While I disagree with most of the people posting on this site concerning HD radio I have to say that the FCC so screwed up the digital television conversion that I can't see them rushing to fix the radio issue until television is resolved. Some TV stations such as WPVI have had to quadrupl their power output thanks to the FCC underestimating the required powered output needed for digital transmission.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
IBIQUITY PROPOSES IMMEDIATE POWER-UP FOR HD RADIO SIGNALS
- Thread starter R.F. Burns
- Start date
I doubt if it will happen. The Commission listens pretty intently to NPR. And pubcasters, despite the fact they innovated subchannels on HD-FM (as opposed to the nitwits at iBiquity, where HD-2 and HD-3 never occured to them) and they are arguably the only constituency which has thus benefited in the short term from HD - want to go slow.
The adjacent-channel issues are potentially serious for NPR, especially in the Northeast.
iBiquity's scared. Their sales have totally tanked while the few remaining commercial broadcasters interested in HD have shelved conversions over coverage, cost and interference concerns. Carmakers and radio manufacturers have seized on the pending power increase as an excuse to "wait and see what happens with HD."
Meanwhile the bad economy has combined with the recent confirmation - from a respected Susquehanna chief who was an initial HD believer but who is now backing away from the system - that HD in many installations doubles utility bills. Nobody in their right mind is going to sign on for THAT kind of commitment unless HD offers an immediate ROI - which as we all know, it does not.
(Tick, tock, tick, tock.....)
The adjacent-channel issues are potentially serious for NPR, especially in the Northeast.
iBiquity's scared. Their sales have totally tanked while the few remaining commercial broadcasters interested in HD have shelved conversions over coverage, cost and interference concerns. Carmakers and radio manufacturers have seized on the pending power increase as an excuse to "wait and see what happens with HD."
Meanwhile the bad economy has combined with the recent confirmation - from a respected Susquehanna chief who was an initial HD believer but who is now backing away from the system - that HD in many installations doubles utility bills. Nobody in their right mind is going to sign on for THAT kind of commitment unless HD offers an immediate ROI - which as we all know, it does not.
(Tick, tock, tick, tock.....)
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
R.F. Burns said:
The problem is much worse than that - low band VHF stations now moved to UHF are finding out that even a 5 million watt ERP on a 2000 foot tower doesn't offer nearly the coverage that their old 100kW signal did. And rural viewers are completely shut out - there is no way someone 100 miles away from a former channel 2,3, or 4 can get the UHF signal that those stations are now stuck with. And if a UHF station is now at 5 million watts, they have no upgrade path.
I apologize; this is somewhat off topic and it's something I have commented on before elsewhere on this board, but since the subject came up:
Now that we're past the DTV transition, I have lost reliable reception of almost all of the stations that I used to receive with a good or better quality signal-- both VHF and UHF. I can not count on being able to watch a particular program. It might come in, or it might just be a blank screen. Or I might just have to endure constant freezing of the picture every few seconds. As I mentioned previously, this is with the use of very good quality, high gain, separate VHF and UHF antennas on a 35' mast with a low noise/high intercept preamp at the antenna.
As far as digital radio is concerned, I'm not sure that digital transmission as it exists today has reached the point where it is reliable enough to satisfy the needs of mobile listeners. I remain unconvinced, based on what I have observed to date.
Now that we're past the DTV transition, I have lost reliable reception of almost all of the stations that I used to receive with a good or better quality signal-- both VHF and UHF. I can not count on being able to watch a particular program. It might come in, or it might just be a blank screen. Or I might just have to endure constant freezing of the picture every few seconds. As I mentioned previously, this is with the use of very good quality, high gain, separate VHF and UHF antennas on a 35' mast with a low noise/high intercept preamp at the antenna.
As far as digital radio is concerned, I'm not sure that digital transmission as it exists today has reached the point where it is reliable enough to satisfy the needs of mobile listeners. I remain unconvinced, based on what I have observed to date.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
audioguy said:
How far are you from the stations?
It sounds like people in your situation have been left out of the DTV transition - you dare to live outside the normal reception area of this wonderful digital revolution. Unlike analog TV where you could get a watchable picture with some snow on it, now you get nothing. Big improvement, huh?! So you either pitch the TV in the dumpster and buy books, or go straight to satellite TV. Nice people, the FCC, aren't they?
rbrucecarter5 said:
This is at my summer home in SW Michigan. I'm about 35 miles from Kalamazoo where the VHF signals come from, and about the same distance from Mishawaka, IN where the UHF transmitters are located. It is admittedly a more challenging reception environment than an urban location, but analog worked reasonably well. Digital does not work. It's great when it does work. The problem is that at those distances, reception is significantly affected by tropospheric enhancement, attenuation from arboreal foliage (leaves!), thunderstorms, electrical noise, etc. The digital signal is too unreliable to watch most of the time.
