I didn't ask about simulcasting. My question was what percentage of AM & FM stations are running HD. TTBOMK, it's about 10%. Compared to 60% streaming. I think we know which is the most popular form of digital radio in the US.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
American digital radio a half a##ed system: John Anderson at #CBAA13
- Thread starter KB1OKL
- Start date
I didn't ask about simulcasting. My question was what percentage of AM & FM stations are running HD. TTBOMK, it's about 10%. Compared to 60% streaming. I think we know which is the most popular form of digital radio in the US.
D
diymedia
Guest
All completely true. But it remains, at best, an inopportune distraction for the industry: a drag that it could either a) really afford to do without or b) commit to in a meaningful fashion. Translators will keep FM-HD alive for a while, but at what cost? And AM could use some help: is all-digital a viable mode for the future? Or, hell, just give up the AM and FM spectrum completely and jump straight into the IP pool? Those are some of the questions that I'm still interested in.
D
diymedia
Guest
As of April 2013, the FCC’s Consolidated Data Base System (CDBS) shows that 2,038 U.S. radio stations have commenced HD broadcasts since 2002. This includes 1,733 full-power FM stations, 299 AM stations, one LPFM station, two FM translators, and three FM boosters. There are 22,138 AM and FM broadcast stations of all classifications on the air. This puts HD Radio’s overall broadcast penetration rate at just 9.2% after ten years; among full-power stations, which are most likely to adopt the technology, HD’s penetration rate is 13.3%.
However, these numbers do not factor into consideration stations that have abandoned the technology—just those that filed initial notification with the FCC to use it. For example, FCC records indicate that nearly 300 of the nation’s 4,734 AM stations (or 6.3%) have adopted HD Radio. However, Barry McLarnon’s independent database of AM-HD stations on the air reports that as of June 2013, just 197 (or 4.2%) still broadcast in HD—and of those, only 64 (1.3%) operate digitally 24 hours a day. One-third of all AM-HD adopters (more than 100 stations) have abandoned the protocol completely. There is no similar count of the number of FM stations that have dropped their digital broadcasts.
The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism suggests that HD Radio uptake by broadcasters peaked in 2005–2006 and has been in decline since then. Pew’s data also shows that more stations dropped HD functionality in 2012 than added it—the first net yearly decline since the technology’s public introduction. Considering the formally unreported nature of stations abandoning digital broadcasts, the actual number of HD stations on the air is fewer than 2,000, with the majority sequestered in the top 150 U.S. radio markets.
(p. 135-36)
In my opinion NO for the same reason IBOC is impractical: It requires listeners to replace their radios, and they've demonstrated they don't want to do that.
I'd say no because 250 million people have radios that receive it. Once that number drops to where HD Radio is at, then it's time to give up.
That corresponds with the new boogieman: Pandora. The big companies have all turned their attention to that.
D
diymedia
Guest
It might be a while between then and now. What can we do in the interim to facilitate a successful and sustainable digital radio transition?
What can "WE" do? Short of running for political office, or inventing a new way to cram digital audio in analog spectrum, nothing.
It's really up to politicians and scientists.
D
diymedia
Guest
Well, that's depressing.
7 more AM stations have dropped IBOC since June, that number is now down to 190.
http://topazdesigns.com/iboc/station-list.html
What would you suggest? Set up a Facebook page? Sign a petition? Complain about IBOC? There are real limitations to what the general public can do.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
A good start is not to vote for complete morons. Draw your own conclusions who I might be referring to. Let's just say I am not a big fan of Democans or Republicrats. Both put corporate interests ahead of the general public, and the FCC has reflected this for decades.
The general public can vote with their pocketbooks and they have which is why HD radio has been such a stellar success.
Of course the general public has also for the most part stopped buying radios of all kinds, including table radios, satellite radios, digital internet radios, and portable transistor radios, and the electronics manufacturers are dead set against activating AM & FM in cell phones. If we were to follow the general public, we'd come to the conclusion that radio is dead. Yet 230 million people listen. How is that possible?
D
diymedia
Guest
Actually, I have lots of suggestions...and they're in the book. I think a huge part of the problem is a larger failure of media policymaking in this country, which is a symptom of larger failures...so the issue goes far beyond radio.
But then again, as folks who are actively engaged in broadcasting on some level, are we *just* the general public?
I'm starting to get the feeling that whatever I say here won't please you, since I've yet to hear a constructive rejoinder. So I'll just leave it at that.
