• 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

Bob Struble's New Column

Looks as if Struble is going to write a monthly column as a way of countering some of the criticism of HD Radio as well as doing some evangelizing for it. There's also a link for feedback to him.

Time to ask the hard questions. The answers will either be insightful or merely good for a chuckle.

http://www.ibiquity.com/about_us/message

C5
 
Bob makes the usual comment comparing the slow HD Radio rollout to the beginnings of FM:

"So when I hear a naysayer urge me to throw in the towel, I chuckle and think that’s like pushing to shut down FMs in 1967. We now know that would have been ludicrous back then, and it’s just as silly now."

But I like this quote from the Infinite Dial which, I think, debunks this canard:

"When FM was beginning its rise, free music was an economically scarce quantity--the only source for free music was the radio, so FM had greater economic value as one of its sole providers. Today, free music, in the form of online jukeboxes, file sharing and peer-to-peer music networks, is no longer scarce, but an economic commodity. So in order to provide real value (enough value to monetize), radio can't remain in the commodity business in that environment."

http://www.infinitedial.com/2008/07/the_slow_growth_of_hd_radio.php

Plus, when multiplex broadcasting came into use, I don't know of any FM station that had plunk down 25 grand in license fees just for the privilege of broadcasting in stereo, nor AM stereo either.

C5
 
Carmine5 said:
I don't know of any FM station that had plunk down 25 grand in license fees just for the privilege of broadcasting in stereo, nor AM stereo either.

Clearly the licensing costs are what will hurt the growth of IBOC. From stations and from the manufacturers. But there are costs associated with FM that a typical AM owner didn't have, and in many cases, the fact that few people owned radios that received it meant an FM license was a boat anchor or even worse.

One other historical fact about FM is the explosion began the year after the Armstrong's suit with RCA was settled. Once that happened, all of the impediments to including FM in radios in cars and portables disappeared. It happened quickly and very cheaply.

Regarding the Infinite Dial quote, the context of it has more to do with general FM programming, and not simply IBOC.
 
TheBigA said:
Carmine5 said:
I don't know of any FM station that had plunk down 25 grand in license fees just for the privilege of broadcasting in stereo, nor AM stereo either.



Regarding the Infinite Dial quote, the context of it has more to do with general FM programming, and not simply IBOC.

Right. The point, is that you can't compare FM's initial slow growth to HD Radio. Times are totally different now from what they were in the 60's. Technology and the public's perception of radio has changed radically.

By the same token, I'm not saying HD Radio is going to completely fail. I don't have a crystal ball.

I do think that, as it stands now, HD-AM is failing. The AM station owners I've talked to have all said that they have no intention of installing HD Radio equipment. I think that accurately sums up the feeling of most small operators.

But will HD Radio achieve such astounding numbers of units sold that these station owners will have to change their thinking? Who knows?

C5
 
Carmine5 said:
The point, is that you can't compare FM's initial slow growth to HD Radio. Times are totally different now from what they were in the 60's. Technology and the public's perception of radio has changed radically.

While I agree with most of that, I also believe that if consumers could get HD at nominal or no additional cost, and if it was available in other devices, you'd see a significant increase in usage. The content is comparable to most satellite channels, and allows stations to provide fringe formats and services they can't afford to put on their main channels. By the 70s, FM radio was standard in all new cars, and available in portables and clock radios for just a few dollars more than AM only.
 
There were licensing fees associated with the manufacturing of FM radios. Lok at the back of a Zenith FM, Stromberg Carlson, Meisner Radio manufactured in the 1930's/40's and you'll see a licensed by Armstrong sticker. Philco which coudl receive FM radio was not a licensed company. They got around Armstrongs patents by not following his desines, 100% of the time. Philco FM radios were not up to the quality of other early FM radios.

http://www.somerset.net/arm/fm_only.html
 
R.F. Burns said:
There were licensing fees associated with the manufacturing of FM radios.

That's part of Struble's point, and also a big reason why FM was such a flop in the 40s.

If there was no licensing fee, or if it was just a few dollars, HD would enjoy the same explosion FM saw in the 70s.
 
