Full-digital IBOC is "probably not going to happen"

[westlife]

I just came across this question and answer in an interview with iBiquity CEO Bob Struble:

Interviewer: Do you expect Congress to force digital broadcasting on radio station operators and require receiver manufacturers to stop making analog radios, the way it has set deadlines in the TV industry?

Struble: That's probably not going to happen since television's adoption of digital happened in a different manner. Television was given new spectrum for its digital broadcasts, after which they were to return their analog spectrum to the government. That spectrum is valuable, and the government is motivated to get it back. In radio, digital broadcasting is happening on the same spectrum as analog, thus there is no spectrum that goes back to the government and no need for them to take action.

If this prediction comes true, then read my lips: IBOC, at least on the AM band, is dead. Right now, we are constantly being told that all this suffering we are enduring with hybrid analog/digital AM IBOC -- with its telephone-quality 5 kHz analog audio, crummy low-bitrate digital audio, and massive daytime and nighttime interference problems -- is worth it, because "once full-digital IBOC gets on the air, all of these problems will be solved".

But what if that never happens? With billions of analog radios in use today, IBOC is going to need well over a decade of full-force receiver proliferation before "legacy" analog AM/FM transmissions can be retired in favor of full-digital IBOC. But who's going to wait around that long, suffering all the while with the serious problems caused by hybrid IBOC?

The answer is already becoming clear: the only useful feature IBOC will bring to broadcasters is the ability to transmit multiple programming streams on an FM signal, a.k.a. "multicasting". That is the only thing which enough people will care about. So at best, IBOC will effectively become a replacement for SCA. Any other attempted use of IBOC -- including all use of it on the AM band -- will just be a very costly mistake!
<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[xoanon]

I would suppose that AM radios would always have to have an analog mode anyway - would they require all the thousands of TIS's out there to go digital? AND pay a huge fee to Iniquity (Ibiquity) ?

 

[westlife]

> I would suppose that AM radios would always have to have an
> analog mode anyway - would they require all the thousands of
> TIS's out there to go digital? AND pay a huge fee to
> Iniquity (Ibiquity) ?

There are no plans to "upgrade" (and I use that term very loosely) TIS stations to digital. In fact, TISes are secondary to all other licensed AM broadcast stations, so if a neighboring AM station begins transmitting IBOC and the resulting adjacent-channel interference wipes out all of the TIS's coverage area, then the owners of the TIS have no legal recourse; they'll either have to just withstand the interference, or hope to get FCC approval for a change to a different frequency.

Also, there are no plans to convert NOAA Weather Radio (on 162.xx MHz VHF) to any kind of digital system. Considering that NOAA is used for potentially life-saving emergency information, and that it is still impossible to have an IBOC-type digital receiver which can run for dozens of hours on a pair of AA batteries like an analog radio can, I think NOAA Weather Radio will remain analog for as long as the service exists.
<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[Powell]

If no sunset of analog...

Then this system BOTH on MW and VHF is doomed. Don't count on it NOT being forced down our throats. There's millions maybe billions of $$ to be lost if IBOC fails.




> Also, there are no plans to convert NOAA Weather Radio (on
> 162.xx MHz VHF) to any kind of digital system. Considering
> that NOAA is used for potentially life-saving emergency
> information, and that it is still impossible to have an
> IBOC-type digital receiver which can run for dozens of hours
> on a pair of AA batteries like an analog radio can, I think
> NOAA Weather Radio will remain analog for as long as the
> service exists.


NOAA receivers (ones that work well anyway) are stand alone devices. And the old tone alert system needs to go away and the EAS type system fully implemented.

My 1961 Zenith Royal 705 with tuned RF stages goes at least a hundred or so hours on 4 AA's before replacement is needed.


Powell
<P ID="signature">______________
NNNN</P>

 

[Powell]

If no sunset of analog...

Then this system BOTH on MW and VHF is doomed. Don't count on it NOT being forced down our throats. There's millions maybe billions of $$ to be lost if IBOC fails.




> Also, there are no plans to convert NOAA Weather Radio (on
> 162.xx MHz VHF) to any kind of digital system. Considering
> that NOAA is used for potentially life-saving emergency
> information, and that it is still impossible to have an
> IBOC-type digital receiver which can run for dozens of hours
> on a pair of AA batteries like an analog radio can, I think
> NOAA Weather Radio will remain analog for as long as the
> service exists.


NOAA receivers (ones that work well anyway) are stand alone devices. And the old tone alert system needs to go away and the EAS type system fully implemented.

My 1961 Zenith Royal 705 with tuned RF stages goes at least a hundred or so hours on 4 AA's before replacement is needed.


Powell
<P ID="signature">______________
NNNN</P>

 

[4dude]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is "probably not going to happen"

Any other attempted use of IBOC -- including all use of it on the AM band -- will just be a very costly mistake!

I sure wish they would hurry up and figure this out and get this crap off the AM band!! (And FM too for that matter)

 

[littlejohn]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

Consider what bandwidth might be available if you sunsetted analog completely. On FM, consider the potential coverage and penetration if you could runit at power instead of 20dB down. And 20 dB down works surprisingly well in cars. You could do killer fidelity, or a plethora of signals, or a mix. On AM, you could likely get enough of a bitrate to have a listenable signal with fair fidelity.

 

[4dude]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is

But the stuff to get this costs WAY TOO MUCH (Its a rip off $$$ scam)

And i dont think DIGITAL AUDIO sounds anywhere near as good as analog does....... I watched Commando on DVD and it sucked BIG TIME! (Ill take my VHS copy anyday )

 

[NE Miss Radio]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

Not to mention that automotive radios are going to emphasize XM and Sirius (after all, auto companies OWN big chunks of both). And who owns Ibiquity...isn't it CC and Harris among others? IBOC is going to need a "pull-through" demand from customers.

I remain a skeptic for another reason...90%+ of listeners couldn't tell the difference if you switched to mono. It's the content that drives listening, not the technology.

 

[ddybas]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

Let's face it...the only way something succeeds is if the consumers "want" it. It's become obvious that the consumers are content with what they have and don't want or need IBOC. Old fashioned radio, the stuff we grew up on, is in tough competition with Internet radio, Ipod's, MTV, and a bunch of other sources of entertainment. IBOC isn't AM radios salvation...programming what the listeners want... is.

 

[700WLW]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

Let's face it...the only way something succeeds is if the consumers "want" it. It's become obvious that the consumers are content with what they have and don't want or need IBOC. Old fashioned radio, the stuff we grew up on, is in tough competition with Internet radio, Ipod's, MTV, and a bunch of other sources of entertainment. IBOC isn't AM radios salvation...programming what the listeners want... is.

You are absolutely correct:

Here is the current interest in HD Radio, over the past two years:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio"&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

With the $200,000,000 spent in 2006, by the HD Radio Cartel, one would expect an up-swing in 2006, but interest is now waining.

Now, let's put that graph into perspective - compared to other technologies, that up-swing is just a flat line:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+ipod,+mp3,+"cell+phone"&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

On the actual graph, cell phones and HD Radio seem to be pretty close, until one examines the bar-graph.

And, we also know, that 73% of consumers are aware of HD Radio, at some level:

"In-Stat: Digital Radio Set to Take Off"

"In 2006, 73 percent of respondents to an In-Stat U.S. consumer survey were aware of HD Radio on some level. "

http://beradio.com/eyeoniboc/instat-digital-radio-set/

AND, Senator Sununu may put an end, to this little iNiquity/FCC in-bed partnership:

"SUNUNU: FCC TECH MANDATES MUST BE BANNED"

http://www.sununu.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=267281&&year=2007

This is just an amendment, to a bill he has already passed.

 

[jboydingram]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

I own a Class C2 and a class A FM, and will not invest in this technology until receiver penetration is above 50%, and will think carefully even then. It looks a conversion of the C-2 will approach 300,000 dollars...not chicken feed for a small market!

 

[700WLW]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

I own a Class C2 and a class A FM, and will not invest in this technology until receiver penetration is above 50%, and will think carefully even then. It looks a conversion of the C-2 will approach 300,000 dollars...not chicken feed for a small market!

Good decision - HD Radio/IBOC causes adjacent-channel interference and has only 60% the coverage of analog - instead of saturating the broadcast bands further, with the HD channels, if there was any compelling material, then why isn't it just put on the main analog channels. To-date, only 35,000 HD radios have been sold, and with almost total comsumer apathy, HD radio penetration will never hit anywhere near a critical mass. And, with iNiquity's ridiculous initial, and on-going fees, there is no justification for this destructive technology.

 

[jboydingram]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

will others please express themselves on this issue, especially as related to the cost/benefit ratio. I remember the AM stereo debacle very well...it demonstrated that all FCC "Advancements" are not necessarly acceptable to the industry, or the public...Comments?

 

[w9wi]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

Consider what bandwidth might be available if you sunsetted analog completely. On FM, consider the potential coverage and penetration if you could runit at power instead of 20dB down. And 20 dB down works surprisingly well in cars. You could do killer fidelity, or a plethora of signals, or a mix. On AM, you could likely get enough of a bitrate to have a listenable signal with fair fidelity.

FM full-digital IBOC *could* be pretty darned good. Problem is, how do you get there? You can't go full-digital until most of your audience has digital receivers, but your deep-suburban listeners (Zion, Ill.; Columbia, Tenn.; Irvine, Cal.; etc.) won't buy digital receivers if they can't get their favorite station in digital, but you won't be able to get a digital signal into the deep suburbs until you can go full-digital.

I suppose if one hasn't already hit their station ownership limit, they could buy another signal & use it in full-digital mode to deliver the digital signals of their existing stations to the entire market, while continuing to keep those existing stations in analog on their existing sticks.

On AM, I don't see any way out of the nighttime mess, except by deleting MANY stations. (i.e., at least half) The signals *are* going to propagate at night - no technology is going to stop that. Except moving the AM stations to VHF/UHF. You can stop protecting the skywave coverage area from interference, but you can't prevent the signals from skipping. At least in my experience, by the time the AM signal is strong and interference-free enough to deliver reliable HD reception, the *analog* sounds pretty darned good.

