• 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

Has the train left the station?

D

dbdigital

Guest
...as some HD Radio-boosters claim? If so, it isn't without opposition.

According to DIY Media there is a coalition of spectrum experts who have been advancing the notion that broadcasters should be afforded the choice of picking between HD and DRM, particularly for AM. They also are promoting the 26 Mhz band for domestic broadcasting in DRM.

http://klixie.textdriven.com/26mhz/

Then we have this petition for reconsideration from a coalition of public interest groups. According to DIY: "The petition asks the Commission to better justify the spectrum windfall it has handed to incumbent broadcasters (through HD Radio) - essentially letting them double or triple their footprints (and subsequent programming capacity) with no reasonable justification or renumeration (either in the form of cash or public interest program obligations)."

http://www.diymedia.net/stuff/99325petrecon091407.pdf

Hard to say what the FCC will do with this petition but it does raise the issue of accountability which has been sadly lacking with agency. I also don't think this will be the last we'll see of any formal opposition to HD Radio.

db
 
I've always thought separate spectrum was a better solution for AM, IF NEW RADIOS ARE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE THE NEW BAND! Otherwise it will fail miserably, just as UHF tv would have without a similar requirement. FM HD works just fine! Then so does FMExtra. THAT should be adopted by receiver manufacturers, so small-market broadcasters have a low-cost digital option. It's not a replacement for FM HD, but an augmentation! It's not like it would cost a lot more to make receivers with dual-foamat capability! I'd buy one, quickly!
 
Just as I wrote in my submittals to the FCC ( that fell on deaf ears ) they (the FCC) should mandate that ANY radio that includes FM-HD must also include enhanced AM (such as AMAX standards, AM-HD and/or the NEW all-digital band to replace the AM band).
AM stations should have pursued the option of another all-digital band (such as 26MHz and/or VHF) that they could simulcast in analog on the AM BCB, and simlucast in digital on the all digital AM-D band.
BUT, the NAB insisted on IBOC so that 50KW stations are still more powerful than Ma&Pa's 250 Watt daytimer.
The all-new digital AM band would have resulted in ALL stations having an equal footing - NAB didn't want that.

Hey NAB - quit wasting your money fighting the XM/Sirius merger and instead focus that money and energy on a plan to salvage the AM BCB!!
 
We got an in-band, on-channel solution BECAUSE the FCC ruled out any new spectrum.
 
Mike Walker said:
We got an in-band, on-channel solution BECAUSE the FCC ruled out any new spectrum.
Click to expand...

That's true, Mike, but it is largely because special interest trade groups did not want digital radio to stand a chance of leveling the playing field. Pure digital on a different band might do that. The current system keeps small broadcasters "in their place."
 
Then we have this petition for reconsideration from a coalition of public interest groups. According to DIY: "The petition asks the Commission to better justify the spectrum windfall it has handed to incumbent broadcasters (through HD Radio) - essentially letting them double or triple their footprints (and subsequent programming capacity) with no reasonable justification or renumeration (either in the form of cash or public interest program obligations)."
Click to expand...

That statement conviently disregards 50 years of SCA operation.

What needs to be opposed is the use of new subchannels for "comtrolled access".

BUT, the NAB insisted on IBOC so that 50KW stations are still more powerful than Ma&Pa's 250 Watt daytimer.
Click to expand...

"Ma and PA's 250w daytimer" is moribund at this point. Whatever audience these stations have is slowly declining as young people find other sources for entertainment. If "Ma and PA" are smart they'll be thinking of streaming and wi-fi for their local content.

We got an in-band, on-channel solution BECAUSE the FCC ruled out any new spectrum.
Click to expand...

Canada went the "new spectrum" route for the last 11 years, it is widely regarded as having failed and promotions of it have largely ceased.

They are now considering iboc:http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.775.html

-That in a country with a population a tenth of ours and thus fewer existing radios.

In this country "new spectrum" is asking broadcasters to buy a new TX and antenna, the potential comsumer to buy a new radio, all to receive what they now get plus, maybe a few marginally viable extra formats which iboc delivers anyway.

Lino
 
We got an in-band, on-channel solution BECAUSE the FCC ruled out any new spectrum.
Click to expand...

The other choice at that time would have been 2 GHz spectrum which the Defense Department was using. This was the Eureka-147 debate. Pentagon dug in their heels and could not be persuaded to move its systems elsewhere. It was why IBOC was appealing -- no need to infringe on defense uses.
 
(the FCC) should mandate that ANY radio that includes FM-HD must also include enhanced AM (such as AMAX standards, AM-HD and/or the NEW all-digital band to replace the AM band).
Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't know where the idea came from that the new digital band is to replace the AM band. Low Power FM did not replace the FM band; FM didn't replace AM and satellite radio didn't replace any of the above.

