Bob Struble's New Column

[Chuck]

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 don't believe that has actually passed, unless it was in the last couple of days. It did make it through a Sub-Committee, but that is only a start. I understand it is likely to be voted on fairly soon, and my guess is it will pass, but as far as I know, it hasn’t happened yet. If you have more information, I’d be interested in hearing it.

Either way, there is a big difference. Right now LPFM stations must protect third adjacent channels. Unless someone is running equipment that is WAY out of spec, then there is no way a 100 watt third adjacent station can cause big interference problems.

The legislation you refer to would only require LPFM stations to protect second adjacent stations, instead of third adjacents. That is the same spacing standard as translators with the exception of power and antenna height. That spacing has pretty well been proven to work with no interference problems by both the Mitre Study, which was done with a lot of your tax dollars, and real world practical experience with thousands of translators currently on the air. As I’m sure you know, translators can be as much as 250 watts and a variety of antenna heights are allowed. LPFM's are limited to 100 watts at 100 feet HAAT. That is still very restrictive.

Whatever your stand on LPFM, the fact of the matter is the FM band is very crowded and will get more crowded. There are still 8-9000 translator applications to be dealt with from the Great Translator Invasion of a few years ago. Eventually, the FCC will start to process them. Maybe 1/3 of them will be approved. Right now there are about 800 licensed LPFM stations. This spacing change could eventually double that (maybe more). Don’t forget last fall’s NCE Filing Window. A lot of new stations have already been approved and a lot more are on the way. In many areas, this does not leave a lot of room for a broadcast system that injects a signal on your upper and lower adjacent channels. Right now, the system "kinda works" but if a ten-fold power increase is allowed for these HD sidebands, I think you will see lots of new interference problems. Witness the illustration on the cover of the latest Radio-World. They will be way more significant than anything that could be caused by the addition of a new LPFM station in your neighborhood.

You say there are no interference problems with the current system, but you should tell that to some of the NCE operators in the crowded northeast. Spacing in the reserved band is much tighter than in the commercial portion, and several stations report loss of coverage in areas where the previously had listeners. This is because their neighbor switched on their HD equipment. Admittedly these areas are past the station's protected contour, however a lost listener is one who do not help pay to keep the station on the air. At least for some stations, the new technology is taking money out of their pockets.

 

[TheBigA]

You say there are no interference problems with the current system

I don't think I said that.

However, I feel there are way too many stations on the air. Too many for the FCC to regulate, too many for owners (commercial and non-commercial) to make money, and too many to provide consistent quality programming.

 

[Chuck]

You say there are no interference problems with the current system

I don't think I said that.

However, I feel there are way too many stations on the air. Too many for the FCC to regulate, too many for owners (commercial and non-commercial) to make money, and too many to provide consistent quality programming.

Actually, you said there is "no jamming." Jamming is interference, but I acknowledge that interference is not necessarily "jamming." The point goes to you. I'd prefer a system that did neither, thanks.

As for there being way too many stations on the air, you are probably right. That doesn't change anything. It is the reality we must work in. Not many stations are likely to turn in their licenses. As I previously pointed out there are a lot more new stations on the way. That is what we have to deal with and adopting a system that does not work well with the situation at hand is a very bad idea.

Lest you think I oppose the idea of digital broadcasting, the truth is I think it is the future. Show me a digital system that worked for all radio stations, offered better audio quality, added multicasting and gave you a more robust signal. It would be welcomed by me with open arms. Oddly, that sounds like FMExtra, but it doesn't help the folks with AM stations.

 

[pqgeorge]

Lest you think I oppose the idea of digital broadcasting, the truth is I think it is the future. Show me a digital system that worked for all radio stations, offered better audio quality, added multicasting and gave you a more robust signal. It would be welcomed by me with open arms. Oddly, that sounds like FMExtra, but it doesn't help the folks with AM stations.

