CONGRESS TO PROBE FCC; NOW'S THE TIME TO DEMAND HD-AM RELIEF

[Savage]

I've posted this information in another thread here, but this subject deserves its own.

Congressman John Dingell (D, Michigan) has written to FCC Chairman Martin expressing serious concerns that that august body is not conducting its business properly - salient quotes from that little Congressional Christmas card including "I am rapidly losing confidence that the Commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner," and "a trend appears to be emerging of chort-circuiting procedural norms, suggesting a larger breakdown at the agency...." The result: Dingell's powerful House Commerce Committee is conducting hearings investigating the FCC.

Gee, does anything else come to mind here? Like the corrupt process by which HD Radio was foisted, with all its outrageous shortcomings and false promise, on unsuspecting broadcasters and an indifferent public? Like how overwhelming industry professional opinion warning of disastrous interference potential was completely ignored - extortionate business practices by iBiquity flowing from an undeserved monopoly - undue influence exerted by the NAB and Big Group Radio who financed iBiquity in the first place - and so forth, all undeniable evidence aired here and elsewhere before, about how IBOC is bad for ALL CONCERNED (except those directly enriched by it.)

I recall reading an industry trade account about a year ago where Chairman Martin, mustering dignity and satisfaction, declared that he had just had a cozy little sit-down with Bob Struble - the result of which was a conviction expressed by Mr. Martin that "AM needs digital, and it needs it at night as well as during the day, and as soon as possible." (We've been unable to confirm whether Struble gave Martin a ring or just a tennis bracelet at that meeting. They were, however, seen French-kissing by reliable witnesses.)

NOW is the time to speak up, during one of the rare intervals where the appropriately-connected in Washington are actually listening. Now is the time to do what we can to stop HD-AM Radio.

Can't hear your favorite station at night any more (shame on you, you antiquated DXer!) Is your station being assaulted by adjacent-channel noise from an IBOC-AM station? Tired of 1940s-quality analog audio? (Make that 1920s-quality. 1940s AM radio was at least 8 kHz wide and there was no NRSC-2.) Tired of the lies and the numbskull rationalizing of a stupid system that threatens to do away with what's left of AM forever? Stop blogging, and write to Congressman Dingell, and give him specifics.

Rep. Hon. John D. Dingell
Michigan 15th Congressional District Office
2328 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The StopIBOC Alliance is compiling a voluminous case to submit to the Congressman, and we will be offering to testify before his subcommittee.

Back us up! Write today, if you love AM and want to save it! Thanks for your support.

 

[Radioman100]

You're nuts Savage if you think this guy is on your side. His interest in how the FCC conducts itself is limited to one issue - putting the brakes on conservative talk radio.

Come to think of it, he would probably be THRILLED with any technology that compromises the AM band.

 

[Savage]

Consider yourself corrected by a crazy person, Radioman. The Fairness Doctrine nonsense is proceeding from Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee with Maurice Hinchey chiming in. Dingell's House Commerce committee is zeroing in on procedural internal stuff, precisely the funny business that produced adoption of IBOC without meaningful input from anyone in the radio industry other than iBiquity and its investor radio companies. The two are not the same.

What I'm hearing from the Hill strongly suggests that all the Fairness Doctrine hoopla is kind of like the endless votes to chop funding for the Iraq War - a lot of noise, but no willingness to really pull the trigger and get it done. Some Dems THINK they want the Fairness Doctrine back - but in reality, they don't. Members of Congress are smarter than to take Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly away from listeners. Can you imagine the outcry from middle America? Most Dems, with the possible exception of Slaughter, a hopelessly dim political hack who can't keep her mouth shut, realize that gutting talk radio would be politically suicidal.

I think that a lot of the FD rhetoric is aimed at scaring local station licensees with conservative talk formats. The networks are already gearing up for any potential battle. The First Amendment issues are obvious.

