KATY files HD interference petition

[jhardis]

The old mask, as defined in § 73.317, was effectively replaced when the FCC adopted the NRSC-5 standard...

Check again ... the FCC has not adopted the NRSC-5 standard.

There was a round of public comment on NRSC-5 in the Summer of 2005, but nothing ever came of it. In the Second Report and Order (Spring 2007) see Paragraph 12, which says in part, "our consideration of the NRSC-5 IBOC standards is continuing." Earlier this week, Media Bureau told stations to "certif[y] that, except for the digital ERP, the IBOC facilities conform to the iBiquity specifications" -- no mention of either NRSC-5 or FCC specifications. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-866A1.pdf One can only imagine that they are referring to Appendix B of the First Report and Order. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A2.pdf Table A-3 sets the subcarrier power levels, but this document also requires use of the PAC codec!

I will agree that § 73.317 was effectively replaced for hybrid digital transmission by § 73.404(a), but this belies the point. The recent amendment to § 73.404(a) was adopted, among other reasons, because it was supposedly consistent with § 73.317. This rational, as given in the Order, was based on false information -- the elevated power levels (and even the original -20 dBc power level) do NOT fall within the limits prescribed by § 73.317.

See my recent filings on 99-325 for more of the story.

- Jonathan

 

[Carmine5]

And when it doesn't come - because the FCC won't take action, for all the reasons we've discussed here - he'll sue. And THAT will mark the end of HD Radio.

And he'll lose, because lawyers and judges don't understand the technical details of this or any other broadcasting subject. The government will side with the government, like it almost always does.

What the courts understand most are issues of constitutionality, such as the first amendment vs. the FCC's capricious standards involving indecency, not a dubious science project like HD Radio and matters of interference. As for always siding with the government, well the Commish did lose badly recently over the matter of net neutrality. Which goes to show that the agency is vulnerable not invincible.

But if I thought the FCC under Chairmans Michael Powell and Kevin Martin were bad, this one has got to be the most high-handed version yet. These guys are on a mission and Lord help us all should they succeed.

Yes, I can see them busting us videographers and producers because we're still using wireless systems operating in the 700 MHz spectrum. Instead of shooting news, we become the news.

c5

 

[Savage]

Really, though, whether or not an IBOC interference lawsuit succeeds is directly related to how good KATY's lawyers are, how much effort and prep they put into the suit, their grasp of the technical details and KATY management's commitment to the litigation.

If it's just a public slap at CBS or grandstanding, it will almost certainly fail. But if Mr. Davis is committed to turning IBOC back and stopping the hiss, it will probably take six figures and several years. Lawyers will have to walk the trier of fact (probably just a judge, not a jury) through the technicalities of RF transmission, frequency allocation and the interference problems posed by IBOC. I offer myself and Barry McLarnon as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs!

IOW, litigation's an uphill battle, but it's not impossible. As I said before, I wish KATY luck. If this goes on long enough perhaps a class can be accumulated sufficient to support a class-action against iBiquity, the NAB and other HD Radio villains. But it has to be said that I'm getting ahead of the situation here. First KATY must "exhaust administrative remedies," which in the case of HD means the futile exercise of filing detailed interference complaint(s) - which as we at WYSL have seen, will be ignored.

But there's good news - if the KATY situation (or any other similar one) come to legal blows, that will have the effect of killing the whole thing. Nobody is going to invest in a pricey transmission system which could get them sued or which the FCC may eventually order them to turn off. Anybody still considering whether HD is a good thing, who's still on the fence, is gonna just conclude.....ahh, no thanks.

 

[TheBigA]

But there's good news - if the KATY situation (or any other similar one) come to legal blows, that will have the effect of killing the whole thing.

On the other hand, CBS has more lawyers than Willie Davis, and they've proven in the Janet Jackson case to be willing to fight to the death. They aren't going to simply settle or give up. And if one simply looks at the law they're dealing with, the best KATY can expect to get is a draw. Because the law was written in such a way that both stations are within their rights.

 

[TheBigA]

perhaps a class can be accumulated sufficient to support a class-action against iBiquity, the NAB and other HD Radio villains.

Wow...I just saw that. I don't know...we've seen lawsuits against alcohol and gun makers. But trade groups? That's a stretch. At the end of the day, the technology (such as it is) has the approval of the government. If it's being misused, that's one thing. But how can you put together a class action lawsuit against lawful operators?

It might be time to ask yourself: Suppose Willie loses? Or gives up? What affect will that have on this issue?

 

[tomservo]

Again, I go back to the fact that KRTH is grandfathered as to why this lawsuit, win or lose, will really mean nothing for the rest of HD-land.

The biggest change I see as possibly coming from this is the FCC clarifying the rules for grandfathered stations regarding IBOC power levels.

Question: If a grandfathered station changes its analog facilities, can't it lose is superpower status? If say KRTH or WMC-FM or WOOD-FM were to move TX sites or seek an increase in height, they'd come under current rules, correct? If so, I say that adding IBOC is a change in facilities and that, while the analog signal has not been significantly altered, the sidebands should fall under current spacing rules. If that means KRTH has 50 kW analog and only 3 watts digital, so be it, them's the breaks.

 

[Savage]

BigA, whether the defendants are trade groups or not is irrelevant. If they were promoters of the standard which has been proven to be harmful to the plaintiff, and a causal (that's not a typo for "casual") link can be proved linking the defendant to the harm, the action is likely to be permitted.

It is also irrelevant whether the government "approved" IBOC or not. People are sued every day from harm caused by "government-approved" systems and products, from aircraft to prescription and OTC drugs, etc., etc. That doesn't insulate you from liability. It would certainly be pressed as a defense, but it's not a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card.

I do agree that CBS is the odds-on favorite in a hypothetical duel with Mr. Davis. But as I said: I think whoever wins or loses is beside the point. IBOC is already highly controversial and viewed with skepticism by most broadcasters, and indifference by the listening public. If it weren't for abject stubbornness and overwrought ego, the AM version would have been scrapped already. What's left is rapidly becoming the province of its developers and NPR, a kind of digital SCA for niche formats and an pretense to launch new flanking FM translators to attack competitors (getting around the ownership caps neatly in the process.) HD is teetering, and litigation is likely to halt what little forward momentum there is.

So irrespective of the KATY controversy, will HD still be around in five years? Sure. Like SCA and C-QUAM. That's what I would predict.

 

[Savage]

I forgot: BigA asks - suppose Willie loses, or gives up - and what effect this will have on the issue.

I think it will have zero impact on the issue. IBOC promoters strenuously make the point that interference cases are "individual" and "unique," in their typically tortured logic. (It's a clumsy attempt to marginalize the interests of stations suffering from interference from HD operators.)

Any competent attorney will use their own talking-point stance against HD defendants. Should each case be considered on its merits? Or not?

 

[TheBigA]

It is also irrelevant whether the government "approved" IBOC or not. People are sued every day from harm caused by "government-approved" systems and products, from aircraft to prescription and OTC drugs, etc., etc.

OK...I see what you're saying. My car is approved, but driving it causes carbon monoxide emissions, which kills living things. It all keeps lawyers busy and rich. Doesn't do much in terms of stopping car manufacturers or drivers from what they do. We're all pissed at BP for destroying the Gulf of Mexico. So who among us is going to stop using gasoline? We all have the option of doing the right thing and buying a hybrid. I don't know about you, but I don't have one in my garage.

Which is why I say regardless of what happens here, it probably won't change too much. And we seem to agree on that.

 

[radioskeptic]

If we want Willie Davis to persevere, we have to support him. Of course, it’s pointless to try to support him before the FCC (and I’m not sure we could, since this a petition for relief from interference, not a petition for rulemaking).

No, I mean we have to support him when the case moves on to the court system by filing amicus curiae briefs. And I don’t mean that we, as private individuals, should be doing that, but rather that small independent stations – and even more importantly, state associations – should.

How many of you know about the nine-page letter the New Jersey Broadcasters Association sent to the FCC on January 21 (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020383697) – less than a week before the FCC approved the digital FM power hike (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...gn=946e9715cf-TRI_02-01-2010&utm_medium=email)?

