FM stations that plan to increase digital power

[Len14043]

If you go to the FCC website by clicking on the following link, you can find out the digital status of FM stations. Thanks to a poster on another discussion forum.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_sear.htm

Select Service: FM Station
Select Application Type: Special Temporary Authority
Leave all other fields blank.

I didn't go through the entire list, but I noticed that WNPR (Norwich, CT), KUWC (Casper, WY), and KQOC (Gleneden Beach, OR) requested to operate at -10dBc.

 

[briankay]

Yea, I posted that last week on the more pro-HD radio forum at avs*****.com after trying every other combination of search on the FCC. I wonder if the trickle of applications for a power boost (about 2 or so stations per day average) will pick up steam quickly. Mostly public stations so far but I see that CBS is getting in on the act with some of their Tampa stations. Some are being Granted within a day of applying.

I see a few Alaska stations getting in on the action which is surprising, considering the naysayers claim it will be not be cost effective to increase the power. I'm sure those lumberjacks in Alaska with HD radios are happy. Point being, it won't be long before we see the major market broadcasters requesting HD power boosts which will over the long term produce an ROI.

No Chicago stations yet, but a Kenosha, WI class A station nearby has request a 6 dB boost. My feedback from some of the Chicago stations is that some are anxious to do so but are waiting for a firmware update to boost the power, while another (a classical station) is playing it safe, because of possible concerns about HD "self-noise" that happens in some high end home receivers. Others (in fact several) because they use a shared "Master" antenna have other hurdles, both technical and administrative, to mount.

 

[Carmine5]

Speaking of the power increase, there was an interesting letter from an anonymous engineer in the Bext newsletter. Here is a portion of it:

"They don't say anything about digital-to-analog interference to your OWN station that NPR Labs found, for instance, and how this interference will help speed the end of analog FM. It's as if we are shooting ourselves in the foot with this HD power increase...There is a big gap between what the FCC and Mr. McLane are saying and what we engineers in the trenches have found and our corporations have kept us from saying."

He is referring to Paul McLane, editor of Radio World, whom this engineer felt was hiding some of the problems of the HD power increase in an RW editorial.

http://www.bext.com/_CGC/2010/cgc998.htm

McLane responded:

"Quite to the contrary, Radio World has covered IBOC criticism extensively including the research from NPR Labs that the anonymous reader cites....While I personally support the FCC's recent action for the reasons stated in my column, I also know that the decision is contentious and that many engineers have concerns about it. I have always felt, and frequently stated, that IBOC is an imperfect solution to a long-term challenge facing our industry in how to "go digital."

http://earthsignals.com/add_CGC/Letters/McLane_HD.htm

I can't help but get the impression that, more and more, engineers are balking at HD Radio and this power increase and as such are being taken out of the decision-making process when station owners or managers consider implementing either of them.

 

[Savage]

Slowly but surely ("and don't call me Shirley!") management is coming over to the side of rational thinking....which is to say, siding with their "naysayer" engineers. With the much-squeezed-for digital power increase, it's becoming increasingly hard to ignore the massive practical problems posed by IBOC - not the least of which is, cost.

It's very hard to defend spending the cap-ex dollars to achieve a significant digital power increase in this economy - unless, of course, taxpayers are footing the bill. You'll note that the preponderance of power increase apps are coming from pubcasters, who get their IBOC money from federal grants. In fact, outside of noncomm and public broadcasters and Alliance members with a vested interest in HD - virtually nobody is moving quickly to implement a digital power increase. (Unless they're one of the few facilities which have the headroom already built in, that is.)

In many installations you're talking about immense increases in operational cost, with high-level combining wasting 9 kW for every 1 (digital) that makes it to the antenna. Even if you can write down the capital expenditure, you've got to think long and hard about building in permanent new fixed and recurring expenses - given the dismal prospect of any kind of ROI. The choice about IBOC becomes easy when you're struggling to make payroll and debt service, since almost nobody in the twin constituencies of listeners and advertisers cares about HD Radio.

And then, there's the interference....and the lack of receivers....and....and.....

