HD2 gets AM into buildings

[Radioman100]

A few days ago I made an interesting discovery. One of the powerhouse AM signals in my market is now broadcasting via HD2 on an FM sister station. It's a 50kW AM, but I've never been able to pick it up in the big steel building where I work. Now I can.

With all the talk of AM moving to FM, I wonder how many have already started simulcasting via HD2?

 

[Savage]

The more relevant question is:

Until a meaningful number of HD receivers get into the hands of the public, how many AMs will bother simulcasting on HD2 channels? (This assumes a scenario where the HD stream is able to penetrate concrete-and-steel construction any better than the AM signal did in the first place.)

For AM stations seeking to fix coverage problems, use of primary-channel FM translators as envisioned by RM 07-172 currently pending, makes far more sense.

 

[Radioman100]

The more relevant question is:

Until a meaningful number of HD receivers get into the hands of the public, how many AMs will bother simulcasting on HD2 channels? (This assumes a scenario where the HD stream is able to penetrate concrete-and-steel construction any better than the AM signal did in the first place.)

For AM stations seeking to fix coverage problems, use of primary-channel FM translators as envisioned by RM 07-172 currently pending, makes far more sense.

It may make more sense in Rochester. Here in the big town a translator would only cover a very small area, and that assumes you're able to find a channel you can put it on, which is unlikely.

 

[Chuck]

For AM stations seeking to fix coverage problems, use of primary-channel FM translators as envisioned by RM 07-172 currently pending, makes far more sense.

A lot cheaper too. They can be put on the air for just a few thousand dollars. Maybe it won't work in places like NYC, or other big cities but realistically does a 1 KW AM station work in NYC? I doubt it. They are neighborhood stations at best. These translators would be too.

I have quite a bit of first handed experience with translators. You might be very surprised what one can cover. Properly placed, they can cover a city of 100,000, which represents a lot of mainstream America. They can work well in many situations.

There probably are no frequencies available in most major cities, but those locations are usually well served by more powerful stations. “Them’s the breaks.”

 

[Play Freebird]

A few days ago I made an interesting discovery. One of the powerhouse AM signals in my market is now broadcasting via HD2 on an FM sister station. It's a 50kW AM, but I've never been able to pick it up in the big steel building where I work. Now I can.

With all the talk of AM moving to FM, I wonder how many have already started simulcasting via HD2?

KYW Newsradio 1060 in Philadelphia started doing this recently on WYSP-HD. At least it's good content (not a low-budget hard-drive jukebox playing lame "Format Lab" crap), it does indeed penetrate concrete buildings better than medium wave, and it helps to fill the northeastern side of the market where KYW's signal is substandard (due to the need to protect 1050 in New York).

However, Bob is correct that an FM translator would provide instant results to AM owners who can secure a channel (or two or three) and run enough power to cover the target audience. In many small towns, this will not be a problem, but I'm not sure about downtown Rochester. Of course, the FM translator approach also bypasses all of the skywave issues and challenges of getting AM HD to pass through narrowband antenna systems.

In my opinion, the ideal approach would be to allow FM translators to begin operating as secondary services on TV Channels 5 and 6, and require all new FM receivers sold in the US to begin tuning at 76 MHz. A licensee would have the option of using analog FM only, hybrid digital, or digital only. The necessary FCC precedents for this plan are already in place.

1) Secondary use of TV Channel 6 by FM is already legal (Channel 200)

2) Channel 5 and 6 are already allocated to broadcast services and there are no plans to auction these channels to land mobile or other services. No "new" spectrum is needed.

3) It is legal to award Translator licenses without going to auction.

4) iBiquity gets no favorable treatment, because IBOC operation of these translators would remain optional. The only required technology is FM.

5) In the '60s, Congress and the FCC established authority to mandate receiver tuning capability when new TV sets were required by law to pick up UHF as well as VHF channels. The economic situation facing AM is very similar to UHF's predicament in those days.

6) The AM band was expanded years ago and licenses for the portion above 1600 were given away, why can't a similar plan be considered for the FM band?

7) A 250 watt FM translator can cover a medium-sized city surprisingly well if centrally located above the ground clutter. In Europe, you will find many commercial FM stations operating at comparable power levels. For instance, in Munich, most of the privately-owned FMs (for example NRJ 93.3 and Radio Gong) transmit from the Olympic Tower with just 320 watts. The key is to concentrate the power where people live, instead of this "rimshot" nonsense the FCC forces many American broadcasters into, supposedly to satisfy Section 307(b).

8) Low power translators will pose little threat to high-powered DTV stations, even under sporadic-E skip conditions.

Does this make too much sense?

 

[Chuck]

Does this make too much sense?

