HD Radio

[fybush]

Scott, I'd be the last one to question your sincerity, gravitas or background as they apply to broadcasting... so I won't pose this post in that manner. I will however, offer that HD is a universally flawed technology for Amplitude Modulation. Its negatives outweigh any positives in this regard and as such, HD appears to do more harm to "the neighbors and neighborhood" whose yards are being vandalized by the HD lawn treatment.

Wait till you read what I have to say about it in the NERW year-in-review/year-end rant, coming to a fybush.com near you in a few hours...

As to HD being a tool for non-com AMs airing on FM sisters' subs, this benefit may be temporary. Streaming combined with WiMax and WiFi may be better alternatives with greater possibilities, i.e., reception and acceptance, especially among the lower demos so desperately needed by all AM and FM stations.

And indeed, WXXI, like pretty much every other public station in America, is using streaming as another tool in the arsenal. But it, too, has its drawbacks: even if the dream of universal WiMax becomes a reality (and I'm somewhat skeptical at the moment), it still puts some burdens on both listener and broadcaster. Think your Verizon Wireless/AT&T/T-Mobile bill is high already? Wait until they start dinging you for all that mobile bandwidth at your end.

As for the broadcasters, WXXI does its streaming in-house, and the costs to serve up all that bandwidth don't scale up nicely. The FM HD signal, on the other hand, costs exactly the same to transmit whether one person is listening or whether 10,000 are tuned in - and once those listeners have paid the relatively minimal (as little as $50, when there's a rebate offer going on) buy-in cost for the radio, that's it. No monthly fees to your ISP or wireless provider...you just turn the thing on and listen. Kind of like...what was that thing called again? Oh yeah..."radio."

listener-in, meanwhile, suggests:

The cost of an HD radio is comparable with WiFi but in expanded listening options, HD cannot begin to compare. I don’t think HD can support itself in the long run as an orphan technology with users largely confined to the public radio audience. I would guess that if the powers-that-be at WXXI had known then what they know now, they would never have considered launching their HD service.

I'm not a "power-that-be" at WXXI - indeed, it should be noted once again that I speak only for myself here and not for them. But that said, I don't think there's been much, if any, second-guessing of the decision to put HD on 91.5. The WXXI-FM antenna needed to be replaced anyway (it was the original, beat-up RCA antenna from the station's sign-on in 1974), and so the incremental cost of adding the HD signal as part of that project was minimal. (The ongoing cost is pretty much limited to the power bill for the HD transmitter, and at 450 watts ERP, I'd bet we're spending less to run it than we pay in the power bills alone - never mind the bandwidth costs - for the streaming audio servers!)

I'm not privy to the exact numbers, but it's my understanding that the addition of the HD has yielded not only new listeners, but new membership dollars, in areas that couldn't hear the AM signal on a reliable 24/7 basis.

It's hard to believe for some of us who are plugged in 24/7 (as I suspect most of us on the boards here tend to be), but there's a fairly sizable audience out there that's not already subscribing to high-speed internet (at $50+ a month). For them, the choice between a new HD radio, at $100 or so, and starting up with WiFi radio from scratch (figure $50+ for a router, $200 or so for the WiFi radio itself, and then $600 or so a year to the ISP) is not as much of a slam-dunk as you'd seem to think. Sure, there are thousands of new listening options available with the WiFi radio - but if the goal is simply to be able to hear Bob Smith, the local news headlines, or Marketplace, sometimes the simpler solution is the better one.

Will HD end up as an orphan technology if it never takes off in the world of commercial radio? I suppose that depends on what constitutes an "orphan" in a world where one could, if one really wanted to, build a brand-new AM stereo plant, 20 years after that technology lost whatever buzz it might once have had. There are more (and better) HD receiver choices available now than there were a year ago, and every reason to expect that our Harris transmitter will be supported for a while to come.