The NJBA pointed out that “a Class B HD station would be entitled to power levels of 5,000 watts@ 150 meters vs. the 3000 watts or less @ 100 meters most NJ [Class A] stations employ.” (New Jersey is unique in being sandwiched between the New York and Philadelphia markets, and consequently relatively few of its Class A’s were able to increase their power to 6 kw when the FCC raised the limit some years back, thanks to their proximity to full-powered major market class B first-adjacents. And yes, there are a few full-powered Class B’s in NJ, but many more sub-maximum ones.)

If, as I suspect, the state broadcasters’ associations in many states that have no top 20 markets within their borders are dominated by small independents, as the NJBA is, those organizations should be eager to back Willie Davis.

And don’t underestimate the influence of those groups on members of Congress from suburban and rural areas. State groups can take credit for getting many Representatives to co-sponsor the House resolution against repealing radio’s exemption from paying royalties on sound recordings – and in at least one case, for getting a member who had been a co-sponsor of the RIAA’s bill to withdraw his name from it and switch sides!

So there is something the state groups can do while this thing is still pending at the FCC.

 

[ve3jf]

The old mask, as defined in § 73.317, was effectively replaced when the FCC adopted the NRSC-5 standard...

Check again ... the FCC has not adopted the NRSC-5 standard.

There was a round of public comment on NRSC-5 in the Summer of 2005, but nothing ever came of it. In the Second Report and Order (Spring 2007) see Paragraph 12, which says in part, "our consideration of the NRSC-5 IBOC standards is continuing." Earlier this week, Media Bureau told stations to "certif[y] that, except for the digital ERP, the IBOC facilities conform to the iBiquity specifications" -- no mention of either NRSC-5 or FCC specifications. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-866A1.pdf One can only imagine that they are referring to Appendix B of the First Report and Order. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A2.pdf Table A-3 sets the subcarrier power levels, but this document also requires use of the PAC codec!

I will agree that § 73.317 was effectively replaced for hybrid digital transmission by § 73.404(a), but this belies the point. The recent amendment to § 73.404(a) was adopted, among other reasons, because it was supposedly consistent with § 73.317. This rational, as given in the Order, was based on false information -- the elevated power levels (and even the original -20 dBc power level) do NOT fall within the limits prescribed by § 73.317.

See my recent filings on 99-325 for more of the story.

- Jonathan

Thanks for that clarification. It's yet another illustration of what a quagmire IBOC has become. I've followed the technical issues fairly closely, but the legal issues make my eyes glaze over. Jonathan has been waging a lonely battle to have the recent Media Bureau Order on the power increase reviewed, and I encourage everyone to take a look at those recent filings. You certainly won't be reading much about them in the broadcast media.

 

[stacker]

Getting behind any attempt to stop increased interference is always a good idea. Contact your state association and let them know how you stand.

However, looking back, many state associations filed supporting comments in lock-step with the NAB. I had several "warm-to-heated" discussions with the former exec. director of my state organization in the early IBOC days. The head of our state organization was not an engineer; he was absolutely clueless on the issues. No engineering staff (and no real staff other than his administrative assistant). As a result, our state rubber stamped the NAB position. I guess it was the easy thing to do.

Educate them if you can. It's often an uphill battle with the "mini-NAB's".

 

[TheBigA]

No, I mean we have to support him when the case moves on to the court system by filing amicus curiae briefs.

The court system isn't a popularity contest, where the side with the most briefs wins. It's not a reality TV show where viewers vote to send a contestant home. Hopefully, it's about following the law. I've followed a lot of these hearings, especially in the 3rd Circuit, and that kind of thing is not taken seriously. It really comes down to two arguments, the two sides of the issue.

However, looking back, many state associations filed supporting comments in lock-step with the NAB.

Of course. Those who join the NAB tend to also be active in their state associations. So there are a lot of similarities. I notice that the presidents of several state ass'ns happen to be GMs of stations owned by companies in the Alliance. Don't expect them to say anything bad about HD. And regardless of the negatives, it IS a form of broadcasting. It's bad form for broadcasters to be seen to have a divided house. Infighting is not the kind of thing trade associations that depend on membership money want to promote. They'd rather not say anything than create waves. I've been in a lot of those meetings and you learn how to bite your tongue. The NJ situation was unusual, as skeptic pointed out, because of the state's geographic location between New York and Philadelphia.

