HD Radio Station Coverage Maps?¿

[fybush]

Stop the medium-wave in-band disaster and allow AM licensees to transmit their digital component in vacant low-band VHF TV channels which are opening up less than a year from now.

I keep seeing this nonsense on this board, and repeating it endlessly doesn't make it any less nonsensical. The frequencies which will be abandoned by TV broadcasters on 2/17/2009 are NOT available for broadcast use. They have already been reserved by the FCC for other, NON-broadcast uses. End of story. Putting HD radio signals on those frequencies is NOT going to happen. (Besides, post-DTV-transition, there are some TV stations which have notified the FCC that they will be switching their DTV operations to their NTSC channels, some of which are in the channel 2-6 range, so those channels won't be entirely vacant.)

"Nonsense"? Hardly.

The frequencies which are being taken out of television broadcast use a year from now are the present channels 52-69, up in the 700 MHz spectrum.

What Freebird and others are talking about is something else altogether - making optimum use of channels 2-6. Those remain reserved for broadcast use, but are not being used in a spectrally efficient manner. This was NOT something anyone foresaw when the DTV transition began. The idea, even as recently as three or four years ago, was that there would either be many broadcasters using those channels all over the country (as there are now in analog), or that there would be NO broadcasters using those channels, and that the core would run from channels 7-51.

What nobody anticipated was that there would be only a tiny handful of stations using the low-V channels, and that pretty much all of them could be easily reallotted to high-V or UHF channels.

The FCC has an obligation to reassess the efficient use of the limited RF spectrum as circumstances change, and to reallot the use of spectrum as needed to "serve the public interest, convenience and necessity," as well as an affirmative obligation to provide for the "fair, efficient and equitable" distribution of broadcast services. (That's Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, if you're playing at home.)

Circumstances have indeed changed, and the spectrum that appeared to be needed for DTV in, say, 1998 is no longer quite so essential a decade later. Seems to me it's not "nonsense" at all to suggest that the Commission might want to revisit - or might even be legally obligated to revisit - that particular set of allocations.

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

Amen, Brother Fybush:

I've long been of the opinion that the best and most logical place in crafting a 'rescue plan' for the AM community starts with 76-88 MHz.

Time to face facts and stare the cold hard reality in the face......our present analog medium wave broadcasting is technically inadequate for the 21st Century....(increased noise floor from computers, flourescent lights, dimmers, IBOC sideband pollution, etc.).

This, plus the limited bandwidth availability for AM facilities puts them at a permenant disadvantage to thier FM brothers and sisters.

Much as I still love AM, I can't see it as a successful competitor in the marketplace, unless you define 'success' as struggling to make a small profit by using mostly 'bird-fed' programming, and using other time slots for various brokered programming.

Ideally, a logical transiton plan would be put into place for the migration of AM broadcasters onto 76-88 MHz, which would finally put an end to radio's technical/engineering 'Apartheid' we live with.

After the transiton, the former medium wave frequencies could be used for an enhanced emergency public alert system, perhaps given over to ham broadcasts, or perhaps even to International broadcasters ala the SW bands.

One way or another, something's got to give......

 

[Tom Wells]

If a hybrid scheme were used in 76-88, perhaps a mono analog/HD would permit a 10-20% digital injection that could even give the digital
equal coverage while not being as noise-delicate as 38khz multiplex stereo. The existing TV sound radios are mono anyway.
The HD could be stereo of your current AM.
MIllions of TV-sound analog radios exist, and we only need 20 Mhz to duplicate bw of the existing FM band.
That's a smidgen over 3 channels.
At 6Mhz per channel, just the "low band" could give all the AMs a ready home with room for expansion!
Converters could be cheap, and may or maynot need to include HD decoding if hybrid FM operation is adopted here.

MW could be reconfigured to best serve those value its peculiar advantages.

Even the most ardent iBoc promoters here have tesitified they have heard AM sounding even better than FM,
so for those who can get a strong, clear signal, MW may return as viable way to get a niche format on huge area distribution at night.
There's no reason not to run music if people are willing to buy a wideband radio. They are out there.

As MW cleared out, the concept of clear, regional and local could again become meaningful.

I'd sign up for 100 watts immediately to serve my community and become more than a jukebox.
Well, I'd still want my oddball jukebox mix to be a good part, but while OK for part 15, real coverage would need local relevance.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

How can we bend the NAB's ear to get us to help petition the FCC for DAB expansion into the NTSC TV VHF band? The NAB put all its eggs into the IBOC basket, and it's not likely we'll get their support to approach the FCC. Without the NAB, the FCC just sits on your filings, if past experience still holds true.

