• 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 expected to adopt HD radio rules March 22nd

vsa said:
The FCC has just announced that it will consider final rules for HD radio at its open meeting next week, March 22, 2007. The rules had been held up over public interest obligations for multi-casters. The rules will also consider interference issues, and may finally authorize AM digital operations at night.

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/arc...adopt-rules-for-overtheair-digital-radio.html

Gentlemen........start.......your.......lawsuits!
Click to expand...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We all know the FCC is going to approve the thing, just let them do it - nighttime AM IBOC and all - let the market decide, and probably the whole thing will implode just like AM stereo, due to consumer apathy. I know for a fact that all 10,000 AM stations in the US won't convert, and if even a significant fraction of them sign on at night, the resulting skywave from digital hash will jam the band. Unless you are two miles from the towers. You want full nighttime AM IBOC - Bring it! 20 years ago I was right about HDTV (it only enriched foreign manufacturers and did NOT rescue the domestic TV manufacturers) and I am right about nighttime skywave for IBOC sidebands. Tom Ray's favorite case is WOR and WLW - adjacents. Sign them both on IBOC at night, and lets see how reception is in their near fringes. We will see just how important the audience out of the primary service area REALLY is, lets say out on Long Island, or up the river from downtown NY. An awful lot of listeners - and I bet the advertisers count on reaching them, too. Similar case with WLW. This is going to be fun to watch. But not listen to. I'm already streaming and satellite for most of my entertainment - the number of IBOC stations has already made my radio noisy and just about useless.
 
The problem is that many AM stations -- especially some small market stations that are barely hanging on, economically, by the skin of their teeth -- probably won't survive when the IBUZZ from first- and second-adjacent 50kw flame-throwers as much as hundreds of miles away combine to make their signals totally unlistenable beyond their 5mV/m nighttime contours, and unlistenable for any form of music (however much compression they have) beyond the 10mV/m contour!

Of course, that's just part of the radio giants' plan to elimninated competition by "thinning the herd!"

Maybe you can sit by stoically while this happens because it's not your bread and butter at stake, but it ought to at least outrage your sense of justice.
 
The closest ones to watch on nite IBOC will be WBZ 1030 Boston and KDKA 1020 Pittsburgh. WBZ interferes with KDKA now during critical hours. But since they are both owned by the same company, the debate will stay withing the company.
 
The article I'm reading from Radio World states: "when asked about the status of the final regs., Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein explained he and his colleagues were deliberating appropriate public service obligations for the new digital authorizations and that no technical problems remained to be discussed." This tells me that the technical problems associated with IBOC are no longer an issue with the Commission and that it is now a question of whether these extra "channels" (for FM) should be regulated or not.

However, the article also said that this is: "a Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning service rules and other requirements for radio stations broadcasting digital audio."

Does that mean that this ruling will be open for further public comment?

db
 
dbdigital wrote: "Does that mean that this ruling will be open for further public comment?"

I'll let Leonard Kahn answer that question.

"They are starting all over again with comments, replies, etc., etc. etc. It will take years and then they will start it all over again. INTHE INTERIM iBOC stations violate FCC rules as mandated bt the congress and presidents, while Cam-D is perfectly legal."

http://www.wrathofkahn.org/
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We all know the FCC is going to approve the thing, just let them do it - nighttime AM IBOC and all - let the market decide, and probably the whole thing will implode just like AM stereo, due to consumer apathy. I know for a fact that all 10,000 AM stations in the US won't convert,
Click to expand...

This is partly because there are less than 5000 AM stations in the US. 2/3 of licensed stations are FM.
 
dbdigital said:
the article also said that this is: "a Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning service rules and other requirements for radio stations broadcasting digital audio."

Does that mean that this ruling will be open for further public comment?
Click to expand...

Yes. The NPRM should have deadlines shown for comments and reply comments.
 
In an odd sort of way, I almost hope the FCC authorizes night operation of IBOC. It will be fairly sure to stir up a rash of lawsuits and the lawyers will have a field day. The down side is usually, whenever there are two people willing to make a deal, there are usually two lawyers sitting there ready to screw things up. That is likely to happen here. In that case, nobody will really win, but several law firms will party all the way to the bank.

Anyone for a rousing chorus of Jackson Browne's "Lawyers in Love?"
 
dbdigital said:
"when asked about the status of the final regs., Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein explained he and his colleagues were deliberating appropriate public service obligations for the new digital authorizations and that no technical problems remained to be discussed." This tells me that the technical problems associated with IBOC are no longer an issue with the Commission and that it is now a question of whether these extra "channels" (for FM) should be regulated or not.
Click to expand...

