-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
IBIQUITY PROPOSES IMMEDIATE POWER-UP FOR HD RADIO SIGNALS
- Thread starter R.F. Burns
- Start date
The reply comment period has come and gone, and an interesting saga is unfolding. If you're interested in the issue of an IBOC power increase, and in the future of the FM band in general, you owe it to yourself to read some of the recent filings. It's easy - just go to the ECFS site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi and enter 99-325 in box #1 ('Proceeding'), leave the rest blank, and click on 'Retrieve Document List'. You should see the filings listed in reverse chronological order - just click on them to get the PDFs.
The story thus far: the IBOC gang, represented by iBiquity, the NAB, and a group calling themselves the "Joint Commenters" (composed largely of iBiquity investors and broadcast equipment manufacturers) have been pressing the FCC very hard to permit an immediate across-the-board FM IBOC digital power increase of 10 dB (from 1% to 10% of analog power). Failing that, they want an interim increase of 6 dB while the FCC mulls over the 10 dB request. Their main argument is that concerns about coverage deficiencies are stalling the IBOC rollout, and swift action is needed to keep it from completely running out of steam. They claim that all their tests with higher power to date have not revealed any serious interference problems.
Meanwhile, NPR, who published a comprehensive study last year that predicted widespread and severe interference problems if a blanket power increase were allowed, has argued that they need time to complete further studies. The studies include further investigation into the interference problems, including field tests that are more realistic than those contrived (and conducted in secrecy) by iBiquity. Other studies are looking at alternatives to a power increase, such as coverage boosters and asymmetrical digital sideband levels. NPR says that these additional studies are in progress, and can be completed by September. Moreover, they invited iBiquity and friends, and others in the broadcast industry, to participate in the tests and/or review the findings before they are published. In their comments, NPR also threw a bone to the IBOC camp by suggesting a formula that could be used to calculate the allowable power increase for a given station, if the FCC was insistent on moving ahead with a power increase in advance of completion of the NPR studies.
The vast majority of commenters agreed that any power increase at this time would be premature, and that it would be foolish not to wait a few months for the NPR studies to be completed. Many commenters also raised other valid points about iBiquity's test methodology, other motives behind the power increase request, and so on.
In the reply comments, the IBOC gang (see above) came out with guns blazing. They pretty much ignored the objections and questions raised by the majority of commenters, and set their sights on one target: NPR, the major impediment to getting what they want. In addition to trying to discredit the earlier NPR studies predicting extensive interference problems, they are now obviously trying to torpedo the additional studies now in progress. They're claiming that those studies can't be completed by September and will drag on until the end of the year, and the power increase is needed too urgently to wait that long. In addition, they have their shorts in a knot about NPR's proposed formula for an interim power increase. Turns out that, when the formula is applied, almost no stations at all in major markets (in the non-reserved portion of the band) would get any increase at all - imagine that!
But, you say, aren't iBiquity & friends supposed to be participating in those ongoing studies? Yes, indeed. Read the reply comment filing by Rhode Island Public Radio to get a glimpse of the heavy-handed way in which they participated in the RI tests. After that, they sent no less than CBS heavyweight Glynn Walden out to Minnesota to ride herd on the NPR tests there. What seems pretty clear at this point is that the IBOC gang, despite their attempts to steer the tests in a direction favorable to them, have seen enough of the preliminary test results to know which way the wind is blowing, and it doesn't support a blanket power increase. Instead, the tests are revealing that the interference problems are real, as predicted by NPR. So, the IBOCers are pulling out all the stops to try and get the FCC to grant an increase before the study results see the light of day.
It's a sad spectacle. A lot of the so-called engineers involved in this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.
Read the filings - there's a lot more in there that you'll likely never see in the trade press.
The story thus far: the IBOC gang, represented by iBiquity, the NAB, and a group calling themselves the "Joint Commenters" (composed largely of iBiquity investors and broadcast equipment manufacturers) have been pressing the FCC very hard to permit an immediate across-the-board FM IBOC digital power increase of 10 dB (from 1% to 10% of analog power). Failing that, they want an interim increase of 6 dB while the FCC mulls over the 10 dB request. Their main argument is that concerns about coverage deficiencies are stalling the IBOC rollout, and swift action is needed to keep it from completely running out of steam. They claim that all their tests with higher power to date have not revealed any serious interference problems.
Meanwhile, NPR, who published a comprehensive study last year that predicted widespread and severe interference problems if a blanket power increase were allowed, has argued that they need time to complete further studies. The studies include further investigation into the interference problems, including field tests that are more realistic than those contrived (and conducted in secrecy) by iBiquity. Other studies are looking at alternatives to a power increase, such as coverage boosters and asymmetrical digital sideband levels. NPR says that these additional studies are in progress, and can be completed by September. Moreover, they invited iBiquity and friends, and others in the broadcast industry, to participate in the tests and/or review the findings before they are published. In their comments, NPR also threw a bone to the IBOC camp by suggesting a formula that could be used to calculate the allowable power increase for a given station, if the FCC was insistent on moving ahead with a power increase in advance of completion of the NPR studies.
The vast majority of commenters agreed that any power increase at this time would be premature, and that it would be foolish not to wait a few months for the NPR studies to be completed. Many commenters also raised other valid points about iBiquity's test methodology, other motives behind the power increase request, and so on.
In the reply comments, the IBOC gang (see above) came out with guns blazing. They pretty much ignored the objections and questions raised by the majority of commenters, and set their sights on one target: NPR, the major impediment to getting what they want. In addition to trying to discredit the earlier NPR studies predicting extensive interference problems, they are now obviously trying to torpedo the additional studies now in progress. They're claiming that those studies can't be completed by September and will drag on until the end of the year, and the power increase is needed too urgently to wait that long. In addition, they have their shorts in a knot about NPR's proposed formula for an interim power increase. Turns out that, when the formula is applied, almost no stations at all in major markets (in the non-reserved portion of the band) would get any increase at all - imagine that!
But, you say, aren't iBiquity & friends supposed to be participating in those ongoing studies? Yes, indeed. Read the reply comment filing by Rhode Island Public Radio to get a glimpse of the heavy-handed way in which they participated in the RI tests. After that, they sent no less than CBS heavyweight Glynn Walden out to Minnesota to ride herd on the NPR tests there. What seems pretty clear at this point is that the IBOC gang, despite their attempts to steer the tests in a direction favorable to them, have seen enough of the preliminary test results to know which way the wind is blowing, and it doesn't support a blanket power increase. Instead, the tests are revealing that the interference problems are real, as predicted by NPR. So, the IBOCers are pulling out all the stops to try and get the FCC to grant an increase before the study results see the light of day.
It's a sad spectacle. A lot of the so-called engineers involved in this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.
Read the filings - there's a lot more in there that you'll likely never see in the trade press.
ve3jf said:You should see the filings listed in reverse chronological order
That's generally true, but the Electronic Comment Filing System crashed sometime on Friday -- apparently in the database back-end. As they restored it, the order got scrambled. Also, some people still file on paper. When scanned in, paper documents are displayed by the date of the letter, not at the top of the list.
ve3jf said:The vast majority of commenters agreed that any power increase at this time would be premature, and that it would be foolish not to wait a few months for the NPR studies to be completed.
It's perhaps worth noting again that a public comment period is not a public opinion poll. It's a fact-gathering exercise. It looks like the FCC got their money's worth.
ve3jf said:Read the filings - there's a lot more in there that you'll likely never see in the trade press.
One has to wonder if the relationship between iBiquity and NPR is irreparably damaged. NPR is proving to be a very protective guardian of its stations' access to audience members.
- Jonathan
A
audiophile.
Guest
THe FCC server was non-responsive the a couple of times before on accepting IBOC comments at the 11th hour. This time mine actually went through, but I filed it much earlier. I wonder how many of the little guys just gave up at 11 pm and never filed on paper...
I thought this was funny the "joint" people complained about delay caused by "atmospheric" issues, what about the problems caused by atmospheric issues when it's operating at 10X??? Can you say wipeout?
These "joint" people need to be flogged.
NPR also has not taken into account the likelihood of unforeseen delays in the test
program. After years of testing digital radio, iBiquity feels confident in its view that testing
always takes much longer than planned. For example, the first field audio samples for the NPR
pilot were not usable due to improper equipment configurations and problematic atmospheric
conditions. Those audio samples had to be rerecorded after a two week delay.
I thought this was funny the "joint" people complained about delay caused by "atmospheric" issues, what about the problems caused by atmospheric issues when it's operating at 10X??? Can you say wipeout?
These "joint" people need to be flogged.
If NPR isn't on board, that spells doom for HD Radio. Their support has been key for all the HD issues being pushed to date. NPR has a lot of political pull at the Commission. I predict pubcasters will NOT obediently toddle along with a self-destructive agenda of interference, notwithstanding their love of multicasting (their own innovation, not iBiquity's.)
This could be the old "irresistible force versus the immovable object" conundrum. One of an endless series posed by HD Radio - the "innovation" that isn't, the cynical crusade in search of a need, and the hemlock which certain self-anointed radio industry "leaders" insist on trying to force down each other's throats.
NPR won't take kindly to having their work snidely dismissed in typical Alliance fashion. This spectacle is morphing from merely entertaining, to somewhat appalling. The dishonesty and meanness of HD-pushing liars like Glynn Walden is actually disgusting. Here's hoping that when this thing finally implodes he and his ilk reap abundantly, of that which they have sown.
This could be the old "irresistible force versus the immovable object" conundrum. One of an endless series posed by HD Radio - the "innovation" that isn't, the cynical crusade in search of a need, and the hemlock which certain self-anointed radio industry "leaders" insist on trying to force down each other's throats.
NPR won't take kindly to having their work snidely dismissed in typical Alliance fashion. This spectacle is morphing from merely entertaining, to somewhat appalling. The dishonesty and meanness of HD-pushing liars like Glynn Walden is actually disgusting. Here's hoping that when this thing finally implodes he and his ilk reap abundantly, of that which they have sown.
Just a reminder to anyone here who filed comments in this proceeding: the FCC ECFS server apparently went down last Friday about the time that the comment deadline was approaching. I see that a couple of commenters have posted motions to accept late-filed comments for this reason.
If you filed comments, better check to see if they were posted-- you've only got a narrow window of time to file a motion and re-file your comments before they will be treated as ex parte or late filed.
If you filed comments, better check to see if they were posted-- you've only got a narrow window of time to file a motion and re-file your comments before they will be treated as ex parte or late filed.
I'm sure the irony of the FM power increase is not lost on those in this thread. When the IBOC concept was first batted around, many thought the FM side of the proposal might fly, but that the AM side of the proposal would not make it past the FCC due to the adjacent channel interference introduced. After all, the AM folks were worried about contour protection. Who would have thought that the FCC would ignore the power difference within the "mask" of analog spikes vs. a constant on/off signal? As to nightime operation, was any consideration given to the effective reduction in the NIF contour of affected stations? Nope. Despite that, you can't bend the laws of physics. Every watt introduced into the AM band at night raises the noise floor for that frequency and its adjacents.
AM was pushed through the FCC because NAB and others didn't want the AM band left behind in the "digital revolution."
Thanks guys. Now the AM band has more noise than ever. And it just not the digital information. Thanks to spectral regrowth the analog spikes on some IBOC stations are now wider than ever.
I guess this is an instance of "what comes around, goes around." Now the FM band is on its way of achieving parity with the AM band, at least as far as interference is concerned.
NAB, please no more favors.
AM was pushed through the FCC because NAB and others didn't want the AM band left behind in the "digital revolution."
Thanks guys. Now the AM band has more noise than ever. And it just not the digital information. Thanks to spectral regrowth the analog spikes on some IBOC stations are now wider than ever.
I guess this is an instance of "what comes around, goes around." Now the FM band is on its way of achieving parity with the AM band, at least as far as interference is concerned.
NAB, please no more favors.
ve3jf said:The reply comment period has come and gone, and an interesting saga is unfolding. If you're interested in the issue of an IBOC power increase, and in the future of the FM band in general, you owe it to yourself to read some of the recent filings. It's easy - just go to the ECFS site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi and enter 99-325 in box #1 ('Proceeding'), leave the rest blank, and click on 'Retrieve Document List'. You should see the filings listed in reverse chronological order - just click on them to get the PDFs.
...
Read the filings - there's a lot more in there that you'll likely never see in the trade press.
If you haven't looked at the filings lately, look again.
- Jonathan
Why don't they give a power increase of 3% instead of the 6 or 10% they want. They have to do something to make these digital HD stations so you can actually receive them. I have that little Insignia HD radio. We live around 45 miles from the big towers in Los Angeles and We live beyond Hills and a few mountains.
I can receive 92.3 HD and I was able to get KBIG 104.3 in HD but I wasn't able to get a lock on the HD signal. In our area we have 88.3 KPCC and 91.1 KUSC both being the classical and NPR stations. They only offer 1 HD station so there is not much benefit.
To receive the additional HD stations they need to do something so you can receive the signal from a distant and not have problems receiving the signal. They also have figure out a way to do it without causing much interference on adjacent and smaller radio stations. My radio doesn't receive AM but it seems pointless having HD AM stations.
They are not offering additional content just the same stations with a slightly better sound quality. I don't know how they can make AM HD work but they need to do something so the HD FM stations work better. Not everyone wants to pay for satellite radio or necessarily cares about the FM and HD stations not offering enough content.
I can receive 92.3 HD and I was able to get KBIG 104.3 in HD but I wasn't able to get a lock on the HD signal. In our area we have 88.3 KPCC and 91.1 KUSC both being the classical and NPR stations. They only offer 1 HD station so there is not much benefit.
To receive the additional HD stations they need to do something so you can receive the signal from a distant and not have problems receiving the signal. They also have figure out a way to do it without causing much interference on adjacent and smaller radio stations. My radio doesn't receive AM but it seems pointless having HD AM stations.
They are not offering additional content just the same stations with a slightly better sound quality. I don't know how they can make AM HD work but they need to do something so the HD FM stations work better. Not everyone wants to pay for satellite radio or necessarily cares about the FM and HD stations not offering enough content.
XavierRenegade said:Why don't they give a power increase of 3% instead of the 6 or 10% they want. They have to do something to make these digital HD stations so you can actually receive them. I have that little Insignia HD radio. We live around 45 miles from the big towers in Los Angeles and We live beyond Hills and a few mountains. Not everyone wants to pay for satellite radio or necessarily cares about the FM and HD stations not offering enough content.
No one really cares except for a handful of experimenters and/or employees who profit or stand to profit from it (if it every doubtfully becomes successful).
I pay for satellite and love it, never drops out, sounds good enough in a car and there are MANY channels. I also listen to analog FM and AM which also comes in very good and sounds very good, there is no place for a technology which whooshes all over it's neighbors and cuts the range in half amongst many other drawbacks. Read the thread on WKLB hashing over WRNI during it's higher powered tests, WKLB tested at 10% and 6% injection also and interfered with WRNI, then tried to change WRNI's testing results as well as make up their own fantasy results. Would you or anyone else buy a used car from ibiquity or trust them in any way when it is so obvious that they operate like the old Al Capone mob?
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.