Just sing a song and bring the" ............................................................................. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Play Freebird]

Keep in mind IBOC proponents have their own way of interpreting the rules.

Regarding occupied bandwidth, they claim there's no legal problem if a digital station's emitted power exceeds 1 percent outside the limits of its designated channel, even though this violates ITU standards. They try to convince us that it's perfectly legitimate to narrow the resolution bandwidth of a spectrum analyzer as much as needed to show that the digital sidebands fall within the "mask". So apparently there's plenty of room for "creative interpretation" in that area.

And FCC-defined ownership limits present no obstacle either. If a big company can't be satisfied owning "only" four or five FM stations in a market (not to mention a few more AM and TV stations), it will attempt to circumvent this rule by adding HD-2, -3, and now HD-4 services. Independent owner Saul Levine recently blew the whistle on these shenanigans:
http://www.fhhlaw.com/MtWilsonRequestForDeclaratoryOrder.pdf

Of course, there aren't many people that can receive HD multicast channels. But no problem! Just rebroadcast the programming on an analog FM translator -- even though to the best of my knowledge, the FCC has never clarified whether that practice fully complies with the rules. (Except when the digital program is carried via FM Extra; then it's a big no-no.)

And when it comes to "Truth in Advertising", we know iBiquity exercises plenty of creative license there. Their "High Definition" -- err, HD Radio website still includes the claims:

FM stations now with CD-quality sound
AM stations now with FM-quality sound
Crystal-clear reception with no audio distortion
All digital, all the time
No hiss, distortion or station drop off

But on the other hand, when the subject of digital interference comes up, THEN suddenly we must adhere to The Letter Of The Law!

When WYSL's AM signal gets clobbered at night in Rochester (where it was satisfactory prior to the digital interference from WBZ), then the corporate legal beagles insist that any complaints from outside WYSL's predicted NIF contour are groundless and must be dismissed.

And when WRNI-FM's coverage suffers from increased digital power at WKLB, then WRNI is faced with demands for an in-depth response as to exactly where and when this "alleged" interference occurred, and whether it falls well within the 60 dBu contour line as determined in strict accordance with 73.313, whether it is ongoing rather than transitory, etc. etc.

Double standard?

 

[Don Juan]

Remember, Mr. Juan you can't fool everyone all of the time. You are a very slick fellow and your friend TVradioguru is almost as slick as you are, except I think he really believes his own propaganda. We have good and very capable engineers on this message board. I believe that you are here strictly to destroy their character.

Nope. Just want to give the other side. I know this distresses HD Haters and Radio Hobbists who like to control the discussion and pronounce HD DOA...and egg-on each other with one bit of false outrage after another.

For those who work in real world, we hope to offer a dose of reality.


1) You're probably surrounded by corporate types who have a vested interest in the IBOC technology

Not at all. Most of the people I deal with are neither proponents or opponents. They understand whats at stake (good and bad) and are willing to let the drama play out.

- so it's plus, plus, plus with them (kind of like the NYT columnist who, in 1972, was shocked that Nixon won because she'd never met ANYONE who would vote for him);

2) The average, passive, listener doesn't spend enough time or effort to have any interest in HD radio's pluses or minuses as judged by HD Radio's absolutely anemic sales.

People are not going to run out and replace radios. To expect them to do so as an indicator is foolish. Esp when the radios can't be found readily.

If their local station doesn't sound as good because of interference or background buzz (often self-induced on AM), they give little thought to why; it's either ignored or they punch the station out. Either way, YOU won't hear it.; and,

We would see it in audience declines and/or in research.

3) The so-called "hobbyists," combined with station personnel who are adversely affected by IBOC are among the few who track such things and who actually know why many analog signals now sound crappier, why fringe signals are gone and what that buzz is.

Remove the hobbyist and most of the noise is gone. That why these discussions flourish on palces where hobbists congregate.

 

[Don Juan]

Jeez Don, I meet people like that all the time too. People who have never heard of it, in fact I have never personally met anyone who has, and have never met anyone who owns one besides me.

Given where you live...it's no wonder.