Suggestions anyone?

 

[Play Freebird]

And even if those frequencies were available, what sense does it make when no one has radios that will tune to those frequencies? At least now an HD radio can receive analog signals from the same stations when either the station isn't transmitting HD or the HD signals won't lock and decode for whatever reason.

This is actually an easy problem to solve. If AM digital were moved to the VHF band, AM stations would simply transmit a low-speed PSK data signal on the analog carrier, providing call sign and corresponding digital channel information, much like the Alternate Frequency feature in RDS. (Low-speed PSK is easy to implement, it does not increase occupied bandwidth and would be compatible with narrowband AM antenna systems; it has been used for utility load management for many years.)

New HD receivers built under this revised standard would, of course, tune the expanded 76-108 VHF Broadcast Radio band -- and would also include AM analog capability (hopefully AMAX-compliant) with a PSK decoder. If the data signal were detected on an AM station, the radio would automatically retune to the proper VHF digital channel and remain there, except in case of poor digital demodulation, when it would blend back to the analog signal.

But the need for "blending" should be minimal. Keep in mind this scheme would allow full COFDM in the VHF channel, making it possible to deploy on-channel boosters without being concerned about destructive multipath interference, a great benefit in markets with challenging terrain.

Any AM station with poor downtown office building penetration could simply add a 50 watt VHF booster on a rooftop and immediately overcome the problem. Even those maintenance people working in the basement would be able to listen.

If you doubt that channels 5 and 6 will be largely vacant as of next February, don't take my word for it, just review the post-transition DTV Table of Allotments, which begins on Page 67 of this document. See how many states you can find with no future assignments in those channels:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A1.pdf

For further information, read this Petition filed by Washington consulting engineer Jack Mullaney:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519744377

 

[R.F. Burns]

And even if those frequencies were available, what sense does it make when no one has radios that will tune to those frequencies? At least now an HD radio can receive analog signals from the same stations when either the station isn't transmitting HD or the HD signals won't lock and decode for whatever reason.

This is actually an easy problem to solve. If AM digital were moved to the VHF band, AM stations would simply transmit a low-speed PSK data signal on the analog carrier, providing call sign and corresponding digital channel information, much like the Alternate Frequency feature in RDS. (Low-speed PSK is easy to implement, it does not increase occupied bandwidth and would be compatible with narrowband AM antenna systems; it has been used for utility load management for many years.)

New HD receivers built under this revised standard would, of course, tune the expanded 76-108 VHF Broadcast Radio band -- and would also include AM analog capability (hopefully AMAX-compliant) with a PSK decoder. If the data signal were detected on an AM station, the radio would automatically retune to the proper VHF digital channel and remain there, except in case of poor digital demodulation, when it would blend back to the analog signal.

But the need for "blending" should be minimal. Keep in mind this scheme would allow full COFDM in the VHF channel, making it possible to deploy on-channel boosters without being concerned about destructive multipath interference, a great benefit in markets with challenging terrain.

Any AM station with poor downtown office building penetration could simply add a 50 watt VHF booster on a rooftop and immediately overcome the problem. Even those maintenance people working in the basement would be able to listen.

If you doubt that channels 5 and 6 will be largely vacant as of next February, don't take my word for it, just review the post-transition DTV Table of Allotments, which begins on Page 67 of this document. See how many states you can find with no future assignments in those channels:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A1.pdf

For further information, read this Petition filed by Washington consulting engineer Jack Mullaney:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519744377

If new spectrum were to open up for broadcasting you can bet that analog transmissions would not be part of the shift. Any new spectrum would allow for only digital transmissions. The writing is on the wall, analog is going the way of the horse drawn carriage

 

[Savage]

Not to unduly shock anyone on this board, but I would totally support this proposition. My problem is not with a digital transition. My problem is with IBOC, which off-the-record engineering opinion dating back to USADR and Project Acorn declared would never work on AM given the well-known narrow bandwidth and unfriendly nighttime propagation characteristics. But the NAB and Big Group Radio management wouldn't listen. "Doesn't work? Make it work," they demanded.

When politics and plutocracy win out over reasonably sound engineering practice, a mess is the inevitable result, which harms everyone - the HD Alliance no less than anyone else. To cop a phrase, the IBOC mess "is what we have now."

Obviously something has to be done about AM's future. Nobody seriously debates that, least of all me. I'm just saying let's not trash what's left, and make sure that ALL AM broadcasters get a fair bite of the digital apple with equanimity - not just big radio groups.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Not to unduly shock anyone on this board, but I would totally support this proposition. My problem is not with a digital transition. My problem is with IBOC, which off-the-record engineering opinion dating back to USADR and Project Acorn declared would never work on AM given the well-known narrow bandwidth and unfriendly nighttime propagation characteristics. But the NAB and Big Group Radio management wouldn't listen. "Doesn't work? Make it work," they demanded.

When politics and plutocracy win out over reasonably sound engineering practice, a mess is the inevitable result, which harms everyone - the HD Alliance no less than anyone else. To cop a phrase, the IBOC mess "is what we have now."

Obviously something has to be done about AM's future. Nobody seriously debates that, least of all me. I'm just saying let's not trash what's left, and make sure that ALL AM broadcasters get a fair bite of the digital apple with equanimity - not just big radio groups.

What I think a lot of us fail to realize is that each side is filled with passionate people who love radio. I am of the belief that if we were all to meet for an afternoon at some central location we'd (for the most part) get along fabulously well. It all comes down to the following. Most of us here realize that something must be done to update our broadcast system to keep it competitive with other more recent developements which compete with our current AM & FM broadcast facilities. The issue is how do we achieve that end. I'm sure most of us who are seen as pro IBOC would better be defined as willing to give IBOC a shot considering there are (at least as of this minute) no viable alternatives and we don't see sitting stagnent as an alternative because with each passing day analog radio is surely heading into the dust heap of technology (maybe not today or tomorrow but surely in the forseeable future). We see IBOC as a compromise in that it isn't what we would have wished for but its better than doing nothing. On the other hand if new spectrum such as has been suggested by others is indeed available, then I say it's time to make the move. My suggestion would be that we get together on a specific system, be it IBOC in its digital form or DRM and put it in place on the new digital only band. Once that is done, a shut down time must be put in place to close the current AM BCB. Be it 5 or 10 years and stick to it. There's plenty of players for antiquated technology out there, why should AM radio be any different? That to me would be the most efficiant way of making the transition and giving AM broadcasters new life. One more comment, if IBOC were chosen as the prefered technology then a window (of say 5 or 10 years) must be made at which point the technology becomes public domain ala FM radio. Having one corporation own and license what will become our system of broadcasting, using public airwaves without end seems as anti competitive as the Sirius, XM merger.

 

[Savage]

Once again I agree with much of what RF says, particularly his comments about various posters' passion and motivation for their beliefs concerning our beloved industry. Any digital radio discussion summit should be appropriately lubricated with inappropriate quantities of ice-cold beer and the best local pizza that can be found.

I especially agree with RF's sentiments regarding a "sunset" for eventual total transition to digital with simultaneous shutdown of AM. And, ab-so-freaking-loutely, any digital system adopted as "The Standard" by FCC order MUST be in the public domain and fee-free to broadcasters, and made available with complete equanimity to all - as opposed to the current iBiquity model which tries to recoup Big Radio's investment in IBOC in the form of extortionate fees, a kind of an annuity, on the backs of independent radio licensees.

The only point of disagreement I have is RF's comment that "IBOC is better than doing nothing." At least as far as AM goes, I think the current situation trashing adjacent-channel service is indeed worse. But of course that's because of the egregious current situation affecting my station and my livelihood. If any of you guys were dealing with nighttime interference so bad you frequently wonder whether it makes sense to have your transmitter on the air - noise-free service extending about a mile from your TX site - you'd probably concur.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Unfortunately Bob, the commission has proven to be what it is over and over again, a political body. The idea behind expnading the AM BCB by adding the 100 KC to the top of the band was a terrific idea and one which promised to alieve some of the current congestion by shifting some stations to what has been called the X-band. What really happened was that stations which were to vacate the standard AM BCB after a five year grace period were allowed to remain on the air, doing nothing to limit interference but to give certain owners another AM broadcast license. All X-Band stations were to be 10 K day, 1 K night non d. So what happened? In NY at least we have a directional 10 K day and night operating on 1660 Khz. There are ony 2 daytime stations audible in my area above 1600 Khz, and that is 1660 & 1680 (which is very weak from south Jersey) and neither one is English language. That part of the spectrum however is filled with low powered travelors advisory stations. With 100 K of extra spectrum you'd think some of the crowding on the AM Band would have diminished. Instead we now have 100 K of junk at the top of the band which provides no relief for other broadcasters concerning the issue of overcrowding.