If AM stations want to go digital with something other than HD they can use DRM in their current spectrum. That's what it was made for -- a replacement for AM in the same spectrum. And no royalty payments to iBiquity...

I for one would not want to see existing broadcasters "move" to the 26 MHz band just as I would not want to see them in LPFM. The point of these new services is to enable new broadcasters to get on the air.

Should the FCC require that new receivers include DRM? It would be a great idea. On the other hand FCC didn't require that AM receivers include FM, or that AM-FMs include HD. Unlike the 60s when UHF TV appeared, we live in an era that discourages "heavy-handed" government "interference in the marketplace" -- what they used to call "industrial policy".

The FCC did originally require that all satellite radios be able to receive both of the satellite licensees so that the user would not be penalized if they wanted to switch or subscribe to both. The Commission waived that requirement when the two licensees developed incompatible technologies.

I expect this to be one of those "let the marketplace decide" decisions. The special language groups and niche programming could quickly or slowly move the 26 MHz radios to those who want to hear those stations.
 
There's about as much chance of AM stations getting new spectrum as Kim Bassinger winning an oscar. Wait...she already did! Nevermind ;)
 
The nice thing about the 26MHz band is we ALREADY HAVE IT as it's currently reserved for RPU and IFB ussage. They have to give us nothing accept changing the rules to make it happen.

Changes can be made now with not that much damage. If a little more time rolls on we'll be 100 percent stuck with AM IBUZ as there will be too many radios out there to make a change.
 
dbdigital said:
According to DIY Media there is a coalition of spectrum experts who have been advancing the notion that broadcasters should be afforded the choice of picking between HD and DRM, particularly for AM. They also are promoting the 26 Mhz band for domestic broadcasting in DRM.

http://klixie.textdriven.com/26mhz/
Click to expand...

26 MHz would be a lousy choice for any kind of domestic broadcasting service. No matter how much "smoke and mirrors" the proponents of "anti-skywave" antennas generate, there is no way to change the laws of physics. The 26 MHz band is very prone to skywave. Just ask any ham or CB'er! Hams have worked the world with 25 watts or less on the nearby 28 MHz band. When we hit the sunspot maximum in a few years, low power signals will be heard regularly in Europe in that part of the spectrum. There is also a lot of sporadic-E skip, which brings in intense signals from 500 to 1,000 miles away.

A better choice for an all-digital broadcast band would be the low-band VHF-TV channels that will be largely vacated after the government-mandated switch to digital television in 2009. Channels 2 and 6 will have only a few stations left on them after the DTV transition and those stations could probably move to another channel. Skip also occurs there, but not as frequently as on 26 MHz. Channel 6 is adjacent to the existing FM band.

The bottom line is that hybrid IBOC does not belong on the AM band. The signals are far too broad and nighttime skywave is propagating the interference that they cause.
 
Quote/ Should the FCC require that new receivers include DRM? It would be a great idea. On the other hand FCC didn't require that AM receivers include FM, or that AM-FMs include HD. Unlike the 60s when UHF TV appeared, we live in an era that discourages "heavy-handed" government "interference in the marketplace" -- what they used to call "industrial policy". /Quote

But the FCC did mandate that radios carry both bands (and if I rember correctly the breakpoint wa $10) and the FCC did mandate that AM and FM split the programming.
 
I'm not sure whether you're making an argument about technical feasibility or credibility, or perhaps both. The TCI antenna and DRM don't violate the laws of physics but exploit them.

The antenna is disclosed in a patent filing available on the web. TCI makes most of the HF broadcast antennas out there. Their credibility is not an issue. Will it entirely prevent skip? Hardly. Will it help make local service practical? I expect so.

As far as asking the ham or CBer is concerned, they would need to have observed the performance of DRM receivers tuned to a local signal while exposed to interferers coming in from far away, or competently modeled it. I don't know of any CB devotees who would qualify. Some hams are using WinDRM for transmission and it would be helpful to hear from them.

I've worked distant stations on 10, had a ball with sporadic-E on 6 and had my fill of CB skip. It isn't obvious that these experiences will generalize to a DRM-based local service at 11m, where skip QRM will likely reduce coverage area but not destroy it.

It will be up to the advocates of this service to explain why the band need not become a total mess as that is the first reaction folks often have to the idea.

Yes, it would be desirable to use those low band MHz for a new digital service. I hope the FCC looks into that. However, what is the best spectrum technically for some purpose may not win economically or politically in light of all the parties competing for it.

The nice thing about the 26MHz band is we ALREADY HAVE IT as it's currently reserved for RPU and IFB ussage.
Click to expand...

I thought those were above 26.1 MHz. The band being considered for local DRM is 25.67-26.1.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom