FCC expected to adopt HD radio rules March 22nd

[amfmsw]

rf-easy...if you owned a deed to a piece of land that you nurtured, pruned, kept tidy, you'd protect and defend it.

Now, if you had a big bully neighbor, with let's say a bad septic system that overflowed constantly, leaching and streaming onto your prized property, AND had the government's blessing, you'd be angry as hell. No one wants a bad neighbor's sewage leaking onto their prized, "worked a lifetime for" property.

That scenario is exactly what is happening with IBOC on AM. The bandwidth is TOO SMALL to contain the noise, and it spreads on the neighbor's signal and trading area, theit "property". The people whose jobs depend on shoestring sales budgets at the local 500w or 1kw station are truly in jeopardy.

 

[R.F. Burns]

rf-easy...if you owned a deed to a piece of land that you nurtured, pruned, kept tidy, you'd protect and defend it.

Now, if you had a big bully neighbor, with let's say a bad septic system that overflowed constantly, leaching and streaming onto your prized property, AND had the government's blessing, you'd be angry as hell. No one wants a bad neighbor's sewage leaking onto their prized, "worked a lifetime for" property.

That scenario is exactly what is happening with IBOC on AM. The bandwidth is TOO SMALL to contain the noise, and it spreads on the neighbor's signal and trading area, theit "property". The people whose jobs depend on shoestring sales budgets at the local 500w or 1kw station are truly in jeopardy.

And within your licensed area if you receive interference from another station by all means take them to court, contact the commission, whatever needs to be done. But stations are licensed by the FCC in this country to cover certain specific geographic areas. What I'm hearing is similar to this scenario. I own a piece of land which I grow tomatos on. For the past 20 years my neighbor allowed me to plant my last row on his property. Well, a new owner moved in and I can't plant that extra row any longer. Should the new owner be forced to allow me to continue operating as I always have? If I can't plant that extra row I might go out of business. The local law enforcement says I have no right to part of his land even if I had used it when the old owner lived there. Sound familiar?

 

[EasyPeazy]

And within your licensed area if you receive interference from another station by all means take them to court, contact the commission, whatever needs to be done. But stations are licensed by the FCC in this country to cover certain specific geographic areas. What I'm hearing is similar to this scenario. I own a piece of land which I grow tomatos on. For the past 20 years my neighbor allowed me to plant my last row on his property. Well, a new owner moved in and I can't plant that extra row any longer. Should the new owner be forced to allow me to continue operating as I always have? If I can't plant that extra row I might go out of business. The local law enforcement says I have no right to part of his land even if I had used it when the old owner lived there. Sound familiar?

Good analogy. A friend of mine lives in the Lakeway suburb of Austin. When he bought his house, it had a huge back yard because the land behind his house was undeveloped and the prior owner had fenced it in. My friend bought the house knowing he might someday lose use of that land.

Last summer, it finally happened. A new developer decided to start building on that land. My friend and his wife weren't too happy about it, but they had no recourse. Today their back yard is about half the size it once was.

 

[Tom Wells]

rf-easy...if you owned a deed to a piece of land that you nurtured, pruned, kept tidy, you'd protect and defend it.

Now, if you had a big bully neighbor, with let's say a bad septic system that overflowed constantly, leaching and streaming onto your prized property, AND had the government's blessing, you'd be angry as hell. No one wants a bad neighbor's sewage leaking onto their prized, "worked a lifetime for" property.

That scenario is exactly what is happening with IBOC on AM. The bandwidth is TOO SMALL to contain the noise, and it spreads on the neighbor's signal and trading area, theit "property". The people whose jobs depend on shoestring sales budgets at the local 500w or 1kw station are truly in jeopardy.

And within your licensed area if you receive interference from another station by all means take them to court, contact the commission, whatever needs to be done. But stations are licensed by the FCC in this country to cover certain specific geographic areas. What I'm hearing is similar to this scenario. I own a piece of land which I grow tomatos on. For the past 20 years my neighbor allowed me to plant my last row on his property. Well, a new owner moved in and I can't plant that extra row any longer. Should the new owner be forced to allow me to continue operating as I always have? If I can't plant that extra row I might go out of business. The local law enforcement says I have no right to part of his land even if I had used it when the old owner lived there. Sound familiar?

The difference here being that the new neighbor doesn't plant just any old row crops.
The new neighbor has decided grow a new variety of soybeans with a pollen that kills tomatoes within 3 miles.
Got a way to save the farm? It's legal to plant these bio-engineered soybeans, you can't stop them.
Now what?
You know the new neighbor has money and an eye on your land as well. Can you stay a tomato farmer?