It's reasonable to think that the life-cycle of any new broadcast technology is going to be far shorter than the 67 years we got out of NTSC television or the 90 years AM radio has provided. As I've said before, I don't think WXXI (or public radio in general) is in the "HD Radio" business, but rather in the business of providing valuable content to listeners by whatever means are most efficient and useful. When, at some point down the line, HD ceases to meet those goals, or if something better and cheaper comes along, it will go away and be replaced by whatever comes next.

In the meantime, it's one relatively inexpensive tool in a growing arsenal, and I don't sense any regrets over having chosen it or any sense that it's going away in the near future.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

I have the Sanguan HD radio tuner and I enjoy some of the music formats I can't hear on the main FM channels. The sound quality is great and right now it's commercial free. Having said that I don't believe IBOC should be allowed on AM, it's a mess!

Let's not forget how long it took FM to get established!

 

[Steven21]

Let's not forget how long it took FM to get established!

That reminds me.....

Another MAJOR element HD radio has working against it:

It isn't the least bit "hip".

Think about that for a second.

Also, nobody has addressed the "no spots" aspect of all this. Even if pigs flew and suddenly people were clamoring for HD programming, how do you generate any money with a commerical-free commerical station.

**I still have yet to figure out why some HD siblings have programming not even remotely related to the main channel.

The list goes on.

Still, chief among the myriad reasons to avoid this like the plague: Who cares about it. It might've meant something 20 years ago, but not now. Not now.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm not privy to the exact numbers, but it's my understanding that the addition of the HD has yielded not only new listeners, but new membership dollars, in areas that couldn't hear the AM signal on a reliable 24/7 basis.

What I find interesting about this statement is that in the last ratings book the AM station lost audience. It went from a 3 + to a 1+ overall share. That is a significant decline.
When I raised this point, Bob1370 claimed the book might have been a fluke. Well if one looks at a brief history of the ratings, for say the past several years one would notice this “fluke”, happens on a regular basis. Therefore I don’t understand how HD radio is solving the problem of an eroding audience?
Most of the station’s audience consists of “baby boomers” and, as I stated in another posting on here, I don’t see a mad rush of people going out to buy HD radios; especially in this economy.

 

[Savage]

I've heard the argument over and over which seeks to legitimize the glacial rollout pace of HD Radio by comparing it with "how long it took FM" to become dominant. It's a specious one. It's like trying to compare the introductions of VCRs and commercial breakfast cereal, the factual bases being that disparate.

When modern-band FM debuted post-World War 2, a reasonably serviceable FM receiver cost the equivalent of a week's salary for a typical worker. There were essentially no signals to be heard outside of major metropolitan areas and many of those consisted simply of simulcasts of AM sisters. FM was trying to compete with no original programming worthy of being so called, and with television which was exploding as a ubiquitous consumer item soaking up disposable entertainment dollars.

In truth, FM was an RF and home-entertainment backwater until inexpensive and reliable solid-state radios, commonplace FM stereo and mass-appeal formats arrived in the late 1960s. Until then FM radio was a tiny niche medium catering to classical music buffs and hobbyists. Of course, when the likes of WOR-FM and WYSL-FM started cranking Top 40 (1966-67) - and "underground" rock FMs came on the scene around 1969 - the march of the music audience from AM was well underway. By 1975 the writing was on the wall for AM music radio. The real-world trajectory of FM broadcasting was more like ten years, not 35. Arbitron (then "ARB") didn't even list FM stations in the survey booklets until 1968.

Comparing the wobbly and insipid debut of HD Radio to the 40 years of FM radio 1946-2006 is like pegging the beginning of commercial TV with the RCA 343-line standard with AM audio when it rolled in 1939.. Sure, we had "commercial" TV then, but it bore no resemblance to what we have today.

The reality is you've gotta plunk your measuring stick for the beginning of FM's establishment at around 1968, not 1948. And that means that HD is vastly behind FM's development curve, for those who insist on making that comparison.

 

[fybush]

That reminds me.....

Another MAJOR element HD radio has working against it:

It isn't the least bit "hip".

Think about that for a second.

Oooookay. I thought about it for a second.

And I stand by what I've been saying for a while now: for the purpose to which we're putting HD Radio, the existence (or lack thereof) of a "hip factor" is irrelevant, because - and it's interesting how carefully you're ignoring this point - we are not in the business of selling HD radio.

We are in the business of delivering programming people want to hear, in whatever the most economical and convenient way to deliver that programming might be. To the extent our listeners are buying HD receivers, it's not because they perceive them to be "hip" - it's because they solve a specific problem ("I can't hear your AM after dark in Brockport/Perinton/Williamsville"). No more, no less.

Also, nobody has addressed the "no spots" aspect of all this. Even if pigs flew and suddenly people were clamoring for HD programming, how do you generate any money with a commerical-free commerical station.

New here, are you? Go back and read some of the threads that have been percolating for years now on this site's dedicated HD Radio board, and you'll see that this has been brought up over and over again. Short answer: there's nothing intrinsically commercial-free about FM HD subchannels, and the voluntary agreement among some of the bigger broadcasters to run their HD2s commercial free expired a year ago already. Whether they can in fact successfully sell ad time is a very real question, and thankfully one I don't have to try to answer.

As for the ratings question Voice raises about WXXI, that's also one that, thankfully, isn't much more than a point of curiosity. As Bob Savage will gladly tell you, many of us in the market don't have full confidence in Arbitron's numbers. (I have some theories as to what's happening with the AM numbers, having to do with the WRUR simulcasts and the non-measurement of streaming listening; if we ever get PPM here, I suspect it will paint a very different picture from the diaries.)

Like Bob, the Arbitron numbers are not the tools we use to gauge listener interest or to sell ad time/underwriting. Fortunately, we have a much more direct connection to our audience by way of measuring membership support - and again, it's my understanding that we're actually significantly up in new members and in total contributions.

I do, however, deeply appreciate Voice's heartfelt concern...

 

[oldiesfan6479]

From this out-of-market I-CRAP hater...

It sounds as if most of us would agree that HD on FM is probably nice to have--
using the HD2/HD3 channels for alternate niche formats and/or for simulcasting
a power/pattern-challenged AM signal for listeners in the nulls and boonies. I'd
give it a qualified thumbs-up.

OTOH, there's I-CRAP on AM. Kill it, please. Now. Slogan: "no hiss, no hash!"
I'd give it a definite thumbs-down...no, better yet, I'd give it the finger.

 

[Steven21]

Oooookay. I thought about it for a second.

Perhaps you should take another couple seconds to address the real point:

HD is being pushed as an alternative to all these other audio sources---unless you believe they've outspent ALL other advertisers 2 years running just for fun--which is certainly indicative of an attempt to appeal to MUCH MORE than the niche audience you describe.

Your hypothesis as to the purpose and andvantage to HD is it will help those in the sticks. Huh? Since when does the industry engage in such widespread expenditure for such a small return?

Oh, that's right. AM-Stereo.

Mark my words: This HD nonsense will go the way of all those other misguided radio ideas.

I just happen to find the useless spending of tightly budgeted funds all the more egregious with all the cutting this business has seen. Maybe operators should instead be focusing on IMPROVING the stations they already operate and worry less about putting Bluegrass on their AC's HD2 channel.

In short, again, NOBODY really cares about HD, save a few audio/radio-philes. THAT is not about to change, no matter how much advertising is done.

 

[qman]

As I've said in another thread, when I was younger, I used to enjoy listening to sports on AM radio at night on powerful blow torches. Back then, all I had to deal with was the signal fading in and out. Nowadays, there's a lot of white noise and other crap to contend with and why? Because of HD radio on AM! I say get rid of it!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As for the ratings question Voice raises about WXXI, that's also one that, thankfully, isn't much more than a point of curiosity. As Bob Savage will gladly tell you, many of us in the market don't have full confidence in Arbitron's numbers. (I have some theories as to what's happening with the AM numbers, having to do with the WRUR simulcasts and the non-measurement of streaming listening; if we ever get PPM here, I suspect it will paint a very different picture from the diaries.)

