• 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

At last, we now have an answer to the question: Why Radio Sucks

I read this in Wired yesterday. Bare in mind, of course, that I'm 'just a listener' and not an industry insider. But it all made sense to me. Considering the current state of radio in Atlanta, I thought this was a nice insight. How does it compare to the views of the rest of you listeners and insiders alike?

http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-02/su_radio

Why Things Suck: Radio
By Brendan I. Koerner Email 01.18.08 | 6:00 PM


Unless you enjoy hearing the same insipid Fergie song a dozen times a day, chances are you loathe mainstream radio. And for good reason: The FM band between 92.1 and 107.9, where commercial stations reign, is mostly a desert of robo-DJs and pop pabulum.

The sad decline of conventional radio is an Econ 101 lesson in the consequences of artificial scarcity — and a B-school case study on the limits of scientific management. The scarcity is the fault of the Federal Communications Commission, which decided in the mid-1940s to confine FM broadcasting to its current frequency range, roughly between 88 and 108 MHz. The FCC's spectrum-allocation rules, designed to prevent station signals from interfering with one another, further limited the number of broadcasting licenses it granted in any one market.

By the '70s, thanks to a fecund period in popular music, a generation of audacious DJs, and cheap radios, FM had become wildly popular. That made stations valuable properties — so valuable, in fact, that only large companies could afford to buy and manage them. "The legal cost alone of getting on the air is enormous," says Jesse Walker, author of the radio history Rebels on the Air. The government could have eased this situation by allocating more spectrum for radio use and increasing the number of licenses, Walker argues. Instead, Congress chose to relax the rules regarding the number of stations any one entity could own.

That's where the scientific management comes in. The biggest barriers to building a radio audience are the polarizing power of music and the plethora of choices on the dial. So, when corporations like Clear Channel started buying up stations in the late '90s, they set about building a lowest-common-denominator product that would be attractive to the most listeners. "There's this idea of the perfect playlist," Walker says. "Find it with research and attract the perfect audience." But it turns out that the most lucrative audience is really just "people who will not change the channel during the ads." The result: watered-down programming designed primarily not to offend.

So bored consumers are just tuning out. Listenership among 18- to 24-year-olds is down 20 percent over the past decade. Stations have responded not with bold programming but by cutting costs. They've also expended considerable resources to squelch competition from low-powered FM stations and Internet radio. Not that it has helped — 85 percent of teenagers now discover new music through sources beyond the FM dial. Even the biggest radio fans envision a grim future for the medium. One bright spot: The inevitable shift to digital radio could create more room for more types of content.


[Link added as a courtesy by Radio Info]
 
I agree. Technology made it possible to hear any song you want anytime you want. I better offer than radio can deliver. Radio's response has been to focus group the song selection to best meet a sales demographic and focus stations appeal toward that group. The effect of that reduces the available station selection any one group to two or three radio stations per city all of which play the same songs over and over and over.

Now couple that with transient radio personalities and you have the perfect storm for losing listeners to ipods, xm, etc.
 
As much as we all complain about hearing the same songs over and over, we have to keep in mind that a tight playlist has always proven to be what gets ratings. This has been proven time and time again. Look at the most-downloaded songs. They're the same ones we hear over and over again on the radio.
 
It's genuinely interesting to see the note about Fergie popping up all over the dials. A few months ago, when "Big Girls Don't Cry" was the #1 song on iTunes, you could listen to that song, sometimes at the same time, on Star 94, The Beat, B98.5, and Q100. It all makes sense now...
 
While I too am pained by what is programmed today, the quoted letter has some logic problems. The letter writer seems to assume that only FM exists and does not give any evaluation of the price of and availability of AM channels.

Some of the logic in the quoted letter is that there is a scarcity of availalble channels. I think I hear a lot more people crying in their beer about the OVERSUPPLY of channels.

The drought or flood of available channels probably has less to do with what is programmed than is the change in government expectations of licensees. Back in "The Day" there were a lot of 'do-gooder' expectations imposed on station operators by the FCC which meant that the hard-nosed bean-counter Wall Street types found the business a lot less attractive, leaving room for old fashion community cheerleader type business families to shape the business. Bigger than the fact that relaxed ownership limitations have allowed the big-boys gather up large chains of cookie cutter stations, are the regulatory changes that allow operators to focus on capital gains and 'trafficing' in stations as it used to be called. (There was a time when going to the FCC to ask permission to sell a station you had owned for less than three years was the kiss of death!)

When I began broadcasting there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 broadcast stations operating. What is it we have today? 12,000? 15,000? Shortage of channels my foot.
 
If I may add my opinion to this post...I honestly think that after the invention of HD portable/pocket radios maybe mixed in with an MP3 capability, terrestrial radio WILL make a comeback. Radio stations have suffered with the invention of the MP3 player and satellite radio over the last few years and analog portable radios incur too much interference from the outside world to the point you cannot pick up anything unless it is 100kw. I read an article that stated that radio stations are pushing for this technology but the current batteries cannot handle the current digital tuners. So they have to figure out a way for the batteries to improve and for the tuners to consume less power. There apparently aren't enough manufacturers out there to research this technology to improve upon it. Does anyone have any light on this subject? I am looking forward to the day when I can put HD radio on my belt, pop some AA batteries in it, and run with it in the park.
 
there is nothing more technically incorrect than blaming HD radio receivers' lackluster performance on batteries. Current lithium ion and lithium polymer cells are capable of delivering amps/hr performance- the average radio receiver, even a digital one with DSP and CPU don't draw that much current.The problem with digital radio has more do with radio spectrum, or lack thereof, and half-assed attempts are working with existing spectrum and backward compatibility. Hybrid Digital is just that, a hybrid and such, it is less than optimal for transmission of a full bandwidth quality digital signal, because broadcasters are squeezing in the available bandwidth of their analog FM and AM carriers. The result is poor performance in weak/moderate signal areas, and buggy software/firmware has plagued the first generation HD Radio subscriber units. In my personal experience with HD Radio, too much is put into getting the "I.T." part of the unit versus the "RF" section. I can only imagine the piss poor performance of some Walkman type HD radio relying on some POS receiver on a chip Philips LSI IC...ugh...at current level of technology it would take something like a FanFare FM tuner front end to pull out a reliable HD stream to keep the BER low enough for you to walk around with a pocket receiver and get good uninterrupted digital signal. And it isn't going to sell for 19.99 either. And that is the big drawback to why I say HD Radio is a flop: it's too expensive, technical flaws, and well, quite frankly is inferior. I'm sorry but my FanFare FM tuner makes any compressed HD radio carrier sound like dog crap. I've heard better fidelity from pre-recorded cassettes from the early 1980's played on a drug store brand cassette player.

Let's be real, for digital audio broadcasting to be a success, it has to be 10 times better than what it replaces, and cost must come down to consumer acceptance. I don't see people running out to convert to HD radio. The whole concept of a hybrid system is flawed to begin with. As we've found out the hard way by mixing two incompatible air interfaces on the adjacent bandwidth (ie, Nextel's interference with our interleaved public safety 800MHz radio systems), hybrid technology isn't the way to go. The same thing is happening with HD, look at how the AM band is now full of hash and trash thanks to AM HDR. This was a bad idea.

Adequate spectrum or lack thereof is the real issue. If the FCC wasn't so busy cashing their Nextel checks while scratching their butts trying to figure out how to fix our rebanding problem, maybe they'd be pushing harder to free up some more usable spectrum for new broadcast technologies such as DAB. We need some good clean bandwidth set aside for digital radio broadcasting, not interleaved with existing FM or AM, something strictly for high bandwidth, high quality service. Something affordable enough to be available so cheap the average consumer will dump their FM Walkman they bought in 1988 and their old GE Great Awakening clock radios (hey mine still works and has a kick butt front end!) to go digital with. Until that happens, HD radio is going to be as successful as AM Stereo wasn't...
 
MRFLASHPORT said:
there is nothing more technically incorrect than blaming HD radio receivers' lackluster performance on batteries. Current lithium ion and lithium polymer cells are capable of delivering amps/hr performance- the average radio receiver, even a digital one with DSP and CPU don't draw that much current.