 

[awj223]

And within your licensed area if you receive interference from another station by all means take them to court, contact the commission, whatever needs to be done. But stations are licensed by the FCC in this country to cover certain specific geographic areas. What I'm hearing is similar to this scenario. I own a piece of land which I grow tomatos on. For the past 20 years my neighbor allowed me to plant my last row on his property. Well, a new owner moved in and I can't plant that extra row any longer. Should the new owner be forced to allow me to continue operating as I always have? If I can't plant that extra row I might go out of business. The local law enforcement says I have no right to part of his land even if I had used it when the old owner lived there. Sound familiar?

RF - I think you hit the nail on the head here when you said the FCC only cares about protected contours when it comes to interference - this is why I think IBOC will cause legal issues. If you happen to have listeners outside the protected contour, the FCC considers this to be bonus coverage to which you have no legal recourse to interference complaints. Protected contours matter, reported listening does not. The other consequence of this, of course, is that protected coverage remains protected and interference cannot be justified even if there is little to no reported listening. This, I think, will be the key issue that will effectively force a policy change. The clears are still protected to the 0.5 mV/m nighttime contour regardless of how many (or few) listeners they have outside their home markets. Almost everyone may have to drop the subcarriers by 6 dB at night. I could be wrong about the propagation of the sidebands at night, but time will tell.

That scenario is exactly what is happening with IBOC on AM. The bandwidth is TOO SMALL to contain the noise, and it spreads on the neighbor's signal and trading area, theit "property". The people whose jobs depend on shoestring sales budgets at the local 500w or 1kw station are truly in jeopardy.

Sadly, I think many of the AMs depending on coverage beyond their protected contour just to pay the bills are going to go dark. If a compromise must be reached, I say that since IBOC is effectively creating more FM stations in the market, all the major station owners are now over the cap. Force them to divest some FMs and let the small AMs move to FM.

 

[R.F. Burns]

rf-easy...if you owned a deed to a piece of land that you nurtured, pruned, kept tidy, you'd protect and defend it.

Now, if you had a big bully neighbor, with let's say a bad septic system that overflowed constantly, leaching and streaming onto your prized property, AND had the government's blessing, you'd be angry as hell. No one wants a bad neighbor's sewage leaking onto their prized, "worked a lifetime for" property.

That scenario is exactly what is happening with IBOC on AM. The bandwidth is TOO SMALL to contain the noise, and it spreads on the neighbor's signal and trading area, theit "property". The people whose jobs depend on shoestring sales budgets at the local 500w or 1kw station are truly in jeopardy.

And within your licensed area if you receive interference from another station by all means take them to court, contact the commission, whatever needs to be done. But stations are licensed by the FCC in this country to cover certain specific geographic areas. What I'm hearing is similar to this scenario. I own a piece of land which I grow tomatos on. For the past 20 years my neighbor allowed me to plant my last row on his property. Well, a new owner moved in and I can't plant that extra row any longer. Should the new owner be forced to allow me to continue operating as I always have? If I can't plant that extra row I might go out of business. The local law enforcement says I have no right to part of his land even if I had used it when the old owner lived there. Sound familiar?

The difference here being that the new neighbor doesn't plant row crops.
The new neighbor has decided grow a new variety of soybeans with a pollen that kills tomatoes within 3 miles.
Got a way to save the farm? It's legal to plant these bio-engineered soybeans, you can't stop them.
Now what?
You know the new neighbor has money and an eye on your land as well. Can you stay a tomato farmer?

What part of interference within your protected contour isn't being understood here. If you can show that a station is operating outside of their licensed bandwidth (770 operating on 800 Khz) than they are breaking the law. If however a station is operating within the law and the listeners radio isn't operating properly, then the listeners radio is at fault. What is so difficult to understand about that. As a licensed ham of more than 35 years, most of it as an Amaeur extra class operator, I can tell you that when it comes to interference, legally hams have to insure their equipment is within spec when it comes to harmonic and spurious radiation. If a neighbor has a phone that picks up the hams transmissions because it wasn't designed or installed properly, legally the ham is not responsable. Many time we will try to help our neighbors to retain good relations, but legally we are not reaponsible. Those laws have always been in place. Not just for IBOC.

