-
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 Proposes Increase in HD Signal Power
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
Everything I read on it sounded like "real audio" was being sent. Maybe at the time they were "messing with the thing"
Well . . . at the CES show you're saying they had the stations audio, correct, that sounds better!!!
Al
Yup, that's very possible! Although I never found any audio streams.
I think it's also possible that people within their organization did not have an understanding of what they were actually doing.
I'd love to see a screen shot of it. I think I saved the HTML and CSS files, I could see if it matches what I received. If it matches, then we know it was just the links.
Which is why the current owners are absolutely opposed to it. It makes their investment worth even less.
If that is going to happen, they feel they should get something for their investment. Right now, they're operating under the same rules they've had for 25 years. While the entire media environment has changed. They feel that's not fair to them.
I'm assuming that they'd do what they're doing on AM, where a 1000 watt AM would become a 1000 watt All-Digital station.
If a 100,000 watt Class C FM station converted to digital, it would become a (mind-blowingly huge) 100,000 watt All-Digital signal. That's my assumption.
If I had the grant money and we could get 10 percent digital power, id go digital here and buy everyone in town an HD radio.
9 watts digital would cover all that matters. ID probably throw up a news channel, with a combo of BBC, Dw, RFI and others in english.
9 watts digital would cover all that matters. ID probably throw up a news channel, with a combo of BBC, Dw, RFI and others in english.
Because the theoretical TPO required to do DTV on VHF was much less than analog, the transmitter replacement cost was much less than a VHF station with a 'transition channel' UHF. And for "flash-cutting" stations, usually, they could get away with keeping their existing antenna. For example, a 5kW VHF DTV transmitter would likely cost less than $100K plus bandpass filters, whereas a 90kW UHF solid-state transmitter would be north of $650K, not including installation costs. Then you have to install a heavy high-power UHF antenna, supporting tower work, bandpass filters, TX line, installation, etc.
The whole ATSC 3.0 thing in itself is/was a nothing burger. Unless the Commission wants to go through another round of spectrum auctions by taking big chunks of existing UHF DTV channels by requiring one ATSC 3.0 transmission that housed all the local stations per market, I don't see it ever gaining traction. And the whole radio on ATSC 3.0 was just another silly attempt by Sinclair to throw something at the wall to see if it stuck.
But that doesn't happen everytime...not all new autos have HD...I would bet less than 50%
Four years ago, it was more than half:
More Than Half Of New Cars Now Equipped With HD Radio.
As audio options on the vehicle dashboard continue to proliferate, broadcasters can take comfort in the fact that AM/FM remains drivers’ number one companion. But that certainly doesn’t mean radio
The plus to ATSC 3.0 (for corporations, not the public) is that it has the potential to kill-off OTA viewing, which is the only form of content delivery that the major broadcast station owners can not monetize outside of advertising. I'm sure some executives see the "20% OTA" as a bad thing, with no re-transmission or subscription revenue.
I don't think the 100,000 watt all-digital signal would be much huger than the existing analog signal, would it? The FM signal would still travel in straight line with its range limited by the horizon, whether it's analog or digital.
The trouble with the current HD signals is that the digital portion is at such a low power it doesn't reach all the way to the horizon, or even much more than halfway out into the analog coverage area of smaller signals.
Yes, of course. Sometimes my brain thinks in Flat Earth mode.
So it would make a big difference in the mid-power and lower-power ranges.
The problem is just managing interference, a powerful digital signal in fringe areas will take over a weaker analog signal in a adjacent area.
The Digital Signal is extremely robust, more power, more chance of unintended consequences to analog signals.
Actually most larger TV groups, especially O&O's aren't interested in killing-off OTA viewing anymore. If anything, they're seeing it as a parachute should cable subscribers and retrans fees continue to fall. One major thing that DTV OTA gives a group, network, or station, is the ability to carry programming that otherwise would be available to cable. Oxygen True Crime is a good example. None of the cable providers were interested in paying for Oxygen, so NBCU put it on all their O&O stations where it actually makes money with national ads. I heard somewhere that TelXidos, a Spanish language diginet version of Cozi or MeTV, clears over a million per year in national ad revenue for just old movies and reruns of Telemundo programming.
In theory, ATSC 3.0 allows many more bits in the bucket, meaning a single ATSC 3.0 carrier in a market could deliver every virtual TV channel in HD or SD for the entire market. Just think of how much spectrum that would free up for auction. The big problem is; after two rounds of clearing spectrum and auctions, the Commission has lost interest in making every consumer switch TV's again, let alone assuming cell/PCS carriers would pay ridiculous amounts for all that spectrum.
Current estimates are that 50 million cars on the road are equipped with HD radio capability.
Let your Google do the walking:
HD Radio Gains Foothold In Electric Vehicles
One of the many advantages of electric cars is most of them either come standard or available with HD Radio. If you haven’t tried out HD Radio yet you’re in for a treat. Most major U.S. cities have a dozen...
evrider.tv
More Than Half Of New Cars Now Equipped With HD Radio.
As audio options on the vehicle dashboard continue to proliferate, broadcasters can take comfort in the fact that AM/FM remains drivers’ number one companion. But that certainly doesn’t mean radio
It's probably too late in the thread drift for this, but:
I don't think the FM HD rulemaking that's on the table right now is as big a deal as we're all making it out to be.
All it really does is to remove some regulatory hassles from something that already has been a reality under STA for quite a few years. Nobody who's serious about HD these days still runs the original -20 dBc (1% of analog) power level. If you're running HD to be heard (and not just as a placeholder to feed translators), -14 dBc is the bare minimum and -10 dBc (10% of analog) is increasingly the standard for good robust reception. The latest build here started at -14 dBc and has headroom to do more. (It's much easier to do higher HD power with current transmitters, compared to the old low-level combining or space combining that was the original and very inefficient technology.)
All that this rulemaking does is to formalize that, allowing stations to run at those power levels on a routine basis instead of having to keep renewing STAs.
I don't think the FM HD rulemaking that's on the table right now is as big a deal as we're all making it out to be.
All it really does is to remove some regulatory hassles from something that already has been a reality under STA for quite a few years. Nobody who's serious about HD these days still runs the original -20 dBc (1% of analog) power level. If you're running HD to be heard (and not just as a placeholder to feed translators), -14 dBc is the bare minimum and -10 dBc (10% of analog) is increasingly the standard for good robust reception. The latest build here started at -14 dBc and has headroom to do more. (It's much easier to do higher HD power with current transmitters, compared to the old low-level combining or space combining that was the original and very inefficient technology.)
All that this rulemaking does is to formalize that, allowing stations to run at those power levels on a routine basis instead of having to keep renewing STAs.
Or it could be that ATSC 3.0 keeps their options open, and we're both right!
Oh yeah, I agree, the statutory benefits of OTA TV are great. But if they do decide that OTA is a detriment to their model, they could move everything over to ATSC 3.0 (and even encrypt it) and keep their retransmission and must carry rights (after the laws are adjusted to allow for ATSC 3.0 carriage). That would effectively kill OTA while keeping the legal benefits.
- Status