Let’s set the Buffalo News straight!

[radioskeptic]

On April 28, the Buffalo News published this lamentable regurgitation of some Iniquity Digital Corporation talking points: “After 13 years, inventor waits for HD radio to break out,” by Jane Kwiatkowski. (http://www.buffalonews.com/entertainment/gusto/article831033.ece)

It wasn’t just a puff piece on a failed technology; it was also a virtual hagiography of Iniquity CEO and Buffalo area native Bob Struble—a classic “local boy makes good” story.

“There are no comments on this story,” says the web page. But that’s not true. Ten days ago, there were comments—every single one favorable to “HD”—but they’ve all been removed from the paper’s web site. (I wish I had saved the web page as it was on April 29!) But when I tried other stories on the paper’s web site, every one had the same statement—and no link for posting comments.

I tried to register to post a comment on the “HD” story under my own name. I also provide all the information they wanted, but the site wouldn’t let me register. (The paper has one of the most restrictive policies on comments I’ve ever seen: “Web site policy eliminating anonymous comments takes effect,” http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/buffalo/article90884.ece.)

So I’m posting the comment I couldn’t post on that story below.

What made me return a week later to a puff piece I’d nearly forgotten? That Tom Kent nonsense! See the thread ‘Tom Kent on HD Radio: "OMG - WTF!"’ on this discussion board (and yes, I was able to post on the Radio Ink piece).

So here’s my letter to the reporter (I sent a CC to the editor), followed by the comment I tried to post.

LETTER TO JANE KWIATKOWSKI

I was very disappointed with your April 28 story headlined "After 13 years, inventor waits for HD radio to break out."

I hope this doesn't sound too condescending, but I'm afraid you were the victim of a slick public relations campaign.

I tried to post a comment, but your paper's web site wouldn't let me register.

On April 29, there were several comments posted (four or five of them by a single enthusiast), all of them favorable. I really wanted to bring some balance to the conversation. (For your information, I'm attaching the comment I tried to post.)

But when I revisted that page today, all the comments were gone, and the page included this statement: "There are no comments on this story."

Only one of the four persons posting comments was from the Buffalo area. The others were from California, Illinois and New Hampshire. So why couldn't I post something from here in New Jersey?

Don't misunderstsand me. I'm not criticizing the Buffalo News for refusing anonoymous comments. I agree with that policy, and I wish more paper would do that.

But I do have to wonder why I couldn't post a comment critical of something that is highly controversial within the radio industry precisely because it is so clearly a technical, as well as a commercial, failure.

MY COMMENT ON HER STORY:

Are Buffalo News reporters so easily misled? This story represents a triumph of public relations over true journalism.

If all the comments so far have been favorable, that's only because those who've been commenting are not disinterested observers. Chris Homes owns a shop that installs after-market car sound equipment, and he posted the first comment in hopes of drumming up business.

I don't know what Steven Scharf's connection is, but he's one of the web's most inveterate supporters of this ill-conceived technology. (See http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/search?q=SMS&start=0&scoring=d)

As for Tom Langmyer, he's the general manager (GM) of WGN, an AM station that turned off its "HD" in 2010. But his résumé includes some important jobs at CBS, which has been even more supportive of "HD" than Clear Channel. (And the Wikipedia article on Langmyer includes this caveat: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Make what you will of that!)

And Harry Kozlowski is the GM of WCNH on the fringe of the Concord, NH market (the transmitter is in Bow). WCNH is a very weak station. Its primary coverage area includes only part of Concord, but its programming is re-transmitted on WEVO HD-2 in Concord. That explains his position.

For a more realistic view of the technology, I recommend the "HD Radio" discussion board at Radio-Info (http://boards.radio-info.com). But for those who don't have the time for that, let me try to explain what's wrong with "HD" as clearly as possible.

First, "HD" causes interference to adjacent channel stations. An AM "HD" stations radiates energy over five channels, and those "HD" signals travel thousands of miles at night. The interference was so bad that ABC discontinued nighttime "HD" on both WABC (770 NYC) and WJR (760 Detroit) because they were interfering with each other's analog signals inside each other's primary coverage areas!

On FM, the "HD" signals cover only the closer half of each first-adjacent channel, but that's been enough to deprive some listeners of formerly useable fringe signals.

Next, "HD" audio quality is not "high definition." The bandwidth is limited, and an FM "HD" stream is generally comparable to 64k web audio, or even worse if there are three programs (both an HD-2 and an HD-3) -- and the AM version of "HD" makes 32k web audio sound good by comparison.

Multi-casting is limited to the FM version, and for HD-2 and -3 listeners, there's no analog signal to fall back on when digital reception fails -- as it frequently does, especially in mobile reception.

That's because digital transmission doesn't work very well in the VHF range (and hardly works at all in the medium frequency, or MF, band occupied by AM radio), though it works reasonably well on UHF. (That's why most TV stations kept their digital channels, though they identify with their original analog channels. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_channel.)

 

[radioskeptic]

This is a continuaion of the comment I tried to post on the Buffalo News story. (Sorry about missing the second page when I copied and pasted the first page into my original post above!)

Finally, I want to address the false analogy between the failure of "HD" to take off and the long time it took for FM to gain popular acceptance.

The big networks either owned, or had contracts with, the biggest AM stations. They didn't want a new band that would bring new competition, and they did everything they could to stop its progress. I recommend looking up the tragic story of Major E. H. Armstrong, the inventor of FM.

Color TV was another matter, and there the comparison is more apt -- though not in the way "HD" proponents would have you believe. Early color TV looked terrible. Skies, seas and grass looked good, but skin tones were awful. And most yellows, oranges, reds and browns were less than satisfactory, too, because the original red phosphor in the picture tubes was too weak, and far from pure.

The discovery of the "rare earth red" phosphor in 1961 changed everything -- or it did when it began showing up in consumer receivers in the fall of 1964. It was then that ABC and CBS began doing at least part of their prime-time schedules in color. Within five years, most of their schedules, including daytime programs, were in color, and most consumers had at least one color receiver.

But there can be no such solution for "HD" radio. It's one thing to replace the weakest link in a chain when that link is a manufactured item. But the electromagnetic spectrum is not a product. It is a part of nature, and Ibiquity can no more change the laws of radio propagation than the law of gravity. There simply is no fix, simple or otherwise, for this fundamentally flawed technology.

 

[davideduardo]

The big networks either owned, or had contracts with, the biggest AM stations. They didn't want a new band that would bring new competition, and they did everything they could to stop its progress. I recommend looking up the tragic story of Major E. H. Armstrong, the inventor of FM.

That's really not the story of FM or Maj. Armstrong. What happened is that Armstrong, a major shareholder of RCA and the inventor of many patents such as the superheterodyne, had a falling out with Gen. Sarnoff.

Sarnoff did not want to pay royalties to Armstrong, so RCA did not encourage FM. When they did produce FM radios, they used RCA's own, inferior, technology.

When FM started developing in '46, AM's had a lot more to worry about as the FCC doubled the number of AMs between the end of the War and 1950. Mutual became a much bigger factor, and RCA, divested of one network (which became ABC) had the challenge of competing with three other webs instead of just CBS.

Color TV was another matter, and there the comparison is more apt -- though not in the way "HD" proponents would have you believe.

Color TV was an RCA vs. the rest issue. CBS's system failed to work, as did other attempts. So ABC and CBS resisted converting mostly so as to not fall under the influence of Sarnoff... until it became obvious that they had no other choice.

The stories of FM and color TV are not really about technology. They are, mostly, about three powerful and wealthy people: General Sarnoff, Bill Paley and Maj. Edwin Armstrong.

 

[radioskeptic]

In this case, David Eduardo is about as credible as David Barton.

Sarnoff did indeed object to paying royalties to inventors like Armstrong. But RCA had a chance to buy Armstrong’s FM patents outright in 1934, and refused. They wanted all available spectrum assigned to Sarnoff’s pet project, which was television. RCA had private tests of FM using the finals and antenna of the experimental Channel 1 TV station atop the Empire State Building, and the company’s engineers were wildly enthusiastic about it. Rejecting FM was solely Sarnoff’s decision.

FM broadcasting began in 1938 on the old pre-war band. Zenith, GE and a few others agreed to license Armstrong’s patents on a per-receiver basis—the same way “HD” technology is licensed (except not at such an exorbitant rate!). When it looked like there was some real promise in FM—ever heard of the Yankee Network? (look it up on on Wikipedia!)—RCA was suddenly interested in becoming a licensee. But RCA refused to pay anything but a single fee for an open-ended license, and thus the legal battle was joined.

Armstrong had invented everything we rely on even today for all modern communications. Can you imagine digital audio or video in any form using a digital clock incorporating a spark gap oscillator!?!

The feedback oscillator was a direct outgrowth of Armstrong’s invention of the regenerative receiver. He lost his patent on that in a battle with AT&T, which had bought Lee DeForest’s patents (in one of the most illogical Supreme Court decisions in history; DeForest had invented the “Audion” triode tube and understood the concept of amplification, but not the phenomenon of feedback).

And Armstrong invented the superheterodyne as a captain in the Army Signal Corps during World War I, and was promoted to the rank of major for it. It was his only major patent never challenged by a major corporation—partly because he had licensed it exclusively to RCA for a limited time in the Twenties.

Of course, his FM patents were ultimately upheld, but only after he had been driven to suicide by his financial situation, which was the result of his principled stand against RCA.

Now as for color TV, David, you in no way refuted what I said about the early (pre-rare earth red) color TV’s being terrible. And I can only imagine Sarnoff’s pique at having to pay royalties to GT&E (Sylvania) for the rare earth red phosphor. But without it, color TV looked so bad that it would have remained a niche market for those given to conspicuous consumption, and ABC and CBS wouldn’t have joined RCA-owned NBC in using the RCA color system for at least a few more years.

You were almost right about one thing, though:

The stories of FM and color TV are not really about technology. They are, mostly, about three powerful and wealthy people: General Sarnoff, Bill Paley and Maj. Edwin Armstrong.

They are about technology, and they are about three wealthy people. But Armstrong was not powerful, and his wealth, which disappeared in his legal battles with RCA, was almost entirely based on the RCA stock he got for licensing the superhet patent to RCA exclusively back in the Twenties.

 

[KB1OKL]

On April 28, the Buffalo News published this lamentable regurgitation of some Iniquity Digital Corporation talking points: “After 13 years, inventor waits for HD radio to break out,” by Jane Kwiatkowski. (http://www.buffalonews.com/entertainment/gusto/article831033.ece)

It wasn’t just a puff piece on a failed technology; it was also a virtual hagiography of Iniquity CEO and Buffalo area native Bob Struble—a classic “local boy makes good” story.

“There are no comments on this story,” says the web page. But that’s not true. Ten days ago, there were comments—every single one favorable to “HD”—but they’ve all been removed from the paper’s web site. (I wish I had saved the web page as it was on April 29!) But when I tried other stories on the paper’s web site, every one had the same statement—and no link for posting comments.

I tried to register to post a comment on the “HD” story under my own name. I also provide all the information they wanted, but the site wouldn’t let me register. (The paper has one of the most restrictive policies on comments I’ve ever seen: “Web site policy eliminating anonymous comments takes effect,” http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/buffalo/article90884.ece.)

I also saw the ra ra responses from the cheerleaders and tried to comment and they wanted everything except my newborn to be able to comment, you had to give them your name, address and telephone number and then you had to wait until they called you. I don't mind name and address but phone number? No Way. I would be willing to bet that Strubie and crew knew about the extremely restrictive policy before allowing them to write that puff piece. By the way how would you like to buy a car from the weasel in the picture? Would you trust him to watch your kids?

 

[davideduardo]

When it looked like there was some real promise in FM—ever heard of the Yankee Network? (look it up on on Wikipedia!)—

To me, a sign of a losing argument is having to cite Wikipedia.

The Yankee Network existed well before even experimental FM began...

http://www.americanradiohistory.com...935-10-15-BC-0005.pdf#search="yankee network"

... and it consisted of a regional subset of CBS affiliates, like WNAC, not an FM only operation.

Here is a 1938 station list. Last I checked, stations like WTIC, WNAC, WEAN and WTAG were heritage AMs in the three main New England markets of the time.

But the most telling story is in

http://www.americanradiohistory.com...939-06-01-BC-0019.pdf#search="yankee network"

... where it shows that the long-established Yankee network was going to add the FM capability and use "station to station" rebroadcast as a way around the need for wired networks. In other words, feed the AMs with the FM and use the FM also as an inter-city relay.

Yankee built FMs in Boston and Mt Washington. It continued as a regional web, but changed to Mutual and by the end of the war, was the only regional network having two seats on the Mutual board.

The Yankee Network was not, as wikipedia states, "an FM network." It was an AM network that had a couple of FM simulcasts and which used FM to relay programming.

 

[Savage]

Hey gents: I wouldn't fret about this. The Buffalo News has dropped about 50% of its circulation, median reader age is 116 and half of them are named "Stosh." You know: "Aitch Deee Raydeeoh? Wadda hell is DAT??" (Retunes to MOYL on his 1963 Admiral all-American five...)