 

[R.F. Burns]

And within your licensed area if you receive interference from another station by all means take them to court, contact the commission, whatever needs to be done. But stations are licensed by the FCC in this country to cover certain specific geographic areas. What I'm hearing is similar to this scenario. I own a piece of land which I grow tomatos on. For the past 20 years my neighbor allowed me to plant my last row on his property. Well, a new owner moved in and I can't plant that extra row any longer. Should the new owner be forced to allow me to continue operating as I always have? If I can't plant that extra row I might go out of business. The local law enforcement says I have no right to part of his land even if I had used it when the old owner lived there. Sound familiar?

RF - I think you hit the nail on the head here when you said the FCC only cares about protected contours when it comes to interference - this is why I think IBOC will cause legal issues. If you happen to have listeners outside the protected contour, the FCC considers this to be bonus coverage to which you have no legal recourse to interference complaints. Protected contours matter, reported listening does not. The other consequence of this, of course, is that protected coverage remains protected and interference cannot be justified even if there is little to no reported listening. This, I think, will be the key issue that will effectively force a policy change. The clears are still protected to the 0.5 mV/m nighttime contour regardless of how many (or few) listeners they have outside their home markets. Almost everyone may have to drop the subcarriers by 6 dB at night. I could be wrong about the propagation of the sidebands at night, but time will tell.

That scenario is exactly what is happening with IBOC on AM. The bandwidth is TOO SMALL to contain the noise, and it spreads on the neighbor's signal and trading area, theit "property". The people whose jobs depend on shoestring sales budgets at the local 500w or 1kw station are truly in jeopardy.

Sadly, I think many of the AMs depending on coverage beyond their protected contour just to pay the bills are going to go dark. If a compromise must be reached, I say that since IBOC is effectively creating more FM stations in the market, all the major station owners are now over the cap. Force them to divest some FMs and let the small AMs move to FM.

Excellent point. My feeling is that if it is shown that a small operator is hurt due to IBOC, then where an FM IBOC station (owned by the larger broadcaster who effects the smaller broadcasters coverage) exists, the small operator should be offered an HD 3 channel (mono low bit rate but many times better than AM analog audio) The small station operator who now can broadcast via the HD 3 channel can still operate their AM facility and will pay some nominal sum for the owner of the FM for use of that HD 3 channel and that might make up for any issues this small station operator has to deal with due to IBOC. It would be a good willl gesture on the part of the larger broadcaster.

 

[Tom Wells]

I notice all solutions require further cash flow to ibquity.

The soybeans are doing their perfectly legal work.
My tomatoes are now dead.

In "big corn country", when farmers are growing hybrid corn for sale as seed corn, they must be VERY careful about cross pollination, or their
work is ruined. If Bill and Becky Acre-Lot are growing sweet corn for their families, the hybrid farmers will often PAY the
hobbyists to NOT grow corn which would pollute the pollination of hybrids.

 

[amfmsw]

To: the proponents
RE: obvious sideband interference and the .5 countour;

Isn't that the EXACT reason AM's were forced to adopt the 9Kc NRSC audio mask? Since the AM band is now like the Wild, Wild West, with splatter everywhere, let the engineers hit the bypass switch! Go full hi-fi wideband analog audio.

Now, the HD-3 idea. At first glance, something to think about. BUT, if the large operator caused the problem, why should the victim pay to correct the wrong? Why should he/she PAY the "criminal" to make ammends. It should be offered, no mandated, to offer lifetime FREE HD-2, not 3. If the AM IBOC is so wonderful with full stereo, the small AM operator who was damaged should receive a replacement of equal or greater quality, not just coverage with inferior audio: HD-3 low bit rate mono.

 

[awj223]

To: the proponents
RE: obvious sideband interference and the .5 countour;

Isn't that the EXACT reason AM's were forced to adopt the 9Kc NRSC audio mask? Since the AM band is now like the Wild, Wild West, with splatter everywhere, let the engineers hit the bypass switch! Go full hi-fi wideband analog audio.

Now, the HD-3 idea. At first glance, something to think about. BUT, if the large operator caused the problem, why should the victim pay to correct the wrong? Why should he/she PAY the "criminal" to make ammends. It should be offered, no mandated, to offer lifetime FREE HD-2, not 3. If the AM IBOC is so wonderful with full stereo, the small AM operator who was damaged should receive a replacement of equal or greater quality, not just coverage with inferior audio: HD-3 low bit rate mono.

Oh, I wouldn't force the large operator to lease space on an HD-2 or HD-3. I would force the large operator to GIVE the smaller operator one of the FMs in the market, and move its own channels to the HD-2 or HD-3 space on the remaining FMs it still owns. If the small operator is only "entitled" to one channel, then you give the large operator a lease on the HD-2 or HD-3 spaces of the divested FM, and the small operator an option to buy those channels outright in the future.

