"Desperately Seeking Portable HD"

[Len14043]

OldGringo WROTE: Nobody listens to adjacent channel stations under the shadow of a primary local. There is no loss.

You are absolutly right. To the general public, there is no loss. The only losses incurred are to the DXers. They may argue that the technology is flawed and bla bla bla, but they are just ticked that it will impact upon their DXing hobby. It all comes down to that.

 

[vsa]

LEN14043 OPINED REGARDING ADJACENT CHANNEL INTERFERENCE: "To the general public, there is no loss. The only losses incurred are to the DXers. They may argue that the technology is flawed and bla bla bla, but they are just ticked that it will impact upon their DXing hobby. It all comes down to that."


Major broadcast groups who are iBiquity stakeholders and are major movers in the NAB continue to be in strong opposition before the FCC as it considers a proposed new LPAM - Low Power A-M service. Here's a link to an NAB document to that effect.

http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?...late=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=357

I have no personal interest in being an LPAMer. From one side of their mouths they say added HD Radio interference to licensed analog neighbors is a price that must be paid. Then, out of the other side of the mouth comes the arguement that low powered analog AMers would cause catostrophic interference to an AM band that already suffers from intolerable interference! They also say it would complicate their HD rollout, without bothering to mention their support for HD-caused complications to neighboring, licensed analog stations. 

What are these people worried about? Losing Dxers? These hot-shot big-boys would only be losing FRINGE coverage at most, wouldn't they? All of us are constantly being shoveled the line that nobody listens on the fringes. You HD/NAB people can't have it both ways.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S    A N D    D-E-C-E-I-V-E-R-S!!!

 

[OldGringo]

So, what does AM IBOC buy us - no one listens to AM anymore. IBOC allows more channels of the same terrestrial garbage, but at the expense of 60% of the listener audience. The broadcast bands are listened to as a convenience - for real entertainment people are listening to Satellite Radio, Internet Radio while surfing the Internet, cell phone radio/streams, iPods, CDs, etc... Nothing is going to "fix" the broadcast bands, especially AM - better programming would help, but IBOC supporters don't want to acknowledge this, or simply can't comprehend this simplier solution.

There is no loss of "60%" of the audience. Nearly all AM listening is in near saturation ocverage zones, and the only oeople listening are over 45 and ageing. The only salvation for AM is a digital system that is on a single chip and rides along with FM digital. That give AM some chance to compete.

Without HD, AM is dead. With it, usinga compatible system, it has a chance of continuing.

I love it when people defend listening that is not happening to signals that are not listenable.

 

[vsa]

Tell me OldGringo/David: Do YOU support or oppose any analog LPAM service? And why?

 

[Len14043]

VSA WROTE: "I have no personal interest in being an LPAMer. From one side of their mouths they say added HD Radio interference to licensed analog neighbors is a price that must be paid. Then, out of the other side of the mouth comes the arguement that low powered analog AMers would cause catostrophic interference to an AM band that already suffers from intolerable interference! They also say it would complicate their HD rollout, without bothering to mention their support for HD-caused complications to neighboring, licensed analog stations."

I don't see any contradiction here. IBOC will not be adding stations like LPAM would, it will just improve the existing service once we get beyond the hybrid mode. I, like you, am not a supporter of LPAM. Besides, I thought we already have LPAM in the form of graveyard stations. Because of the nature of IBOC, LPAM stations would have severe impact on IBOC (as well as the existing analog)service because it wouldn't take much additional interference to interfere with the comparatively low powered IBOC sidebands. On the other hand, IBOC causes little interference to the existing analog from the perspective of the general public.

 

[700WLW]

So, what does AM IBOC buy us - no one listens to AM anymore. IBOC allows more channels of the same terrestrial garbage, but at the expense of 60% of the listener audience. The broadcast bands are listened to as a convenience - for real entertainment people are listening to Satellite Radio, Internet Radio while surfing the Internet, cell phone radio/streams, iPods, CDs, etc... Nothing is going to "fix" the broadcast bands, especially AM - better programming would help, but IBOC supporters don't want to acknowledge this, or simply can't comprehend this simplier solution.

There is no loss of "60%" of the audience. Nearly all AM listening is in near saturation ocverage zones, and the only oeople listening are over 45 and ageing. The only salvation for AM is a digital system that is on a single chip and rides along with FM digital. That give AM some chance to compete.

Without HD, AM is dead. With it, usinga compatible system, it has a chance of continuing.

I love it when people defend listening that is not happening to signals that are not listenable.

It is well-known that IBOC has only 60% the coverage of analog - making AM digital does not gain anything, just repetitive side-channels of the same old garbage.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

OldGringo WROTE: Nobody listens to adjacent channel stations under the shadow of a primary local. There is no loss.

You are absolutly right. To the general public, there is no loss. The only losses incurred are to the DXers. They may argue that the technology is flawed and bla bla bla, but they are just ticked that it will impact upon their DXing hobby. It all comes down to that.

There is a loss in coverage to suburbanites, commuters, and rural listeners that do not consider themselves DXers or involved in the hobby. They are listeners, and deserve service.
Since most stations are concentrated in or near cities and towns and commutes become longer as the suburbs spread, your statements do not reflect reality. Commuters, suburbanites, and even rural listeners have a right to expect service. Weather, traffic, news, and alerts have long been part of broadcasters obligations in exchange for the license to use the public's airwaves. To abandon these obligations to provide only very local digital service, is to abandon your obligations to serve the public.
On the one hand HD supporters say XM, Sirius, internet radio, and other newer technologies can't provide the live local programs that over the air boadcast stations provide, on the other hand they have elliminated most of the live local services and programming, while cutting back on live local, by networking, automating, and laying off thousands of employees who were engaged in producing this local content. So ther is not much local left. Now HD supporters say they no longer wish to provide the wide area coverage their high powered 50,000 watt licenses were issued to provide.
Since local coverage is all these broadcasters are interested in providing, perhaps they should swap frequency and power allocations with local and regional broadcasters who wish to serve the wider metropolitan, suburban and rural areas.
HD supporters claims of no interference are simple ignorance or denial.

An example of HD first adjacent interfernce is WDAS 1480 AM interfering with suburban WBCB 1490 by putting loud digital buzz on WBCB's 1mV/m southern coverage area.

All of us are constantly being shoveled the line that nobody listens on the fringes. You HD/NAB people can't have it both ways.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S A N D D-E-C-E-I-V-E-R-S!!!

 

[Len14043]

SUPERCASTER WROTE: An example of HD first adjacent interfernce is WDAS 1480 AM interfering with suburban WBCB 1490 by putting loud digital buzz on WBCB's 1mV/m southern coverage area.

Do you know what percentage of WBCB's listeners listen outside their 1mv/m contour? I doubt not many because a signal with that strenght would already be severly degraded by powerlines, computers and yes, the IBOC buzz from the 1st ajacient. It would be nearly impossible to listen to a 1 mv/m signal inside a building, unless you are a DXer and have special equipment to receive the signal. Listening in a vehicle would also be challenging. You would have to pull over and make sure there are no powerlines nearby, and shut off the engine. And if there was a thunderstorm within 100 miles, forget it. If IBOC were outlawed, the improvement to WBCB's signal would be comparable to lightening a battleship by throwing an anchor overboard. Can you find examples of daytime IBOC interference in the 5mv/m contour of of non-graveyard stations? If so, then we may have a legitimate interference concern.

 

[OldGringo]

There is a loss in coverage to suburbanites, commuters, and rural listeners that do not consider themselves DXers or involved in the hobby. They are listeners, and deserve service.
Since most stations are concentrated in or near cities and towns and commutes become longer as the suburbs spread, your statements do not reflect reality. Commuters, suburbanites, and even rural listeners have a right to expect service. Weather, traffic, news, and alerts have long been part of broadcasters obligations in exchange for the license to use the public's airwaves. To abandon these obligations to provide only very local digital service, is to abandon your obligations to serve the public.
On the one hand HD supporters say XM, Sirius, internet radio, and other newer technologies can't provide the live local programs that over the air boadcast stations provide, on the other hand they have elliminated most of the live local services and programming, while cutting back on live local, by networking, automating, and laying off thousands of employees who were engaged in producing this local content. So ther is not much local left. Now HD supporters say they no longer wish to provide the wide area coverage their high powered 50,000 watt licenses were issued to provide.
Since local coverage is all these broadcasters are interested in providing, perhaps they should swap frequency and power allocations with local and regional broadcasters who wish to serve the wider metropolitan, suburban and rural areas.
HD supporters claims of no interference are simple ignorance or denial.

An example of HD first adjacent interfernce is WDAS 1480 AM interfering with suburban WBCB 1490 by putting loud digital buzz on WBCB's 1mV/m southern coverage area.

1 mv/m? You are not serious, are you? In studies done both by Arbitron and researchers with access to Arbitron diaries, in larger metropolitan areas nearly all measured listening is in areas where the signal is between about 7 and 10 mv/m, at the minimum. In some markets, like LA and NY, it takes a 12 to 15 mv/m signal to generate any listening. Outside those contours, there is essentially no listening at all. In smaller markets, it can be that a 5 mv/m signal is adequate (assuming that such signal is interference free) but below that, in urban areas, there is no listening. Oh, a Class IV, or local channel, is not afforded protection that far out. At night, it takes about a 7 mv/m signal to overcome the cochannel interference consistently.

Most larger markets, outside the top 4, have at most two to three AMs that even cover the whole market... and that is one of the reasons AM is failing in the US.

 

[vsa]

LEN14043 WROTE: "I don't see any contradiction here. IBOC will not be adding stations like LPAM would..."

What the hell are those IBOC sidebands if not the equivalent of LP (low power) AM stations on separate frequencies in digital drag. Of course you don't see any problem. You are too busy rationalizing junk iBiquity technology.

"On the other hand, IBOC causes little interference to the existing analog from the perspective of the general public."

LPAMers would only interfere with signals outside the city grade signals of HD Radio stations - you know - the areas where you say nobody listens.
 
You are arguing that there is plenty of room on the AM band for HD-generated interference, but absolutely no room on the AM dial for LPAM-generated interference. WHICH IS TRUE? IT CANNOT BE BOTH.

 

[Len14043]

VSA WROTE: "What the hell are those IBOC sidebands if not the equivalent of LPAM stations in digital drag. Of course you don't see any problem. You are too busy rationalizing junk iBiquity technology."

Before IBOC, 10 khz bandwidth caused analog splatter to be present where the digital sidebands presently are. Basically, one form of interference was substituted for another. You may be surprised, but I don't like the hybrid mode either. I hope we transition to the all-digital mode in due time. The all-digital mode will work much better than the hybrid mode, and will open up interesting DXing possibilities. Remember, I am a DXer too.


VSA WROTE: "So it's bad to interfere with those who have the iBiquity perspective and it's good to interfere with those who have a "don't interfere with analog signals" perspective?"

It's a matter of degree. IBOC causes minimal interference to analog service. However, LPAM signals would be ruinous to the already fickle low powered IBOC sidebands.

At least both of us can agree that LPAM is not in the best interest of AM. While listening to AM talkshows at night, co-channel interference is already problematic. While listening to WKRC (550) in Cincinnati, stations from St. Louis and Buffalo can be heard in the background. Just imagine the analog interference with several LPAM stations on the same frequency.

 

[vsa]

LEN14043 WTOTE: "Basically, one form of interference was substituted for another."

Not true. Not even close. If what you state is true there would have been ZERO need to get any kind of OK from the FCC.

LEN14043 WROTE: "Remember, I am a DXer too."

I am not, certainly not in the hobbyist sense.

LEN14043 WROTE REGARDING INTERFERENCE: "It's a matter of degree. IBOC causes minimal interference to analog service."

You are in total denial.

LEN14043 WENT ON: "However, LPAM signals would be ruinous to the already fickle low powered IBOC sidebands."

So it's OK for HD Radio to interfere with analog reception, but it's not OK for LPAM to interfere with your sacred HD Radio.

LEN14043 WROTE: "While listening to AM talkshows at night, co-channel interference is already problematic. While listening to WKRC (550) in Cincinnati, stations from St. Louis and Buffalo can be heard in the background. Just imagine the analog interference with several LPAM stations on the same frequency."

This is not good. But turning on AM HD Radio's electronic buzzzzzzz-saw at night is good?

I've about had enough here with self-interest-filled iBiquity dinosaur hacks. It's like talking to a fence post. Go ahead and destroy yourselves and traditional radio too. I'll be listening to my choice of digital, interference-free radio by way of the wired and wireless Internet.

http://www.selectradio.com/SelectRadioFeatures.html

Hmmm. It might even turn out to be an opportunity-filled place in which to play.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

SUPERCASTER WROTE: An example of HD first adjacent interfernce is WDAS 1480 AM interfering with suburban WBCB 1490 by putting loud digital buzz on WBCB's 1mV/m southern coverage area.

Do you know what percentage of WBCB's listeners listen outside their 1mv/m contour? I doubt not many because a signal with that strenght would already be severly degraded by powerlines, computers and yes, the IBOC buzz from the 1st ajacient. It would be nearly impossible to listen to a 1 mv/m signal inside a building, unless you are a DXer and have special equipment to receive the signal. Listening in a vehicle would also be challenging. You would have to pull over and make sure there are no powerlines nearby, and shut off the engine. And if there was a thunderstorm within 100 miles, forget it. If IBOC were outlawed, the improvement to WBCB's signal would be comparable to lightening a battleship by throwing an anchor overboard. Can you find examples of daytime IBOC interference in the 5mv/m contour of of non-graveyard stations? If so, then we may have a legitimate interference concern.

The iBuzz is inside the 1mV/m contour, not outside. The rest of your comments are even more biased, inaccurate and irrelevant.
If radio has lost all the listeners, commuters, suburbanites, beyond a few miles from the transmitter site, then it's doomed, and new media such as internet streaming, podcasting, iPods, MP3 players, satellite, etc. have already won, and captured most of your listeners. AM and FM stations are just left with inner city blight. At least that explains most of the programming and format decisions made recently focusing only on inner city programming.

,

 

[Chuck]

Major broadcast groups who are iBiquity stakeholders and are major movers in the NAB continue to be in strong opposition before the FCC as it considers a proposed new LPAM - Low Power A-M service. Here's a link to an NAB document to that effect.
<snip>
You HD/NAB people can't have it both ways.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S A N D D-E-C-E-I-V-E-R-S!!!

Keep in mind that these are the same people who said that LPFM (at 100 watts/ 100 feet) creates "unacceptable interference," yet they are currently lobbying the FCC to allow existing AM stations to have FM translators. Under current rules, translators can be be as much as 250 watts at 200 feet off the ground. Further, you can put a translator in many locations that a local LPFM station can't go.

Interesting physics...

 

[Len14043]

VSA WROTE REGARDING MY STATEMENT THAT IBOC CAUSES MINIMAL INTERFERENCE TO ANALOG SERVICE: "You are in total denial."
OK. Then show me an article or direct me to a link that indicates a major outcry from the general public over interference cause by IBOC. Make sure it's not from a DXers source.

VSA WROTE: "So it's OK for HD Radio to interfere with analog reception, but it's not OK for LPAM to interfere with your sacred HD Radio."
Why are you against LPAM? Is it because it will interfere with one of your sacred interests?

VSA WROTE: "But turning on AM HD Radio's electronic buzzzzzzz-saw at night is good?"
I am not an advocate of AM hybrid IBOC at night.

VSA WROTE: "I've about had enough here with self-interest-filled iBiquity dinosaur hacks. It's like talking to a fence post."
What is your self-interest? If you want to preserve the status quo, then who is the dinosaur hack? As far as talking to a fencepost, are you saying that merely because I'm a supporter of HD radio?

 

[Len14043]

SUPERCASTER WROTE: "The iBuzz is inside the 1mV/m contour, not outside."
OK, point taken. Then at what signal level is the IBOC interfereing inside the 1 mv/m contour? That can be anywhere from under the tower out to the 1 mv/m contour. Where the interference is occuring makes all the difference in the world.

SUPERCASTER WROTE: "The rest of your comments are even more biased, inaccurate and irrelevant."
Please explain.

 

[audiophile.]

Why only 1 mV/m?

Class B FM's are protected to .5 mV/m. Class B1 FM's are protected to .7 mV/m. AM Daytime is protected to .5 mV/m too...

I've given audio samples, contours maps, listener reports and even copies of formal complaints that were field with FCC. What of these, Len? Are my claims with merit or not? Please be specific.

Keep in mind that these are the same people who said that LPFM (at 100 watts/ 100 feet) creates "unacceptable interference," yet they are currently lobbying the FCC to allow existing AM stations to have FM translators. Under current rules, translators can be be as much as 250 watts at 200 feet off the ground. Further, you can put a translator in many locations that a local LPFM station can't go.

Interesting physics...

Here, Here...

I'm not a huge LPFM fan, but on an engineering basis the NAB is two faced.

 

[Len14043]

AUDIOPHILE WROTE: "Why only 1 mV/m? Class B FM's are protected to .5 mV/m. Class B1 FM's are protected to .7 mV/m. AM Daytime is protected to .5 mV/m too..."

Audiophile, I am not very knowledgable about the FCC rules regarding protection, but I want you to take a look at the contour maps through the links below:

On the first link, notice that the 0.5 mv/m (purple line) for WHIZ 1240 from Zanesville goes through the eastern suburbs of Columbus:
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WHIZ&service=AM&status=L&hours=D

On the second link, notice that the 2.0 mv/m (red line) for WTPG 1230 from Columbus extends well east and well inside the 0.5 mv/m contour for WHIZ:
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WTPG&service=AM&status=L&hours=U

You said AM daytime stations are protected to the 0.5 mv/m i.e. purple contour. If so, how do you think WHIZ 1240 would sound at their 0.5 mv contour where it crosses through Columbus? My guess is that it would be unlistenable due to the splatter from WTPG 1230, or IBOC hash(I believe WTPG is running IBOC). Conversly, WTPG 1230 would be unlistenable at their 0.5 mv/m contour where it sails slightly west of Zanesville and well inside the 2.0 mv/m contour of WHIZ 1240.

 

[OldGringo]

Why only 1 mV/m?

Class B FM's are protected to .5 mV/m. Class B1 FM's are protected to .7 mV/m. AM Daytime is protected to .5 mV/m too...

Let´s try this again. There has been extensive study of where metro radio ratings come from. 80% of FM listening is fromt he 70 dbu contour, and about 95% is from inside the 64 dbu contour. Whether the FCC protects a contour or not is immaterial. Listeners do not listen when the signal is bad.

I've given audio samples, contours maps, listener reports and even copies of formal complaints that were field with FCC. What of these, Len? Are my claims with merit or not? Please be specific.

Since nearly nobody is listening to larger market stations (top 200 or so) outside the very strong contours, this is immaterial and falls inthe category of "if a tree falls in a forest where there are no peple, does it make a sound?"

 

[Len14043]

OLDGRINGO WROTE: "Let´s try this again. There has been extensive study of where metro radio ratings come from. 80% of FM listening is fromt he 70 dbu contour, and about 95% is from inside the 64 dbu contour. Whether the FCC protects a contour or not is immaterial. Listeners do not listen when the signal is bad."

Than sounds about right. I read an article a few years back where it discussed a study on the effectiveness of clear channel stations. Basically, the article states that Arbitron has a great deal of data supporting the claim that an AM station must have a signal strenght of 2.5 mv/m to show up on the Arbitron logs. I'll post the link if I can locate the article. I believe a graveyard station at night is only good to about 10-20 mv/m before it vanishes like a fart in the wind.