 

[mgpt6]

Scott,right on in moving most AM stations to 76-88 Mhz FM. Constant 24 hour coverage . Very logical.

 

[Savage]

RF, that's a big ten-four on the "political" nature of the Commission. I'm tempted (as are others) to declare that the current FCC is the worst one we've had in years. "Doogie Howser" Martin & crew are certainly no bargain, but then when I think about it:

We had the wonderful Eisenhower-era FCC which picked the CBS electromechanical color-wheel UHF-only noncompatible color system in 1950. That disastrous choice was driven by muscular CBS lobbying and was caused by two completely nonsensical factors: CBS engineering honcho Peter Goldmark, inventor of the LP record, had seen the film "Gone With The Wind" in 1940, the first color movie he had ever witnessed. Goldmark became convinced that monochrome TV would never work and tinkered with his color system based on 1930s concepts throughout the war. By the time commercial TV was really taking off, CBS was the only major TV programming company which didn't have a manufacturing arm (NBC had RCA Victor and DuMont also made its own sets.) It was important to slow down the competitors, so Goldmark's ridiculous color system was dusted off and shoved through the FCC approval process to keep NTSC at bay. The ploy worked for about 3 years.

Those FCC geniuses then followed that performance up with the infamous 1952 Sixth Report And Order mandating intermixture of VHF and UHF stations in a given market. At the time the maximum UHF transmitter power commercially sold had a visual power of 1000 watts. The tube-type receivers were VHF-only and converters were blind and deaf. The predictable result was most UHF stations were doomed, the DuMont Network got a death sentence and ABC almost didn't make it. Without a massive cash infusion from Paramount Theaters there wouldn't be an ABC today. The 6th R&O prevented development of new networks and killed UHF-TV until the cable era, simultaneously guaranteeing a massively profitable duopoly to NBC & CBS.

"The more things change...."

 

[dbdigital]

RF, that's a big ten-four on the "political" nature of the Commission. I'm tempted (as are others) to declare that the current FCC is the worst one we've had in years. "Doogie Howser" Martin & crew are certainly no bargain, but then when I think about it:

We had the wonderful Eisenhower-era FCC which picked the CBS electromechanical color-wheel UHF-only noncompatible color system in 1950. That disastrous choice was driven by muscular CBS lobbying and was caused by two completely nonsensical factors: CBS engineering honcho Peter Goldmark, inventor of the LP record, had seen the film "Gone With The Wind" in 1940, the first color movie he had ever witnessed. Goldmark became convinced that monochrome TV would never work and tinkered with his color system based on 1930s concepts throughout the war. By the time commercial TV was really taking off, CBS was the only major TV programming company which didn't have a manufacturing arm (NBC had RCA Victor and DuMont also made its own sets.) It was important to slow down the competitors, so Goldmark's ridiculous color system was dusted off and shoved through the FCC approval process to keep NTSC at bay. The ploy worked for about 3 years.

Those FCC geniuses then followed that performance up with the infamous 1952 Sixth Report And Order mandating intermixture of VHF and UHF stations in a given market. At the time the maximum UHF transmitter power commercially sold had a visual power of 1000 watts. The tube-type receivers were VHF-only and converters were blind and deaf. The predictable result was most UHF stations were doomed, the DuMont Network got a death sentence and ABC almost didn't make it. Without a massive cash infusion from Paramount Theaters there wouldn't be an ABC today. The 6th R&O prevented development of new networks and killed UHF-TV until the cable era, simultaneously guaranteeing a massively profitable duopoly to NBC & CBS.

"The more things change...."

It's obvious from reading this history that Doofus Disease (along with a complication for craven behavior) has afflicted the FCC for many years.

But what Chairman has ever endured such a total lack of confidence from Capitol Hill as to prompt an investigation into his activities? This is a new low for the agency.

In the R&R article: Hill Concerned About Martin’s Secrecy, Agenda it quoted Sen. Mark Pryor:

"There is a real frustration on the part of both Republicans and Democrats with Kevin Martin’s leadership, particularly with secrecy and that he seems to be carrying an agenda in there."

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/

If Martin has any future political aspirations, his tenure at the FCC is sure to be a career sinker.

db