If you were to actually get a post up at that rag, you'd be way over the heads of your audience with this subject.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Thank goodness that they have the Gannett newspapers in the rest of the state to set the record straight.

 

[radioskeptic]

The commentxs are restored today -- so now you can see what I referring to in the comment that the system wouldn't let me post.

And you'll see what i meant when I sid that all the comments thus far had been favorable to "HD" because "those who've been commenting are not disinterested observers."

And note that self-promoter Tom Langmyer (whose Wikipedia page carries a warning about its probable lack of objectivity) posted six of the nine comments!

 

[Savage]

No, Rox, Gannett papers are even worse. You would think that the venerable print media would have figured out by now that pumping out editorial content that's violently in conflict with the preferences and values of its primary readers, is NOT a great business model. If there's a major-to-medium market paper which hasn't seen double-digit circulation losses in the last five years, it's very much an exception to the rule.

On the other hand, it is weirdly reassuring to witness a major media choice which is generally piloted by management even more clueless than corporate radio's. : Maybe they'll partner with iBiquity to come up with "HD NewsPrint."

 

[davideduardo]

Maybe they'll partner with iBiquity to come up with "HD NewsPrint."

"The words between the words." Printed in invisible ink.

 

[radioskeptic]

And remember that Gannett, Westinghouse and CBS were the three companies that formed a conrtium called USA Digital Radio -- and that USADR later merged with Lucent's digital radio spinoff to form Iniquity Digital Corporation! (Annd that n in Iniquity is not a typo; it's a comment of the company!)

 

[radioskeptic]

A REPLY TO DAVID IN REPLY #5:

You know, David this statement borders on the ad hominem:

To me, a sign of a losing argument is having to cite Wikipedia.

Not at all. Wikipedia is readily available, and it’s perfectly acceptable to cite it for quick reference. No one ever claimed that Wikipedia is unimpeachable, least of all the people at Wikipedia themselves. Remember that caveat I quoted on the Wikipedia page about Tom Langmyer?

([T]he Wikipedia article on Langmyer includes this caveat: “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.” Make what you will of that!)

Now onto your next statement:

The Yankee Network existed well before even experimental FM began...

Yes, and the Wikipedia article on it clearly states that the Yankee Network was organized in 1930, less than nine full years before its first FM went on the air.

... and it consisted of a regional subset of CBS affiliates, like WNAC, not an FM only operation.

Originally, all the stations were CBS affiliates; but later it also included Mutual and NBC Red affialiates at various times. And of course, all of them were also Yankee Network affiliates.

That “station to station” relay system was what rally alarmed CBS, ABC, Mutual—as well as AT&T, whose long lines business was threatened. All of them were more active than NBC in pushing the FCC to kick FM “upstairs” to its present band, according to Lawrence Lessing’s Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong.

Nevertheless, David, thanks for those two old 1930’s pages from Broadcasting. Very interesting.

 

[davideduardo]

You know, David this statement borders on the ad hominem:

To me, a sign of a losing argument is having to cite Wikipedia


Not at all. Wikipedia is readily available, and it’s perfectly acceptable to cite it for quick reference.

Stating that resorting to wiki cites is a weak argument is simply the truth. I find that perhaps half of the wiki articles that deal with subjects I am personally familiar with have errors ranging from minor to total distortion of reality.

In this case, saying that Yankee was the first FM network implies a group of stations, all FM, with separate programming. That just was not true. Yankee, like Don Lee, Intermountain and others, were regional nets established minimally to provide localized content and mostly to sell in an era when the networks were king.

Originally, all the stations were CBS affiliates; but later it also included Mutual and NBC Red affialiates at various times. And of course, all of them were also Yankee Network affiliates.

As I said, regional networks were very common... as were state networks in the larger states. Most, at least up till the post war years, were network affiliates because there just were not that many independent stations (which could bring on a whole discussion of ASCAP and the AFM).

That “station to station” relay system was what rally alarmed CBS, ABC, Mutual—as well as AT&T, whose long lines business was threatened.

What originally alarmed Sarnoff was that Armstrong ceased to be his sycophant. Essentially all of his actions against FM... pushing to have the band moved (of course, there were less than 60 FMs on the air then)... refusing to license Armstrong's technology... had to do with a "clash of titans."