 

[Savage]

Which neatly circumscribes yet another of IBOC's bad features. Aside from the interference, the cost, the dubious results and the endless parade of engineering errors, lies and band-aids - it's bad for the industry because it's bitterly divisive.

HD Radio divides the industry into two classes, where one tries to grab a purported advantage at the expense of others. It's confiscatory and dishonest. There's a new "elite" class which has been cynically created, and it doesn't even deliver its promised advantages to listeners, so it's also pointless.

The last thing the radio industry needs these days is infighting. But that's what HD creates. In the long run, we'll all pay for it.

 

[radioskeptic]

BREAKING NEWS! According to TRI this morning, a second Class A in SoCal has filed a complaint about “HD” interference from a grand-fathered super powered Class B first-adjacent in LA. This time it’s KMLA of Oxnard (103.7), owned by Gold Coast Radio (not Gold Coast Broadcasting), versus Clear Channel’s KOST (103.5).

It’s interesting that both plaintiff stations have minority group significance: While AC KATY isn’t an urban AC, it is owned by black ex-football player Willie Davis, while KMLA’s format is Regional Mexican. Will that help gain the interest of the Black Congressional Caucus or of the Hispanics in Congress?

 

[jhardis]

BREAKING NEWS! According to TRI this morning, a second Class A in SoCal has filed a complaint...

This "complaint" was an informal one-page letter, lacking quantitative data, and it was sent April 5.

http://earthsignals.com/add_CGC/FCC_KMLA-FM.jpg

 

[Savage]

Wow: THAT'S not going to work. Here's hoping the Complainants hire qualified engineers and attorneys to compose a proper, thorough complaint and that they re-file - if they haven't already done so.

 

[TheBigA]

HD Radio divides the industry into two classes, where one tries to grab a purported advantage at the expense of others.

Everyone is looking for an advantage. That's the nature of competition. The American system of broadcasting created that situation, where I have more power than you, I have a better tower location, or I have something grandfathered that you can't have. Lots of examples of that in broadcasting through the years. That's what happens when you have too many people who all want the same valuable land. HD didn't create that. Competition created that. The solution isn't getting rid of HD, because something else will come along that'll cause the exact same furor. It always does. Running to broadcasting trade groups asking them to take sides isn't the way to make things better. It just gets everyone even more pissed off at each other. It's like the Hatfields going to the McCoys and bringing up the fact that their grandpappy made moonshine. Them's fightin' words, pardner.

 

[audioguy]

The Internet is the factor that might put an end to "I was here first", "I've got a bigger tower than you have", and "I'm allowed to broadcast in HD so I can legally spill onto your channel and wipe you out". Personally, I can't wait. The current regulatory policies have turned our broadcasting bands into a polluted sea of interference and noise, and as far as I am concerned most of it is self inflicted; not caused by electronic appliances. I'm just waiting for Internet radio technology to improve to make the user experience better.

 

[TheBigA]

The Internet is the factor that might put an end to "I was here first", "I've got a bigger tower than you have", and "I'm allowed to broadcast in HD so I can legally spill onto your channel and wipe you out". Personally, I can't wait.

Two things about the internet. It levels the playing field in terms of access. Everyone has access to an audience. The difference is not everyone gets heard. The goal isn't to just speak, but to be heard. That's what the battle will be about. So everyone turns into a walking advertisement for their web site. So people go to your MySpace or Facebook and paste their web address, trying to steal some of your audience to their site. That's going on now.

The second part of the battle will be when regulation comes in. We're living in the wild west of internet now. Everyone can do what they want. You can already hear the rumblings of the future, as ISPs want to charge for bandwidth, and offer tiered services like cable. The government wants to get involved and force certain standards on companies. At some point, the internet will become what radio is now. It won't happen overnight. It took 80 years for radio to get this way. But it will happen.