Bob McAllan Is Not A Fan Of HD Radio

[DToTheJ]

The CEO of Press Communications calls it "a flawed technology and a failed business plan." This in the wake of the FCC proposing a power increase for HD Radio.

More info:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020503674
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/a...-communications-filing-rips-hd-radio-power-in

 

[TheBigA]

It's interesting that Press Communications is in NJ, where the state NAB is also opposed to IBOC.

Press owns stations that could be affected by this increase. It would be interesting if an ad hoc "alliance" of small broadcasters came together on this issue.

 

[nd2023]

Press owns a 106.3 and a 106.5 in NJ, both of them simulcast each other. If both stations had HD, they would interfere with each other. Of course they would never "upgrade" Hit 106 to HD (unless they can find a way to remove 106.3's upper sideband and 106.5's lower sideband)

 

[Play Freebird]

When the doubling of Class A FM power from 3 kW to 6 kW was under discussion back in the '80s, most of the smaller NJ broadcasters supported an across-the-board increase, but the major radio groups (which owned the more lucrative Class B stations in New York and Philadelphia) ordered their well-funded lobbyists to oppose it.

Some outfit called the "Association for Broadcast Engineering Standards, Inc." claimed that such relaxation of protection would result in "unlistenable" signals from mobile receivers used on highways in the spectrum-congested cities of the Northeast, where stations now operate with "limited coverage and myriads of interference." And, of course, NAB was opposed to the Class A increase as well. I attended a session at an SBE regional conference where the NAB's head engineering honcho was talking about all the harm it would do.

But now, those very same groups see no problem with the digital power increase, yet 3 kW Class As remain restricted unless they meet the revised distance separation rules or obtain consent from affected Class B stations (i.e. money needs to change hands). I sense that this is a major reason Press Communications (owner of four Class As) feels compelled to protest.

 

[Chuck]

I suspect that the mind-set of NAB, Ibiquity etal is, "It's not interference as long as it is happening to someone else."

 

[badjef]

When the doubling of Class A FM power from 3 kW to 6 kW was under discussion back in the '80s, most of the smaller NJ broadcasters supported an across-the-board increase, but the major radio groups (which owned the more lucrative Class B stations in New York and Philadelphia) ordered their well-funded lobbyists to oppose it.

Some outfit called the "Association for Broadcast Engineering Standards, Inc." claimed that such relaxation of protection would result in "unlistenable" signals from mobile receivers used on highways in the spectrum-congested cities of the Northeast, where stations now operate with "limited coverage and myriads of interference." And, of course, NAB was opposed to the Class A increase as well. I attended a session at an SBE regional conference where the NAB's head engineering honcho was talking about all the harm it would do.

But now, those very same groups see no problem with the digital power increase, yet 3 kW Class As remain restricted unless they meet the revised distance separation rules or obtain consent from affected Class B stations (i.e. money needs to change hands). I sense that this is a major reason Press Communications (owner of four Class As) feels compelled to protest.

Mr “Play Freebird”:

I remember those days of flirting with the upgrade of the power.

It came as a result of the “A” stations in New Jersey having to lower their power from 3kw to about 1.4kw when installing 450 foot antennas. The height was effective for coverage in cars, but, did little for indoor use. There was also a problem of short-spacing and co-channel.

It was Bob McAllan who proposed to double the power so that they could go back to the previous power prior to the upgrade of the antenna since they had powered down the transmitter to accommodate the new power, it would be a simple change to return to it. Got IT?

Ok, how did we get there?

Early 80’s, the FCC changed the height requirements from feet to meters so that it allowed the stations at 300ft to add 28ft to 328ft which equaled 100 meters. So the A stations were 3kw@300ft, were now 3kw@100meters.

In Winter 1985, 107.1 was the first of the Monmouth/Ocean stations to build the 450ft in downtown Long Branch, But, this followed a summer 1984, 28ft rise to the Neptune Twp antenna on 94.3 which had come down from the hill 4 years before, following an increase of power to sister AM1310.

In 1988, 94.3 then countered by adding another 100 feet to their tower. Then WOBM did the same in 1989.

WJRZ had also moved their signal north to Forked River from Manahawkin and a higher stick during that time as a direct result of Z-100 moving from West Orange to Empire.

Little 95.9 WADB lost their lease in 1983 so they moved a block down the street to the corner now occupied by WRAT. It should be no secret as to why they want to rebuild the tower on 18th Ave. They want the height that everybody else has.

The rebuttle from the higher power operators to McAllan, “If you wanted better signal from your radio station (which at that time was 94.3 WJLK-FM) buy a stronger station.”