Unfortunately, much of what was written about Armstrong was influenced at the time by the power of RCA and Sarnoff or, in a few cases, by overly-pro-Armstrong contrarians. The real truth is somewhere in the middle.

And, as a disclaimer, I am an Armstrong fan, and I've even obtained a portion of his library.

All of them were more active than NBC in pushing the FCC to kick FM “upstairs” to its present band, according to Lawrence Lessing’s Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong.

AT&T was pushed by RCA. CBS, when FM was implemented by Yankee, was a beneficiary of the technology. NBC, having two of the three "real" networks, was not happy about having its only competitor achieve an advantage. Yet they did not rush into FM, but, instead, in Leonard Kahn fashion, tried to stop the whole thing... an attitude reflecting the Sarnoff - Armstrong battle.

Nevertheless, David, thanks for those two old 1930’s pages from Broadcasting. Very interesting.

There are a half-million more pages where those came from.

 

[iyiyi]

There are some that say that Gen. Sarnoff beat Major Armstrong with the invention of RCA's ratio detector, thereby bypassing the need to pay licensing fees to use Armstrong's discriminator.

Others might believe that Gen. Sarnoff beat CBS out of their much superior sequential system that had initially approved by the FCC. The fact that the NTSC system was compatible with the extant 1,000,000 TV receivers that the CBS system would have obsoleted was only one factor. Sour grapes made CBS hold out from adopting the NTSC system until color receiver market penetration grew to the point that they HAD to go NTSC! 1966.

The sequential system lives on in Jumbotrons and DLP receivers today.

Major Armstrong built towers on Mt. Washington, Paxton, MA and Alpine, NJ among others for his network.

-

 

[davideduardo]

There are some that say that Gen. Sarnoff beat Major Armstrong ...

Others might believe that Gen. Sarnoff beat CBS...

Others might say that Gen. Sarnoff was the first really significant player in the influence and lobbying game and that his products were, in the style of betamax vs. VHS, inferior.

 

[iyiyi]

General Sarnoff knew how to play the game and win. That's for sure!

 

[jhardis]

CBS [held] out from adopting the NTSC system until color receiver market penetration grew to the point that they HAD to go NTSC! 1966.

From the comments posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq0mUCFlizg

"And it didn't hurt, too, that Philips introduced a color studio camera, marketed under the Norelco name and designated PC-60, that used Plumbicon tubes and provided a better picture than what RCA's color cameras were providing at the time (especially the infamous TK-42 which, in manufacture, succeeded TK-41's which were in NBC studios up to 1969 and, in some cases, as late as '71). But this development served to aid in CBS's "anything but RCA" equipment buying policy."

 

[radioskeptic]

In Reply # 14, “iyiyi” said:

Others might believe that Gen. Sarnoff beat CBS out of their much superior sequential system that had initially approved by the FCC.

Well, iyiyi, you have to read this: http://www.davidsarnoff.org/jac-maintext.html

That’ll give you some perspective!

You also said:

Sour grapes made CBS hold out from adopting the NTSC system until color receiver market penetration grew to the point that they HAD to go NTSC! 1966.

Not at all. There were actually two factors. First, as I said in my opening post, the flesh tones on the early color TV’s were terrible. The invention of the rare earth red phosphor, which was introduced commercially only in 1964, finally made realistic color display—at brightness levels like those of monochrome sets—possible. And second, let’s turn to Jonathan Hardis in Reply # 17:

From the comments posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq0mUCFlizg

"And it didn't hurt, too, that Philips introduced a color studio camera, marketed under the Norelco name and designated PC-60, that used Plumbicon tubes and provided a better picture than what RCA's color cameras were providing at the time (especially the infamous TK-42 which, in manufacture, succeeded TK-41's which were in NBC studios up to 1969 and, in some cases, as late as '71). But this development served to aid in CBS's "anything but RCA" equipment buying policy."

Finally, iyiyi, you also said:

There are some that say that Gen. Sarnoff beat Major Armstrong with the invention of RCA's ratio detector, thereby bypassing the need to pay licensing fees to use Armstrong's discriminator.

Yeah. Until Armstrong’s widow prevailed over RCA in court -- but only after that #@# Sarnoff had driven the most important figure in the history of radio to suicide!

 

[radioskeptic]

Now, could we get back to the purpose of my original post?

I was hoping to get those of us who understand what a debacle "HD" radio has been to contact newspapers whenever they succumb to Iniquity's PR apparatus. If we don't set them straight, who will?