I obtained my FCC First Phone many, many more years ago than I like to talk about so I follow some of the discussions by engineers who are in the broadcasting business today and who are responsible for installing and operating the stations that broadcast HD. They are universal in their assessment that PORTABLE receivers in the size of Walkmans, iPods, etc are not currently possible to produce because of........<drum roll please....> they are too power hungry for the available batteries. Maybe later this year. Maybe next year. Maybe five years from now. But today, no one has come up with a "chipset" around which to build small portable HD units that do not require an oversize battery.... maybe one with wheels and a handle like the luggage of today.
 
Oh sweet. Total reversal of the way thing were when the cell phones were first coming out. Walkmans could fit in your pocket and you had your phone in a suitcase.

Aren't the auto makers pushing HD capable receivers in the new cars?
 
yeah, I've got my GROL and gen class ham (been a ham since July 1986 when I was 9) and worked on two-way stuff all my adult life...so you are telling me that a simple digital receiver with headphone level output can't be made the size of a pack of cigarettes and have a 12-20 hr battery lfie? Is the Ibiquity system that sucky that it takes a huge CPU, ROM/RAM, O/S etc to run? I mean, my Windows Mobile 6 T quad band GSM phone has a small matchbook sized lithium polymer battery pack, and it runs for a couple of days with moderate use. And keep in mind this is a GSM radio capable of up to 1watt peak carrier power on 850/900/1800/1900 bands- and you're telling me that a simple RX only unit requires more power?

Gee the Ibiquity chipsets must really be garbage. FWIW I can stream Internet radio over EDGE with my WM6 phone and it still doesn't drain the battery that fast, and this is a two-way data session. Like I said, HD Radio is a flop hands down. too bad the broadcasters got conned into investing into this had been proprietary technology that apparently is so inefficient and power hungry it takes a gel-cell battery to power a simple receiver. Jeeze..I bet my 1950's Zenith 725 tube radio draws less power. ::)
 
MRFLASHPORT said:
And keep in mind this is a GSM radio capable of up to 1watt peak carrier power on 850/900/1800/1900 bands- and you're telling me that a simple RX only unit requires more power?

Gee the Ibiquity chipsets must really be garbage. FWIW I can stream Internet radio over EDGE with my WM6 phone and it still doesn't drain the battery that fast, and this is a two-way data session. Like I said, HD Radio is a flop hands down.

I knew from your first message that you probably had credentials like you just listed. I, like you, am amazed if it is true that Ibiquity has created a technology that is this power hungry. I only 'flaunted' my old First Phone to suggest that I have the ability to at least follow the chatter between broadcast engineers and consultants in other discussion groups and figure out which of them know what they are talking about, and which ones are just spewing their prejudices. I don't claim to have the skills to know for myself whether a low current drain chipset can be developed.

Other than NPR, CC, and maybe a few other group owners who are public-stock-companies who have hopes HD will allow them to control oodles and gobs of program channels and the ability to distribute tons of data.... maybe for Mr. Gates in particular, I don't find very many technical support guys who have anything good to say about the Ibiquity system.

If anybody has figured out a chipset that is not power-hungry, why wasn't it part of the merchandise mix this past Christmas. Why wasn't it the darling of the recent CES convention. If it doesn't show up by this coming Christmas shopping season, and I were making decisions for a broadcast group, I would be considering the alternate business scenarios we should be adopting to live in a world where HD falls on it's face.

In the meantime, I would also be taking a good look at my business plan to follow if Ibiquity HD is the future of radio.
 
wow, than HD Radio is screwed. If Sirius and XM can have shirt pocket receivers (which are way more complex inside as they usually have either large solid state memory or small hard disks to store hours of programming) than there is no excuse on Ibquity's part to push this along. I mean if there were such a wide variety of quality affordable HD receivers available, I'd own a ton of them so I wouldn't have to sit next to my computer to listen to 99X ;D and could be enjoying this on Q100's HD2, but alas, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I checked Fanfare's site to see if they have anything under development for HD Radio reception, to my amazement they don't...and their site is about as old as my FT-1A.

something tells me your HD Radio encoders will soon have a nice spot right next to the Motorola C-QUAM AM Stereo Encoders and Dolby FM boxes in your station's storage room or basement.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom