Lawmakers order FCC to stand down; put actions on hold

[KB1OKL]

It looks like old Kevy Martin may have a few problems way up there on his teetering ivory tower, perhaps the proposed 10 db IBOC increase may be on hold for now? perhaps other less beholden to lobbyists and big business people will decide crucial decisions based on merit instead of money and power? Is Kevy now out of commission? (pun intended). Jeez we'll miss ya Kevy Boy. Stay tuned.


"Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) today called on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to put the agency's actions on hold unless they are urgent or required by law.

Rockefeller's and Waxman's committees both have jurisdiction over the FCC.
The two lawmakers said the FCC should focus on completing the broadcast digital TV transition next February, but not on unrelated matters - particularly any controversial issues that the Obama administration will want to review."

//cut//

"If the FCC indeed must stand down (an FCC spokesperson said they are reviewing the order right now), then the WCS-SDARS issue - and even the HD Radio mandate * - would likely be put on hold until the new administration moves in."

* bold added

more at:

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/fcc-ordered-to-stand-down-and-put-actions-on-hold.html#more

 

[rbrucecarter5]

A stay of execution for the FM band - no 10dB increase for a few weeks. After that, it probably doesn't matter that the democans are in power instead of the republicrats - we will get an FCC that rubber stamps the total destruction of the FM band in the image of the AM band destruction by massive interference.

 

[Savage]

In the long run, rbruce, that may be what finally brings the curtain down on the IBOC disaster. I've long said, "let the calf have all the rope."

The HD-AM situation has been easier to finesse, since most of the worst-affected adjacents are co-owned by Alliance kool-aiders and they've indulged in a considerable amount of self-mitigation to protect their own properties. And on the other hand, many of the victim AM stations don't have the expertise or resources to defend themselves. Plus there are only about 80 AM stations on at night with HD. Even with all this tap-dancing the nighttime IBOC interference, particularly in the Northeast, is horrible.

But transplant the AM situation to FM - watch the fur fly. Now we're not talking about distant markets, graveyarders, and given-up-for-dead AM properties. We'll be talking about some guy whose $15 million Class B/C move-in FM in a major market is now worth precisely nothing. And that doesn't even take into consideration the estimated 35% loss of in-car listening due to self-interference.

I think 10db more on FM will again be self-limiting, but for different reasons. For a big percentage of operations the technical requirements and costs of rebuilding entire transmitting plants will be nixed by management - especially in the current economic climate. Plus, IMO, a decade of increased signal strength will produce little perceptible real-world improvement in digital penetration.

 

[pocket-radio]

The new administration wants diversity and is less likely to be kinder to the consolidation mentally. Things are going to be interesting in 09.

With or without HD, I just want radio to once again focus on what drives our business and that’s great content and serving our local communities. I’m afraid being beholden to Wall Street has done more irreversible damage like driving away listeners and reducing content to jukebox driven formats and button pushing personalities, with 10 in a row, commercials that is.

My biggest gripe with HD is the lack of content, plus digital noise that doesn’t work with analog.

 

[Carmine5]

The new administration wants diversity and is less likely to be kinder to the consolidation mentally. Things are going to be interesting in 09.

Given the Obama Administration's desire for diversity in media ownership, don't be surprised if the usual HD Radio suspects try to sell the 10 db power boost on that platform. They will attempt to equate the side channel leasing opportunities of HD Radio to that of DTV.

"But, darn it, to make this happen we NEED that power boost so that "locally-diverse" (notice the buzz words) radio can reach every house, office building, car, houseboat and bunker across America."

Then when they do get the power boost and the administration begins pressing the radio industry for a little fulfillment on what's been promised, these same characters will scream government interference. "They're trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine!", or bring to mind a similar boogyman.

Worst offender is the NAB. They have never been shy about stooping to arguments of the most transparently dishonest kind in order to manipulate Congress and the FCC into giving them what they want.

C5

 

[briankay]

I have a HD radio and I want the 10dB power increase. Someone mentioned it would make almost no improvement in reception, I wholeheartedly disagree.

I agree that on the AM band that the HD sidebands do cause problems but implying that the interference would be the same on the FM (after the 10dB increase) is an apple to oranges comparison. I'm 3 miles away from a 6kW HD station on 95.9 and I can hear the first adjacents 95.7 and 96.1 just about as clearly as 2 years ago before this station started HD radio with. The difference is, that with FM you are listening to a variation in frequency not a variation in amplitude so the HD sidebands are much more disguised compared to the AM sidebands. The NPR lab figures for interference/listener loss were based on listeners that would not be able to achieve at least 50dB signal to noise ratio FM stereo sound with analog. Listenable reception for most people can be tolerated with FM in most of the areas that NPR marked as lost listeners because people don't tune out when the signal goes to mono.

Station should also optimize their antennas to the "single lobe" type. This would reduce the multipath signal variation from +-10 dB to +-2dB and this would help mobile listeners especially

One other thing except for elite audiophiles the sound quality is excellent on HD radio (especially if the source material uses lossless codecs)

I really hope this power increase happens soon so that the HD radio transition can finally begin to really happen which should increase the acceptability of HD FM radio amongst the general public.

Then maybe we can also have a few pure digital AM stations which should even make the AM dxers happy as AM HD in pure digital mode has virtually no adjacent channel interference.

 

[calstymes]

Carmine5 suggested:

Worst offender is the NAB. They have never been shy about stooping to arguments of the most transparently dishonest kind in order to manipulate Congress and the FCC into giving them what they want.

You mean the NAB behaves just like every other congressional lobbyist does?

Shocking!

 

[Len14043]

Briankay, I agree with your assessment of HD radio concerning the 10 db power increase. It will enable digital reception to be reliable indoors to the distant suburbs of most cities. Some posters claim the increase will not make a difference. If you follow that logic, than it shouldn't hurt HD reception if the power is decreased by a factor of 10! While its true that 10% injection will cause interference to some analog signals in crowded markets, I don't see that as a problem. The hybrid mode is intended to phase in digital radio and if the digital reception is improved at the expense of analog, so be it. It is obvious that digital transmission is a superior method over analog given the performance of the current system when considering the 100/1 ratio of analog to digital power.

 

[Chuck]

While its true that 10% injection will cause interference to some analog signals in crowded markets, I don't see that as a problem.

If you owned one of those stations that will receive interference, I'll bet you'd sing a different song.

 

[jhardis]

While its true that 10% injection will cause interference to some analog signals in crowded markets, I don't see that as a problem. The hybrid mode is intended to phase in digital radio and if the digital reception is improved at the expense of analog, so be it.

Sorry, but the comments on the FCC Docket (99-325) have moved beyond this binary "either/or" thinking. There are two trains of thought to allow both stronger digital signals and better protection of analog stations than the 10% proposal would provide. First, there are references to negotiation on a rule set that would allow marginal power increases depending on the situation. Second, the better technical solution -- according to an NPR study -- would be single frequency networks.

- Jonathan

 

[Carmine5]

Carmine5 suggested:

Worst offender is the NAB. They have never been shy about stooping to arguments of the most transparently dishonest kind in order to manipulate Congress and the FCC into giving them what they want.

You mean the NAB behaves just like every other congressional lobbyist does?

Shocking!

Well, since this isn't the meat packer's forum or the auto worker's forum or anything other than radio, I can't rightly comment on the efforts of other lobby groups.

Unfortunately for the NAB, there are enough technical experts in the field to refute some of the junk arguments they've raised in the past.

C5

 

[Play Freebird]

Second, the better technical solution -- according to an NPR study -- would be single frequency networks.

I agree, and said so in my Docket 99-325 comments.

An SFN uses synchronized local "booster" transmitters in areas receiving poor coverage from the main site -- for instance, behind hills and in built-up urban districts where better building penetration is desired. Those of you familiar with the "Inverse Square Law" will understand why the SFN approach should work much better than a blanket 10 dB digital increase at the main site. If you're not familiar with this important Law of Physics, look it up in Google. In simple terms, it means you can increase the received signal power at least 6 dB by reducing the distance from the (closest) transmitter in half. (The 6 dB guideline applies to "free-space", but across typical urban building clutter and rough terrain, the increase is often much greater.) Cut the distance in half again, and you've increased the signal by 12 dB. Reduce the path distance to 1/8 of the original value, and now the signal is at least 18 dB higher.

Think of a market like Houston where the FM antenna farm is on the outskirts of town. A 1 kW digital SFN booster in the central business district would probably deliver an improvement of more than 30 dB inside large office buildings; this would be a much more effective way to reach those listeners than the proposed 10 dB increase.

Unfortunately, IBOC hybrid digital doesn't lend itself well to SFNs because both components must be "boosted" to avoid overriding the analog with adjacent-channel digital, and it is much more difficult to obtain acceptable results from analog FM boosters than digital.

However, an all digital system (between 76-88 MHz as proposed by the BMC group) would avoid this problem because it the analog component of existing AM stations would remain in the medium wave band. SFN digital boosters would need to be spaced and synchronized in such a way so propagation delay from adjacent sites would stay within the "COFDM Guard Interval" (look that up in Google, too), but thanks to GPS timing this is no longer hard to do.