 

[Mike Walker]

While I agree that SOMETHING needs to be done about AM HD, I'll be damned if I'm smart enough to know what it is. ALL media is going digital. The FCC mandated that, with an already hideously overcrowded AM band, any digital "solution" for AM (and FM) HAD TO BE "in band-on channel". Yeah? You're going to put digital information, which in any circumstance will look like random noise to analog detectors, ON TOP OF the analog signal, without causing problems for existing listeners? I wondered back during Clinton's first term, "yeah, HOW???" The answer of course is that we're not really putting the digital info ON TOP of the analog, but adjacent to it. Alright. This might (does, imho) represent a fair compromise for FM stations, with 200khz spacing, but for AMs with 10khz spacing, it's madness! I know, it fits within the current RF Mask. But that (the RF Mask) is based upon analog audio, which is transient in nature. A digital bitstream is CONTINUOUS. When the announcer (or music) pauses with analog audio, the carrier is unmodulated. When the same thing happens with a digital bitstream, no less data is being sent. CONTINUOUS, FREAKIN', NOISE!

So when I say "I'll be damned if i know what the solution is", it can't be just "KILL AM IBOC NOW!". A SOLUTION has to include a viable alternative technology for GOING DIGITAL, preferably one that sounds better than AM HD (forget coverage concerns, can anyone who listened to the Imus sample posted earlier in the week SERIOUSLY say that it sounds better than broadband analog reception on something like a Sony SRF-A100, Carver TX-11a, or GE SuperRadio III???

 

[Savage]

The short and not-so-sweet answer? (Say it with me.)

IT CAN'T BE DONE. Not in-band, on channel, with 10 kHz bandwidth. No amount of wishful thinking or baseless optimism can make a tornado fit through a keyhole. Not, that is, without wreaking havoc rendering the whole effort pointless.

The brute-force, make-it-work-somehow-dammit attitude towards IBOC-AM is what has produced the debacle now before us. As the old TV commercial said: "it's not nice to fool Mother Nature." She hits back.

The sooner we admit HD-AM doesn't work, the sooner we can move on to seek alternative solutions. Nope, I don't have an easy answer either, Mike, but laying waste to established and still-successful stations is hardly fair or valid. If digital HAS to be the answer - I remain somewhat skeptical about that, since pipe organs, violins and the human voice remain stubbornly analog - the only realistic solution is migration to new frequencies, somewhere, somehow.

Big Group Radio has a choice to make: either face competition which could give parity to competing operators in a new band, or cling stubbornly to the current hybrid mess and watch the slow decline of AM continue.

 

[calstymes]

Savage reinforced the following truth:

No amount of wishful thinking or baseless optimism can make a tornado fit through a keyhole.

Or, as alternatively put by Montgomery Scott, "You can't change the laws of physics!".

 

[Radioman100]

Consider yourself corrected by a crazy person, Radioman. The Fairness Doctrine nonsense is proceeding from Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee with Maurice Hinchey chiming in. Dingell's House Commerce committee is zeroing in on procedural internal stuff, precisely the funny business that produced adoption of IBOC without meaningful input from anyone in the radio industry other than iBiquity and its investor radio companies. The two are not the same.

What I'm hearing from the Hill strongly suggests that all the Fairness Doctrine hoopla is kind of like the endless votes to chop funding for the Iraq War - a lot of noise, but no willingness to really pull the trigger and get it done. Some Dems THINK they want the Fairness Doctrine back - but in reality, they don't. Members of Congress are smarter than to take Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly away from listeners. Can you imagine the outcry from middle America? Most Dems, with the possible exception of Slaughter, a hopelessly dim political hack who can't keep her mouth shut, realize that gutting talk radio would be politically suicidal.

I think that a lot of the FD rhetoric is aimed at scaring local station licensees with conservative talk formats. The networks are already gearing up for any potential battle. The First Amendment issues are obvious.

This probe and the Fairness Doctrine stuff go hand in hand. Congress isn't probing the FCC because they don't like their procedures, they're probing because the FCC is moving to further deregulate broadcasting and allow more media consolidation. The Democrat led Congress is pushing this issue because they fear not enough independent and minority voices are being heard in American broadcasting. Here's a hint Savage, that's code for we don't think enough LIBERAL voices are being heard.

Do you think they really care about procedural issues at the Commission? No. Their only concern is the outcome of the procedural issues the Commission is acting on do not favor the Democrats.