The difference of technology between FM and AM had little or nothing to do with the big explosion, it happened because of the completely different content on the band, the counterculture was in full swing and that's where their music and culture was broadcast, the programming was unlike anything anyone had ever heard before, that is what caused the explosion.
What does IBOC have to offer that's different from current FM besides lousy range and jamming adjacent channels? Nothing besides a few HD-2 channels which sound like krap and are very hard to receive and are usually carbon copys of the main channel. It's never going to fly, even the salespeople don't know or care what it is, they know a bomb when they see it and don't sell it. I think the fuse got wet a long time ago and went out.
There are many reasons HD has been the bomb it is
No one can try it out in the few stores who actually carry any, and most people really don't care about a supposed little bit better fidelity anyway, they're expensive, and when they actually are in stores they don't work, and salespeople steer you toward satellite and/or or analog every time.
There are so many better more modern ways to get just about anything you want on the net, and people know how fast technology is moving today, WiFi will be in cars very soon. I've been listening to Classic jazz on Live 365 all night now and it costs me 6 or 7 bucks a month, already got the broadband connection.
I will never abandon Terrestrial radio but will never buy an HD radio like the vast majority of people, but will buy new methods of listening to radio and getting music. The sky will be the limit soon, HD is just a backwards diversion which if if anything is killing terrestrial radio, it's just never going to work in it's present form. If they had tried FMextra or something like that which I'm not real familiar with it may have worked as there wouldn't be so much opposition to it or maybe had tried DAB on another band where it didn't drive people nuts it may have had a chance. HD is ruining the radio that most of us love without giving us anything in return, unless of course you live in NYC and happen to be one of the 14 people who actually have an IBOC radio. I know plenty of people who own Satellite but have never met anyone who owns an iBOC receiver or has even heard of them outside of salespeople and the ones I've talked to want no part of it.
Many people including me are waiting for the next big thing and it certainly isn't IBOC. Something that works well moves fast once it gets going with little or no controversy or help. When FM started blooming in the late 60's and early 70's there was no opposition to it, it just happened all by itself like a snowball rolling down a hill. HD has been being pushed up a giant mountain by a huge loader and it still hasn't got off the ground around the mountain yet.
 
KB1OKL said:
What does IBOC have to offer that's different from current FM besides lousy range and jamming adjacent channels?

There is no "jamming," and the purpose of the alliance to to ensure the HD channels offer alternatives to programming currently available on the conventional bands.

Obviously it depends on the market, but currently, the only full time country station in NYC is on HD. The only way to hear bluegrass in Nashville is HD. The only way to get "deep cuts" without a subscription is HD.

KB1OKL said:
I know plenty of people who own Satellite but have never met anyone who owns an iBOC receiver

And yet you've formed all of these opinions, mostly based on heresay.
 
That's the purpose of this board - to express opinions. And everyone's opinion, by definition, is "hearsay" including yours.

"There is no jamming?" You're kidding, right? Have you read the 2002 FCC Report and Order on Digital Terrestrial Radio Broadcasting? There's a whole section devoted to concerns over first-adjacent skywave interference from HD-AM. That's why the FCC didn't permit IBOC to be used at night from 2003 to 2007. That's why Citadel turned their HD-AMs off at night. That's why Clear Channel turned off IBOC at night on WRVA, to protect their 1130s in the midwest. And on and on. The first-adjacent interference problems are nothing less than acute in the field, which is a main reason why HD-AM is essentially "done" in turns of buildout with an abysmal 2 percent of AMs in the US using the system.

If you look at the composition of an HD signal you know that IBOC is a total misnomer. The system should be called 'IBAC' for in-band ADJACENT-channel. There is insufficient bandwidth in a broadcast channel to contain the analog and COFDM carriers, which in the case of AM, extend almost halfway into adjacent channels - that would be TWENTY-FIVE digital carriers, all steady-state noise generators, far more destructive than a co-channel analog modulation envelope. HD's designers are simply cheating, engineering-wise. It's why the system has the technical problems it does. HD is really incompatible with existing analog.

What do you think the controversy is over the tenfold digital power increase for HD-FM? There are fears - expressed by a large contingent including NPR - that a significant increase in digital injection will replicate the adjacent-channel problems shown by HD-AM.

Please spare us the "there is no jamming" dogma. That's been proven untrue over and over.
 
Savage said:
There's a whole section devoted to concerns over first-adjacent skywave interference from HD-AM.

You're talking about interference on AM. I was talking about FM.

And "jamming" is not the same thing as interference. Jamming means it's being done on purpose. I have no reason to believe it's being done on purpose. Neither does the FCC.
 