 

[Play Freebird]

I'm 3 miles away from a 6kW HD station on 95.9 and I can hear the first adjacents 95.7 and 96.1 just about as clearly as 2 years ago before this station started HD radio with.

I interpret this to mean you couldn't hear 95.7 and 96.1 well before the local station turned on HD, and you still can't receive them well (in other words, "just about as clearly" as before) so you're probably telling the truth.

But beware of the "Peter Principle". Just because a kid successfully builds a "house of cards" five stories high doesn't mean he can add another five levels without the whole thing collapsing. Just because Bernie Madoff apparently made his investors amazing returns for years didn't prove he could keep doing it. (But look at all the people who couldn't figure that out.) Just because the FM IBOC interference situation has been somewhat acceptable at -20 dB does not mean the digital power can be turned up to -10 dB without serious side-effects.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Given the Obama Administration's desire for diversity in media ownership, don't be surprised if the usual HD Radio suspects try to sell the 10 db power boost on that platform.

Listen, this guy is the fastest sell-out to big business in history. Not even ten days after winning the election - he was all the sudden for this massive bailout. Even the Republicans are balking at this stuff.

So - given his new track record of siding with big business - he will almost undoubtedly side with the radio conglomerates and iBiquity and give FM its 10 dB increase - minority ownership will be given lip service to only if it is OK with the radio industry.

 

[jhardis]

Second, the better technical solution -- according to an NPR study -- would be single frequency networks.

I agree, and said so in my Docket 99-325 comments. ...

Unfortunately, IBOC hybrid digital doesn't lend itself well to SFNs because both components must be "boosted" to avoid overriding the analog with adjacent-channel digital, and it is much more difficult to obtain acceptable results from analog FM boosters than digital.

Sorry, I don't understand your argument. There's no proposal to "boost" (multiply transmit from different places) the analog, only the digital sidebands. (In analog, it would be a multipath nightmare.) The alternative proposal presumes that the initial analog/digital power ratio can change by a factor of 10 and not mess up reception. There would seem to be little consequential difference -- except the benefit to neighboring stations -- between increasing the digital subcarrier field strength by increasing power at the main antenna or by fielding additional, much lower power transmitters closer to the receivers.

- Jonathan

 

[fybush]

Unfortunately, IBOC hybrid digital doesn't lend itself well to SFNs because both components must be "boosted" to avoid overriding the analog with adjacent-channel digital, and it is much more difficult to obtain acceptable results from analog FM boosters than digital.

Sorry, I don't understand your argument. There's no proposal to "boost" (multiply transmit from different places) the analog, only the digital sidebands. (In analog, it would be a multipath nightmare.) The alternative proposal presumes that the initial analog/digital power ratio can change by a factor of 10 and not mess up reception. There would seem to be little consequential difference -- except the benefit to neighboring stations -- between increasing the digital subcarrier field strength by increasing power at the main antenna or by fielding additional, much lower power transmitters closer to the receivers.

Au contraire. There's a very BIG difference between the "Joint Parties" 10 dB proposal and what you're suggesting.

The analog/digital hybrid system we're stuck with (at least for now) works, to the extent it works at all, because the ratio between the analog and digital carriers is constant across the listening area.

We've seen how badly analog reception can be screwed up just by the use of separate antennas for digital and analog with different radiation patterns at the same tower site. Now imagine putting additional "much lower power" digital transmitters in other locations throughout the analog service area - what should be a -20 dBc analog/digital ratio can easily go to 0 dBc or worse in areas close to a digital transmitter but distant from the main analog signal, wiping out analog completely over broad areas that should be covered.

And as you yourself note, you can't fix the problem by adding an analog SFN to the mix - "in analog, it would be a multipath nightmare."

Where the SFN concept has real promise is over in the DTV arena, in markets like Hartford/New Haven or Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo with multiple population centers that are difficult or impossible to reach from a single high-power tx site.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Listen, this guy is the fastest sell-out to big business in history. Not even ten days after winning the election - he was all the sudden for this massive bailout. Even the Republicans are balking at this stuff.

So - given his new track record of siding with big business - he will almost undoubtedly side with the radio conglomerates and iBiquity and give FM its 10 dB increase - minority ownership will be given lip service to only if it is OK with the radio industry.

If there was a SELL OUT, we could start a new thread and have the following argument: Obama sold out. Did he sell out to BIG BUSINESS (car manufacturers) or did he sell out to BIG UNIONS (car labor)?

Or did he SELL OUT to the general public who has a lot to lose if we slip and slide into a 1929 style depression that goes on for 10 years or so?

I think I am going to wait until the inauguration and then give him a few months to demonstrate to us whether he has been bought and paid for by some vested interest. Seems to me to be the fair thing to do.

Now, back to the our original program. It was about CONGRESS sending a message to the FCC... wasn't it?

 

[jhardis]

Au contraire. There's a very BIG difference between the "Joint Parties" 10 dB proposal and what you're suggesting.

Exactly! What I'm suggesting is what NPR tested and found superior.

National Public Radio, Report to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Digital Radio Coverage & Interference Analysis (DRCIA) Project: Single Frequency Network Report, Deliverable 6.1.4, January 21, 2008; available electronically at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520034767.

- Jonathan

 

[fybush]

Au contraire. There's a very BIG difference between the "Joint Parties" 10 dB proposal and what you're suggesting.

Exactly! What I'm suggesting is what NPR tested and found superior.

"Tested," yes. "Found superior," maybe not so much. The NPR report glosses over the question of SFN feasibility in a hybrid analog/digital environment:

In a system such as hybrid HD Radio using both digital and analog carriers, the whole
question about SFNs becomes complicated. As discussed above, the digital part of the
signal is not a problem, but the analog part will suffer from the known problems of
analog SFNs. (Note that the problem is not a fundamental imitation with analog signal;
the problem is that the analog signal, just as many digital signals, requires an equalizer to
work in a multipath environment.)

A receiver that can handle digital signals does have the processing power to implement
an equalizer for the analog signal. But since existing analog receivers lack one, it is
presently a moot point.

Translation: Current analog radios can't handle interference between co-channel analog transmitters, as would be found in a hybrid analog/digital SFN.

The KCSN test worked - to the extent it worked (I heard it and was not terribly impressed) - because there's a big terrain obstacle between KCSN's primary coverage area and the area covered by the SFN transmitter. In effect, the SFN analog signal functioned as an on-channel booster, and anyone who's dealt with on-channel boosters in the analog FM environment to any extent knows that they often cause more problems than they solve.

The NPR Labs report you cite makes a few brief references to the idea of a digital-only SFN booster system; it doesn't go on to address the effect that would have on analog reception, except for this one mention on page 20:

Third, the power of a digital-only repeater must be limited to minimize interference to reception of the analog FM from the primary station.

I don't see how you could maintain a reasonable digital-to-analog ratio (even the generous -10 dBc being discussed by the FCC now) if you've got a digital-only transmitter of any power at all at any real distance from the analog site.

Freebird, you want to take it from here? (He's actually an engineer, after all - I just speak the language fairly fluently...)

 

[Play Freebird]

I don't see how you could maintain a reasonable digital-to-analog ratio (even the generous -10 dBc being discussed by the FCC now) if you've got a digital-only transmitter of any power at all at any real distance from the analog site.

Freebird, you want to take it from here? (He's actually an engineer, after all - I just speak the language fairly fluently...)

Gladly.

Analog and digital modulation schemes each have their "pros and cons", but one definite advantage of digital is its ability to support on-channel synchronized boosters. Keep in mind that the information in a digital system is sent in discrete intervals, so as long as the propagation delay between a transmitter and a desired coverage area is kept within a certain "time window", it's possible to add fill-in transmitters that will reinforce the main signal rather than destroying it.

FM analog, on the other hand, sends information by continually-varying the station's frequency -- and when multipath reflections combine with the direct signal, the time differences cause cancellation of certain components and this results in distortion.

Problem is, if you add a digital booster to fill in a "dead spot", you must also add an analog booster that provides a similar signal strength increase, otherwise, the analog signal will get clobbered by those digital sidebands. Therefore, it is much easier to build a single frequency network if you don't need to deal with analog. Those of us who live in the real world understand IBOC must remain in the hybrid mode for several more decades to support hundreds of millions of analog receivers that aren't going away anytime soon.

So if we want a radio system that actually delivers the full advantages of digital, we need to consider reassigning under-used broadcast spectrum (i.e. low-band VHF TV channels) to all-digital use. The Broadcast Maximization Committee has proposed a very workable plan than would allow existing AM broadcasters use of these frequencies. Digital receivers would sense a low-speed data signal within an AM station's analog channel and retune to the VHF digital channel if available. This would function much like PSIP in digital TV; the AM station would not need to change its "dial position" or callsign.

I say, leave FM IBOC as it is; at -20 dB injection, we've probably acheived the best compromise between coverage and adjacent-channel interference. Besides, the free market has demonstrated that listeners are generally satisfied with the performance of FM analog as it stands.

On the other hand, AM IBOC should shut down immediately and the BMC plan should be implemented instead. Broadcasters who want superior digital coverage can then build an SFN across their respective markets using the low-band VHF AM digital allocations.