No; you've summed it up quite well and accurately. Of course I view opening up channels 5 & 6 to do this as very unlikely. But it is what should be done.

Using RDBS technology and several well-placed translators, it is possible to have the translators "hand off" the signal from one translator to another as the listener drives around. It is very similar to the way your cell phone functions. They've been doing this in Europe for years. Unfortunately, a lot of American car radios that do receive the RDBS display do not have the "hand off" feature enabled. Still, people can get used to having your station on more than one pre-set in their car.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

Does this make too much sense?

No; you've summed it up quite well and accurately. Of course I view opening up channels 5 & 6 to do this as very unlikely. But it is what should be done.

Using RDBS technology and several well-placed translators, it is possible to have the translators "hand off" the signal from one translator to another as the listener drives around. It is very similar to the way your cell phone functions. They've been doing this in Europe for years. Unfortunately, a lot of American car radios that do receive the RDBS display do not have the "hand off" feature enabled. Still, people can get used to having your station on more than one pre-set in their car.

True about many of the RDS/RBDS receivers sold in the U.S. But, there are some that automatically use the AF info if a station is stored in a preset (like the stock receiver in a GM vehicle). Others require "AF mode" to be enabled, like on my Blaupunkt Alaska-II. But, for the few stations that implement it, it works great. The flip between frequencies is almost undetectable.

One problem in the U.S. is that stations typically have to "violate" the callsign-to-PI standard -- Most recievers will only commit to the handoff if the frequency they are switching to has the same PI, otherwise they immediately flip back, or worse yet, go into a bandscan "search" mode for the same PI or EON. The problem is that the RBDS spec is very short-sighting in not addressing the AF/handoff feature in a way that is consistent with how receiver manufacturers have implemented it. So, if you have a station in your area where the AF feature actually works, one or both of the frequencies most likely has a PI that does not match the callsign. In Europe where RDS is everywhere, callsigns are either non-existent or largely irrelevant.

 

[4dude]

I believe KYW in Phili is doing this also....

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

1010 WINS in New York was doing the same thing on co-owned 102.7 FM.

I don't know if they're still doing it....they haven't mentioned anything about it on-air, and I haven't had a chance to play with a PROPERLY INSTALLED AND WORKING IBOC receiver. :-\

 

[Radioman100]

1010 WINS in New York was doing the same thing on co-owned 102.7 FM.

I don't know if they're still doing it....they haven't mentioned anything about it on-air, and I haven't had a chance to play with a PROPERLY INSTALLED AND WORKING IBOC receiver. :-\

WINS is promoting it on their website http://www.1010wins.com/pages/7992.php?

As for a "properly installed and working" receiver, pick up the Sony table radio. Plug it in, set it on a table, connect the antenna (either pigtail or dipole, either works fine) and enjoy. That may be a bit tough right now though, as Sony is currently sold out of them. http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&productId=8198552921665101573&langId=-1

 

[calstymes]

It's ok.

While being on WWFS HD2 is fine, WINS will be broadcasting its own AM HD soon that will save it from oblivion. I heard that there are all sorts of engineering challenges there because of its antenna pattern.

And of course they'll have to fix the analog audio too so you'll be able to tell when they light up the IBOC. I can't wait.

It doesn't get any better than this.

 

[Play Freebird]

One problem in the U.S. is that stations typically have to "violate" the callsign-to-PI standard -- Most recievers will only commit to the handoff if the frequency they are switching to has the same PI, otherwise they immediately flip back, or worse yet, go into a bandscan "search" mode for the same PI or EON.

I've noticed that as well. Of course, the solution is to program RDS encoders at the "repeater" stations with the same PI code as the primary station, even if they have different callsigns. For that matter, the FCC should permit simulcast FM stations to be licensed with the same four-letter prefix and a different numerical suffix, like boosters -- and transmit a single aural ID at the top of the hour. The individual callsigns could be encoded in radiotext or another part of the RDS datastream. The "alphabet soup" I hear on some non-comm networks every hour is a pain to endure -- so let's use technology to streamline some of these archaic FCC rules.

Another question: Why doesn't HD Radio support alternate frequency switching, like RDS? The HD Radio datastream certainly has enough bandwidth to send AF data. My guess is that the system's proponents didn't want to expose the problems with digital buffering delay that would become apparent everytime the radio retuned. However, this shouldn't matter on HD-1 because there's a redundant FM analog signal that will demodulate immediately.

Another obvious requirement that's missing: The HD datastream should include the IP address of each channel's streaming server. Then, when those nifty HD portables hit the market in ten years, they will be able to store this in memory and automatically access the streams using Wifi or WiMAx, where it's available.