 

[Carmine5]

Concerning the issue of interference, I came across this interesting quote from the FCC's '07 R&O for HD Radio:

"iBiquity...states that this could be accomplished by limiting the power level and bandwidth occupancy of the digital carriers in the hybrid mode. At some point in the future, when the Commission determines there is sufficient market penetration of digital receivers, iBiquity asserts that the public interest will be best served by reversing this presumption to favor digital operations....We decline to adopt iBiquity’s presumption policy because it is too early in the DAB conversion process for us to consider such a mechanism. We find that such a policy, if adopted now, may have unknown and unintended consequences for a new technology that has yet to be accepted by the public or widely adopted by the broadcast industry."

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-33A1.pdf

So, as I understand this, a reason why the FCC is unwilling to entertain interference complaints is because the technology is too new and to address these complaints now could jeopardize the implementation of HDR industry-wide.

If that's the case then this really is a government-sanctioned sweet heart deal for Ibiquity and the other entities who invested in the technology. But it's also a government-sanctioned "screw-U" for beleaguered broadcasters who's signal is being trampled on, even if only on the fringes, by IBOC.

BTW, I love the idea of a "Why I Hate AM" discussion board. It will give the old pontificating padre of radio a space where he can hold court over his two or three sycophants.

c5

 

[davideduardo]

Concerning the issue of interference, I came across this interesting quote from the FCC's '07 R&O for HD Radio:

"iBiquity...states that this could be accomplished by limiting the power level and bandwidth occupancy of the digital carriers in the hybrid mode. At some point in the future, when the Commission determines there is sufficient market penetration of digital receivers, iBiquity asserts that the public interest will be best served by reversing this presumption to favor digital operations....We decline to adopt iBiquity’s presumption policy because it is too early in the DAB conversion process for us to consider such a mechanism. We find that such a policy, if adopted now, may have unknown and unintended consequences for a new technology that has yet to be accepted by the public or widely adopted by the broadcast industry."

So, as I understand this, a reason why the FCC is unwilling to entertain interference complaints is because the technology is too new and to address these complaints now could jeopardize the implementation of HDR industry-wide.

I read the citation differently. iBiquity appears to be saying that interference at this time can be addressed by reducing the HD (IBOC) signal on the station causing interference, but that in the future, when the FCC can see there are more HD receivers, policy might be reversed to protect the digital signal. To which the FCC responds that it is too soon to create future policy based on a new technology.

If that's the case then this really is a government-sanctioned sweet heart deal for Ibiquity and the other entities who invested in the technology. But it's also a government-sanctioned "screw-U" for beleaguered broadcasters who's signal is being trampled on, even if only on the fringes, by IBOC.

But, if the correctly read suggestion and FCC response is considered, it means that iBiquity itself suggests reducing HD power insertion at the present time. That would be the opposite of "screw-U" in that this is an iBiquity endorsement of resolving interference issues.

 

[davideduardo]

Independent owner Saul Levine recently blew the whistle on these shenanigans:

Saul filed a petition. Whether it will progress or even be viewed is, at this moment, unknown. Since HD subchannels have been authorized by the FCC as part of the HD authorization, the FCC would have to reverse its position for the complaint to prosper.

When WYSL's AM signal gets clobbered at night in Rochester (where it was satisfactory prior to the digital interference from WBZ), then the corporate legal beagles insist that any complaints from outside WYSL's predicted NIF contour are groundless and must be dismissed.

This has always been true. Many stations have enjoyed wider reception than "entitled" to due to less than total use of their channel or adjacents in a region. An example would be the LA station at 107.5 which got as much as a 3 share in Santa Barbara, CA, ranking it in the top 10 there. A station within the Santa Barbara metro was subsequently licensed on 107.7, and the LA signal could no longer be heard, and those listeners were SOL because 107.5 was not protected in any part of that market.

Or take KPFK in LA, a grandfathered "super B" that is only protected to the extent of its conforming B contours; KPFK was listenable in much of the San Diego market due to this. But Mexico licensed a co-channel station, which removed all possibilities of hearing KPFK in San Diego... KPFK had no guarantee of coverage outside the protected contour for its class, and it could do nothing.

In other words, any station assuming it will always retain listening in areas outside its guaranteed protected contour(s) is dreaming.

