Fcc approves digital am radio

[Rusty Bridges]

No, it's not "like saying nobody is buying Alexa." In fact, it's completely the opposite.

Consumers are "buying Alexa" and smart speaker technology because it's been properly and smartly purposed, and a need for the product has been demonstrated. It also interfaces with their technological ecosystems. And there's an overwhelming sense of "pull" from the consumers.



Seriously. Where would the "pull" come from for radio listeners? I'd read a survey about ten years ago that indicated approximately 2 percent of radio owners/listeners in Western New York had HD radios. At the time, I thought that number was inflated, but the survey included radios in cars as well as in homes, so perhaps that was true. (Maybe the survey also included big box stores that had such radios in stock that weren't purchased... joking.)

Most people didn't "know" about HD. The advertising push that stations were doing around 2008 was ineffective. "All these great new radio stations." The few folks who bought HD came to believe that "All those great new radio stations" weren't so great. Moreover Star 102.5 on HD didn't sound any different to their ears than Star 102.5 on normal FM radio. Respondents didn't get why they needed it.

As a few posters on this thread have already noted, there's no good answer to the question "Why do I need this?" Why do I want this. Why must I have this?

Consider your own stations. You've answered the why fairly effectively. WHY do listeners listen? Because they like Oldies and your station plays Oldies... music that few other stations in Buffalo play. As you've noted, most of your cume/AQH Persons go to you FM translators. Listeners "know" FM and discern the difference between hearing, for example, "Color My World" on FM than hearind it on AM. And give Oldies 104 due credit for doing a good job distinguishing and promoting "the music you grew up with in clean, clear FM stereo" years ago. That noted, listeners for the most part cannot differentiate between the sound of Color My World on HD and on FM.

To make HD AM work, broadcasters will have to make a deep investment, educate their listeners and then hope listeners develop a need for the product. Dave Eduardo kind of explained it earlier in the thread. I doubt many broadcasters, locally or nationally, consider AM HD worth the risks of investment as a long term future prospect. That's a very big ask. There are other priorities, more pressing and more immediate.

 

[TheBigA]

Consumers are "buying Alexa" and smart speaker technology because it's been properly and smartly purposed, and a need for the product has been demonstrated. It also interfaces with their technological ecosystems. And there's an overwhelming sense of "pull" from the consumers.

It depends. The growth is in pull. That's why all of the traditional forms of media are launching "pull" types of products.

But push is still dominant because it's cheap & easy. Pull media will cost, and take time. The majority of people are happy to sit on the couch.

 

[davideduardo]

... and more reliable ways. Impulse noise remains a big issue for the medium wave broadcast band.

And yet nobody has commented on the two biggest impediments to HD on AM: noise-reduced coverage and few stations that fully cover their markets.

As suburban sprawl began right after WW II, stations licensed in the early 30's began to find that they were not reaching the outer suburbs.

Then, as we got flourescent lights, TV sets in ever home, there was more noise on AM. When computers and microprocessor controlled devices started arriving, noise increased. Now, even my tootbrush that can reorder replacement elements "talks" to my iPhone. And every one pours some kind of noise into my home, even if it just due to the cheap wall wart

It used to be that even about 2 mV/m would provide a listenable signal. Now, the ITU says that 15 mV/m is the threshold for interference-free listening.

Younger people are not going to try AM. They know it sucks, technically and content-wise.

Doing all digital on AM is sort of like that "bridge to nowhere" boondoggle in Alaska where politicians created a project because "the money was there". But in AM radio, there is no money save for a few entrepreneurs like Buddy. Digital won't help.

 

[Buddy Shula]

We can agree to disagree. I have three great metro FM frequencies. That takes a lot of risk away. Especially when more listeners listen our our FMs and current digital devices.

If anything, we can be a trendsetter in Buffalo and nationwide. This is not ten years ago when HD was a flop. It is standard in 50 percent of all new cars. If it becomes standard in 80 percent, that is something to think about.

Knowing that most listeners are on our FMs , it can’t hurt to much to make the AM quality sound incredible.

I see downsides, but I see opportunities. One think is for sue, AM quality , especially for music stations, is not getting better.

Unless we flip to talk radio. Then AM, 3 FM, App, Streaming, Voice activated devices could be a boon.

 

[DN14224]

The world is digital. TV did the same thing.

TV went all-digital several years after compatible equipment hit the market so it was (relatively) simple for users to make the switch. Can't say the same about HDRadio (as noted above). Unfortunately the industry doesn't learn from history (AM Stereo, FM HD, etc). so IMO this will be the next abject failure. As other mentioned - streaming is the only feasible solution.

This is not ten years ago when HD was a flop. It is standard in 50 percent of all new cars. If it becomes standard in 80 percent, that is something to think about.

No it isn't. People don't live in their cars. "Something to think about" is when you can get an HD radio for your home as easily as you can a non-HD model for the same price.

 

[louis_p]

I have a few questions for you, Buddy Shula...

What would be the cost of converting your station from analog to digital? What would be the capital expenditure for the equipment (assuming the wattage and coverage contour would remain the same)? What would be the additional ongoing annual operating costs above what your paying now assuming you sign off the analog signal and perform a hard cutover to digital (ex. license fees, additional power)?

I’m asking these questions because there are several active discussions on here about AM HD. Several critics argue that it won’t happen because stations would lose listeners, no HD radios available, etc. I’ve seen estimates that some full market AM stations have less than 100 listeners in peak drive-time and most listeners choose either the FM simulcast or streaming. Everybody I know regardless of age/generation unanimously agrees that AM sound quality & interference creates a subpar listening experience. Given these factors, I wonder if stations have much to lose at this point.

 

[fybush]

It used to be that even about 2 mV/m would provide a listenable signal. Now, the ITU says that 15 mV/m is the threshold for interference-free listening.

In analog, I agree.

But you haven't driven an MA3 signal yet, right, David? I have, and fairly extensively. My experience on several visits to DC over the last two years since WWFD has been testing MA3 all-digital is that the digital signal locks and stays consistently locked out past the analog 0.5 mV/m contour. For WWFD, that means coverage all the way down 270 to Washington (and sometimes beyond), down 70 into Baltimore, and north almost to Harrisburg. (You can hear it in Harrisburg but it starts getting spotty - the maps say it's down to about 0.2 mV/m by then.)

More than anything else, that's the part that might have been a game-changer had receiver penetration been better managed. And it's why I mentioned it to Buddy after one of those trips. I get about 0.2 mV/m of WECK at home in Rochester, 60 miles to the east. Based on my drives of the WWFD signal, I wouldn't be surprised if an all-digital WECK decoded for me that far out.

Even with three very good translators, there are still parts of the Buffalo market WECK doesn't quite reach on FM. With the exception of some parts of Niagara County, where a strong first-adjacent from Canada is problematic, I'd feel comfortable telling Buddy that an all-digital WECK AM signal would be easily usable in those areas. It might only be useful in one out of five cars right now - but since those are areas where right now, zero out of five cars gets either an acceptable AM or FM signal from WECK, what's the risk in trying now that the translator network provides 60+ dBu of FM signal everywhere the AM is above ~10 mV/m?

 

[davideduardo]

In analog, I agree.

But you haven't driven an MA3 signal yet, right, David? I have, and fairly extensively. My experience on several visits to DC over the last two years since WWFD has been testing MA3 all-digital is that the digital signal locks and stays consistently locked out past the analog 0.5 mV/m contour. For WWFD, that means coverage all the way down 270 to Washington (and sometimes beyond), down 70 into Baltimore, and north almost to Harrisburg. (You can hear it in Harrisburg but it starts getting spotty - the maps say it's down to about 0.2 mV/m by then.)

More than anything else, that's the part that might have been a game-changer had receiver penetration been better managed. And it's why I mentioned it to Buddy after one of those trips. I get about 0.2 mV/m of WECK at home in Rochester, 60 miles to the east. Based on my drives of the WWFD signal, I wouldn't be surprised if an all-digital WECK decoded for me that far out.

Even with three very good translators, there are still parts of the Buffalo market WECK doesn't quite reach on FM. With the exception of some parts of Niagara County, where a strong first-adjacent from Canada is problematic, I'd feel comfortable telling Buddy that an all-digital WECK AM signal would be easily usable in those areas. It might only be useful in one out of five cars right now - but since those are areas where right now, zero out of five cars gets either an acceptable AM or FM signal from WECK, what's the risk in trying now that the translator network provides 60+ dBu of FM signal everywhere the AM is above ~10 mV/m?

Here is the key question: during critical hours and at night, the former Class IV stations become a jumble of fairly equal strength signals as close in as 15 miles from the transmitter in some densely signal-populated areas. How will the MA3 signal perform vs a slew of other MA3 signals on the same channel?

WWFD has the advantage of being on a relatively clean channel with no other stations in the immediate region in the daytime. But how does their 430 watts do at night?

My greatest issue with the AM band is that half the stations have less than 500 watts at night or are daytimers. Another large group of AMs is so directional that they do not put a decent signal over much of their market due to other stations on the same channel in the same region. While the MA3 signal may be effective against noise for a greater distance, what happens when a station is on a crowded channel and the limiting factor is a co-channel station with equal or greater signal?

I would guess that less than a quarter of all US stations would be "competitive" with MA3 signals. Yes, a few limited signals might still be viable for ethnic or religious operations, but that leaves nearly 4,000 stations in a quandary.

Of course, the greatest factor is that a station that switches now is limiting its AM audience to less than 10% of its present listenership and totally eliminating all in-home listening potential now or in the future. Even if a much higher percentage of cars has HD radio, how can an AM only station or even an AM with a translator do to attract listeners to a band that has very little content to offer. Nobody is going to do a format on AM that is attractive and costs money to provide if the potential audience is so small. And many stations with translators would much rather the FCC just let them turn the AM off if they could get a permanent assigned class and status for future protection.

While I did not know that the signal was as sturdy as what you describe. I still don't think that this has any possibility of making AM great again. There is a Spanish saying, "a monkey, even if you dress it in silk, is still a monkey".

 

[semoochie]

Here is the key question: during critical hours and at night, the former Class IV stations become a jumble of fairly equal strength signals as close in as 15 miles from the transmitter in some densely signal-populated areas. How will the MA3 signal perform vs a slew of other MA3 signals on the same channel?

WWFD has the advantage of being on a relatively clean channel with no other stations in the immediate region in the daytime. But how does their 430 watts do at night?

My greatest issue with the AM band is that half the stations have less than 500 watts at night or are daytimers. Another large group of AMs is so directional that they do not put a decent signal over much of their market due to other stations on the same channel in the same region. While the MA3 signal may be effective against noise for a greater distance, what happens when a station is on a crowded channel and the limiting factor is a co-channel station with equal or greater signal?

I would guess that less than a quarter of all US stations would be "competitive" with MA3 signals. Yes, a few limited signals might still be viable for ethnic or religious operations, but that leaves nearly 4,000 stations in a quandary.

Of course, the greatest factor is that a station that switches now is limiting its AM audience to less than 10% of its present listenership and totally eliminating all in-home listening potential now or in the future. Even if a much higher percentage of cars has HD radio, how can an AM only station or even an AM with a translator do to attract listeners to a band that has very little content to offer. Nobody is going to do a format on AM that is attractive and costs money to provide if the potential audience is so small. And many stations with translators would much rather the FCC just let them turn the AM off if they could get a permanent assigned class and status for future protection.

While I did not know that the signal was as sturdy as what you describe. I still don't think that this has any possibility of making AM great again. There is a Spanish saying, "a monkey, even if you dress it in silk, is still a monkey".

Admittedly, I don't know all that much about technical limitations. Is it possible to have a capture ratio, that locks onto the strongest station on the frequency?

 

[davideduardo]

Admittedly, I don't know all that much about technical limitations. Is it possible to have a capture ratio, that locks onto the strongest station on the frequency?

The problem with many AMs comes at night. There are stations that are not protected even up to strong contours such as around 10 mV/m, and they would not get any advantage in digital as the night signal would not cover any more than it does now... which in many cases is painfully little.

And then keep in mind that the protections on AM are based on potential averages, and some nights are worse, others better. How long will a listener put up with vague predictability in a fringe area.

While some stations would do marvelously with digital, most would not. And it does not solve the issue of daytime or flea-power AMs at night.

And, again, who is going to buy a digital AM equipped home radio? I got three Amazon Alexa units last week at $59 each and they give me hundreds of audio choices with no expensive single-purpose receiver.

 

[SirRoxalot]

It sounds to me like some people here don't have a basic understanding of digital broadcasting. Cellular service solved the issue with contention long ago. Every cell has boundaries where there is contention between different towers. You not only have to decide when to switch towers, but you have to distinguish your content in both directions from other content. That's what packeting and addressing are all about.

You need to educate yourself on MIMO, OFDM, and how DOCSIS and other other transmission systems deal with noise and data contention on channels. Audio is a low-bandwidth application these days. Digital AM has potential - noise or no noise - but it would require a wholesale changeover of both transmission and receiving equipment. At the moment, it ain't broke enough to fix it, especially since there are enough cheaper alternatives available.

 

[davideduardo]

It sounds to me like some people here don't have a basic understanding of digital broadcasting. Cellular service solved the issue with contention long ago. Every cell has boundaries where there is contention between different towers. You not only have to decide when to switch towers, but you have to distinguish your content in both directions from other content. That's what packeting and addressing are all about.

You need to educate yourself on MIMO, OFDM, and how DOCSIS and other other transmission systems deal with noise and data contention on channels. Audio is a low-bandwidth application these days. Digital AM has potential - noise or no noise - but it would require a wholesale changeover of both transmission and receiving equipment. At the moment, it ain't broke enough to fix it, especially since there are enough cheaper alternatives available.

I don't believe there is any provision in the HD pure digital standard for any of those protocols.

For any kind of digital hand-off, two or three things have to happen: first, the transmission has to have a coding that the receiver can identify it by to make a selection. Second, the station has to encode and coordinate the encoding with all other stations to establish the proprietary zones of each. Third, the receiver needs to know where it is, meaning it must have a GPS function or borrow data from a car's GPS.

All three of these are not in the HD AM protocol and system design. A significant investment would be needed to redesign HD, since the original creators are no longer there and there is no real strong and deep development team now; the new owner is basically licensing the technology.

If AM digital were to be covered by the system you hint at, it would require an entirely new system and a significant change in the allocation of stations Further, the effect of skywave signals at night and in critical hours on digital is not well understood as pure digital is not well tested on frequencies below about 70 MHz where there is no skywave (although there are other "skip" conditions that apply).

There are too many stations already. And no need for more when streaming is the easier solution, and there is a rich distribution system already there. You are talking about a brand new digital system that is incompatible with the vehicles with HD already installed and requiring a lengthy development, testing and implementation at a cost nobody will pay.

One of the FCC's reasons for approving full digital is that it does not affect those that want to remain analog or have both digital and analog. Your concept wipes out the reception of every AM station in existence today in order to create a new digital domain,

 

[semoochie]

"One of the FCC's reasons for approving full digital is that it does not affect those that want to remain analog or have both digital and analog."

...and you can receive it on any existing AM equipped HD Radio, so you aren't starting from scratch!

 

[SirRoxalot]

There is no handoff in digital AM because there is only one source of the signal. There is interference and there may be contention between AMs, particularly at night. The digital signal is encoded and carries identifiers. That's how it comes up as the AM frequency on your digital receiver. MIMO and OFDM use multiple subchannels within the frequency band to avoid interference and allow clear transmission of data. If the FCC is going to allow full digital they may as well make sure the system is viable and will provide at least FM quality.

I agree that streaming is easier. Whether it's cheaper depends on licensing issues.

 

[Buddy Shula]

The problem with many AMs comes at night. There are stations that are not protected even up to strong contours such as around 10 mV/m, and they would not get any advantage in digital as the night signal would not cover any more than it does now... which in many cases is painfully little.

And then keep in mind that the protections on AM are based on potential averages, and some nights are worse, others better. How long will a listener put up with vague predictability in a fringe area.

While some stations would do marvelously with digital, most would not. And it does not solve the issue of daytime or flea-power AMs at night.

And, again, who is going to buy a digital AM equipped home radio? I got three Amazon Alexa units last week at $59 each and they give me hundreds of audio choices with no expensive single-purpose receiver.

Nobody is gonna buy had radio at home. But if most cars make it standard , that is worth exploring

 

[TheBigA]

But if most cars make it standard , that is worth exploring

Half of the new cars sold over the last few years had it standard. My SUV came with it standard.

 

[davideduardo]

Half of the new cars sold over the last few years had it standard. My SUV came with it standard.

But the average age of a car in the US is now almost 11 years. Half of the cars over the last 5 years would be under 12% of all vehicles. And then you have to get people to seek the stations out. How many do you think will go to the to begin with?

And while smart speakers like Alexa are now in 30% of homes, 70's of homes do not have them. . You lose them, too.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

Not so many months ago, the US National Transportation Safety Board in a report about cell phone usage leading to auto accidents, included a mention that car radios also created a distraction. Tuning a car radio can divert the driver's attention. Used to be five button, a tuning knob and a volume knob, and drivers could "Braille their way" through tuning. Today, even with controls on the steering wheel, adjusting or tuning a radio can be distracting. The way some manufacturers configure HD dashboard access is confusing. HD access in some car radios includes a drop down menu! Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[spt87]

Not so many months ago, the US National Transportation Safety Board in a report about cell phone usage leading to auto accidents, included a mention that car radios also created a distraction. Tuning a car radio can divert the driver's attention. Used to be five button, a tuning knob and a volume knob, and drivers could "Braille their way" through tuning. Today, even with controls on the steering wheel, adjusting or tuning a radio can be distracting. The way some manufacturers configure HD dashboard access is confusing. HD access in some car radios includes a drop down menu! Absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not a fan of what they've done to new car controls at all. Touch screens and menus while driving are just really dumb. Voice control will help but there were merits to the more simple approaches of the past.

 

[kevtronics]

Has anyone here actually heard digital-only AM HD? I'm wondering what the tune-in experience is like. Do you just hear static when you first tune in the frequency, until the digital starts decoding a few seconds later? If so, how would the average listener even know there's a station on that frequency, if they don't already have it programmed into their presets? Does an HD Radio's seek/scan tuning stop on it? And do analog tuners still stop on the signal, or do they just detect it as noise and skip over it?