 

[R.F. Burns]

I will say this not to create controversy but just as what I believe might explain the relatively slow speed concerning IBOC power increases. In NYC and in other large markets which is where the majority of IBOC operators broadcast from, most stations diplex into a single antenna system. For instance in NYC there are two major FM transmitter sites, Empire and Conde nast. Both sites contain combiners and it is possible at least at this time that those combiners cannot withstand the greater load created by a 6 or 10 fold power increase. Stations did not petition the FCC for a power increase and not follow through with the hike in power. At least here in NY only WABC has turned off their IBOC exciter and that’s on AM. WPLJ, the Citadel FM facility is still running 3 IBOC channels on 95.5 Mhz. HD3 is a retransmission of WABC AM. I’d say that by early summer we should be in a much better position to judge whether stations decide to go with the power increase or not.

 

[davideduardo]

I will say this not to create controversy but just as what I believe might explain the relatively slow speed concerning IBOC power increases. In NYC and in other large markets which is where the majority of IBOC operators broadcast from, most stations diplex into a single antenna system. For instance in NYC there are two major FM transmitter sites, Empire and Conde nast.

Conde Nast is a backup site, set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to accomodate most of the market. The real site is the ESB. And, in some places, like NY, Chicago and Miami, most stations of significance are on common antennas. But in markets like Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, LA, San Francisco, Philly, DC, Detroit, St Louis, Denver, Minneapolis, Boston, nearly all stations have separate antennas, even if some stuctures are shared.

One of the issues is that few of the big signals in LA, to cite an example, can increase HD at all as the are grandfathered and the HD, from my read of the announcement, must follow the power relationship based on the conforming signal for each class.

 

[Play Freebird]

One of the issues is that few of the big signals in LA, to cite an example, can increase HD at all as the are grandfathered and the HD, from my read of the announcement, must follow the power relationship based on the conforming signal for each class.

Very good point. Using KLOS on Mount Wilson as an example, the normal Class B power limit at its lofty antenna HAAT of 954 meters would be only 760 watts, rather than the grandfathered 63 kW it is licensed for. This is a difference of over 19 dB!

If KLOS is required to limit its digital injection to -10 dBc based on normal Class B operation, this represents a 9 dB reduction from -20 dB injection based on its actual grandfathered licensed power. I doubt that any Mount Wilson stations will gain a significant increase.

 

[davideduardo]

I doubt that any Mount Wilson stations will gain a significant increase.

... Fortunately.

 

[Chuck]

Power increase or not, I still have a hard time figuring out why any commercial broadcaster is anxious to expand the number of listening choices in their market by adding HD sub channels. All it does is further fragment their existing audience. It is bad enough with listener distractions such as ipods, Pandora, and a zillion streaming stations to choose from. Instead, they should be concentrating on giving people more ways and better reasons to hear their creative product.

I can understand the interest in HD sub channels in the noncommercial world, but the only possible exceptions I can come up with in the commercial radio is simulating an existing AM (or maybe a weak sister station). Still, hardly anybody is listening to the HD, so why bother? Times are hard enough as it is without adding self-inflicted wounds.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Power increase or not, I still have a hard time figuring out why any commercial broadcaster is anxious to expand the number of listening choices in their market by adding HD sub channels. All it does is further fragment their existing audience. It is bad enough with listener distractions such as ipods, Pandora, and a zillion streaming stations to choose from. Instead, they should be concentrating on giving people more ways and better reasons to hear their creative product.

I can understand the interest in HD sub channels in the noncommercial world, but the only possible exceptions I can come up with in the commercial radio is simulating an existing AM (or maybe a weak sister station). Still, hardly anybody is listening to the HD, so why bother? Times are hard enough as it is without adding self-inflicted wounds.

Using that logic why would any owner want to purchase more than a single property in a market? Today many group owners sell across their properties as opposed to selling a single station. If you can garner a few more listeners by providing alternate programing otherwise not available, who otherwise would not be listening, that's to the benefit of the group owner. In urban areas like NY where AM penetration is spotty, using a HD3 channel allows peopel who othyerwise would not be able to hear a station clearly can now do so. In NYC, WFAN, WABC, WNYC, WCBS, & WINS all AM facilities can also be heard on HD 3 channels. I listen to WNYC at night in a NY suburb. The stations 1KW am signal is not strong enough to provide a good signal in my area. In other words, it's an alternative.

 

[Chuck]

Power increase or not, I still have a hard time figuring out why any commercial broadcaster is anxious to expand the number of listening choices in their market by adding HD sub channels. All it does is further fragment their existing audience. It is bad enough with listener distractions such as ipods, Pandora, and a zillion streaming stations to choose from. Instead, they should be concentrating on giving people more ways and better reasons to hear their creative product.

I can understand the interest in HD sub channels in the noncommercial world, but the only possible exceptions I can come up with in the commercial radio is simulating an existing AM (or maybe a weak sister station). Still, hardly anybody is listening to the HD, so why bother? Times are hard enough as it is without adding self-inflicted wounds.

Using that logic why would any owner want to purchase more than a single property in a market? Today many group owners sell across their properties as opposed to selling a single station. If you can garner a few more listeners by providing alternate programing otherwise not available, who otherwise would not be listening, that's to the benefit of the group owner. In urban areas like NY where AM penetration is spotty, using a HD3 channel allows peopel who othyerwise would not be able to hear a station clearly can now do so. In NYC, WFAN, WABC, WNYC, WCBS, & WINS all AM facilities can also be heard on HD 3 channels. I listen to WNYC at night in a NY suburb. The stations 1KW am signal is not strong enough to provide a good signal in my area. In other words, it's an alternative.

If you truly get people "who are not otherwise listening" then it is a win situation for the broadcaster. Unfortunately, in most markets, I doubt that represents a significant enough number of people to be worthwhile.

I'd LOVE to bring more people back to radio. In fact, in my own market, I think I've actually done that. At least, listeners have told me so. But it had nothing to do with digital. It was simply offering something that was not otherwise available in my market on an analog station. It all boils down to content. At least, most of these folks who have returned to radio didn't need to buy anything new to find us. Add the cost of upgrading to HD receivers, and the battle gets a lot tougher.

Many people would agree that the influx of new stations that happened because of the rule changes in 1996 has hurt radio by diluting the audience. Why is everyone in a hurry to repeat the process?

 

[R.F. Burns]

The logic is that if you're going to dilute the marketplace (same goes for baseball but that's another topic) it's less of an issue if you end up with the available audience as opposed to your competition. HD radio was developed to compete with the satellites which could provide more programing choices than the OTA competition. In markets like NYC there are formats on HD channels unavailable elsewhere on the dial. AM HD was really developed as an afterthought to the digital conversion processs. Ownership believes it can place less potentially profitable formats on its HD 2 and HD 3 channles than it can on its main analog/HD1 channels. Formats like country and smooth jazz have a place on NY HD 2 channels. These formats don't exist on other NYC OTA facilities.

 

[Savage]

Except that's not the way agencies typically buy radio, RF. The buys are based on reach and frequency. The media planner looks at the total budget for a buy and calculates she can buy, in such-and-such a market, the top 3 stations (as an example) in the desired demographic.

Then there's a negotiation based upon value-adds with prospective stations offering deals on cost-per-point in Arbitron. In this way the number two station, of the three for example, can snag a little more (sometimes a lot more depending on what's offered) than their baseline share of the budget.

Planners don't care if you aggregate your main channel, your HD subs, your AMs and your FMs, because if the audience is fragmented the reach isn't there. Your fragmented analog-digital audience doesn't rise to the top of the Arbitron ranker, so you simply fall below the cutoff line - and your station(s) don't even get considered.

Your (former) share of the buy goes to your competitors. That's not a good thing.

The comparison with satellite and its mini-audiences for hundreds of channels is inapposite. Satellite isn't in the same business and terrestrial radio. They don't sell advertising.

 

[davideduardo]

Many people would agree that the influx of new stations that happened because of the rule changes in 1996 has hurt radio by diluting the audience. Why is everyone in a hurry to repeat the process?

Except that deregulation in 1996 did not create any significant changes in station counts. It was Docket 80-90 which was the offshoot of the Bonita Springs case dating back to the early 80's that created thousands of new stations, move-ins and upgrades that caused the issues that several larger companies seized to promote changes in ownership caps. But the raw number of stations changed in the window around the end of the 80's into the beginning of the 90's.

 

[davideduardo]

Except that's not the way agencies typically buy radio, RF. The buys are based on reach and frequency. The media planner looks at the total budget for a buy and calculates she can buy, in such-and-such a market, the top 3 stations (as an example) in the desired demographic.

I'd clarify to say that stations are bought based on cost per point, and the market buy is optimezed by reach and frequency. And value added is used to break ties.

A market typically has a CPP goal and a budget based on that, such as 300 weekly GRiPs against 25-54 men at a CPP of $120.

The buyer requests rates, and specifies the CPP goal. Stations look at their performance in the target demo, and decide if they can submit or not. Once the applicable stations submit, the buyer will look at the best deliverers first and run reach and frequency, sometimes eliminating a station that duplicates too much with others to optimize reach. Different r&f scenarios are developed, and then the value added will sometimes make one station look better than another due to merchandising, promotion, etc.

Web presence is often given as value added, particularly since most agency spots can't run on a station stream. HD presence is not a viable sales incentive yet, or maybe, ever.

 

[Carmine5]

Power increase or not, I still have a hard time figuring out why any commercial broadcaster is anxious to expand the number of listening choices in their market by adding HD sub channels. All it does is further fragment their existing audience. It is bad enough with listener distractions such as ipods, Pandora, and a zillion streaming stations to choose from. Instead, they should be concentrating on giving people more ways and better reasons to hear their creative product.

I can understand the interest in HD sub channels in the noncommercial world, but the only possible exceptions I can come up with in the commercial radio is simulating an existing AM (or maybe a weak sister station). Still, hardly anybody is listening to the HD, so why bother? Times are hard enough as it is without adding self-inflicted wounds.

Using that logic why would any owner want to purchase more than a single property in a market? Today many group owners sell across their properties as opposed to selling a single station. If you can garner a few more listeners by providing alternate programing otherwise not available, who otherwise would not be listening, that's to the benefit of the group owner. In urban areas like NY where AM penetration is spotty, using a HD3 channel allows peopel who othyerwise would not be able to hear a station clearly can now do so. In NYC, WFAN, WABC, WNYC, WCBS, & WINS all AM facilities can also be heard on HD 3 channels. I listen to WNYC at night in a NY suburb. The stations 1KW am signal is not strong enough to provide a good signal in my area. In other words, it's an alternative.

If you truly get people "who are not otherwise listening" then it is a win situation for the broadcaster. Unfortunately, in most markets, I doubt that represents a significant enough number of people to be worthwhile.

I'd LOVE to bring more people back to radio. In fact, in my own market, I think I've actually done that. At least, listeners have told me so. But it had nothing to do with digital. It was simply offering something that was not otherwise available in my market on an analog station. It all boils down to content. At least, most of these folks who have returned to radio didn't need to buy anything new to find us. Add the cost of upgrading to HD receivers, and the battle gets a lot tougher.

Many people would agree that the influx of new stations that happened because of the rule changes in 1996 has hurt radio by diluting the audience. Why is everyone in a hurry to repeat the process?

I never thought I would be faced with sub-channel programming issues but I'm looking at it right now with DTV. The only thing I can figure is to program something that is complimentary to, not competing with, the primary channel. Some stations are programming ethnic on their subs while English is on their main or in Ion's case offering programs that target different segments of a household; dramas in HD on their primary, cartoons and lifestyle on the sub-channels.

For radio, I would think it a mistake for, say, an oldies station to program all 70's on a side channel, but perhaps not business or sports radio on such a channel. We know Bonneville and Emmis have put brokered ethnic on their side channels in some markets so that they're capturing a segment of the market which normally wouldn't listen to their main channel.

I'm not sure if Arbitron is measuring HD side channels but there may be the matter of having to encode for PPM on side channels.

I'm thinking that having extra channels, either for radio or television, is a mixed blessing. Sure, they can be an extra revenue stream but they can also be expensive to set up and run and hardly anyone knows about them.

c5

 

[Chuck]

Except that deregulation in 1996 did not create any significant changes in station counts. It was Docket 80-90 which was the offshoot of the Bonita Springs case dating back to the early 80's that created thousands of new stations, move-ins and upgrades that caused the issues that several larger companies seized to promote changes in ownership caps. But the raw number of stations changed in the window around the end of the 80's into the beginning of the 90's.

You are correct about the station count increasing due to Docket 80-90. Mia culpa, but the fervor of the 1990's resulted in lots of stations (including some of the new ones) moving away from their original city of license and reappearing as rim-shots in metros where the larger audiences are located. That greatly increased the choices (and competition) in many cities, even if they were marginal signals.

For a while, the "station shuffle" game was where the big money could be made in broadcasting. It became very attractive to speculative investors who cared little about broadcasting but liked making money. There is nothing wrong with making money, but because their ultimate goal had little to do with programming or ad sales, the "art" of radio suffered.

If you were to purchase a station with the intent of moving it (and maybe a few others) so you could sell it to the next guy, then you tend to not be very concerned about improving the quality of the day to day operation. About all you want to do is keep it on the air and reasonably viable until the next purchaser comes along. It's "the greater fool theory." For about ten years, it worked. Fortunes were made in buying, selling and trading stations. I know a several people who became quite wealthy by doing this. In an odd sort of way, I wish I'd thought of it. The down side is, just like a game of Musical Chairs, someone ends up the loser. That bubble has burst. The good news is there are now quite a few stations for sale at reasonable prices. The down side is they are real "fixer-uppers," which may never amount to anything, no matter how much cash you pour into them.

In any case, the number of stations on the conventional broadcast bands has greatly increased. Some of those stations do quite well, but many are marginal. Do we really need even more?

Many years ago, when I lived in Dallas, I seem to recall that there were something like 16 FM stations and about 8 or 9 AM stations that were easy to receive with any regularity. A quick look at Radio-Locator, entering my old zip code of 75220, yielded 82 signals! Even if Radio-Locator isn't all that accurate, it is still obvious that there are a lot more choices, which results in a fragmented audience share.

Of course the DFW metro area is a lot bigger than it was in the 1970's, but there are also a lot more non-radio distractions out there which didn't exist 40 years ago. There was no satellite radio, no Internet, no ipods. There wasn't even a Sony Walkman to be had for love or money. But there were a core group of radio stations that "everyone listened to." We are way past that now. I think it is very fair to say that the audience is extremely fragmented, even in less heavily populated areas. Does dividing the pie even more really make that much sense?

RF's point about trying to keep those fragmented bits and pieces under your company's banner sounds reasonable. It certainly is the logic that many companies have used to justify HD-sub channels, but I don't think works out as intended. Maybe it will in the future, but I have my sincere doubts. When Internet access becomes commonplace in cars - and it will - then the audience fragmentation you see now will look very minor. I have a hard time getting very enthused about paying for something that has the potential to make life even more difficult.

So far, the only reason I've been able to come up with to justify the cost of HD is to use it to jam my adjacent or co-channel neighbors. With the new power increase, I may have to do that, just to protect my own stations coverage area. I'm pretty sure the FCC won't do it for me.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm not sure if Arbitron is measuring HD side channels but there may be the matter of having to encode for PPM on side channels.

HD-2, 3, and on will be measured if the station encodes. For separate programming, an additional encoder is required for each channel, just as one is for non-simulcast web streams.

I don't think that there are any HD-2 and above HD streams that are not encoded in PPM markets (33 at last count), but I do know how many HD signals "made the book" in the last reported survey period; the number is right below the "8" on your telephone keypad.

 

[BRNout]

I'm not sure if Arbitron is measuring HD side channels but there may be the matter of having to encode for PPM on side channels.

HD-2, 3, and on will be measured if the station encodes. For separate programming, an additional encoder is required for each channel, just as one is for non-simulcast web streams.

I don't think that there are any HD-2 and above HD streams that are not encoded in PPM markets (33 at last count), but I do know how many HD signals "made the book" in the last reported survey period; the number is right below the "8" on your telephone keypad.

Correction David, a couple of subchannels did make the book here and there...but they are HD-2s that have analog translators. Atlanta's 99X format is a fine example.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't think that there are any HD-2 and above HD streams that are not encoded in PPM markets (33 at last count), but I do know how many HD signals "made the book" in the last reported survey period; the number is right below the "8" on your telephone keypad.

Correction David, a couple of subchannels did make the book here and there...but they are HD-2s that have analog translators. Atlanta's 99X format is a fine example.

Yes, those got in the book due to the SLR option. No pure HD2 makes the book in the last release, out this past week for the 33 PPM markets.