He did. He bought 101.5 WKXW from the funds aquired from WRBV/WSNJ Channel 67 flip to Home Shopping Club.

Ironically, by the time the lobbying was completed, he didn’t have a Class “A”.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[bigtom101]

The CEO of Press Communications calls it "a flawed technology and a failed business plan." This in the wake of the FCC proposing a power increase for HD Radio.

More info:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020503674
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/a...-communications-filing-rips-hd-radio-power-in

Wow...he must have had a REALLY bad day when he put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) with that letter. He notes that 60% of WHTG's audience lies outside of the stations protected contour. It's nice that 106.3 has listeners outside it's protected contour, but those listeners are "pure gravy" so to speak since they aren't in his protected contour.

He also says "Listeners, when their station becomes un-listenable, will just turn off the station and/or either go to another station, or even worse, to a completely different alternate delivery method (such as digital satellite, CD player, iPod, or some similar device for their in car, in home, or in office entertainment device." Funny thing - if Bob really wanted to get the most mileage out of his Class A signals, he's be giving away as many in dash/portable HD Radio's as he could get his hands on. The DSP based tuners used in HD Radios are able to yank signals out of the RF soup that is New Jersey like no other. I currently am stuck with a plain old AM/FM tuner in the car...and it sucks! It's not HD that is causing interference tune out - it's the jammed dial.

I applaud him for at least voicing his objections and opinions - but, same as the NJBA, I don't think they care about the "poor analog FM" listeners or serving the public as much as what is best for them and their bank accounts. Maybe if Bob put his energies (and money) towards other digital platforms and delivery methods, his terrestrial signal won't be of much concern. And given the way things are trending, in 10 years the towers won't mean much more than a place where cell phone antenne can be placed - cause THATS where the entertainment growth is. Took a trip up to New England, and my one friend had Pandora on his Droid the whole way up without a single hiccup...to him (and the rest of my twentysomething friends that arent in radio) the AM & FM dial is useless. They'd rather see it go towards mobile broadband applications instead of one way communication.

Be more worried about that.

 

[Play Freebird]

He did. He bought 101.5 WKXW from the funds aquired from WRBV/WSNJ Channel 67 flip to Home Shopping Club.

Ironically, by the time the lobbying was completed, he didn’t have a Class “A”.

It's also ironic that the earliest proponent of the Class A power increase was none other than Clear Channel Communications. Their work on this proposal began in 1983 when they bought KPEZ in Austin and found (as you mentioned) that building penetration can be a problem when 3 kW-equivalent Class A stations choose to use high antennas with derated power.

The NJ Class A Broadcasters Association, led at that time by Bob McAllan, jumped in later on with a slightly modified proposal.

Reference: "A Proposal For Increasing Power of Class A FM Stations" by John R. Furr, 1987 NAB Engineering Conference Proceedings, p. 113.

I'll have to say, buying WKXW and changing to the current Jersey-targeted format (rather than trying to "rimshot" Philadelphia) was a very smart move for McAllan.

 

[nd2023]

The CEO of Press Communications calls it "a flawed technology and a failed business plan." This in the wake of the FCC proposing a power increase for HD Radio.

More info:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020503674
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/a...-communications-filing-rips-hd-radio-power-in

Wow...he must have had a REALLY bad day when he put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) with that letter. He notes that 60% of WHTG's audience lies outside of the stations protected contour. It's nice that 106.3 has listeners outside it's protected contour, but those listeners are "pure gravy" so to speak since they aren't in his protected contour.

He also says "Listeners, when their station becomes un-listenable, will just turn off the station and/or either go to another station, or even worse, to a completely different alternate delivery method (such as digital satellite, CD player, iPod, or some similar device for their in car, in home, or in office entertainment device." Funny thing - if Bob really wanted to get the most mileage out of his Class A signals, he's be giving away as many in dash/portable HD Radio's as he could get his hands on. The DSP based tuners used in HD Radios are able to yank signals out of the RF soup that is New Jersey like no other. I currently am stuck with a plain old AM/FM tuner in the car...and it sucks! It's not HD that is causing interference tune out - it's the jammed dial.

I applaud him for at least voicing his objections and opinions - but, same as the NJBA, I don't think they care about the "poor analog FM" listeners or serving the public as much as what is best for them and their bank accounts. Maybe if Bob put his energies (and money) towards other digital platforms and delivery methods, his terrestrial signal won't be of much concern. And given the way things are trending, in 10 years the towers won't mean much more than a place where cell phone antenne can be placed - cause THATS where the entertainment growth is. Took a trip up to New England, and my one friend had Pandora on his Droid the whole way up without a single hiccup...to him (and the rest of my twentysomething friends that arent in radio) the AM & FM dial is useless. They'd rather see it go towards mobile broadband applications instead of one way communication.