There was a narrow window where digital was wanted and, maybe even, needed, by radio broadcasters.With the development of delivery technologies that consumers actually want today, that window closed.
Consumers are constantly talking about new smartphones, apps and uses. They are not talking about new radios, because single-purpose devices are very, very old school.
There is no need for digital over the air radio. Unlike television, there is no dramatic improvement in radio quality when HD is added. And in an era where people want to have all their entertainment delivered to a small, portable device, few will buy a "digital radio".
So, while the regulators didn't help create a viable digital solution, there remains the real issue that digital was something broadcasters wanted but which had just about no consumer interest.
The fact that about 60% of stations stream may be as related to economic issues as to technology. Historically, and going back to the 60's, about half of all US radio stations have not been profitable; such stations are not going to incur additional costs, particularly with the royalties.
HD is not "The American System" as it has limited acceptance. Increasingly, particularly AM and increasingly FM, are not the forward-looking "American Systems". Streaming and smart devices like phones, tablets and dashboards.
This is not about being crotchety Luddites; it's about accepting that listeners have redefined what the word "radio" means.
Last edited:
If we look at the practical application of HD, we are limited to full FMs.
At present, there are just a few more than 10,600 of those in the US.
With over 1700 HD stations on FM, the percentage is higher. When we look at the percentage of the US population covered by these mostly large market stations, it is even more significant.
The problem with "media policymaking," as you describe it, is it's made by human beings. That's why some view it as a failure. I agree with that generalization, but I don't have any reason to believe it can be fixed in our current political and economic system. I've read lots of wonderful reports by scientists who say lots of wonderful things about how we could make a better digital broadcasting system. The bad news with all of their ideas is it would have to work within a market economy. So people would have to want to replace their existing radios, and electronics companies would have to want to build new radios, and broadcasting companies would have to let go of frequencies that cost them billions of dollars. Nobody wants to do any of those three things. Unless you can find a way to get that to change, there's not much hope for great science.
I'm sorry it doesn't sound constructive, but I think I'm a realist. I watched very carefully how TV went digital. It wasn't very pretty, and everyone involved, including the FCC and Congress, said "Never again!" That's why I feel there will be no progress on digital radio, because everyone seems satisfied with the current combination of analog transmitters and digital streaming. Very few people want to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start over. Unless someone invents a system that allows digital broadcasting on the current spectrum that can be received by existing AM & FM radios, and not cause interference, there will be no change. The folks at iBiquity will continue to put out their press releases that only they believe, and the rest of the industry has moved on.
Last edited:
D
diymedia
Guest
Yep. Like 16-17 percent. And coverage is a meaningless metric for measuring actual engagement.
D
diymedia
Guest
Thanks, David and BigA, for making such excellent points. I agree with pretty much all of it...and yep, in the book 
So we've got this spectrum, and the system we've deployed as "digital" is a market failure. How about perhaps using it for something useful? Or lose/abandon it? As David said, "radio" means much more now. Why can't "digital"?
So we've got this spectrum, and the system we've deployed as "digital" is a market failure. How about perhaps using it for something useful? Or lose/abandon it? As David said, "radio" means much more now. Why can't "digital"?
I take issue with the use of "we." This is iBiquity's system. They invented it (sure, with CBS), they launched it, they own it, and they stood to profit from it. Now that it's a failure, it's THEIR failure. Everyone has basically run away from it with the possible exception of CBS. The government has done all it can. They've expressed exasperation that more radio stations haven't picked it up. But that's how the free market system works. Had it been done differently, it wouldn't be any better. I've read enough scientists who tell me you simply can't ram digital into an analog spectrum. It's against the laws of physics. So the fact that it wasn't forced down anyone's throat is a good thing.
You've said it should have been an "open system." That's not how the patent laws work. It was an invention, they own the patent, and seek to control it. But even if it had been an open system, the scientists say it would have just been lipstick on a pig. I usually believe scientists.
That's iBiquity's decision to make. It's their property, not mine, not the government, and not the industry. iBiquity and its shareholders are the only beneficiaries. From what I've read from their press releases, they have ideas for using it for traffic information and other things. To me, it's a digital SCA. They can transmit banking data on it for all I care. As long as iBiquity can stay in business, their goal will be to suck every penny they can from it. When the patent runs out, then we'll see if anyone wants to play with it. But by then, I imagine we'll be on to other things.
Good luck to you with your book. But when you write about a product very few people know about, you're aiming at a limited consumer base. You'd be better off writing about satellite or internet radio. More people would be interested.
Last edited:
- Status