It's not that big of a deal for me really-- I just don't watch TV that much any more. It's not worth it for me to pay for cable or satellite.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
I think this concept could work for lots of things.
- Let's have immediate approval of all medications, without bothering with lab testing.
- Let's have immediate approval of all public works projects such as bridges, without engineering analysis of stress points
- Let's immediately approve all tax increases without a vote.
- Let's approve all constitutional amendments without a vote.
and back to radio
- Let's approve every new station application regardless of its power level, frequency, or location. Oh wait a minute - isn't that the situation in the 1920's, and NOW?!
- Let's have immediate approval of all medications, without bothering with lab testing.
- Let's have immediate approval of all public works projects such as bridges, without engineering analysis of stress points
- Let's immediately approve all tax increases without a vote.
- Let's approve all constitutional amendments without a vote.
and back to radio
- Let's approve every new station application regardless of its power level, frequency, or location. Oh wait a minute - isn't that the situation in the 1920's, and NOW?!
We're already there, rbruce. The only thing you need is to "tag" each one of your propositions with...
"....as long as some special interest group or lobbyist REALLY says it's needed. Then it's okay to ignore the interests and concerns of those directly affected and who must pay for the resulting mess.
"And make sure all members of the government class - federal/state workers, staff and elected officials - are comfortably insulated from the consequences of cynical and bad decisionmaking."
"....as long as some special interest group or lobbyist REALLY says it's needed. Then it's okay to ignore the interests and concerns of those directly affected and who must pay for the resulting mess.
"And make sure all members of the government class - federal/state workers, staff and elected officials - are comfortably insulated from the consequences of cynical and bad decisionmaking."
A
audiophile.
Guest
Great comments RBruceCarter and Savage!
Part the problem is the jokers running the FCC. They don't have an engineering background, or even the guts to pass a ham radio exam!
How on earth do they understand the techinical stuff before them?
We stuck with BPL, I-BLOC and then stupid inquiries on PPM!
Part the problem is the jokers running the FCC. They don't have an engineering background, or even the guts to pass a ham radio exam!
How on earth do they understand the techinical stuff before them?
We stuck with BPL, I-BLOC and then stupid inquiries on PPM!
Predictions are dangerous things. So, throwing all caution to the wind....
I forsee the following scenario.
a. A power increase will be granted for HD-FM. It will consist of the much-discussed "variable increase" variety with a floor of 6db "in cases free of adjacent interference issues" (gag me) and a ceiling of 10db. This will likely not happen until after NPR files the results of its pending study as a nod towards "caution" and "conservatism." Behind the scenes the pressure on NPR to get its study done will be enormous.
b. For economic and practical reasons, few stations will bother increasing digital.
c. Alliance HD fans will immediately proclaim victory, citing "vastly improved penetration" and summarily dismissing any interference issues as more anti-HD "naysaying."
d. Reality will soon take root: the improvement will vary widely from station to station, among the relative few which actually implement a digital power hike. But it will still be seen as either undramatic among most consumers or unacceptable in cases of adjacent-channel interference. HD-pushers will dismiss the legitimate concerns of afflicted adjacent stations. In other words: more of the same we've seen from the HD faction, which will ignore Reality once again in pursuit of their agenda.
e. For the foregoing reasons - chief among which will be the few stations increasing digital tenfold - car manufacturers and receiver makers will continue to sit out the HD hail-mary and not commit further. Receivers will continue to be retail "hens' teeth."
f. HD-AM will continue to hiss along for several more years, being the more ignored of two widely-ignored HD "innovations" (of course the worst of the two but including HD-FM.) There will continue to be fewer than 300 operating HD-AM stations with most of them turning digital off at night.
g. The system will eventually begin to be turned off as stations increasingly turn to webcasting as the digital outlet of choice.
Let's all reconvene here late in 2010 or early 2011 to see how I did. Is it a date??