 

[R.F. Burns]

I notice all solutions require further cash flow to ibquity.

The soybeans are doing their perfectly legal work.
My tomatoes are now dead.

In "big corn country", when farmers are growing hybrid corn for sale as seed corn, they must be VERY careful about cross pollination, or their
work is ruined. If Bill and Becky Acre-Lot are growing sweet corn for their families, the hybrid farmers will often PAY the
hobbyists to NOT grow corn which would pollute the pollination of hybrids.

I guess you either aren't aware of the Armstrong FM patents, which required payments to Afmstrong on not only the transmission equipment but on FM receivers. Then of course in the 20's Western Electric held the transmitter/tube patent and every station had to pay Western Electric a fee. This isn't the first time these things have happened and it won't be tha last. Ibiquity is no worse than Armstrong, or Western Electric. It's how business is done in the United States.

 

[tankedsecondchance]

welcome to the forced futher consolidation to come.....

dont take the comment the wrong way, but i do suspect, thats the end result for ibiquity and partners within this technology play..........its truly a sad day for some real broadcasters that continue to operate on the margin of profits....

I feel for those that may suffer at the hands of the collective concept..

I honestly think the fcc failed to go deep enough, into this subject. and look for the very real anti-competitive issues they have embraced with the ruling. :'(

 

[Tom Wells]

To: the proponents
RE: obvious sideband interference and the .5 countour;

Isn't that the EXACT reason AM's were forced to adopt the 9Kc NRSC audio mask? Since the AM band is now like the Wild, Wild West, with splatter everywhere, let the engineers hit the bypass switch! Go full hi-fi wideband analog audio.

Now, the HD-3 idea. At first glance, something to think about. BUT, if the large operator caused the problem, why should the victim pay to correct the wrong? Why should he/she PAY the "criminal" to make ammends. It should be offered, no mandated, to offer lifetime FREE HD-2, not 3. If the AM IBOC is so wonderful with full stereo, the small AM operator who was damaged should receive a replacement of equal or greater quality, not just coverage with inferior audio: HD-3 low bit rate mono.

The real reason hi-fi AM must be squashed is that high energy percussives and sibilants end up being where the multiple slow rate bitstreams are, and have instantaneous events which look just like the data.

This confuses the decoding , which must start over.
If an engineer were to make their station really crisp, and have NO limit on upper end, save the equipment's limit, they might be able to
"poke back" at the hiss from intruders, and permit their listeners to decrease noise with tone controls, still maintaining clarity.

If they have really linear finals and antennas, they might be able to cause the dropping of the intruder's HD stream in their area.

I think this is a very good idea.

But the modem-casters will never let their AM signal be bright enough to confuse their bitstream.
I'm sure it's right there in the ibiquity spec that hybrid AM MUST NOT have audio modulation products anywhere near the
passband they have defined for data, and they probably have a really wide buffer range of frequencies set aside between.

I certainly have no problem with patenting intellectual property.
I have a problem with patenting malicious interference, and people who would presume it is morally acceptable to apply for any
patent on a method that denies the rights of others to full use of their property.

 

[R.F. Burns]

welcome to the forced futher consolidation to come.....

dont take the comment the wrong way, but i do suspect, thats the end result for ibiquity and partners within this technology play..........its truly a sad day for some real broadcasters that continue to operate on the margin of profits....

I feel for those that may suffer at the hands of the collective concept..

I honestly think the fcc failed to go deep enough, into this subject. and look for the very real anti-competitive issues they have embraced with the ruling. :'(

No problem. I believe the reason for IBOC is so broadcasters who are still profitable want to remain that way. No one under the age or 40 listens to monaural noisy amplitude modulation. Again for the millionth time. No one is forcing anyone to go IBOC. Continue to operate as you have and stay within your protective contour and file against any station which causes interference within your licensed protected area. But, if you are on the edge, don't bring me down with you, if there's something that will give new life to my operation and I don't own a station. I just used your's and mine figuratively.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Good analogy.

Not only is it a BAD analogy, but unless the final R&O contains a wholesale repeal or rework of 47 CFR §73.44, the FCC will be violating its own rules...and in any event will be violating the entire scheme of allotment of stations on the AM band going back at least 60 years.