Possibly the clearest example to date that engineering is all but irrelevant at the FCC. I would be very surprised if no FCC engineer has predicted what will happen when nighttime HD Radio is authorized. Since I'm already hearing interference between one station's HD Radio carriers and another's analog signals, both 50 kW, 20 kHz and 174 miles apart, I can easily predict what will happen to the AM band if this goes through, and so can anyone else with half a brain.

Place your head between your legs and kiss your AM band goodbye...
 
dumber than a box of hair said:
dbdigital said:
"when asked about the status of the final regs., Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein explained he and his colleagues were deliberating appropriate public service obligations for the new digital authorizations and that no technical problems remained to be discussed." This tells me that the technical problems associated with IBOC are no longer an issue with the Commission and that it is now a question of whether these extra "channels" (for FM) should be regulated or not.
Click to expand...

Possibly the clearest example to date that engineering is all but irrelevant at the FCC. I would be very surprised if no FCC engineer has predicted what will happen when nighttime HD Radio is authorized. Since I'm already hearing interference between one station's HD Radio carriers and another's analog signals, both 50 kW, 20 kHz and 174 miles apart, I can easily predict what will happen to the AM band if this goes through, and so can anyone else with half a brain.

Place your head between your legs and kiss your AM band goodbye...
Click to expand...

Can you post an audio demo of your findings? I've posted a demo relecting what we hear in NYC where we have more 50 KW stations than any place in the country and nowhere does the IBOC interfere with the analogue. If you're getting IBOC interference with a co-channel station, then there's a problem which has to be addressed. The problem is with the station, not the technology.
 
This IBOC /HD crapola on AM is just a horrible idea.

I don't like the ide aof them allowing it at all, but by dya.. I'll live with it. Entercom Greenville is lighting up HD.

Now, as for nights.. NO NO NO. BAAAAAADDDDDD IDEA. This is the worst idea I've ever seen in my 23 year old life.

As nlong as they don't mandate AM stations MUST go digital, then thats one thing......
 
PaulBWalkerJr said:
This IBOC /HD crapola on AM is just a horrible idea.

I don't like the ide aof them allowing it at all, but by dya.. I'll live with it. Entercom Greenville is lighting up HD.

Now, as for nights.. NO NO NO. BAAAAAADDDDDD IDEA. This is the worst idea I've ever seen in my 23 year old life.

As nlong as they don't mandate AM stations MUST go digital, then thats one thing......
Click to expand...

No one has nor can they mandate that a station goes digital. Did you listen to the demo I posted showing real world HD signals in the NYC market? I used a Sangean HDT-1 tuner and a GE Super radio to demo how an analogue radio behaves around a properly operating HD station. I'm 51 years old and I'm not sold on AM HD at night but until it goes into operation, we'll never know for sure. We'll only have our assumptions. To be honest, as long as they can get HD into critical hours meaning during both drive times that's all that matters.
 
R. F. Burns said:
The problem is with the station, not the technology.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards, Burns. The defective HD technology is the problem, not the stations.
The whole misguided scheme of using adjacent channels to transmit additional digital signals is incompatible with the existing AM and FM channel allotments over much of North America.
Fortunately FMeXtra (www.dreinc.com) has come along to make all this faulty adjacent channel HD digital trespassing on FM totally irrelevant and unnecessary.
 
SUPERCASTER said:
R. F. Burns said:
The problem is with the station, not the technology.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards, Burns. The defective HD technology is the problem, not the stations.
The whole misguided scheme of using adjacent channels to transmit additional digital signals is incompatible with the existing AM and FM channel allotments over much of North America.
Fortunately FMeXtra (www.dreinc.com) has come along to make all this faulty adjacent channel HD digital trespassing on FM totally irrelevant and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

What I have proven is that the technology isn't flawed. What is flawed is the way some of the anti Iboc crowd will do anything and go as far as lie about this technology. If you had taken the time to read what I said in other threads I admited that every system has its pluses and minuses. fmXtra can't deal with multipath distortion. That makes it a no go in an urban area where most of the population resides. Do you work for FMXtra? You seem to spend most of your time talking about it and yet I don't see any FMXtra stations in my part of the country using that system. Nothing stops peopole from using it and if it's so great it may catch on. At this point there are over 1,000 HD stations in the country. How many FMXtra stations are operating now? HD is only faulty for those with an agenda. I proved with my demo that HD radio set up properly works as specified. We'll see wht the commision has to say in the next week or so.
 
Trial lawyers will have no interest in this. They like to see people people seriously maimed or killed because that equals irrational big money verdicts.

There wouldn't be any money in interference suits, therefore there won't be any lawyers.
 
R.F. Burns said:
What I have proven is that the technology isn't flawed. What is flawed is the way some of the anti Iboc crowd will do anything and go as far as lie about this technology.
Click to expand...

What part of: "it puts huge levels of RF interference on first and second adjacent frequencies" is a lie?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom