HD and anolog full power?

[JH_Radio]

Can someone please explain the risks to makeing every station in the country HD and anolog the same power?
IE if the anolog signal is 50KW, so should the HD be.
I do agree it would ruen any DX chance, or chances to receive distant stations, but who does that other then us nutcases anyway? smiles
Seriously. With the same channel spacing alications from the FCC< why would this present a problem?
If every HD signal was exactly the same power as the anolog signal, wouldn't HD come in better? Explain the issues with the AM doing this as well as the FM. I understand the AM's as it is has hiss all over the place, but say this all did happen.

I understand that no one is buying the HD receivers, and you can't find them in local stores.
Let's say all the sudden HD radios were all available to the masses, as the same cost of an anolog receiver. The aligning issues were fixed so the digital to anolog blend wouldn't cause a shift or time delay issues. Say people actually wanted this new HD thing, etc etc.
John

 

[Chuck]

Can someone please explain the risks to makeing every station in the country HD and anolog the same power?

If the HD signal were entirely contained within the stations allocated channel, there would be no problem at all. That would be true "In Band On Channel (IBOC) Digital Radio. The fact of the matter is what we have is In Band Adjacent Channel Digital Broadcasting. It occupies not only the station's allocated channel, but also the channels on either side of that analog channel. Under the current system, they run at very low power when compared to the analog signal. If those sidebands ran at the same power as the primary analog channel, the interference would be horrendous.

 

[JH_Radio]

Hi Chuck,
I realized that the digital stream takes up either side of the anolog signal (IE 95.7 takes up 95.5 and 95.9)
On the Am isn't it two side band on the right and one on the left?
I just don't see the point of HD if they are not going to use the same power levels as anolog broadcasting.
HD doesn't work not because HD doesn't work, but because with only 1% of power being used in the digital stream, its not gonna get out very far. Admittidly HD radios are not easy to find. Having two different streams be on the same band, causeing so much interpherence to those useing anolog receivers, and being broadcast at greatly reduced levels to the point ware the digital signal doesn't even get out a quorter of what the anolog broadcast does, there just doesnt seem to be a point to me.
I haven't heard the quolity of HD myself.
Even if I were to go out and by an HD receiver, who's to tell i o would even get the digital stream?
The idea of having HD2 and HD3 streams is cool, and providing all this song/title/station ID info is a good idea. However, why are certain stations running jukeboxes as HD2 and 3 streams?
So person who wants to go and by an HD radio finds out
A: You can't find HD radio's in your local tbest buy.
B: The signal isn't listenable very far away from the transmittir of any station.
C: Though we have these great new stations that are comersial-free (Like XM and Serius) - competitors of IBOC, there is no personallity or localism to them)
D: Its only gonna be comersial free until HD catches on (If it ever does)
E: If you switch from digital to anolog expect to hear your broadcast repeat (akin to a skippin record), due to improper aligning of the time shift between the two broadcasts.
Doesn't make for a verry good selling point, especially since who knows if it'll catch on or not?)
That's not good either, because stations that paid to upgrade there transmitters, install new chips and exciters etc... Sounds like a possible lose lose situation for everyone.
No one listens to HD because you can't find radios just anyware, and when you do, you have all of these flaws to contend with. Go back to anolog everyone does, and put that HD in the closit.
I'm thinkin one of two things will happen.
A: The FCC will continue to let more and more power levels increse makeing HD more and more a viable option, with penistration of radios into the markitplace. Certain broadcasters will broadcast in anolog only until the FCC forces them to go digital, like DTV in febuary.
B: this intire thing flops and everyone who spent the money on equipment to broadcast the signal, and those that did get the receivers will have waits to play with.
Although, maybe the exciter could be used to broadcastin in anolog AM Stereo?
I'm done rambeling...
John (The curious buff who wants an HD radio but doesn't think its currently worth the hipe)
Bensalem, PA

John

 

[SUPERCASTER]

1-Both AM and FM HD radio use both upper and lower adjacent channels for their HD Radio digital signals.

2-All HD Radio uses 3 channels instead of 1 as is used for analog. Close to the HD stations transmitter the digital hiss generated can often block more then just 3 channels.

3-In all the most populated areas of the country analog AM and FM bands were already very overcrowded long before HD Radio.

4-The adjacent channel digital signals HD Radio now transmits at 1% power are already unacceptable, causing widespread interference.

5-Even at 1% digital power HD Radio may cover 10's of miles but can cause 100's of miles of interference to the clear reception of other stations.

6-The current 1% power adjacent channel HD signals already interfere with other HD and analog signals.

6-With an HD radio signal increase to 100% of analog power for all broadcasting stations the co-channel and adjacent channel HD Radio interference would render the AM and FM bands almost useless for digital or analog broadcasting.

 

[jras20]

I gave up on listening to HD in the car, if your in the city or somewhat close it may work out ok. At home I just listen to Mega sometimes on KBPA HD-2, even that being 12 miles away from the tower if 103.7 from Corpus skips up it blocks it. With all these little translators poping up around it will really kill HD. There is a translator not to far out from KROX on 101.7. If KROX ever went HD it will go out 20-25 miles away because of that translator on 101.7.

 

[Chuck]

John,

You pretty well summed up all the problems with the current HD system. I have no objections to multicasting, in fact I think it is a very cool idea, provided there is something worthwhile to listen to. I don't think it is a cool idea if it obliterates neighboring stations. I also like the idea of song title display. Even iTunes tagging may have an appeal to some people.

It turns out you can have all of this with much simpler and lower tech solutions. FMeXtra allows for multicasting, and it stays entirely within the FM station's allocated channel. There is no interference caused by this system and it a lot cheaper and easier to implement than HD. You can install it in about 20 minutes on any FM transmitter with SCA inputs (I’ve never seen one that didn’t have them.) I’ve helped do it, so I can tell you from first hand experience that it is simple and easy.

The FMeXtra signal goes about as far as your station's 55 dbu contour, which is about as far as most people will listen in analog. It also works with any size station. I've experimented with it on our 74 watt LPFM station and found it covered about as well, if not better than our analog signal. The cost is around $10,000 for the station. One problem is it offers nothing for AM, but then you could simulcast your AM station on the FMeXtra secondary channels. That seems to be the best current use for HD-2 as well. The other problem is there are no FMeXtra radios in stores. They are available, but you will have to mail order them. That’s a big one, but it could change. You can buy a radio if you want to though…

As for the other benefits of HD, Text Scrolling is nothing new. It has been done for years with RDS. It is a cheap and simple system. Encoders cost the station anywhere from $500 to maybe $2500. Installation takes only a few minutes, and you feed the song titles from your on air computer. It works. It is affordable. Even my LPFM station has RDS features. It is not hard to do.

ITunes tagging is another touted feature. Maybe that is significant. I'm not sold on it, but it seems that you can do that in analog as well. There is another thread on this forum about it.

So there you have it. The features offered by HD are few, and can be duplicated by simpler, less expensive and less destructive means. I'm not sure why we have this system, but I'm beginning to suspect that it is a product of the same mentality that has brought us the sub-prime loan scam, soaring energy costs, and the deepest recession in recent history.

The biggest "feature" I see in the current HD system is its ability to be a legal interference generator. In short, it could be a spectrum grab on the part of large group broadcasters, who coincidentally are the prime investors in Ibiquity. If a power increase is granted, it will have the "delicious" side effect of effectively blocking out small rim-shot stations from major markets. It will also be bad news for LPFM, translators and most Class A FM's that survive in a very crowded RF environment. I hate conspiracy theories, but more and more, this looks like one. Still, I don’t expect it to go away. Maybe someone will figure out how to fix it so it is a good neighbor and still offer the features that have been promised. I’m not going to hold my breath…

 

[Savage]

Just to be crystal-clear - unlike US broadcast bands, now that we're plagued with HD Radio: there is no way "to fix" HD Radio so it doesn't interfere with adjacent channels. The laws of physics are nonnegotiable, and there is insufficient bandwidth in either AM or FM radio to contain within a single assigned channel all of the data necessary to transmit hybrid digital-analog.

The 1% digital transmission level is a not very advantageous "compromise" among digital coverage, self-interference with the existing analog signal and adjacent-channel interference to other stations, often extending to second and third adjacents. It's a tacit recognition that the system is not, and has never been, 'IBOC' in nature. The design is simply an attempt to finesse the interference issues. The designers' answer to interference concerns is, and has always been, let's try it. Maybe it won't be too bad.

HD's design has always operated on the fond hope (some would say fantasy) that hybrid digital-analog would be a temporary, transitional situation during which listeners would be so delighted and enamored of the wonderful digital sound, they would discard perfectly serviceable analog receivers now in use (variously estimated to number a million or so) in exchange for $200 single-purpose radios. Then: poof! Analog goes away. It doesn't take a Mensa member to figure out why this isn't happening.

Way back in the days of iBiquity's predecessor USA Digital Radio, the design engineers warned that hybrid digital-analog was very tricky and not likely to succeed in the marketplace. They recommended migration to a new band for digital-only. They were ignored for political reasons.

Today, to quote Reverend Wright: "The CHICKENS....have come home......to ROOOOST."

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Responding to a couple things here.

Analog FM has been multicasting for decades. It is called "SCA". And it could easily be beefed up to better fidelity, even stereo subcarriers for it added. There is lots of room in the FM channel.

I have personally received HD stations 70 miles away with nothing more than a dipole antenna, with 1% power levels. Another poster has fairly reliable HD reception 84 miles out. So why in the name of sanity do we need more power on the HD sidebands - do cows and horses buy HD radios? 10 dB gets about 6 feet more into buildings. Big improvement. So the office worker argument is valueless.

 

[Carmine5]

The biggest "feature" I see in the current HD system is its ability to be a legal interference generator. In short, it could be a spectrum grab on the part of large group broadcasters, who coincidentally are the prime investors in Ibiquity.

Absolutely it's a spectrum grab and it will only be more so if the power increase for HD-FM were allowed.

According to Ibiquity's own definition of IBOC it says this:

"An in-band/on-channel system of digital radio where the digital signals are placed within the current AM and FM bands and within the FCC-assigned channel of a radio station."

All it takes is viewing a simple diagram of the HD Radio signal to realize that this definition is not true.

Take AM-HD. The hybrid signal takes a full 30 kHz and is well outside the FCC AM mask. Only deep pockets can explain why the FCC allowed this to pass.

C5

 

[TheBigA]

In short, it could be a spectrum grab on the part of large group broadcasters, who coincidentally are the prime investors in Ibiquity.

It will also be bad news for LPFM, translators and most Class A FM's that survive in a very crowded RF environment.

What no one is discussing here, though, is how did the RF environment in fact BECOME so crowded?

It's one thing to talk about this as a "spectrum grab." But it ignores the previous 25 years of government policy that took a very organized and well run broadcasting system, and turned it into the chaos and anarchy that it has become. When you read policy statements from FCC Commissioners and legislators on this subject, they don't seek to promote the kind of "good neighbor" mentality that went into the first 50 years of broadcasting. Instead, the thrust is to give everyone a piece of the spectrum, whether they play by the rules or not. To democratize the spectrum so that anyone and everyone can use this public resource, not just those who get licenses.

Those who've played by the rules, who've invested their money in following the rules and paying the fees, now see their properties threatened by a system that doesn't recognize or appreciate the risks they've taken. The Congress and the FCC are looking for ways to cram even more and more stations into what you call "an already crowded RF environment," by authorizing more LPFMs and translators. This is happening against the will of those who the government has licensed. We have gone from a country that once had 6000 radio stations to one that has over 12000 radio stations. With radio piracy allowed to happen basically unchecked. So if you are a licensee and see this taking place, what kind of behavior does it encourage? I ask you. Does it encourage a good neighbor policy, or a more selfish, "I got mine" approach? It's easy to be a good neighbor when boundaries are respected, and the property value keeps going up. It's a whole lot different when your neighborhood has been ruined by bad government policy.

In the midst of this, the FCC is looking into creating an ad-supported free internet system that will almost immediately make traditional AM and FM broadcasting completely obsolete, and destroy any value left in those licenses they gave away like Halloween candy. Why will anyone pay for crowded spectrum space when they can start their own unregulated web site for free?

I wondered for a long time why the FCC is sort of turning its head from the HD problem as you describe it, and it strikes me they may have realized they created it in the first place. How can they step in and say "You can't do this," when they're the ones who over-licensed the spectrum in the first place? The broadcasters are merely circling the wagons around what's left of their once "golden empire," and if it makes it tough for their neighbors, too bad. It's possible the FCC simply doesn't want to get caught in the crossfire.

 

[TheBigA]

Only deep pockets can explain why the FCC allowed this to pass.

Forgive me for asking, but WHO has deep pockets right now? You put the stock value of the top 5 radio companies together, and you have enough to buy lunch. No one was bought off here. No one has the money, and there are way too many people to pay off.

Call it stupidity, call it arrogance, call it a lot of things. But bribery, it ain't.

 

[Carmine5]

Oh, right.

Of course, it's not iBiquity's fault for creating a technology that breaks FCC rules, it's the Commission's fault for licensing too many stations. I've heard criminals use similar logic.

As for deep pockets, look no further than the behemoth radio conglomerates who provided funding for HD Radio research and the NAB (who apparently still has deep pockets in light of the millions they recently spent trying to stop the satrad merger).

I'm not saying these entities directly paid the FCC to green light HD Radio, but by virtue of their size and influence with the Commission, I feel, swayed the agency to approve a technology they would otherwise reject for lack of good engineering.

C5

 

[Savage]

Last I checked, the organization responsible for maintaining order in the RF spectrum, managing frequency allocations, regulating coverage and mitigating interference for the public interest, convenience and necessity is - the Federal Communications Commission.

Not group radio operators, iBiquity, the Alliance nor the NAB.

Arguing that broadcasters have brought this mess on themselves is message-board sophistry. The FCC could have simply said "no," and insisted that the industry innovators come up with a system that works and isn't destructive. That they copped out and delegated the engineering footwork to some outside agency - the governmental failure model which is currently the mode - shows how incompetent and susceptible to undue lobbyist influence they are.

 

[TheBigA]

Of course, it's not iBiquity's fault for creating a technology that breaks FCC rules, it's the Commission's fault for licensing too many stations. I've heard criminals use similar logic.

I'm not talking about "fault" here. I'm addressing the "good neighbor" point made earlier.

But as Savage says, if they broke the rules, it is the obligation of the regulatory agency to say a simple word: "No."

We all know what the speed limit is. Yet every day I see cars breaking the law. And they can do so because they feel confident they won't get caught. That is the mentality in which we live today.

As for deep pockets, look no further than the behemoth radio conglomerates who provided funding for HD Radio research and the NAB (who apparently still has deep pockets in light of the millions they recently spent trying to stop the satrad merger).

And we all know how successful they were in preventing that merger. If you knew the amount of money drug and insurance companies spend in lobbying the government, you'd realize what a drop in the bucket the NAB really is.

I'm not saying these entities directly paid the FCC to green light HD Radio, but by virtue of their size and influence with the Commission, I feel, swayed the agency to approve a technology they would otherwise reject for lack of good engineering.

The NAB has been lobbying the FCC on numerous decisions over the last 40 years. Most of them have been unsuccessful. Otherwise, the broadcasting world would be very different from the way it is now.

 

[TheBigA]

That they copped out and delegated the engineering footwork to some outside agency - the governmental failure model which is currently the mode - shows how incompetent and susceptible to undue lobbyist influence they are.

The thing that should concern everyone is that in this current economic climate, there appears to be a new call for more government regulation and oversight.

Using this as an example, I think we can all see how that is also not a solution.

 

[Carmine5]

The NAB has been lobbying the FCC on numerous decisions over the last 40 years. Most of them have been unsuccessful. Otherwise, the broadcasting world would be very different from the way it is now.

Yeah, and the NAB has not been without its dubious successes. The Association and its partners were successful in convincing the FCC to allow nighttime IBOC operation for AM and in giving FM translators to AM stations on an STA basis.

C5

 

[KB1OKL]

The FCC with Kevy boy running it is obviously as defective as the rotten technology they stupidly allowed: HD. The FCC should have engineers running it not talking head politicians. I don't believe a change of administration will change anything either. Money talks, that's for sure and you don't need to be a genius to see this one a mile away.