§73.44(b) states, in part: "Emissions 10.2 kHz to 20 kHz removed from the carrier must be attenuated at least 25 dB below the unmodulated carrier level..." Taking a look at iBiquity's published spec for AM-HD, the PRIMARY HD carriers are 10.3561 kHz to 14.7166 kHz removed from the carrier...at the same level as the unmodulated carrier. They are not 25 dB down. They're not even 5 dB down. So, the carriers primarily responsible for HD transmission and reception are across someone else's channel and are violating current FCC rules.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I guess you either aren't aware of the Armstrong FM patents, which required payments to Afmstrong on not only the transmission equipment but on FM receivers. Then of course in the 20's Western Electric held the transmitter/tube patent and every station had to pay Western Electric a fee. This isn't the first time these things have happened and it won't be tha last. Ibiquity is no worse than Armstrong, or Western Electric. It's how business is done in the United States.

I guess you aren't aware that those were one-time fees, which expired after a certain length of time. iBiquity requires annual license and firmware payments, in perpetuity.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Good analogy.

Not only is it a BAD analogy, but unless the final R&O contains a wholesale repeal or rework of 47 CFR §73.44, the FCC will be violating its own rules...and in any event will be violating the entire scheme of allotment of stations on the AM band going back at least 60 years.

§73.44(b) states, in part: "Emissions 10.2 kHz to 20 kHz removed from the carrier must be attenuated at least 25 dB below the unmodulated carrier level..." Taking a look at iBiquity's published spec for AM-HD, the PRIMARY HD carriers are 10.3561 kHz to 14.7166 kHz removed from the carrier...at the same level as the unmodulated carrier. They are not 25 dB down. They're not even 5 dB down. So, the carriers primarily responsible for HD transmission and reception are across someone else's channel and are violating current FCC rules.

Amazing. How did they get this technology licensed? Apparently the commision was convinced that IBOC operates within the law. Only the HD detractors in here claim otherwise. Enjoy your day in court.

 

[Tom Wells]

They defined a sample set of radios deaf above 5 khz.
Simple old fashioned hoodwinking.
The rule clearly applies to emissions, not the bandwidth of anyone's radio.
Let's require the emissioins to be exactly -25 db of carrier.

Simple compliance with this rule would likely remove most of the annoying hiss I experience in local AMs with HD.

Where shall we start in documenting? There must be a pretty good smoking gun in the ibiquity math dept, if those sidebands are supposed
to be 25 db down.

I'm sure they plan to overlook this rule, just like the one that emissions in the public BC bands shall be decodable on existing equipment, with no encoding or encryption. Oh, wait isn't that the rule they got changed to permit this travesty?

Maybe they just overlooked the emissions compliance freq standards...
or lied, I don't know. feigning ignorance works pretty well, maybe they they just shrugged their shoulders at the commissioners and winked.

 

[R.F. Burns]

I guess you either aren't aware of the Armstrong FM patents, which required payments to Afmstrong on not only the transmission equipment but on FM receivers. Then of course in the 20's Western Electric held the transmitter/tube patent and every station had to pay Western Electric a fee. This isn't the first time these things have happened and it won't be tha last. Ibiquity is no worse than Armstrong, or Western Electric. It's how business is done in the United States.

I guess you aren't aware that those were one-time fees, which expired after a certain length of time. iBiquity requires annual license and firmware payments, in perpetuity.

Interesting. I attended a meeting with Ibiquity and Harris personael and what we at the SBE were told was that the fee for an HD 1 is paid once by a broadcaster. If said broadcasters sells the station, the new owner pays a licensing fee. I'm no big fan of that, but no one is forcing anyone to adopt Iboc. Stay analog forever if you wish.

 

[clouseau]

I guess you either aren't aware of the Armstrong FM patents, which required payments to Afmstrong on not only the transmission equipment but on FM receivers. Then of course in the 20's Western Electric held the transmitter/tube patent and every station had to pay Western Electric a fee. This isn't the first time these things have happened and it won't be tha last. Ibiquity is no worse than Armstrong, or Western Electric. It's how business is done in the United States.

http://www.ibiquity.com/i/Licensing_Fact_Sheet2007.pdf

One time fee for main channel. HD-2's and 3's are a revenue based formula... $1K/year Minimum.

Clouseau.


I guess you aren't aware that those were one-time fees, which expired after a certain length of time. iBiquity requires annual license and firmware payments, in perpetuity.

Interesting. I attended a meeting with Ibiquity and Harris personael and what we at the SBE were told was that the fee for an HD 1 is paid once by a broadcaster. If said broadcasters sells the station, the new owner pays a licensing fee. I'm no big fan of that, but no one is forcing anyone to adopt Iboc. Stay analog forever if you wish.