See today's Radio Ink lead story: http://radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2160898&spid=24698. Peter Doyle is someone who once had a bit of a clue. I'm guessing that he's following the Obama/Genachowski company line: Broadband is all that matters, do whatever necessary to kill broadcasting. HD Radio is a good start. Be sure to see the comments after the article.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
FCC Audio Division Chief Doyle Unhappy With HD Conversion
- Thread starter local oscillator
- Start date
You nailed it - the regulatory obsession with digital has a decidedly sinister motive. "Digital" is easier for government to control and corrupt. Broadcasting represents freedom and strong allegiance to First Amendment principles, and confiscatory, meddlesome government is growing rapidly. That's why government now hates broadcasting.
We give up analog broadcasting in this country at our peril. We must NOT take the bait broadcast television swallowed.
The increasing reliance of all commerce and communication for functionality through the internet is
extremely dangerous.
Can you say...."EMP?"
We give up analog broadcasting in this country at our peril. We must NOT take the bait broadcast television swallowed.
The increasing reliance of all commerce and communication for functionality through the internet is
extremely dangerous.
Can you say...."EMP?"
Savage said:
Help me wrap my brain around that thought. Explain your logic. Why is digital easier for government to control and corrupt than is analog.
Savage said:
With broadcasting being concentrated in fewer and fewer ownership companies, and with the Internet allowing just about any John Q Citizens to become and "electronic pamphleteer".... once again: Explain your logic. I'm not arguing that you are wrong. I just don't understand your logic the results in your conclusion. Help me.
Savage said:
Say What????
"EMP?" equals what? Curious minds want to know.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Anyone can put an analog radio signal on the air. It takes buck$ to put an iboc digital signal on the air.
If analog broadcast dies, it's a good way to quash any discordant voices.
The internet does not put a signal on the air, and any government *could* decide to squash any internet "voice" quite easily.
EMP--The Electro-Magnetic Pulse from a high altitude nuclear device could/would disable most/many electronics..
But not all, escpecially the old tube electronics. MOSFET based devices would probably all die instantly.
Short of that, Radio depends on infrastructure that no government, whether friend or foe, has been able to totally disable, ever.
Tom Wells said:
Wow...I think you give these civil servants more credit than they deserve.
The fact is that the folks in Egypt didn't need no stinkin' radio to start their revolution. Neither did Paul Revere. If discord is really the truth, it doesn't need to be perpetuated by electronics. It will travel through word of mouth, as it always has. As someone who works in analog, we still have great respect for the power that people have outside of organized media. The government owns the airwaves, and they're equally capable of co-opting broadcast signals as they are digital, and they demonstrated how they would do that when they invaded Iraq.
Not that any of this has anything to do with HD Radio, since no one has any radios anyway. But the obvious difference between IBOC and the digital system TV uses is that IBOC requires the analog signal. Now if the FCC guy was supporting the views of engineers who have proposed giving OTA radio new spectrum for actual true digital broadcasting instead of IBOC, you might have a point.
Whoa, there, Big Fella. The folks in Tunisia, Egypt, and virtually every other revolutionary movement in the Middle East has been heavily dependent on digital communications in the form of Facebook, Twitter, and text messaging. The governments there were simply late getting to the switch to cut off that communication. Due to the structure of communications in those parts of the world, it became impossible to shut down text messaging, for example, without shutting down the communications vital to the government as well. By the time that they shut off the Internet, too many people had gathered together, and had enough communication directly to other like-minded people to forestall "the movement". There's a reason that this whole Middle East Movement has been tagged "The Facebook Revolution" or "The Twitter Revolution".
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/15/tunisia-protests-the-facebook-revolution.html
Radio wasn't part of "the revolution" because radio & TV in those countries are state run. If anything, they tried to rally pro-government supporters.
Let's face it. The US government wants the useful bandwidth back so they can auction it off to the highest bidder. It would allow the government to grab another handful of cash, and reduce the cost of regulation. Mostly, it would get the government out of policing content. Once it's digital, access control is much simpler - just like it is for cable & satellite.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/15/tunisia-protests-the-facebook-revolution.html
Radio wasn't part of "the revolution" because radio & TV in those countries are state run. If anything, they tried to rally pro-government supporters.
