This was originally posted to the Indiana Board, but I thought It might be quasi-relevant here.
Just a few notes, Although I am Russty, I am not Russ Oasis.
I will simply post the link to the posting here:
http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=625532&Board=indiana
OK, I am not even going to touch the comments about the marketing strategies of HD that he talks about, but I think I would like to make a few technical comments.
Oasis is in favor of using an "Expanded Band" approach to creating a standard for HD Radio's Multicasting channels. This would mean continue the FM Frequency numbering scheme from 108.1 on up to whatever it would end at. And Just what would it end at? That is the issue. The possibilities of Digital are endless. Some of the HD Test stations that are running Multicasts are running 1 additional channel. Some run two, or three... Where does it end? As coding algorithms improve, more and more channels could be added.
Then there is Technology out there Like DRE Inc's FMeXtra http://www.dreinc.com/www/index.htm Which allows the addition of even more additional digital program streams in the SubCarrier range. The FMeXtra system can operate by itself or even in addition to Ibiquity's HD system. All of these digital possibilities would make it quite difficult to establish a coherent logical faux frequency numbering scheme without placing restrictions on broadcasters.
If the "Expanded Band" approach is truly that much simpler for consumers than a "Layered" approach, I think it would be much better to do like they did with TV and satellite radio and just give the digital streams Channel Numbers. This would probably be easier for the consumers than the so called "Expanded Band" approach. Once again the trouble is how do you set a standard for what stream gets what channel number when the amount of streams a station can run is undefined? This "Channel Number" approach runs into the same logistical problem that the "Expanded Band" approach encounters.
I think a simple solution to this Multicasting Labeling would easily be accomplished in the "Layered" approach. The most simple way would be to have the radio tune to the actual real frequency. The additional channels could be distinguished with a letter. For example, you could say that (Hypothetically) Jake-FM would be on 101.1 FM For CVS-FM Oldies tune to 101.1-A For Big Orange Country tune to 101.1-B For CVS Headline News tune to 101.1-C For CVS Local Traffic and Weather on demand tune to 101.1-D........Now that works for that station, but the Classical Music station on the same frequency in the next market wants to devote as much bandwidth as possible for Premium Audio Quality. Once again for Example Tune to 101.1 FM for Big City Classical in 5.1 Surround Sound, Tune to 101.1-A for Big City Traffic on Demand, And thats it because they want the main channel to sound the best.
Regardless of which approach is chosen, I don't think using Phony frequency numbers is a good way to go. I really don't see what is so bad about the Layered approach. By setting a standard the radio manufacturers can design radios that won't need to tune to the base frequency first like they currently do. That seems to be where most of the confusion comes from. Besides, Most people have a few favorite stations that they program into their PRESETS. Remember P1s? The use of Presets by consumers really makes this whole argument fairly trivial.
I feel that Using the "Expanded Band" or Channel Number approach would require the FCC to set limits on how many streams each broadcast station could provide. That would be a real shame and would be a case of more FCC restrictions in a time where radio wants to be more unregulated.
By employing the "Layered" approach, this Lets the Broadcasters decide what and how much they want to provide to the public, and at what quality. By setting a standard that is simple, like the A-B-C approach I outlined above or something similar, the consumer electronics manufacturers will be able to overcome the current technical hurdles they now face.
Just a few notes, Although I am Russty, I am not Russ Oasis.
I will simply post the link to the posting here:
http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=625532&Board=indiana
OK, I am not even going to touch the comments about the marketing strategies of HD that he talks about, but I think I would like to make a few technical comments.
Oasis is in favor of using an "Expanded Band" approach to creating a standard for HD Radio's Multicasting channels. This would mean continue the FM Frequency numbering scheme from 108.1 on up to whatever it would end at. And Just what would it end at? That is the issue. The possibilities of Digital are endless. Some of the HD Test stations that are running Multicasts are running 1 additional channel. Some run two, or three... Where does it end? As coding algorithms improve, more and more channels could be added.
Then there is Technology out there Like DRE Inc's FMeXtra http://www.dreinc.com/www/index.htm Which allows the addition of even more additional digital program streams in the SubCarrier range. The FMeXtra system can operate by itself or even in addition to Ibiquity's HD system. All of these digital possibilities would make it quite difficult to establish a coherent logical faux frequency numbering scheme without placing restrictions on broadcasters.
If the "Expanded Band" approach is truly that much simpler for consumers than a "Layered" approach, I think it would be much better to do like they did with TV and satellite radio and just give the digital streams Channel Numbers. This would probably be easier for the consumers than the so called "Expanded Band" approach. Once again the trouble is how do you set a standard for what stream gets what channel number when the amount of streams a station can run is undefined? This "Channel Number" approach runs into the same logistical problem that the "Expanded Band" approach encounters.
I think a simple solution to this Multicasting Labeling would easily be accomplished in the "Layered" approach. The most simple way would be to have the radio tune to the actual real frequency. The additional channels could be distinguished with a letter. For example, you could say that (Hypothetically) Jake-FM would be on 101.1 FM For CVS-FM Oldies tune to 101.1-A For Big Orange Country tune to 101.1-B For CVS Headline News tune to 101.1-C For CVS Local Traffic and Weather on demand tune to 101.1-D........Now that works for that station, but the Classical Music station on the same frequency in the next market wants to devote as much bandwidth as possible for Premium Audio Quality. Once again for Example Tune to 101.1 FM for Big City Classical in 5.1 Surround Sound, Tune to 101.1-A for Big City Traffic on Demand, And thats it because they want the main channel to sound the best.
Regardless of which approach is chosen, I don't think using Phony frequency numbers is a good way to go. I really don't see what is so bad about the Layered approach. By setting a standard the radio manufacturers can design radios that won't need to tune to the base frequency first like they currently do. That seems to be where most of the confusion comes from. Besides, Most people have a few favorite stations that they program into their PRESETS. Remember P1s? The use of Presets by consumers really makes this whole argument fairly trivial.
I feel that Using the "Expanded Band" or Channel Number approach would require the FCC to set limits on how many streams each broadcast station could provide. That would be a real shame and would be a case of more FCC restrictions in a time where radio wants to be more unregulated.
By employing the "Layered" approach, this Lets the Broadcasters decide what and how much they want to provide to the public, and at what quality. By setting a standard that is simple, like the A-B-C approach I outlined above or something similar, the consumer electronics manufacturers will be able to overcome the current technical hurdles they now face.