Well put. FMeXtra would be the best route to take for digital broadcasting. It uses the SCA bandwidth all FM stations have already. It doesn't cause interference to first and second adjacents. It does not cost a young fortune for the smaller stations to install and activate, in terms of licensing (none) and the hardware (about $15,000 a stick). It's even doable with the LPFM's and the grandfathered Class D's (10 watt stations). Unless you're Clear Channel or some other conglomerate, the cost of installing and licensing IBOC (with just one stream) will cost you at least $100,000. And frankly, I find the cost is too high. The FMeXtra coverage is equal to that for FM Stereo. With IBOC, half of that coverage is lost. IBOC sounds too expensive to me.

 

[KB1OKL]

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.
The only way to hear bluegrass in Nashville is HD.

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.

No jamming?? don't listen to AM very much do you? Oh I get it, it's semantics, OK digital hash which completely covers 30 Khz of bandspace on AM with a 4 Khz wide tinny signal in the middle of the noise on AM.

I didn't say I'd never hear it, or experienced wonderful IBOC I said I don't know anyone who OWNS one, obviously I've seen them and have tried them out in stores, don't try to put words into my mouth, too many do that here already. I do not form opinions on hearsay or if I do I say so.

No bluegrass in Nashville except on an HD?

I think Watt Hairston might disagree with you, ever heard of WSM?

http://www.stopiboc.com/index.html

 

[TheBigA]

It uses the SCA bandwidth all FM stations have already.

Unless the stations have already leased their SCAs, which is usually the case for NCEs. It's a revenue source for them.

I find the cost is too high. The FMeXtra coverage is equal to that for FM Stereo. With IBOC, half of that coverage is lost. IBOC sounds too expensive to me.

I doubt most of the people opposed to IBOC care how much money it costs owners.

Where was FMExtra when the Alliance was being formed?

 

[Savage]

BigA, thanks for your admission that there are stations (your term: a "few") suffering from adjacent-channel interference. I have no idea what you're talking about when you declare "(we're) not the only broadcaster operating on our frequency." Of course we aren't. What does that have to do with anything?

Your statement indicates you are perfectly well aware that IBOC presents adjacent-channel interference problems, yet you - typically for most HD proponents - argue, with astonishing lack of candor, that there "are no problems."

IBOC boosters engage in a mixture of outright lying about the interference problems (Cris Alexander comes to mind) and technical stacking-of-the-deck by tinkering with the NRSC mask and carefully-crafted technical specs which defy reality in creating a license-to-interfere for IBOC stations. And people like you defend it.

My fervent wish for you is that your livelihood gets threatened by similar chicanery, and then goons with no dog in the hunt ridicule you publicly for it on internet message boards.

Go get some honesty, BigA. Then get some respect for others.

 

[TheBigA]

No jamming?? don't listen to AM very much do you? Oh I get it, it's semantics

No it's not semantics. Read my exchange with Savage.

I think Watt Hairston might disagree with you, ever heard of WSM?

I know Watt and I've listened to WSM. They're not a bluegrass radio station. The fact that they play a song or a specialty show every now and then is not the same thing as a full time station dedicated to the genre.

 

[KB1OKL]

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?

Of course they did and DIDN'T care, I wrote a letter to the chief engineer there and he denied all interference problems, he's a pin head and a big time BSer.
A prominent chief engineer of a NYC 50 KW AM IBOC station used to belong to a radio club I belong to and HE KNEW all about IBOC, was one of their early big cheerleaders, he knew what it would do, whom it would hurt and he DIDN'T care. They were many many exchanges between him and other members of the club. He's like most IBOCer's, they don't care whom they hurt or who's toes they step on. IBOC is like a giant steamroller killing everything it rolls over and the hash goes MUCH farther than the signal and I can prove that nightly at my apt.

 

[TheBigA]

BigA, thanks for your admission that there are stations (your term: a "few") suffering from adjacent-channel interference.

Just so you understand, I'm not a pro-IBOC person, I don't work for the Alliance or a member station, and I have no dog in this fight in any way.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you declare "(we're) not the only broadcaster operating on our frequency." Of course we aren't. What does that have to do with anything?

WBZ doesn't appear to be causing problems with any other licensees on your frequency.

Your statement indicates you are perfectly well aware that IBOC presents adjacent-channel interference problems, yet you - typically for most HD proponents - argue, with astonishing lack of candor, that there "are no problems."

I've read that some AM stations are having problems. As I said, it's not universal nor consistent. And it seems to be limited mainly to AM.

Go get some honesty, BigA. Then get some respect for others.

I think I've been very honest, very civil and very respectful in this exchange. It's you who seems a bit hot under the collar.

 

[TheBigA]

IBOC is like a giant steamroller killing everything it rolls over and the hash goes MUCH farther than the signal and I can prove that nightly at my apt.

Savage can call you as a wittness. That's what courts are for. This will not be decided on a message board or through blogs and web pages. This is not something people vote on. It's not about how many petitions you collect. It's about what's right or wrong under the law. So as far as I'm concerned, until it's ruled to be jamming, it's not jamming.

 

[Carmine5]

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.

What is even more bizarre is how IBOC, thanks to the FCC, has turned proving interference on its head.

Normally, when a station wants to make changes that could potentially cause interference to an adjacent channel, they have to prove their case to the FCC that it won't.

But this is the reverse with IBOC. A station is free to convert to HD Radio, "jam" a station on an adjacent channel and the burden of proof falls on the encroached on station to document and prove that it is happening.

C5

 

[TheBigA]

What is even more bizarre is how IBOC, thanks to the FCC, has turned proving interference on its head.

Not unusual. If you're a drug company, and you create a drug, get it approved by the FDA, and then that drug kills someone, the survivors of the dead person have to prove that the drug killed their loved one.

IBOC was approved. I know a lot of critics accuse the FCC of corruption, and they're welcome to bring those charges to court or Congress too. But the system went through the standard approval process, and passed.

 

[KB1OKL]

What is even more bizarre is how IBOC, thanks to the FCC, has turned proving interference on its head.

Not unusual. If you're a drug company, and you create a drug, get it approved by the FDA, and then that drug kills someone, the survivors of the dead person have to prove that the drug killed their loved one.

IBOC was approved. I know a lot of critics accuse the FCC of corruption, and they're welcome to bring those charges to court or Congress too. But the system went through the standard approval process, and passed.

Off topic but, yes, the pharmaceutical companies are also a bunch of heartless crooks and the medical system is shot through with corruption also. I happen to work in that field and give a certain shot to patients that costs 500.00 per shot, they need this every two weeks. Many of these patients have lousy insurance or are on medicare, which is also lousy insurance actually, and guess who pays for it, me and you. The drug costs this much because it's under patent and the company that makes it can charge anything it wants for this drug for I believe 11 years because no one else can make it legally (in this country). They claim they need to charge exorbitant amounts for new drugs because it funds research, this is B.S. these drugs would be invented anyway. We are the only advanced country that allows the patenting of medicines.

 

[Savage]

I will agree with TheBigA about one thing. The HD Radio controversy which has created such havoc and division within the radio industry will not be settled on message boards. Nor will it be settled by the Commission, the Courts, more iBiquity website lying, more IBOC-inspired public technical masturbation in Crawford's "Local Oscillator," or more screeching from the dozen or so HD fans protesting in various forums that they're "really NOT HD boosters but we think that HD Radio is doing just greeeeeaaat" (yet more testimony to the essential dishonesty at HD's core.)

No, HD will be settled in the marketplace. Many, this poster included, think it already has been settled. Any fair assessment would have to concur: HD is moribund. Outside the Alliance, nobody is converting to HD. NOBODY.

It's not working well in the field. AM is a complete train wreck and FM apparently won't work without a massive industrywide redesign, and most objective observers are highly skeptical of 10db's likelihood of implementation, even if it's approved, which isn't certain. The radios have all but disappeared at retail. iBiquity won't even release reliable, credible data on receiver sales. The Alliance marketing has been universally panned as a not-very-funny joke. iBiquity's pious tantrum to the FCC demanding inclusion in satradio receivers went down in flames. Detroit is all but ignoring HD despite glowing press releases about how Hyundai's inclusion of HD in a $4000 electronics option package is a harbinger of widespread adoption.
The evidence is there for all to see, who will see. That would exclude HD fans like BigA no matter how much they protest "I'm really not a supporter of HD. I really don't care one way or the other."

It's ironic how HD's few remaining proponents try to marginalize critics, as BigA has done with me, by suggesting that we're some kind of loony minority. The minority is on the HD side, where tiny fractions of operating stations are operating IBOC and fewer still - some might say virtually nobody - have plans "to upgrade," using iBiquity's latest laugher of a marketing phrase. The big wide world is either rejecting or ignoring HD. Want to believe otherwise? Be my guest.

 

[Savage]

Oh, and one more thing, TheBigA.

You arrogantly claim: "this is about what's right and wrong under the law."

No, it isn't.

It's about what's right and wrong. Period. A distinction which is lost on you, Glynn Walden, Paul Donovan, Dan Mason, Mark Manuelian, Cris Alexander, Bob Struble, and other cynical HD Radio flat-earth advocates.

At least we all know now what TheBigA stands for. Enjoy your technical Waterloo For Radio.

 

[TheBigA]

That would exclude HD fans like BigA no matter how much they protest "I'm really not a supporter of HD. I really don't care one way or the other."

So just because I don't agree with you, that makes me a supporter? I think you've been listening to too much conservative talk radio. That's what they usually do. If you don't totally agree with them, you're a liberal out to destroy the United States.

It's ironic how HD's few remaining proponents try to marginalize critics, as BigA has done with me, by suggesting that we're some kind of loony minority.

Where did I say this? I have no interest in "marginalizing" you. You're welcome to your opinion, and welcome to take it as far as you'd like. But I'm a bit concerned that you've stated that you won't be satisfied even if the courts rule on this issue.

Oh, and one more thing, TheBigA.

You arrogantly claim: "this is about what's right and wrong under the law."

No, it isn't.

It's about what's right and wrong. Period.

I don't think that's arrogant. It's factual. In this country, we allow these decisions to be made in the courts. I think it's arrogant to think anyone is above the law. You seem to be saying you're right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I'll let others decide who is the arrogant one here.

 

[pocket-radio]

HD is struggling because listeners have no interest! If you can hear an HD radio playing in a big box store you'll hear the same formats found on FM.

Most people already own at least five radios that work just fine. So the benefit to listeners is minimal. And I'm sorry the sound improvement isn't that great! You'll be lucky to hear a handful of Clear Channel HD jukebox stations. And we already have that don't we. More of the same won't do. And with AM/Fm cutting people
it's doubtfull Hd will be anything more.

And when FM first started we didn't have the technology that we do today.
When FM first started it wasn't competing with Ipods, multimedia cell phones, Internet.
wifi, wimax and Internet access in cars. For the day FM radio was the latest and greatest gadget.
By comparison HD radio is a device that just has no sizzle.. Mostly because of the lack of content much like FM radio.

JUKEBOX FORMATS won't sell HD radios. It's interesting, the early adopters people who buy the latest and greatest gizmos have ignored HD radio.

BIGA YOU'RE AN HD SHILL. .

 

[TheBigA]

BIGA YOU'RE AN HD SHILL. .

Read what I wrote to Savage.

Try to understand that it's possible to disagree and not be an "HD Shill." I think folks like you do a lot to hurt your cause by attacking others in this way.

 

[Savage]

Back to the topic of this thread: it's remarkable, isn't it? Unlike many posters here I was working in the industry in the nascent phase of FM's development back when AM ruled the roost. And I can assure you: nobody associated with FM broadcasting found it necessary to establish some kind of mass communication (websites didn't exist in 1967) aimed at radio people, publicly ridiculing anyone who hadn't converted to FM or applied for an FM as "naysayers." I point this out because of Struble's (and other IBOC yes-men's) incessant, and fallacious, comparison of IBOC to FM's adoption. (I think they may have chosen FM as a precedent since it took 40 years to overtake AM. That way any "progress" made by HD, no matter how halting or minute, could be argued as a comparative success.)

This Struble ploy is a typical one for iBiquity in its ongoing tactic of trying to force HD Radio on the marketplace. And it's one reason why the system is stiffing.

Apparently HD proponents think that stubbornness is a valid substitute for sound engineering. "Well, our hybrid analog-digital is really a POS, but if we just crank it up and leave it on 2% of AMs and 16% of FMs and keep pounding the incessant, irritating promos, it will eventually succeed. " And, one surmises, even though it's becoming impossible to find an HD Radio in an actual store.