I'd venture that FCC procedures haven't really changed all that much during Kevin Martin's chairmanship. When the Republicans were in power, why weren't they dragging him to the hill to discuss procedure? Simple. It's not about procedure. It's politics as usual.

 

[Chuck]

The short and not-so-sweet answer? (Say it with me.)

IT CAN'T BE DONE. Not in-band, on channel, with 10 kHz bandwidth. No amount of wishful thinking or baseless optimism can make a tornado fit through a keyhole. Not, that is, without wreaking havoc rendering the whole effort pointless.

The brute-force, make-it-work-somehow-dammit attitude towards IBOC-AM is what has produced the debacle now before us. As the old TV commercial said: "it's not nice to fool Mother Nature." She hits back.

The sooner we admit HD-AM doesn't work, the sooner we can move on to seek alternative solutions. Nope, I don't have an easy answer either, Mike, but laying waste to established and still-successful stations is hardly fair or valid. If digital HAS to be the answer - I remain somewhat skeptical about that, since pipe organs, violins and the human voice remain stubbornly analog - the only realistic solution is migration to new frequencies, somewhere, somehow.

Big Group Radio has a choice to make: either face competition which could give parity to competing operators in a new band, or cling stubbornly to the current hybrid mess and watch the slow decline of AM continue.

I believe that's true. The best solution in my opinion is to annex TV channels 5 & 6 for FM broadcasting and move a lot of local AM stations to those new frequencies. The FCC might also require translators and even LPFM stations to move there over time as well. That would clean up the AM band for a few remaining high power AM's who have signals that would work well with a digital hybrid solution. It would also unclog the FM band.

We've all more or less agreed that IBOC FM works OK. Still it has its problems, especially in crowded areas where short spacing is a way of life. The reality of the moment is only a very small percentage FM broadcast facilities are running IBOC. Don't forget that all the translators and LPFM stations occupy these frequencies too. Yes, I know they are "secondary service" stations, but once you have given something, it is hard to take it back. There would be quite an outcry if the FCC tried to do that.

If EVERYONE lit up in IBOC on FM, I’ll bet there would be lots of interference problems on that band as well. We just haven't pushed the limits as yet. The good news is the new HD radios seem to have amazing selectivity, which is great for those who purchase them, but it doesn't do very much for the little old lady with her Zenith table radio that just wants to hear her local version of "Swap and Shop." By expanding the band, there could be room for a lot more stations with a lot less interference problems.

The downside of this idea is a few (six, I think) full power TV stations that plan to revert to their original VHF allocations would have to move to a different channel after the DTV transition date. There are also some LPTV stations on TV 6. They'd have to move to another channel. I don't have much sympathy for the LPTVs. They knew it was dangerous territory when they signed on. The full powers might deserve government financial assistance, just like any eminent domain procedure.

The real problem with any reallocation plan is there are many ways for it to go horribly wrong. Given the way licensing procedures have been handled in the past, it could potentially open up a "land grab" situation, similar to what has happened on the expanded band for AM. I'm not sure if the current FCC administration is up to the task. I'm sure the engineers at the Commission could handle it, but would the lawyers and bureaucrats?

 

[R.F. Burns]

The short and not-so-sweet answer? (Say it with me.)

IT CAN'T BE DONE. Not in-band, on channel, with 10 kHz bandwidth. No amount of wishful thinking or baseless optimism can make a tornado fit through a keyhole. Not, that is, without wreaking havoc rendering the whole effort pointless.

The brute-force, make-it-work-somehow-dammit attitude towards IBOC-AM is what has produced the debacle now before us. As the old TV commercial said: "it's not nice to fool Mother Nature." She hits back.

The sooner we admit HD-AM doesn't work, the sooner we can move on to seek alternative solutions. Nope, I don't have an easy answer either, Mike, but laying waste to established and still-successful stations is hardly fair or valid. If digital HAS to be the answer - I remain somewhat skeptical about that, since pipe organs, violins and the human voice remain stubbornly analog - the only realistic solution is migration to new frequencies, somewhere, somehow.

Big Group Radio has a choice to make: either face competition which could give parity to competing operators in a new band, or cling stubbornly to the current hybrid mess and watch the slow decline of AM continue.

I believe that's true. The best solution in my opinion is to annex TV channels 5 & 6 for FM broadcasting and move a lot of local AM stations to those new frequencies. The FCC might also require translators and even LPFM stations to move there over time as well. That would clean up the AM band for a few remaining high power AM's who have signals that would work well with a digital hybrid solution. It would also unclog the FM band.

We've all more or less agreed that IBOC FM works OK. Still it has its problems, especially in crowded areas where short spacing is a way of life. The reality of the moment is only a very small percentage FM broadcast facilities are running IBOC. Don't forget that all the translators and LPFM stations occupy these frequencies too. Yes, I know they are "secondary service" stations, but once you have given something, it is hard to take it back. There would be quite an outcry if the FCC tried to do that.

If EVERYONE lit up in IBOC on FM, I’ll bet there would be lots of interference problems on that band as well. We just haven't pushed the limits as yet. The good news is the new HD radios seem to have amazing selectivity, which is great for those who purchase them, but it doesn't do very much for the little old lady with her Zenith table radio that just wants to hear her local version of "Swap and Shop." By expanding the band, there could be room for a lot more stations with a lot less interference problems.

The downside of this idea is a few (six, I think) full power TV stations that plan to revert to their original VHF allocations would have to move to a different channel after the DTV transition date. There are also some LPTV stations on TV 6. They'd have to move to another channel. I don't have much sympathy for the LPTVs. They knew it was dangerous territory when they signed on. The full powers might deserve government financial assistance, just like any eminent domain procedure.

The real problem with any reallocation plan is there are many ways for it to go horribly wrong. Given the way licensing procedures have been handled in the past, it could potentially open up a "land grab" situation, similar to what has happened on the expanded band for AM. I'm not sure if the current FCC administration is up to the task. I'm sure the engineers at the Commission could handle it, but would the lawyers and bureaucrats?

There was talk about opening channel 1 to HD broadcasting but word that General Sarnoff was readying his team of attournies put that rumor to an end.

 

[Savage]

Radioman, I can't disagree with you that the current Democrat-"led" Congress wants to shut down conservative talk radio and to silence any kind of dissent from their LIBERAL agenda. It's just that, given the current Congress' track record of having to use both hands, a road map and GPS just to find their own butts, I'm not losing any sleep over the threats of reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine.

Maybe I should. But, jeez, how many times has Congress floated a vote to cut funding for the troops in Iraq: 20? 30?? And they can't even get their own delegation in line. As I stated before, when the rubber meets the road, not even fanatically left Dems are going to want to line up behind a measure to silence Rush, Savage et al. (With the possible exception of moonbats like Dennis Kucinich or Charlie Rangel.) The negative political implications would be enormous - and any attempt to reimpose the FD will immediately be blocked in court anyway on First Amendment grounds. No matter how disconnected or inept, Congressmen instinctively avoid political kamikaze missions.

Again, I think all the Fairness Doctrine talk is aimed at intimidation. (That's what 80% of the Imus flap was about - and you saw how similar measures to discredit Rush and Savage have gone down in flames. Now Savage/Weiner is suing CAIR over their little fascist thought-control stunt.)

I also agree that the GOP wasn't ordering Martin to Hill sit-downs for the simple reason: he was their guy. I respect your opinion but disagree that any liberal political agenda will translate to disinterest in the HD lobbying matter. I'm a Republican but I still think that process stunk to high heaven. I hold my guys to the same expectations I have of folks on the other side of the aisle, maybe more so.

 

[dbdigital]

The short and not-so-sweet answer? (Say it with me.)

IT CAN'T BE DONE. Not in-band, on channel, with 10 kHz bandwidth. No amount of wishful thinking or baseless optimism can make a tornado fit through a keyhole. Not, that is, without wreaking havoc rendering the whole effort pointless.

The brute-force, make-it-work-somehow-dammit attitude towards IBOC-AM is what has produced the debacle now before us. As the old TV commercial said: "it's not nice to fool Mother Nature." She hits back.

The sooner we admit HD-AM doesn't work, the sooner we can move on to seek alternative solutions. Nope, I don't have an easy answer either, Mike, but laying waste to established and still-successful stations is hardly fair or valid. If digital HAS to be the answer - I remain somewhat skeptical about that, since pipe organs, violins and the human voice remain stubbornly analog - the only realistic solution is migration to new frequencies, somewhere, somehow.

Big Group Radio has a choice to make: either face competition which could give parity to competing operators in a new band, or cling stubbornly to the current hybrid mess and watch the slow decline of AM continue.

There are also some LPTV stations on TV 6. They'd have to move to another channel. I don't have much sympathy for the LPTVs. They knew it was dangerous territory when they signed on. The full powers might deserve government financial assistance, just like any eminent domain procedure.

Yeah, and a few of these LPTV stations on ch. 6 are promoting themselves as FM stations on 87.7. We have one here in Los Angeles. Of course, the video feed (stock shots of scenics) has nothing in common with the audio.

It would serve them right if they were forced to move up the band and out of ch. 6. After all, this group applied for and got a LPTV license not a license for a faux FM station. They need to start being responsible television broadcasters.

db

 

[hipporadio]

EXCELLENT THREAD! ALL, on both sides of the issue are making very-good points. I especially appreciated Mike Walker’s post in Reply #3... WELL-put, Mike!

Chuck... You’re at your usual best:

The real problem with any reallocation plan is there are many ways for it to go horribly wrong. Given the way licensing procedures have been handled in the past, it could potentially open up a "land grab" situation, similar to what has happened on the expanded band for AM. I'm not sure if the current FCC administration is up to the task. I'm sure the engineers at the Commission could handle it, but would the lawyers and bureaucrats?

There’s NOTHING I can add here... imagine THAT

 

[clouseau]

EXCELLENT THREAD! ALL, on both sides of the issue are making very-good points. I especially appreciated Mike Walker’s post in Reply #3... WELL-put, Mike!

Chuck... You’re at your usual best:

The real problem with any reallocation plan is there are many ways for it to go horribly wrong. Given the way licensing procedures have been handled in the past, it could potentially open up a "land grab" situation, similar to what has happened on the expanded band for AM. I'm not sure if the current FCC administration is up to the task. I'm sure the engineers at the Commission could handle it, but would the lawyers and bureaucrats?

There’s NOTHING I can add here... imagine THAT

It's almost like the Code writers (Microsoft) are only a quarter step ahead of the Hackers. FCC Makes rules... People find loopholes...

Gates can't find people who can't get hacked. Neither can the FCC rulemakers...

Clouseau

Proud Hacker of FCC rules everytime I can follow them and benefit me...

BTW a little real radio is also a good thing..

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

It's almost like the Code writers (Microsoft) are only a quarter step ahead of the Hackers. FCC Makes rules... People find loopholes...

Gates can't find people who can't get hacked. Neither can the FCC rulemakers...

Clouseau

Proud Hacker of FCC rules everytime I can follow them and benefit me...

BTW a little real radio is also a good thing..

Clouseau

I would never advocate that someone should pay more than his or her legal share of taxes either. The problem is we elect people to do their best for us, their constituents. I don’t know about you, but I expect a very high standard from our elected officials. Unfortunately, I’m often disappointed. I suspect that most of us are. Either we are electing morons, or the people we elect end up having alternate agendas. I'll let you make up your own mind about what actually happens.

 

[hipporadio]

...Either we are electing morons, or the people we elect end up having alternate agendas. I'll let you make up your own mind about what actually happens.

ANOTHER good observation, Chuck! I wouldn’t dismiss the probability that a “moron” could make *his* way into the public sector [or become one once there], but your latter speculation is overwhelmingly true. The contemporary function of the FCC is a stellar example!

 

[wkbam1690]

...Either we are electing morons, or the people we elect end up having alternate agendas. I'll let you make up your own mind about what actually happens.

ANOTHER good observation, Chuck! I wouldn’t dismiss the probability that a “moron” could make *his* way into the public sector [or become one once there], but your latter speculation is overwhelmingly true. The contemporary function of the FCC is a stellar example!

They may be honorable people when they get there, but when the dollar signs get it their eyes, it blurs any allegiance they may have once had for the general public and our interests.