I forsee the following scenario.
a. A power increase will be granted for HD-FM. It will consist of the much-discussed "variable increase" variety with a floor of 6db "in cases free of adjacent interference issues" (gag me) and a ceiling of 10db. This will likely not happen until after NPR files the results of its pending study as a nod towards "caution" and "conservatism." Behind the scenes the pressure on NPR to get its study done will be enormous.
b. For economic and practical reasons, few stations will bother increasing digital.
c. Alliance HD fans will immediately proclaim victory, citing "vastly improved penetration" and summarily dismissing any interference issues as more anti-HD "naysaying."
d. Reality will soon take root: the improvement will vary widely from station to station, among the relative few which actually implement a digital power hike. But it will still be seen as either undramatic among most consumers or unacceptable in cases of adjacent-channel interference. HD-pushers will dismiss the legitimate concerns of afflicted adjacent stations. In other words: more of the same we've seen from the HD faction, which will ignore Reality once again in pursuit of their agenda.
e. For the foregoing reasons - chief among which will be the few stations increasing digital tenfold - car manufacturers and receiver makers will continue to sit out the HD hail-mary and not commit further. Receivers will continue to be retail "hens' teeth."
f. HD-AM will continue to hiss along for several more years, being the more ignored of two widely-ignored HD "innovations" (of course the worst of the two but including HD-FM.) There will continue to be fewer than 300 operating HD-AM stations with most of them turning digital off at night.
g. The system will eventually begin to be turned off as stations increasingly turn to webcasting as the digital outlet of choice.
Let's all reconvene here late in 2010 or early 2011 to see how I did. Is it a date??
[EDIT-reference to material removed for TOS violation]
It is true that broadcasters may only file complaints regarding interference to their station, so individuals would need to contact the affected stations, who will in turn file the complaints with the FCC (unfortunately that's the way it's set up since the FCC is woefully understaffed) But that's not saying we as individuals cannot complain to the FCC...the government and any government agency must answer to the people for everything... and I mean everything... tax increases included!!! It's called accountability.
We as individuals must start making our voices heard at the FCC and Congress as well as voting in the marketplace by not buying this HD Junk! So call, email and write the FCC, representatives and senators and tell them we don't want HD Radio! We as a people need to also get petitions going and sent to the FCC and Congress and stop this HD Radio train wreck!
It is true that broadcasters may only file complaints regarding interference to their station, so individuals would need to contact the affected stations, who will in turn file the complaints with the FCC (unfortunately that's the way it's set up since the FCC is woefully understaffed) But that's not saying we as individuals cannot complain to the FCC...the government and any government agency must answer to the people for everything... and I mean everything... tax increases included!!! It's called accountability.
We as individuals must start making our voices heard at the FCC and Congress as well as voting in the marketplace by not buying this HD Junk! So call, email and write the FCC, representatives and senators and tell them we don't want HD Radio! We as a people need to also get petitions going and sent to the FCC and Congress and stop this HD Radio train wreck!
[EDIT-reference to material removed for TOS violation]
Barry McLarnon is a good friend and as usual, nails it. Even if FM gets a full 10db digital increase - which looks increasingly unlikely for most stations - few will install it for the reasons Barry enumerates. Most installations CANNOT achieve the tenfold power hike without expensive rebuilds of entire transmitter sites.
Freebird, feel free to chime in on this - in some transmitter locations, such as atop older office buildings, there isn't the physical Tx-room or tower/mast space available to accomodate more high-power gear.
Think in today's economic climate, and given radio's dismal economic condition, many stations are likely to drop a half-mil or more re-doing recently-already-upgraded Tx sites (and doubling electric bills in the process) or file change apps with the FCC to relocate transmitters (even assuming a new practicable site exists) all for IBOC?
Much has been made of the Ford "commitment" to HD. Yet somehow I have yet to walk into a Ford store and see a SINGLE HD-equipped vehicle. Or talk to a manager or salesperson who knows what HD is. Volvo? The company was owned by Ford, is being shopped out, and has a negligible market share. BMW has been having customer complaints about its HD Radios. A service bulletin was quoted at length here explaining how to deal with them.
Of course your sentiments about HD-AM are correct. And retailers have bailed on HD. They won't give it a second chance.
"Forcing" complex issues like this only works up to a point. In the end, it's up to broadcasters and listeners....both key constituencies which have rejected HD.
Barry McLarnon is a good friend and as usual, nails it. Even if FM gets a full 10db digital increase - which looks increasingly unlikely for most stations - few will install it for the reasons Barry enumerates. Most installations CANNOT achieve the tenfold power hike without expensive rebuilds of entire transmitter sites.
Freebird, feel free to chime in on this - in some transmitter locations, such as atop older office buildings, there isn't the physical Tx-room or tower/mast space available to accomodate more high-power gear.
Think in today's economic climate, and given radio's dismal economic condition, many stations are likely to drop a half-mil or more re-doing recently-already-upgraded Tx sites (and doubling electric bills in the process) or file change apps with the FCC to relocate transmitters (even assuming a new practicable site exists) all for IBOC?
Much has been made of the Ford "commitment" to HD. Yet somehow I have yet to walk into a Ford store and see a SINGLE HD-equipped vehicle. Or talk to a manager or salesperson who knows what HD is. Volvo? The company was owned by Ford, is being shopped out, and has a negligible market share. BMW has been having customer complaints about its HD Radios. A service bulletin was quoted at length here explaining how to deal with them.
Of course your sentiments about HD-AM are correct. And retailers have bailed on HD. They won't give it a second chance.
"Forcing" complex issues like this only works up to a point. In the end, it's up to broadcasters and listeners....both key constituencies which have rejected HD.
[EDIT-reference to material removed for TOS violation]
This Inside Radio piece is really quite misleading. They make it sound like NPR is encouraging the FCC to grant an immediate power increase, and that is certainly not the case. The gist of the recent NPR comments on Docket 99-325 is that they are imploring the FCC not to make any moves until after this summer's CPB-sponsored study is completed; however, they go on to say that if the Commission insists on acting before that, then they should follow a certain formula to compute the permissible increase for a given station. The formula is based on how close the D/U ratio on the station's protected contour, relative to its strongest 1st adjacent neighbor, comes to the regulatory limit of 6 dB. This formula would exclude many stations from any power increase, and limit most of the others to increases of much less than 10 dB.
The formula is too simplistic, but certainly is a better approach than the brute-force blitzkrieg of the band proposed by iBiquity & friends. I think NPR felt that they'd better throw a bone to the other camp, just in case the FCC was in the mood to act precipitously on their request this summer.
There's a lot of interesting info in the NPR comments, and I'd encourage y'all to read them:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019808354
Anyone interested in this issue really should browse the rest of the recent comments, too, but if you're short on time, here's some links to a few that really stand out by cutting through a lot of the BS surrounding this issue, and IBOC in general:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019808381
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019808370
And, of course, mine
:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520222517
This Inside Radio piece is really quite misleading. They make it sound like NPR is encouraging the FCC to grant an immediate power increase, and that is certainly not the case. The gist of the recent NPR comments on Docket 99-325 is that they are imploring the FCC not to make any moves until after this summer's CPB-sponsored study is completed; however, they go on to say that if the Commission insists on acting before that, then they should follow a certain formula to compute the permissible increase for a given station. The formula is based on how close the D/U ratio on the station's protected contour, relative to its strongest 1st adjacent neighbor, comes to the regulatory limit of 6 dB. This formula would exclude many stations from any power increase, and limit most of the others to increases of much less than 10 dB.
The formula is too simplistic, but certainly is a better approach than the brute-force blitzkrieg of the band proposed by iBiquity & friends. I think NPR felt that they'd better throw a bone to the other camp, just in case the FCC was in the mood to act precipitously on their request this summer.
There's a lot of interesting info in the NPR comments, and I'd encourage y'all to read them:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019808354
Anyone interested in this issue really should browse the rest of the recent comments, too, but if you're short on time, here's some links to a few that really stand out by cutting through a lot of the BS surrounding this issue, and IBOC in general:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019808381
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019808370
And, of course, mine
:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520222517
ve3jf said:
Yes, these comments are very thoughtful. It's hard to believe that IBOC opponents and skeptics (whom we've been told are all deranged DXers, Luddites, and have never held a real radio job) could provide such reasoned arguments.
For those of you looking for the link to the ECFS search page, it's:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
Just enter 99-325 in the Proceeding field, then click "Retrieve Document List" and you should find everything filed to date. The overwhelming majority of commentors believe further study (on an impartial basis) is essential before any digital power increase is allowed.
But in the interest of fairness, we must consider the opposing point of view, even if it induces nausea. For example, take a look at this excerpt from NAB's comments:
"... The HD Digital Radio Alliance, a member group devoted to promoting and marketing HD Radio, makes available for downloading to member HD Radio stations scores of station and Alliance produced 30-second radio commercials promoting multicast channels. Hundreds of such station ads were submitted to the Alliance. It is vital that coverage and reception reliability of the new digital service, in cars and homes (and soon with hand-held devices), must increase to match these increasing expectations of consumers, auto makers and others for the new service to continue its growth in today’s competitive digital marketplace."
So let me get this straight. The Alliance ads make false claims promising "CD-quality sound, Crystal-clear reception, No station drop-off, and No static, hiss or audio distortion" and then NAB expects automatic immediate approval for the power increase because consumers have been misled?
This is a matter for the FTC, not the FCC.
Jeff Detweiler of iBiquity provided Radio Business Report with his take on the power increase:
http://www.rbr.com/radio/ENGINEERING/94/15657.html
Interesting to see how they think tests on one station prove their point, and of course they conveniently leave out the fact that their test station interfered with a first-adjacent station within the first-adjacent's protected contours.
http://www.rbr.com/radio/ENGINEERING/94/15657.html
Interesting to see how they think tests on one station prove their point, and of course they conveniently leave out the fact that their test station interfered with a first-adjacent station within the first-adjacent's protected contours.
dumber than a box of hair said:
Here are the specifics:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520193231
I've personally heard this interference and it's bad.
I've done a quick review of the latest round of comments, and they appear to be overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of an immediate, across-the-board power increase. However, the big money and influence are on the other side of the issue.
Does anyone happen to know the reply comment deadline, or can point us to the FCC or Federal Register document where that is published?
Does anyone happen to know the reply comment deadline, or can point us to the FCC or Federal Register document where that is published?
Play Freebird said:
It's interesting because the FCC have themselves set the scenario for this to happen. By permitting all sorts of 1st adjacent signals to be dropped in just outside of other existing stations' protected contours and slamming the dial full of stations, these conflicts are inevitable. And, not just in the crowded northeast but all over the US.
In the case of the Boston experiments, the conflict I thought of first was WROR 105.7 versus WJYY 105.5 Concord, NH. WJYY's 60 dbu protected contour extends into the Manchester area (through Hooksett and into Manchester itself) and I could easily foresee WROR's sidebands (at a 10x increase) interfering with their signal in these areas. They're already short spaced - being about 60 miles apart.
There are literally hundreds of examples of this all over the US. Newer stations that have been shoehorned in as first adjacents along the fringes of large markets. They've elicited complaints for years by former listeners of those large market signals who aren't guaranteed coverage in many exurbs/fringe areas. Well, now some of those big market stations may be able to get their revenge. IF the creeps at Ibiquity get their way, that is. Let's hope not, because having the sidebands on FM at those power levels will do to the FM band what HD does to the AM band every day.
One conspiracy theory that I can foresee as having some truth to it is that Ibiquity and their buddies KNOW how bad it will be and they like the idea. Why? Because they then can make an argument that the entire band should be digital - because digital and analog aren't compatable (and THEIR digital is better). Don't put it past them. No, they need to be stopped and stopped now.
If iBiquity indeed has a doomsday fantasy, they'll just have to add it to their collection.
You know...like: CD-quality, near CD-quality, AM as good FM, digital coverage equals analog, millions - no, Billions sold, hundreds more stations have converted, Michael Jackson was secretly injected with Demerol by Sarah Palin, etc., etc.
If one steps away from the blogs and RW/RWEE for a nanosecond, you get the real-world perspective: notwithstanding the current desperate lunge for a digital power increase, HD has become a kind of industry annoyance and joke - kind of like a sewage-treatment plant upwind of a vacation getaway. It's a kind of distant nuisance, but every once in a while you get a whiff of unpleasantness.
Equipment sales? Stopped, except for a rare and very occasional instance. Receivers? Don't make me laugh. Talk to any honest engineer and you'll find someone who hates HD. The checkbook has snapped shut for the foreseeable future on cap-ex. HD listeners are about as commonplace as mastodons wearing tutus.
Like the chronic stink, HD doesn't go away. It isn't very nice. But it doesn't really mean anything either.
You know...like: CD-quality, near CD-quality, AM as good FM, digital coverage equals analog, millions - no, Billions sold, hundreds more stations have converted, Michael Jackson was secretly injected with Demerol by Sarah Palin, etc., etc.
If one steps away from the blogs and RW/RWEE for a nanosecond, you get the real-world perspective: notwithstanding the current desperate lunge for a digital power increase, HD has become a kind of industry annoyance and joke - kind of like a sewage-treatment plant upwind of a vacation getaway. It's a kind of distant nuisance, but every once in a while you get a whiff of unpleasantness.
Equipment sales? Stopped, except for a rare and very occasional instance. Receivers? Don't make me laugh. Talk to any honest engineer and you'll find someone who hates HD. The checkbook has snapped shut for the foreseeable future on cap-ex. HD listeners are about as commonplace as mastodons wearing tutus.
Like the chronic stink, HD doesn't go away. It isn't very nice. But it doesn't really mean anything either.
- Status