Ditgital in the UK...

[ve3jf]

I still think that DAB would have a future in the US if anyone would just give it a chance. It's a better format, better sound quality, most of which come from no need for backwards compatibility (the main thrust behind IBOC).

When digital radio ws first considered in the United States two considerations were required by the FCC. First, because the commisskion would not assign any more spectrum for radio broadcasting the new system wold have to be compatible with existing analog transmissions and two, the system had to work on both AM & FM. IBOC in whatever form does do that. The European DAB does not. FM XTra doesn't work on AM and the Cam D system isn't FM compatible. Hope this helps explain why we are where we are.

Not so, RF... the FCC did not place any constraints on possible spectrum usage in the early days of digital radio. In the mid-90's, digital broadcast systems using L-band and S-band were evaluated in addition to IBOC, and the Commission did float the idea of reallocating some of the TV spectrum below 88 MHz to radio. However, after the NAB ended its brief flirtation with the Eureka DAB system and started lobbying hard (along with CBS, Clear Channel, et al) for IBOC, the FCC eventually fell into line and went along with them.

It was a consortium of big AM/FM owners that steered this ship to where it is today (some would say onto the rocks, but that depends on your POV).

 

[Tom Wells]

My old buddy R.F. Burns gave us this paradox to ponder and digest:

we have people complaining that the FCC is allowing stations to broadcast using the IBOC digital system (which is a system developed by private industry) and on one hand they say government should stay out of certain aspects of their lives but they want government protection from IBOC. You can't have it both ways.

If it were up to me (and I know it isn't) I choose government protection from IBOC!

PLEASE!

It was decided a long time ago that there should be a trustee, a manager for RF application and uses in this country.
A consistent and predictable policy from this agency would be less vexing for those of us who expect others to live by the rules they
are entrusted with creating and upholding.
It would aslo be good if this agency respected and worked "along with the grain" regarding the laws of physics, instead of against it.


Quick note to those folks totally un-initiated to any rf engineering:

"lower" frequency RF = audio resolution only. Poor for data rates. Great for huge area coverage.

"higher" frequency RF = High resolution for data, "overkill" for analog applications, but no advantage for analog use, either.
Line of sight behavior increases providing for essentially unlimited frequency re-use in smaller and smaller
"zones" like bluetooth. Approaches wired or fiber-optic data reliability as frequency increases.

Now that both the AM and FM broadcast bands have proven TOO LOW in frequency for reliable digital communications,
can we somehow please proceed to reliable a digital "radio" service that at can least, NUMBER 1:

Duplicate or exceed the robustness of analog signal intelligibility. Better audio OR worse, I don't care!

Just something that's as "real" and we can hear trying instead of just more buffering delay and synch delay mismatch.
And a "please stand by" mp3 loop out of a chip would be better than what HD 2,3 listeners get now.
Why wasn't THAT designed into the system, HUH?

HUH?


Excuse me, I've been up way too long. Good night all.

 

[hubcity]

And a "please stand by" mp3 loop out of a chip would be better than what HD 2,3 listeners get now.

Reminds me of the Doctor Who episode "Silence In The Library" - when a character died, their psychically linked spacesuit kept repeating their last living thoughts, because it was still stored in the suit communicator's buffer.

/"Hey, who turned out the lights?"

 

[K6JHU]

Please, please, please, no 'just standby message'. I prefer the silence for the couple of seconds of dropout.

And for low frequency, once you decide to dump the AM compatibilty issue, DRM works just fine.

 

[Carmine5]

I still think that DAB would have a future in the US if anyone would just give it a chance. It's a better format, better sound quality, most of which come from no need for backwards compatibility (the main thrust behind IBOC).

When digital radio ws first considered in the United States two considerations were required by the FCC. First, because the commisskion would not assign any more spectrum for radio broadcasting the new system wold have to be compatible with existing analog transmissions and two, the system had to work on both AM & FM. IBOC in whatever form does do that. The European DAB does not. FM XTra doesn't work on AM and the Cam D system isn't FM compatible. Hope this helps explain why we are where we are.

Not so, RF... the FCC did not place any constraints on possible spectrum usage in the early days of digital radio. In the mid-90's, digital broadcast systems using L-band and S-band were evaluated in addition to IBOC, and the Commission did float the idea of reallocating some of the TV spectrum below 88 MHz to radio. However, after the NAB ended its brief flirtation with the Eureka DAB system and started lobbying hard (along with CBS, Clear Channel, et al) for IBOC, the FCC eventually fell into line and went along with them.

It was a consortium of big AM/FM owners that steered this ship to where it is today (some would say onto the rocks, but that depends on your POV).

Now, with the advent of the National Broadband Plan there is absolutely no way that the FCC would allocate any new spectrum to radio. If the industry really wants digital, IBOC on the existing AM/FM bands is it. No amount of wishing for DAB on a different band will make it so.