Like Bob, the Arbitron numbers are not the tools we use to gauge listener interest or to sell ad time/underwriting. Fortunately, we have a much more direct connection to our audience by way of measuring membership support - and again, it's my understanding that we're actually significantly up in new members and in total contributions.

I do, however, deeply appreciate Voice's heartfelt concern...

My congratulations on your station's increase in new membership and contributions. I sincerely hope this trend continues as I would hate to see WXXI find itself in the same situation like some stations in Maine, and across the country, currently find themselves in when it comes to possible layoffs and a reduction in programming because of these precarious economic times. Major underwriting for 2009 doesn't appear to be that secure, which will also have a dire impact on public broadcasting. I for one would hate to see local programming suffer or be eliminated. Call it my heartfelt concern
As for Arbitron ratings, I too have my doubts about their accuracy. You mentioned Mr. Savage. I've written numerous times on here how I found it very strange that his station is seldom, if ever included in the ratings despite its signal coverage into the metro Rochester area.
What prompted my statement about WXXI's ratings is a pattern that I've noticed over the years. Doesn't it seem strange to you Mr. Fybush that WXXI's audience declined during the summer book; a time when 1370 AM's nighttime pattern doesn't go into effect until after 8pm or even closer to 9pm? Meanwhile in the previous winter book, when the nighttime pattern starts around 4:30, the station's ratings increase? I can understand once or twice this happening, but several times in the space of a few years?
As for HD, it would be interesting to see just how much of a "bounce" your station gets when it comes to new members and listeners. I'm also curious if the goal was to increase AM's audience after night pattern, why not just simulcast AM programs on WRUR instead of spending all of those capital funds on HD technology? It's one thing to have bragging rights about being the first broadcasting entity to have these new "toys"; but it's quite another to hear the same company always crying the financial blues when pledge drives come around. Again, let me state for the record, that I am not anti-public radio. I'm just a curious soul who ponders questions like why the city of Rochester is in debt but spent millions on a Fast Ferry terminal and boat. Or why Monroe County faces a deficit, but wants to raise millions for a cultural center downtown? As for broadcasting, I'm still amazed that millions of dollars can be raised for capital projects yet talented people are let go because of budget issues or their job titles get changed.

 

[fybush]

In short, again, NOBODY really cares about HD, save a few audio/radio-philes. THAT is not about to change, no matter how much advertising is done.

I think we're talking past each other at this point. You're bothered by the way the commercial side of the industry is handling HD. I am, too, as it happens...but I learned long ago that it's not worth my time to get worked up about that which I can't control. You're telling me, in all-caps, yet, that "NOBODY really cares about HD." I'm telling you the technology has a few niches where it works decently, and economically, to solve a problem some of our listeners had. You want to dismiss them as "a few audio/radio-philes"? Be my guest...

Voice asks about the ratings (and fer crissakes, you don't have to call me "Mr. Fybush" - he's my dad.)

Short answer? Beats me. I've long since stopped trying to parse a swing of a point or two that probably represents one or two diaries from book to book. Nobody's paying me to go down to Maryland and look at the diaries themselves, so I have no way of knowing how much WRUR listenership gets credited as WXXI-AM from book to book, or how much AM listenership gets credited to 91.5, or whether people are writing down "1180 WXXI," or what. I consider myself very fortunate to be able to add that to my "not really my problem" file, and I hope it can stay there for many years to come.

Likewise, it's not my call as to what does or doesn't get simulcast on 88.5, and I'm very happy not to have to speak for the people who make those decisions. If I had to try to read their minds, I'd speculate that there's not more simulcasting because the goal is to offer as many different programming choices as possible at as many times as possible - and because the evening programming is available through other means such as HD and streaming, at times when listeners are less likely to be in their cars and away from those options. (Me? I sometimes listen via the "hidden" audio stream on WXXI-DTV that some digital TVs can tune in...but I'm not an average listener, and I know it.)

Capital spending on new technology? Also, thankfully, not something I'm responsible for deciding about or speaking to...but again, the costs for adding HD were almost certainly lower than you imagine they were. The FM antenna was going to be replaced anyway, as well it should have after 30+ years of Rochester weather. I think (but am by no means certain) that much of the cost of the new transmitter - which doubles as a much-needed analog FM backup - came from grant money that was available only for this project and could not have been repurposed for salaries or programming expenses. The ongoing operating expense is close to nil - power bills for the transmitter, and a tiny annual budget for the separate programming carried on HD3.

And yes, Voice, you may rest assured that each and every one of us there - and no doubt at every public broadcaster around the country - shares your (very real, I believe) concern about underwriting revenues.

Speaking solely for myself, I think the long-term outlook for underwriting (and ad sales) in Rochester would be a lot brighter if we had the kind of community growth that would have been driven by a successful ferry bridge to the much healthier markets across the lake, and I was sorry to see it succumb to mismanagement and some truly bad decision-making. I don't think we're well-served, either, by the decay that's been allowed to gnaw away at the heart of downtown while the Ren Center project remains perpetually stalled out, and I'm terrified by what might happen if that - and the Midtown reconstruction across the street - are killed completely. I've never been much of a fan of the combined bus terminal/theater/MCC campus approach, but I'm strongly in favor of doing something there. If you don't keep growing, you start dying - so consider that my argument for continued capital investment even in bad economic times.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Scott,
I am truly concerned about the future of public radio because, despite what some might think, I am not anti-public radio. Some of the "facts" I've brought up in previous posts were not intended to hurt anyone personally, or any station. I just tell it like it is.
Some people want to know what I do for a living. Well all I can say, without the risk of losing my job, is that I am a media buyer for a major corporation. My territory includes Buffalo to the west, Elmira to the south, and Syracuse to the east. Rochester is also part of my "turf".
This is why I might shock a number of people with the information I know. And trust me I could say even more but I won't because it might come back to the people who told me in confidence.
I can tell you, from a professional standpoint, that my employer is cutting back on the number of media buys in 2009. That's going to impact a number of stations, believe me. As for public broadcasting, my concern is national underwriting and grants, which I fear will dry up next year. A close associate of mine works for NPR and she told me that's a concern of hers too.
As much as I would enjoy to continue this conversation, I am about to leave for Syracuse and then vacation.
I do enjoy your posts and my belated congratulations on a fine job you did explaining DTV on WXXI television.
My best wishes for a Happy New Year to you, and to all who post on here. Let's see what sort of "hell" we can raise in 2009 ;D

 

[fybush]

I do enjoy your posts and my belated congratulations on a fine job you did explaining DTV on WXXI television.
My best wishes for a Happy New Year to you, and to all who post on here. Let's see what sort of "hell" we can raise in 2009 ;D

Right back atcha, Voice!

Now that I've completed my NERW Year in Review (www.fybush.com/nerw-yir2008.html) and the Year-End Rant (www.fybush.com/nerw-yir2008.html#rant), I think I'll take a day or two away from the keyboard, too...right after that one-day pledge drive tomorrow

Here's to a brighter 2009 for all of us...

 

[listener-in]

It's hard to believe for some of us who are plugged in 24/7 (as I suspect most of us on the boards here tend to be), but there's a fairly sizable audience out there that's not already subscribing to high-speed internet (at $50+ a month). For them, the choice between a new HD radio, at $100 or so, and starting up with WiFi radio from scratch (figure $50+ for a router, $200 or so for the WiFi radio itself, and then $600 or so a year to the ISP) is not as much of a slam-dunk as you'd seem to think. Sure, there are thousands of new listening options available with the WiFi radio - but if the goal is simply to be able to hear Bob Smith, the local news headlines, or Marketplace, sometimes the simpler solution is the better one.

Point taken – I guess it is too easy to assume that most people are wireless-ready, so in the short term you may be right. But I don’t think your argument will hold up for the long term, for a few reasons. A more consumer-friendly administration will probably promote wider access to broadband and the price will probably drop somewhat; indeed, as one a component of the expected economic stimulus, we may see be a massive broadband investment in the tradition of the New Deal’s public works projects such as rural electrification. It won’t be too long before broadband comes to be seen as a necessity rather than a luxury, and with younger people being simply more inclined than their elders to embrace new technology, this can only be hastened. So, while HD may be the simpler option for many right now, the question is about how long that will remain the case.

 

[therealjm12]

From Savage: d. Receivers are mostly unavailable and the ones which can be found, don't comport with most users' lifestyles. For example: no real portable units. Power consumption of the HD chipset is much too high making truly portable HD Radios impossible.

I read somewhere in the last year (maybe on radio-info or in a paper) that a new chip had been developed that was much smaller and used a lot less power consumption making the possibility of a portable HD radio much more feasible. - But then again, maybe I dreamed it.

 

[Savage]

FWIK the new HD chipset will be smaller and use less power, but it's still essentially a computer CPU and the new generation will be too bulky and hungry to put into, for example, an iPod or cellphone. Best battery life possible I've read about will be 4 to 5 hours.

 

[Radknowski]

FWIK the new HD chipset will be smaller and use less power, but it's still essentially a computer CPU and the new generation will be too bulky and hungry to put into, for example, an iPod or cellphone. Best battery life possible I've read about will be 4 to 5 hours.

This thread is revealing, if not persistent. Reminds me of the KB-Oldies thread and the CQ101 thread... the kings of cockroach threads. Does anybody here have neices, nephews or cousins in the 18-34 demo? I do. They're plugged into iPods and mp3 players. Some are old skool and do the CD thing. Radio gets some of their listening, but it might scare the bejabbers out of any PD or GM to observe how these 18-34's use or abuse it. Boy, HD is absolutely nowhere on their radar screens. Not even a blip.

The cutting edge of technology for this demo leans toward Blackberrys, iPods and mp3 players. "Txtng" is the new communicative language and partner for so many people unmder 30. You might be upper-demo enough to remember how a radio was always part of your existence. It was your steady partner or companion. Radio shaped your views and social core. Radio doesn't do that anymore. It's so broken, the DJ may be a thing of the past... unless the jocks in all formats are given the chance to communicate and connect, but honestly, if listeners want that kind of communication and connection, they seem to go to talk radio.

Seems the only thing music radio listeners are intersted in is ten in a row or the next chance to qualify to win a Harley or a trip to Tampa. HD is only making radio more fractured and broken. Maybe the whole concept of DJs and personality driven music radio, like player piano rolls, carts and vinyl LPs and 45s, is done for.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

I have noticed the same thing with my daughters as Radknowski. Mine never listen to the radio, never. They want to hear their music and they won't sit still for commercials. Their musical taste is all over the place too. They get new music by seeking it out on the internet or friends make suggestions.

My older daughter is old school (CD player). Younger daughter loves her mp3's on the computer and her iPod. It's funny to see the difference there.

Personally I'd like to hear someone on the radio, sit down and play a new CD by an artist and really talk about the music. That's an old idea though. It probably wouldn't deliver a mass audience (and it would take a live body) but it might give radio something it really needs...fans!

 

[umtrr-author]

I'll do a mea culpa for not sampling WXXI's HD online yet (sorry, Scott).

I do stream some HD channels online for formats not available in Rochester, for example there is a Smooth Jazz stream on WMJX Boston 106.7 HD-2.

Other than that, nah. I like my iTunes-- what I want, when I want it! I even have some Old Time Radio stored on it now... anyone for Fibber McGee and Molly?

 

[Savage]

Try out the address "13 Wistful Vista" on some of those lower demographic subjects - and watch the blank stares come back.

Kind of like the response I typically get when I bring up "HD Radio" to anyone who's not in the industry.
If there's any at all, it's usually, "oh, that thing they're always running all those commercials for? No, I don't know anything about it."