 

[DudeFan]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

The answer to AM is probably Digital Radio Mondiale, which works well on the shortwave bands. But, alas, it is not a hybrid system.

 

[dbdigital]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

The answer to AM is probably Digital Radio Mondiale, which works well on the shortwave bands. But, alas, it is not a hybrid system.

Actually, according to the DRM broadcast manual the technology does allow for "simulcast" (their term for hybrid) broadcasting. However, the current spec calls for an additional 9/10 kHz of bandwidth above or below the main channel for this purpose. Supposedly the consortium is working to refine DRM so that it will simulcast within the 9/10 kHz bandwidth.

But DRM was designed for the LW, SW and MW bands, taking into consideration the groundwave and skywave propagation of those bands, and so its method of coding, multiplexing and transmission are far more robust than the iBiquity system for which AM was an afterthought. It's also highly scalable, using a wide variety of codecs and bitstreams based upon audio content and channels used, and there's no licensing fees to the broadcaster.

Hopefully when IBOC fails for AM, the FCC will take another look at DRM (although I believe they approved its use for SW).

db

 

[littlejohn]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

>FM full-digital IBOC *could* be pretty darned good. Problem is, how do you get there? You can't go full->digital until most of your audience has digital receivers, but your deep-suburban listeners (Zion, Ill.; >Columbia, Tenn.; Irvine, Cal.; etc.) won't buy digital receivers if they can't get their favorite station in >digital, but you won't be able to get a digital signal into the deep suburbs until you can go full-digital.

The only way I see is the same way as DTV: Mandate it, and mandate a sunset date for analog. This will force the auto manufacturer to put digital in cars - which they aren't going to do till there's demand... and the prices aren't going to become reasonable until the radios are being built in auto OEM quantities.

Now whether or not that's a politically palatable, or even politically possible decision isn't one we've a good answer for.

$300 Large seems a bit of a stretch to do a C3 FM. I'd think an iBOC transmitter and injector would run somewhat less than that. But, I don't know the gentleman's situation... it might well cost him that. And even at half that, he's certainly not going to put it up unless there's some reason to believe people will hear it. Nor is any other small businessman, it's hard enough for them to survive as it is. Unfortunately, in the quantities broadcast equipment is built, there won't be any economy of scale for the broadcaster. Any price reduction is likely to come from technology advances, and/or the fact that it would be easier to generate the digital if there wasn't a requirement for the analog to be there as well.

 

[jboydingram]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

My hi power FM is a C-2. A dual Analog/Digital 25 KW transmitter lists at 135,000.
A combo analog/digital antenna at 75,000. Add a digital stl,boards for two studios, and associated equipment and you are all over 300,000.
And you are right, I do not expect to see prices come down. Thanks

 

[radioskeptic]

Re: Full-digital IBOC is \

Here's a suggestion for jboydingram and others in his position: Why not take a look at DRE's FMeXtra system? Start with the Radio World article, “Road-Testing The FMeXtra: Author Tries System In Minnesota, Says It Has ‘Much Potential,’” by Tom H. Jones. Here's a link: http://rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.463.html

Here are the two most important points in the article:

“With 20 percent injection [of the FMeXtra digital signal], on most radials, solid, dropout-free reception was experienced to each station’s 51 to 53 dBu contour.

“With 30 percent injection, dropout-free reception was received to the station’s 46 to 50 dBu contours.”

Compare this with I-BLOCK, which is trouble-prone beyond the 70 dBu contour, and practically useless beyond the 60 dBu!

Back on Dec. 26, an LPFM owner from Bridgeton simultanteously put a post bursting with enthusiasm about FMeXtra on several boards, and it was deleted before the day was over! I did, however, save it to my files.

I just re-read it, and the most interesting thing in it was this: He said his (contract?) engineer told him he could install it for only $10,000!

Now I don't know whether it's actually that cheap; but the cost, whatever it is, is only a fraction of that for iNiquity's flawed IBOC system. And best of all, there are no continuing royalty payments to iNiquity (or to DRE).

I know there are no receivers available yet, but if enough medium market stations (and perhaps a handful of major market stations that haven't signed exclusive deals with iNiquity) begin using FMeXtra, I think the consumer electronics manufacturers would start making receivers pretty quickly.

In fact, I think this is the best way for the small market independents -- many of whom also own small AM's which are threatened by the I-BUZZ from first- and second-adjacent channel flamethrowers owned by the big companies who both support, and own a piece of, IBOC -- to defend themselves. Many, including some FM IBOC supporters, already recognize the problems of "HD" AM, and it's only the apparent strength of the FM version that's keeping the whole debacle alive. If an alternative for FM -- one without the first-adjacent interference and curtailed geographic coverage of IBOC -- gained some traction in just a few secondary markets, on if only a few stations in those markets -- that might do more to stop the advance of the flawed IBOC technology than all the critical comments posted here and, especially, on the "HD Radio" board.

So if you have $10,000 or so, or whatever it actually costs, what have you got to lose by trying FMeXtra?