Let's face it. The US government wants the useful bandwidth back so they can auction it off to the highest bidder. It would allow the government to grab another handful of cash, and reduce the cost of regulation. Mostly, it would get the government out of policing content. Once it's digital, access control is much simpler - just like it is for cable & satellite.
"The Big A": I don't believe a word of it; we have proof that we have morons at the FCC with paylola from the cellphone, cable and broadband people and they will do whatever they are told to get all digital all the time everywhere. All digital AM and FM will KILL radio. The end. We have to fight this stupidity of all digital broadcasting. The TV stations are nearly broke from installing their HDTV hardware and now the cellphone lobby wants all of them to combine 3 or 4 on one stick or move - costing them big bucks, and probably viewers.
IF a signal is digital, it is very easy to 'turn it off' if you don't pay to play - can't do that with analog for the masses.
Is Sirius/XM free - no, because it is digital and they can turn it off when you don't pay; and they do. We don't want all digital FM or all digital AM!
IF a signal is digital, it is very easy to 'turn it off' if you don't pay to play - can't do that with analog for the masses.
Is Sirius/XM free - no, because it is digital and they can turn it off when you don't pay; and they do. We don't want all digital FM or all digital AM!
JohnnyElectron said:
Actually you CAN. Back in the 70s, Blonder-Tongue labs came up with an analog scrambler that it used on Channel 68 in NYC.
But it's against the law for radio. As long as the government owns the airwaves it will force broadcasters to provide its content without a pay wall. It has nothing to do with technology.
TheBigA said:
Not when you can't hear it more than 20 miles with a tailwind!
But all kidding (somewhat) aside, folks, we've got a too many tinfoil hats on this afternoon. As one who works in it, I can assure you that government is nowhere near competent enough to control all the radio waves, be they analog, digital, or over two tin cans and a string. And while the point about costly digital transmitters that aren't worth a bucket of cold spit is well taken, I have to wonder how many tube sets (besides my two
are still ready for action in case of an EMP. Not that it's not a good idea, you understand. Now, where's my hat? ;D
This is a complicated issue, and everyone so far has made good points. Overall, I think there's a default assumption in most modern societies that digital technology is always better, and that analog methods are by definition crude and obsolete.
Underneath the surface, I'm sure there are other motives. Bandwidth is increasingly valuable. Digital content is completely quantifiable and controllable. The high cost of equipment and networks prohibits the participation of small-time operators. Etc.
Quite often, digital IS better. Try building an analog iPhone. No matter what the function, any digital device connected to another digital device by wire, optical fiber or local radio link is pretty hard to beat by analog means.
However, in the realm of long-distance over-the-air communications, full of mountains and buildings and rainstorms and horizons and Fresnel zones, I still do believe that it's better to fade out than it is to mute.
Underneath the surface, I'm sure there are other motives. Bandwidth is increasingly valuable. Digital content is completely quantifiable and controllable. The high cost of equipment and networks prohibits the participation of small-time operators. Etc.
Quite often, digital IS better. Try building an analog iPhone. No matter what the function, any digital device connected to another digital device by wire, optical fiber or local radio link is pretty hard to beat by analog means.
However, in the realm of long-distance over-the-air communications, full of mountains and buildings and rainstorms and horizons and Fresnel zones, I still do believe that it's better to fade out than it is to mute.
Local Oscillator's First (and only, so far!) Universal Law of the Universe: Digital = High Capability + Low Reliability.
A corollary: When you care enough (or it's important enough) to send the very best, Analog > Digital.
I am open-minded, though. The first time I get to taste a really good digital pizza, I admit that digital might start to win me over. ;D
A corollary: When you care enough (or it's important enough) to send the very best, Analog > Digital.
I am open-minded, though. The first time I get to taste a really good digital pizza, I admit that digital might start to win me over. ;D
"Local Oscillator's First (and only, so far!) Universal Law of the Universe: Digital = High Capability + Low Reliability"
Look at PSK31 (digital = low capabilty + high reliabilty) and it uses near minimal bandwidth (about 31 Hz). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSK31
Look at PSK31 (digital = low capabilty + high reliabilty) and it uses near minimal bandwidth (about 31 Hz). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSK31
For two-way communication, digital is undoubtedly superior to analog if the sampling rate and quantization are high enough. The two way component allows error checking and/or correction to monitor the data stream, and resend bad packets if necessary. At the least, it allows monitoring of the stream to reduce data rates if a particular pathway becomes problematic. Frequency-hopping technology would allow channels suffering from interference to be ignored.
In broadcast, it's a one-way trip. There's no feedback from the other end when you have only a receiver on the other end, not a transceiver. There's no error correction or resends when you don't know if the other end is receiving your signal. Instead of signal fade, you get drop-outs. Pick your poison in fringe areas. Of course, the FCC says that fringe areas don't count. Unfortunately, a "fringe area" could simply be in the shadow of a hill or a large building in line-of-sight transmission.
One thing for sure is that the hybrid analog-digital mess created by IBOC doesn't do either technology well. And, the cell companies are building out data capabilities at warp speed to accomodate customers who want to stream audio and video on their cell phones. And, they already "buy" new cell phones every couple of years, so it's not like they have to go out and purchase an expensive new "digital radio". It's part of the package.
The AM frequency spectrum is spectaculary unfit for high-speed data. The FM spectrum is certainly suitable. Optimize the AM signal by going back to wide-band audio, or even C-QUAM stereo. Leave FM alone. If the big boys want more channels, let 'em compete with the on-line providers. That's the simple answer, but it doesn't put any new money in the government's pocket.
In broadcast, it's a one-way trip. There's no feedback from the other end when you have only a receiver on the other end, not a transceiver. There's no error correction or resends when you don't know if the other end is receiving your signal. Instead of signal fade, you get drop-outs. Pick your poison in fringe areas. Of course, the FCC says that fringe areas don't count. Unfortunately, a "fringe area" could simply be in the shadow of a hill or a large building in line-of-sight transmission.
One thing for sure is that the hybrid analog-digital mess created by IBOC doesn't do either technology well. And, the cell companies are building out data capabilities at warp speed to accomodate customers who want to stream audio and video on their cell phones. And, they already "buy" new cell phones every couple of years, so it's not like they have to go out and purchase an expensive new "digital radio". It's part of the package.
The AM frequency spectrum is spectaculary unfit for high-speed data. The FM spectrum is certainly suitable. Optimize the AM signal by going back to wide-band audio, or even C-QUAM stereo. Leave FM alone. If the big boys want more channels, let 'em compete with the on-line providers. That's the simple answer, but it doesn't put any new money in the government's pocket.
local oscillator said:
From their perspective It's easier to turn off broadband and communications among the masses then standalone transmitters.
SirRoxalot said:
I think that's what Clear Channel is doing with IHeartRadio and CBS is doing with Radio.com. No one was thinking that way ten or so years ago. But my point is that the big boys have all moved on and don't really care about more channels, especially on AM. They can't afford to run the ones they've got.
The government's problem isn't just that they've learned how to make money by selling spectrum. The bigger problem is they have a policy of encouraging localism. The mistake the FCC made a long time ago was it gave up quality on AM for quantity of stations. They overlicensed the spectrum. They'd have to tell some small AM owners to turn in their licenses. How do you do that? The reality is that if they wait long enough, some of those stations will simply go dark.
Unfortunately, some stations will go dark that shouldn't, and some will survive that shouldn't.
Which raises the question: Who plays "God" in these situations. Who can give voice to a national policy that would put equity into the go-dark and don't-go-dark situation.
Traditionally individual owners and their personality, and the depth of their pocket decide whether a frequency dies or lives. Back with the FCC rules had a lot "parental morality" in them, the owners who SHOULD NOT be making the decision didn't enter the business or the left the business because they didn't have the patience to live with FCC paternalism.
Now that the FCC has gotten out of the parental and mentoring mode, cold hard cash (and deep lines of credit) are making decisions rather than "love of community" which maybe I over-rate in my memory.
Which raises the question: Who plays "God" in these situations. Who can give voice to a national policy that would put equity into the go-dark and don't-go-dark situation.
Traditionally individual owners and their personality, and the depth of their pocket decide whether a frequency dies or lives. Back with the FCC rules had a lot "parental morality" in them, the owners who SHOULD NOT be making the decision didn't enter the business or the left the business because they didn't have the patience to live with FCC paternalism.
Now that the FCC has gotten out of the parental and mentoring mode, cold hard cash (and deep lines of credit) are making decisions rather than "love of community" which maybe I over-rate in my memory.
- Status