Be more worried about that.

I'm outside of Hit 106.5's protected contour. Every other day or so, Mix 106.5 from Baltimore puts up a fight with Hit 106.5, rendering it unlistenable to the average person. 106.3 is splattered by 106.1's IBUZ.

 

[Savage]

Hey "Tuner" - perhaps you'd like to cite for the benefit of the rest of the class:

Precisely which FCC rule specifies that stations "are not entitled to service outside their protected contour." Or, in other words, when did the policy change from "inside your interference-free contour you are guaranteed interference-free coverage" to "outside your IFC all reception will be worthless".....?? (Rule? R&O? E-mail? Note scribbled on a gum wrapper?)

If what you suggest is true, why does the FCC require filing of lower-value contours outside 60 dBu when filing applications?

What about AM stations which encounter, in the Northeast, 50% variations in coverage winter-to-summer due to conductivity shifts? Is the "NIF" outside of which everything is supposedly "gravy" measured signal strength? Or predicted? How would this ever be enforceable in practical terms??

The nonsensical talking point endlessly repeated by the pro-IBOC crowd "you're not entitled to coverage outside your protected contour," or, as TT states, it's some kind of "gravy" that's outmoded in the Strange New World Of IBOC, is utter nonsense. Like the majority of engineering representations concerning HD Radio.....it's just made-up crap.

 

[TheBigA]

Well if you're going to bring up the FCC as justification, why did they approve IBOC? And why don't they do more to outlaw or even control interference? And why don't they work harder at controlling piracy? And why do they keep trying to crowbar more radio stations into an already-overcrowded dial? Why do they keep talking about adding more rules to burden owners, while they allow the airwaves they're responsible for to become worth less and less? They've done nothing to improve the value of the people's airwaves. They're too busy looking for ways to regulate the internet and promote it as an alternative to the airwaves. Don't look to FCC rules for guidance in this. That's not where you'll find consistent thinking.

 

[bigtom101]

The nonsensical talking point endlessly repeated by the pro-IBOC crowd "you're not entitled to coverage outside your protected contour," or, as TT states, it's some kind of "gravy" that's outmoded in the Strange New World Of IBOC, is utter nonsense. Like the majority of engineering representations concerning HD Radio.....it's just made-up crap.

Bob, I'm not an expert...hell, I don't even play one on TV. A stations coverage area can be shown as circles on a map, but it really depends on each individual lisener's equipment on what they can receive without interference. I haven't installed a HD Radio in my latest vehicle yet, and the tuner in the stock stereo blows chunks. It isn't interference so much as way too many stations on the dial, and living in one of the most congested places for radio (Central NJ). What comes in crystal clear on the Sony DSP based tuner is a garbled mess on the Aiwa shelf system.

This is from a engineer at a Philly station regarding HD & signal coverage: "No doubt also, that the industry is driving toward a "Redefinition" on what a coverage area for a radio station will be." The improvements in tuners of the last couple of decades have managed to produce decent reception of stations that were "fringe" on a map. Personally, I'm more aggravated at the lack of FCC action on the sharp increase in electrical noise that has killed the AM band more than anything else over the last decade. Well, and the fact that they pass out LPFM's & FM translators out like candy.

 

[davideduardo]

The nonsensical talking point endlessly repeated by the pro-IBOC crowd "you're not entitled to coverage outside your protected contour," or, as TT states, it's some kind of "gravy" that's outmoded in the Strange New World Of IBOC, is utter nonsense. Like the majority of engineering representations concerning HD Radio.....it's just made-up crap.

The statement, used well before HD, is that no station is guaranteed coverage outside its protected contour (or, in the case of grandfatered FMs, outside the calculated contour for a conforming station of its class). Stations may receive the benefit of the ability to be received outside that area, but anything from translators to LPFMs to changes in the facilities of other stations can affect FMs. Similarly, new stations changes in facilities, etc. can affect AMs.

Yet the defining factor in coverage is not the protected contour but the capabilities of the receivers on the market now and in the last 20 years or so. As we know, most radios today are part of a multi-use device such as a clock radio or an iPod dock. And for decades radios have been sold mostly at mass merchandisers like WalMart, drug chains, Radio Shack, etc., where a dime saved in the manufacturing may be the difference between an unsuccessful bid to supply a retailer or an unsuccessful one. Cuts that both the manufacturer and the retailer accepted as not being significant became the norm, including smaller AM antennas, less sensitive designs, etc., resulted in what we have known for 15 years or so: metro area AMs get 90% of their at home and at work listening in the 10 mV/m contour and FMs get 95% in the 64 dbu contour and 80% inside the 700 dbu contour, as proven by analyzing millions of non-vehicle listening incidents in many markets.