>>There is no "jamming," and the purpose of the alliance to to ensure the HD channels offer alternatives to programming currently available on the conventional bands.
Obviously it depends on the market, but currently, the only full time country station in NYC is on HD. The only way to hear bluegrass in Nashville is HD. The only way to get "deep cuts" without a subscription is HD.<<


You are kidding, aren't you? Then, why have several Citadel AM stations (among others) shutdown their HD carriers after sunset? HD AM is a disaster. The stations that are still using it after sunset are jamming their first adjacents, and in some instances their second adjacents. On the FM side, stations on first adjacents of an HD FM station I used to be able to listen to are no longer receivable in my car or at home. The affected stations are still within my market area. Imagine if 10% were to be the law of the land, forget analog FM, especially the lower powered FM's like college and suburban outlets. I have an HD radio (Boston Acoustics) and frankly I am not impressed with either the performance or the programming. I can get the same jukebox formats (even better) with Winamp or an MP3 player.

We would have been better off by adopting FMeXtra as the digital format. No fees, no interference, no bull****.
 
Peter Q. George (K1XRB) said:
On the FM side, stations on first adjacents of an HD FM station I used to be able to listen to are no longer receivable in my car or at home.

And yet the Congress recently approved a law that would increase the number of LPFM stations around the country, saying there's no problem with adjacencies. There's lots of room, according to them, for even more stations. If the goal is to protect adjacencies, then you should agree with the NAB and oppose LPFM.
 
I oppose expansion of LPFM, but not because I support anything promulgated by the flaccid gaggle of self-important incompetents known as "the NAB." They make Larry, Curly and Moe look like a 3-party Princeton - only meaner and dumber.

The legal definition of intent is "engaging in a course of conduct which that person knows is likely or certain to produce a certain result." If I gallop into your convenience store to rob it, letting fly with a shotgun and I actually hit someone even though I'm not aiming, I don't get to argue "but I never meant to kill anyone. I was just trying to scare them into giving me money." I'll be prosecuted for "felony murder," or the crime of killing someone while engaging in a felony offense.

Thus: if I install an iBiquity Decepticon out at the transmitter and start occupying three channels where I previously only occupied one, the damage inflicted on innocent adjacent-channel broadcasters is as real as if I installed a Russkie jammer to deliberately screw up their signal. (In fact, some observers here and elsewhere think IBOC is a more efficient jammer than cold-war shortwave saw-wave screamers.)

This basic principle is about to be illustrated - via the courts - to those broadcasters who engage in this destructive type of denial. And running to hide behind NRSC and the FCC won't shield them either.
 
TheBigA said:
Peter Q. George (K1XRB) said:
On the FM side, stations on first adjacents of an HD FM station I used to be able to listen to are no longer receivable in my car or at home.

And yet the Congress recently approved a law that would increase the number of LPFM stations around the country, saying there's no problem with adjacencies. There's lots of room, according to them, for even more stations. If the goal is to protect adjacencies, then you should agree with the NAB and oppose LPFM.

The difference between LPFM and IBOC is that LPFM's are properly spaced from all other full-service stations. LPFM serves a purpose of providing local programming for a local audience. IBOC on the other hand makes two first adjacents totally unusable for nearly 30 miles or so from the transmitter site. That is not what I call an effective way of using the spectrum and is causing interference to first adjacents. Try the area in the Boston and Providence markets.
 
Savage said:
The legal definition of intent is "engaging in a course of conduct which that person knows is likely or certain to produce a certain result."

And I have no reason to believe they are doing this willfully and knowingly to hurt other broadcasters.

Because if they are, there are stations among those in the Alliance who would be hurt.

Savage said:
This basic principle is about to be illustrated - via the courts - to those broadcasters who engage in this destructive type of denial. And running to hide behind NRSC and the FCC won't shield them either.

They bought a piece of equipment from a manufacturer. It passed all inspections and certifications. It was installed as specified by the manufacturer, and met all codes and regulations. Where's the intent to harm?
 
I just explained the definition of "intent." If injury is being inflicted on an adjacent channel broadcaster, all the certifications and installation procedures in the world don't help. You don't fix interference with a spectrum analyzer or a document swearing compliance with manufacturer's recommendations. You fix interference by stopping it at the source. Which Federal courts may well opt to do, since the FCC insists on being irresponsible in ignoring its mandate to properly regulate the spectrum pursuant to the Communications Act.

If what you suggest were literally true, all Martin Stabbert would have had to do in the mutual-interference case of WABC/WJR/WSB would be to read a few iBiquity press releases over the air to all the radios receiving the nasty adjacent-channel noise. Perhaps all the radios were misinformed.

That would fix everything, right, BigA??
 
Savage said:
That would fix everything, right, BigA??

We'll see. Until then, it's not jamming.

From what I can see, there's no consistent pattern to it. You aren't the only broadcaster operating on your frequency. But you seem to be one of the few suffering from this specific problem.

And you can prove that BZ knew they were going to interfere with your station when they installed their equipment? Really?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom