HD Radio Self-Noise

[Greg Strickland]

I think the advantage of improving digital radio coverage is greater than the disadvantage of increasing interference to fringe coverage.

I support the NPRM, which is:




Some are concerned about possibility of increased interference within the protected contour of stations that are operating on first adjacent channels to a station broadcasting Digital FM. The hissing noise sound of the digital signal can impair reception of stations on a first adjacent channel. *

When listening to analog FM, do you hear hissing noise on first adjacent channels of FM stations broadcasting digital FM?
You could say that numerically, those listening to first adjacent out of town stations in the suburbs of a larger market are insignificant, but what if the listeners are within the protected contour of the out of town station?
Thus, some are concerned that eventually the protected contour of all stations will be the 60 dBu contour.

* engineering people might discuss spectral power distribution of digital FM signal compared to spectral power distribution of analog FM side bands. One engineer may say the distribution is identical, another may say it is not.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Let's put this discussion into perspective: When FM IBOC/HD radio was introduced over twenty (20) years ago there was this hue and cry from some engineering folks who claimed there would be all sorts of adjacent and co-channel noise and interference. From the opinions who matter, that's actual consumers, it was never a thing.

There were reports of issues 17 years ago when KALW in San Francisco began using HD, with subsequent complaints that adjacent KKUP from the South Bay suddenly could not be received by KKUP listeners on the peninsula between San Francisco and the South Bay (e.g. San Mateo and vicinity). Ultimately, KALW turned off HD - they had only ever used the main channel anyway - and there were hints that there was some persuasion applied by KKUP staff, though I did not hear confirmation of that.

Usenet thread on the subject: Hash from KALW on KKUP

 

[Greg Strickland]

Let's put this discussion into perspective: When FM IBOC/HD radio was introduced over twenty (20) years ago there was this hue and cry from some engineering folks who claimed there would be all sorts of adjacent and co-channel noise and interference. From the opinions who matter, that's actual consumers, it was never a thing. That was true for purely analog listeners or those who had HD-capable tuners. Sure, there were other teething issues like analog vs. audio digital delay, refining things like importers and exporters, and moving to single transmitters from original high-level combining, but that's all in the past.
This whole radio nerd 'see I found a problem with HD Radio' is not only about twenty-five years too late, but none of the concern is anything new or consequential.

Kelly- I think things have to get really bad before people will complain in significant numbers. A society has rules and laws to anticipate things.

Do a million people have to become ill for food safety laws to exist?
If not many people have complained about it, is it OK for the dairy case at the grocery store to be at 58 degrees?
If there are not many complaints of horrific but rare crime, should a rule prohibiting that crime be removed from the books?

I think FCC should secure those protected by the intent of their rules, even if those who are protected do not participate in a proceeding.

When making a decision do programmers place great weight on comments from members of the audience who pro-actively contact the station?

 

[Kelly A]

There were reports of issues 17 years ago when KALW in San Francisco began using HD, with subsequent complaints that adjacent KKUP from the South Bay suddenly could not be received by KKUP listeners on the peninsula between San Francisco and the South Bay (e.g. San Mateo and vicinity). Ultimately, KALW turned off HD - they had only ever used the main channel anyway - and there were hints that there was some persuasion applied by KKUP staff, though I did not hear confirmation of that.

Usenet thread on the subject: Hash from KALW on KKUP

Again, this was seventeen (17) years ago. How many consumers or stations are complaining now?

 

[Kelly A]

Kelly- things have to get really bad before people will complain in significant numbers. A society has rules and laws to anticipate things. Do a million people have to become ill for food safety laws to exist? If there are not many complaints of horrific but rare crime, should a rule prohibiting that crime be removed?

If not many people have complained about it, is it OK for the dairy case at the grocery store to be at 58 degree

Justice is blind, but people are not.

Food borne illness happens all the time. But some radio modulation isn't food borne illness. It's radio and it doesn't make people sick like bacteria. You may want to come up with a more appropriate metaphor.

 

[Greg Strickland]

My view is the underlying principal or idea matters, and an inconsistency is not justifiable because only a few were impacted.
Electromagnetic propagation is not a popularity contest. Someone could make a decision about it based on anything.

The more I think about it, the only truth I know in electromagnetics is the physics side, everything goes back to the characteristics of matter. Everybody has an opinion, yet in most cases there is something underlying that has remained constant and validated for a long time. Like Maxwell's equations, and the work of others.

Peace to you Kelly. Just a discussion.

btw- I mean to say the FCC should continue to secure and serve the interest of those who remain silent and do not participate in proceedings. I've observed FCC staff consistently seeks to remain focused on underlying issues and principals, and that is commendable.

An interesting decision for the FCC is within a proceeding, how to weigh 10,000 comments that are a copy of a form letter, compared to 100 comments, each written in someone's own words.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Again, this was seventeen (17) years ago. How many consumers or stations are complaining now?

Since KALW hasn't broadcast in HD for something like 15 years, this question amounts to dead code.

 

[Kelly A]

My view is the underlying principal or idea matters, and an inconsistency is not justifiable because only a few were impacted.
Electromagnetic propagation is not a popularity contest. Someone could make a decision about it based on anything.

That's true, just look at politics and society today: Up is down, and black should be white depending on who you're talking with. Reality and pragmatism mean nothing. Everything is feelings and theory. People who look away at reality are constantly looking for data to prove their feelings are correct.

Peace to you Kelly. Just a discussion.

And may the force be with you.

btw- I mean to say the FCC should continue to secure and serve the interest of those who remain silent and do not participate in proceedings. I've observed FCC staff consistently seeks to remain focused on underlying issues and principals, and that is commendable.

You mean the lawyers that have replaced the engineers? How are lawyers supposed to rule on things related to physics or electromagnetic theory? Answer: They don't. Instead, it's whoever speaks the loudest and threatens lawsuits. At that point, science means nothing.

An interesting decision for the FCC is within a proceeding, how to weigh 10,000 comments that are a copy of a form letter, compared to 100 comments, each written in someone's own words.

Welcome to government since the Anita Bryant crusades in 1977. That group started the 'form letter' overload methodology, later becoming the E-mail overload methodology of getting lawyers and political attention.

 

[TomásEstefan]

That's true, just look at politics and society today: Up is down, and black should be white depending on who you're talking with. Reality and pragmatism mean nothing. Everything is feelings and theory. People who look away at reality are constantly looking for data to prove their feelings are correct.

And may the force be with you.

You mean the lawyers that have replaced the engineers? How are lawyers supposed to rule on things related to physics or electromagnetic theory? Answer: They don't. Instead, it's whoever speaks the loudest and threatens lawsuits. At that point, science means nothing.

Welcome to government since the Anita Bryant crusades in 1977. That group started the 'form letter' overload methodology, later becoming the E-mail overload methodology of getting lawyers and political attention.

I realize that this is a bit off-subject (should be on a TV thread), but it's been the last few decades of the FCC making idiotic decisions for the sole purpose of benefiting someone's pocketbook. and we don't mean the consumer. As an example, the must-carry rule for CATV made perfect sense as it required carriage of every normally receivable signal within a given DMA. This was fair for everyone! Then Ted Turner decided to charge cable operators to continue to carry his satellite fed WTBS Superstation. Though there was lots of kicking and screaming CATV operators gave in. Then the FCC gave in when OTA operators thought they should be able to do the same thing. The Friendly Candy Company suspended the must-carry rule for stations that wished to charge CATV operators to carry their signal. The stations phony argument was that CATV system operators were making money off of "re-transmission" without compensation, when the exact opposite was true. The original concept of cable tv was to bring programming and advertising into areas that could not receive OTA signals, thereby greatly expanding stations potential markets.

The effective ending of the must-carry rule is what has been the primary reason behind the ever increasing high price of CATV. As I said previously this rule change was clearly not for the benifit of consumers.

 

[Kelly A]

The original concept of cable tv was to bring programming and advertising into areas that could not receive OTA signals, thereby greatly expanding stations potential markets.

That, and cable created a whole new business model of subscription viewing. Now cable is under extreme pressure because consumers under 55 get most of their news and entertainment via streaming and social media. Of course, there is the cable success story that is Fox News, where they make 80+% of their total revenue purely from cable companies. Cable and satellite have made up for the subscriber losses by selling space to shopping networks, PAC's and even religious organizations like Scientology. Younger people keep fleeing to streaming, so a lot of that content is being repurposed to YouTube, TikTok, X, and Instagram to reach the under-60 consumer.

The effective ending of the must-carry rule is what has been the primary reason behind the ever increasing high price of CATV.

Actually, the price of cable has been driven by the increases in sub-fees cable has been charged by programming providers like Time Warner-Discovery and Fox News. They still need to pay those escalating fees even though their subscriber base continues to shrink as older audiences die off (literally). It's a lot like radio and local TV is going through. Expenses are the same or more, while your audience gradually fades away.

As I said previously this rule change was clearly not for the benifit of consumers.

With streaming right on the bumper of regular cable, it kind of lets both Cable must carry and the Commission off the hook.

 

[TomásEstefan]

That, and cable created a whole new business model of subscription viewing. Now cable is under extreme pressure because consumers under 55 get most of their news and entertainment via streaming and social media. Of course, there is the cable success story that is Fox News, where they make 80+% of their total revenue purely from cable companies. Cable and satellite have made up for the subscriber losses by selling space to shopping networks, PAC's and even religious organizations like Scientology. Younger people keep fleeing to streaming, so a lot of that content is being repurposed to YouTube, TikTok, X, and Instagram to reach the under-60 consumer.

Actually, the price of cable has been driven by the increases in sub-fees cable has been charged by programming providers like Time Warner-Discovery and Fox News. They still need to pay those escalating fees even though their subscriber base continues to shrink as older audiences die off (literally). It's a lot like radio and local TV is going through. Expenses are the same or more, while your audience gradually fades away.

With streaming right on the bumper of regular cable, it kind of lets both Cable must carry and the Commission off the hook.

Talk about escalating fees: my cable operator is now charging $23 of my bill to cover "Broadcast Surcharge". I told them to remove OTA stations from my service as I get all the channels from an antenna anyway. I was told they can not do that as it would break the contract they have the various stations, all subscribers must pay for local channels whether they need them or not.
This is why I'm canceling TV service from my CATV company and just keeping internet, because this is simply not fair to make consumers pay for something they don't want or need. Rant over for now !

 

[kfbkfb]

Comcast cable internet with 2-gigabit uploads is rolling out soon

Fiber internet speeds without running fiber all the way to your house.

www.theverge.com

Looks like the cable companies have seen the handwriting on the wall - converting their system(s) to broadband.


Kirk Bayne

 

[KeithE4]

Comcast cable internet with 2-gigabit uploads is rolling out soon

Fiber internet speeds without running fiber all the way to your house.

www.theverge.com

Looks like the cable companies have seen the handwriting on the wall - converting their system(s) to broadband.


Kirk Bayne

Cable companies have been offering broadband in one form or another for at least 20 years. I was one of the early adopters of Cox Cable broadband (OK, it wasn't very broad then, but it was many times what dialup offered) in Phoenix in 2000. WiFi was still a few years away, but it worked well with RealPlayer video (as good as it got back then).

 

[rustyhodge]

There are royalties to Xperi for using HD multicast channels ($1000/year last time I knew, but that price may not be current). That fee does not apply to the HD1 simulcast. That may be what Brian was thinking about.

There are also additional ASCAP/BMI royalties as I understand.

 

[Kelly A]

There are also additional ASCAP/BMI royalties as I understand.

All radio stations need to pay ASCAP/BMI royalties for whatever music they play, or whatever form they play it.