Noise is a determining factor on AM, while receiver capabilities are much of the issue with FM in homes and buildings.

While HD may contribute to the masking of weaker signals, the fact is that listening did not exist in significant amounts. That some stations have been adversely affected is an obvious truth, but these cases are a small handful and are nothing compared to the increasing man-made interference on AM and the crowding of the band on FM.

 

[davideduardo]

It's also ironic that the earliest proponent of the Class A power increase was none other than Clear Channel Communications. Their work on this proposal began in 1983 when they bought KPEZ in Austin and found (as you mentioned) that building penetration can be a problem when 3 kW-equivalent Class A stations choose to use high antennas with derated power.

You are forgetting that the determining element here was the change in FCC rules that allowed stations to change class, community of licence, etc., without subjecting themselves to being filed against. This change came about in the aftermath of the Bonita Springs case where Dick Friedman's A tried to upgrade and was filed against by half of humanity. In anticipation of the change in rules due to the inherant unfairness of the outcome of Bonita Springs, many broadcasters bought upgradable lesser facilities and far suburban ones knowing that they could eventually uppgrade them. The unfortunate aftermath was Docket 80-90 and the addition of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new stations on top of the slew of move ins and upgrades.

Clear was a relatively small company in 1982 when they agreed to buy the Austin station, not far from their original stations in San Antonio where they saved a near bankrupt FM and then a failing AM to create the company not even a decade before.

 

[tomservo]

With mention of a Droid and Pandora earlier, I can't help but wonder if we're not headed towards a radio divide between the have's and have-not's. I'm sitting in a hotel room in rural Oklahoma banging this out on a 5 year old handset (not a smartphone, but it can stream) with 1 bar, no 3g... Not even any EDGE. Just plain old GPRS, a/k/a 56kbps dial up speeds. How does Pandora work its magic here? (I only have 10 stations on the dial, but that's 10 more feeds that I can stream.)

 

[Play Freebird]

Personally, I'm more aggravated at the lack of FCC action on the sharp increase in electrical noise that has killed the AM band more than anything else over the last decade. Well, and the fact that they pass out LPFM's & FM translators out like candy.

I'm interested to know how often you have trouble receiving desired FM stations due to interference from translators. If the FCC refuses to do anything about noise in the AM band, then I really don't see a problem passing out translators "like candy" to AM broadcasters (who have faithfully served their communities for decades) as long as we maintain some reasonable safeguards against interference.

I frequently hear claims the FM band is being "ruined" by translators, but some specific examples would be helpful.

Also, keep in mind that a 50 kW Class B station running IBOC at -20 dBc will put 250 watts into each of the digital sidebands. (And with the recently authorized power increase, this will increase to between 1 and 2.5 kW)

In certain cases, translators are also allowed 250 watts, but most operate with far less power and/or directional antennas which reduce their overall interference potential.

 

[Savage]

Tuner and David Eduardo, we're (mostly) in agreement. I was simply reacting to what has become a frequently-chanted HD Radio Talking Point, to wit: "You're not entitled to (any) coverage outside your protected contour." Or "anything beyond your protected contour is some kind of 'gravy' or a 'bonus' which is now outdated." Et cetera.

This is nonsense. Let me show you why. (Besides the truism that there is absolutely no FCC rule or policy stating anything like the above.)

Under the rules I am required to provide at least 5.0 mv/m over at least 80% of my COL. Yet since WYSL is a late-licensed U hours facility (1998) my NIF is 13.689 mv/m, or as CBS attempted to argue in its oppositions to our IBOC interference complaints, a recalculated 15.56 mv/m (presumably because duTreil and Rackley were having a contentious day and were desperately trying to achieve some kind of engineering legerdemain to support "anything the client wants," in this case derailing an exhaustive and detailed IBOC interference complaint.) So: according to HD savants, I'm "not entitled" to the coverage of my COL the FCC requires! Or, putting it another way - mandatory coverage of my COL is "gravy." (Huh???)

I think it's great that DSP and other improvements are making receivers more sensitive. But there's a flip side to this. Increased adjacent-channel interference from IBOC hash won't be overcome by more sensitive receivers. If anything they will make the problem worse.

 

[fybush]

Tuner and David Eduardo, we're (mostly) in agreement. I was simply reacting to what has become a frequently-chanted HD Radio Talking Point, to wit: "You're not entitled to (any) coverage outside your protected contour." Or "anything beyond your protected contour is some kind of 'gravy' or a 'bonus' which is now outdated." Et cetera.

So let me play devil's advocate here, just because I can...

Until 1998, I enjoyed usable nighttime reception of WHO here in the Rochester suburbs. It wasn't phenomenally loud reception, and I am clearly outside WHO's currently-protected nighttime skywave signal, but WHO was nevertheless available to me and I occasionally listened.

Since 1998, WHO has not been a nighttime option for me, thanks to the WYSL night signal, which was authorized under a rules change that significantly eroded the nighttime protection I-A clears such as WHO once enjoyed.

The question, then, is this: why can WYSL operate at night without concern over the loss of my WHO service? Isn't the answer "because Rochester is outside WHO's protected night contour"?

There is, as far as I'm aware, exactly one FCC policy that privileges reception of a station outside its protected contour, and that's the rule that obligates a translator operator to fix reception problems or cease operation if the translator causes interference to regular reception of a full-power FM signal, regardless of whether or not that reception is within the full-power station's protected contour.

Other than that very limited clause, I've never found anything in the FCC rules that protects reception outside the protected contour. Yes, that creates the anomaly you cite, where you have to provide 5 mV/m over your COL even though much of that signal is below your NIF and thus at least theoretically unusuable - but that's a tradeoff that AM broadcasters accepted in order to allow stations like WYSL to go full-time, is it not?

 

[Savage]

In short....no. Not if you examine all the relevant cases involving 80 years of the allocation system, and give a common-sense interpretation to the concept of "service."

As stated previously - if it's the FCC's policy now that, because of IBOC, "all service outside a station's protected contour is available for obliteration by adjacent-channel noise," you're just going to have to cite that rule or R&O to me. (And I wouldn't bother trying...just sayin.' )

I've never complained about the interference levels I'm receiving from co-channel stations prior to HD Radio at night on AM. Our coverage was suitable to us prior to 9/14/07.

I'm objecting to the adjacent-channel skywave crap from WBZ which, Scott, you know better than most posters here, renders WYSL's nighttime service unusable to the extent that on some winter nights it's pointless to even have the transmitter on. And in Boston AM IBOC is as irrelevant and ignored as anywhere so the incredible harm being wreaked on an innocent distant broadcaster is particuarly needless and stupid. It's tiring to constantly listen to the sophistry over this idiotic hybrid system. Even Radio World is being sucked down the HD Radio sewer since they've decided to hitch their wagon to the Digital Express Train To Ruin.

And the debate over NIF versus City Grade versus smaller signals is irrelevant anyway. We've proven that WBZ-HD invades WYSL fields exceeding FIFTY mv/m, or three times the highest estimated value of our NIF - and the FCC has ignored it.

Interference and lousy performance are why HD Radio will eventually fail. Except as a pricey digital SCA for NPR's jazz and classical audiences.

 

[Savage]

There is an exquisite irony here. Let's note for the record: "HD Radio ain't doin' too good," and one reason is increasing reluctance and suspicion about the system and its many and ongoing faults, on the part of broadcasters.

If we were to assume, arguendo, that HD is an answer to whatever technical shortcomings exist in broadcast radio (not that I agree with the premise) the best way for the Commission to encourage adoption would be to ENFORCE interference mitigation...STRICTLY. At least then all adversely-affected broadcasters could have the assurance that the whole spectrum won't deteriorate into a pre-FRC-style free-for-all. There might have been an orderly and fair manner to fix the system on a case-by-case basis. But there isn't. Basically, if you're hurt by HD, the connected and the Commission give you the finger.

Now, the way things are, any sentient broadcaster - particularly the small-group and individual-station owners making up 80% of the population of operators - is going to look at the HD mess already existing on AM and the one threatened for FM and say, hey, this time it's Savage, but next case could be me. No freakin' way I'm supporting this. Especially when the FCC is in on the spectrum-grab. Thanks but we'll pass. No sponsor or listener has asked for digital anyway.

So that's where we are. Not many stations, and the ones that exist suck, in programming, coverage or both. No worthwhile origination: no receivers, because it's chaos among the broadcasters. Plus the system doesn't work well enough even with the power hike.

Welcome to the future ghetto of ethnic, alternagte NPR channel, brokered and special-use programs on a slowly-dwindling number of stations: a digital SCA for pubcasters and major-market HD investors.

Just ran the audience figures on our web stream. Web listening is up another 50% in the past four months. Now THERE'S the digital component for broadcast radio. Just launched a mobile app too...it will be interesting to see how fast THAT grows (and unlike HD Radio, we've had requests for iPhone apps for WYSL.)