 

[Carmine5]

Concerning the issue of interference, I came across this interesting quote from the FCC's '07 R&O for HD Radio:

"iBiquity...states that this could be accomplished by limiting the power level and bandwidth occupancy of the digital carriers in the hybrid mode. At some point in the future, when the Commission determines there is sufficient market penetration of digital receivers, iBiquity asserts that the public interest will be best served by reversing this presumption to favor digital operations....We decline to adopt iBiquity’s presumption policy because it is too early in the DAB conversion process for us to consider such a mechanism. We find that such a policy, if adopted now, may have unknown and unintended consequences for a new technology that has yet to be accepted by the public or widely adopted by the broadcast industry."

So, as I understand this, a reason why the FCC is unwilling to entertain interference complaints is because the technology is too new and to address these complaints now could jeopardize the implementation of HDR industry-wide.

I read the citation differently. iBiquity appears to be saying that interference at this time can be addressed by reducing the HD (IBOC) signal on the station causing interference, but that in the future, when the FCC can see there are more HD receivers, policy might be reversed to protect the digital signal. To which the FCC responds that it is too soon to create future policy based on a new technology.

If that's the case then this really is a government-sanctioned sweet heart deal for Ibiquity and the other entities who invested in the technology. But it's also a government-sanctioned "screw-U" for beleaguered broadcasters who's signal is being trampled on, even if only on the fringes, by IBOC.

But, if the correctly read suggestion and FCC response is considered, it means that iBiquity itself suggests reducing HD power insertion at the present time. That would be the opposite of "screw-U" in that this is an iBiquity endorsement of resolving interference issues.

I'm reading it the same as you. It isn't Ibiquity's solution for reducing interference I'm referring to but, rather, the FCC's "hands off" approach to dealing with these complaints. Obviously, the Commission wants stations to work out interference issues among themselves without FCC involvement. In fact, as I read this portion of the R&O, the FCC has taken a position of not arbitrating such complaints at all for fear that it will have a negative impact on the growth of HDR.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm reading it the same as you. It isn't Ibiquity's solution for reducing interference I'm referring to but, rather, the FCC's "hands off" approach to dealing with these complaints. Obviously, the Commission wants stations to work out interference issues among themselves without FCC involvement. In fact, as I read this portion of the R&O, the FCC has taken a position of not arbitrating such complaints at all for fear that it will have a negative impact on the growth of HDR.

I can see that focus, too. So what we have is an ambiguous statement that offers no remedy at present and no plan for the future. Sounds like Docket 80-90.

Where are the NAB and the SBE and its chapters when some clarification or action is needed?

 

[dxho]

3) The so-called "hobbyists," combined with station personnel who are adversely affected by IBOC are among the few who track such things and who actually know why many analog signals now sound crappier, why fringe signals are gone and what that buzz is.

Remove the hobbyist and most of the noise is gone.

LOL! Remove the hobbyist and you probably lose a significant portion of HD radio sales, too. Not all us hobbyists hate the radios, by the way (especially that little Sony thang).

That why these discussions flourish on palces where hobbists congregate.

That should be pretty obvious. Hobbyists actually know it exists. At the moment, few outside the hobby or industry do (or care, apparently).

 

[TheRover]

The ONLY format that I see a BUG difference in with HD radio is the FM Classical Music Station.

The BIG benefit to HD for me was having the 2nd and 3rd channels.

But..... that benefit has not been realized, as most HD-2 channels are playing it safe.

HO HUM !

 

[KB1OKL]

Jeez Don, I meet people like that all the time too. People who have never heard of it, in fact I have never personally met anyone who has, and have never met anyone who owns one besides me.

Given where you live...it's no wonder.

I guess you don't know where I live Wan Don, I live 10 minutes from downtown Worcester, the 2nd largest city in New England. I have at least one HD FM and one HD aM within 10 miles of where I live. I can receive one of the the FM's in glorious HD which sounds like crap, worse than it's analog signal and have never received the AM HD although it's noisy sidebands completely obliterate at least 15 kHz of it's center frequency on either side. Come to think of it I get lots of HD hash here on AM and only one AM station very sporadically in HD and it too sounds better in analog.

 

[KB1OKL]

The ONLY format that I see a BUG difference in with HD radio is the FM Classical Music Station.

The BIG benefit to HD for me was having the 2nd and 3rd channels.

But..... that benefit has not been realized, as most HD-2 channels are playing it safe.

HO HUM !

I understand what you mean by the BUG difference though, bzzzzzz!