Mandatory HD Inclusion Illegal In Some Instances

[KB1OKL]

Will this be the final nail in the coffin of forced inclusion of IBOC into Satrad receivers?


December 8, 2008 (11:39 am) Tyler Savery

Satellite receiver manufacturer Antex Electronics raises a great and compelling argument against mandatory HD inclusion in satellite receivers. For his company, the inclusion would be illegal, and is also against some current FCC regulations.

/snip/

The FCC is considering a measure which would potentially force inclusion of HD technology in to all SDARS receivers. Among other issues, the FCC is weighing whether the agency even has the legal standing to mandate such an action.

More at:

http://siriusbuzz.com/mandatory-hd-inclusion-illegal-in-some-instances.php

 

[fybush]

I'm not convinced by Antex's arguments (which, since Bob couldn't be bothered to summarize them, amount to this: the company manufactures specialized receivers meant to pipe XM or Sirius into commercial establishments, and those establishments couldn't play HD Radio channels over their PA systems unless they're paying music licensing fees.)

Wouldn't whatever ASCAP/BMI fees the commercial establishments are paying cover them just as well for playing 94.9-HD2 as for playing XM channel 85?

Not that it matters - the FCC doesn't seem to be in any hurry to approve the rather silly "HD in satellite receivers" rule, anyway...

 

[KB1OKL]

I'm not convinced by Antex's arguments (which, since Bob couldn't be bothered to summarize them.

I didn't summarize them because boards like this like it to be short and sweet, don't want to run afoul of copyright laws, which is why I included the link, if anyone is interested all they have to do is click, very short piece.

 

[clouseau]

What nonesense. Does that mean it's not legal to use my Sony HDR receiver as a translator receiver because it receives AM and you're not allowed to rebroadcast AM?

Or that if the Cable company doesn't have retransmission rights for a certain TV channel it not legal for them to own a receiver that will receive it?

That may be, though. ISTR it's illegal to own a car for any household who has an unlicensed person, in them, INCLUDING A CHILD. After all, Babies can't legally drive, right?

And don't forget everyone's favorite law which requires all unregistered voters to reamin in their homes on election days. No way we can have THEM walking around.

What's it they say on MTV?

NEXT!

Clouseau

 

[w9wi]

The FCC is considering a measure which would potentially force inclusion of HD technology in to all SDARS receivers. Among other issues, the FCC is weighing whether the agency even has the legal standing to mandate such an action.

Reading the powers of the FCC:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000303----000-.html

I see nothing there that gives the Commission the power to mandate anything be included in radio receivers. I think paragraph (s) is the one in question, and it specifically states television and pictures.

Congress could, potentially, act to give the FCC the power to require HD technology but the way I read the law, the Commission doesn't have that power right now.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

How could, and why would, the FCC mandate the reception of something they don't mandate the transmission of?

 

[Carmine5]

Unless item G could be used to justify an FCC mandated inclusion of HD Radio into satellite receivers.

"(g) Study new uses for radio, provide for experimental uses of frequencies, and generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest;"

That last statement takes in such a vast amount of territory that almost anything can permitted if it can be proven that it 'encourages the larger more effective use of radio in the public's interest'.

I'll have to remember to use that phrase (and use it often) when making comments on an FCC ruling. Nothing like browbeating the Commission with their own mandate.

C5

 

[RadeoEngineer]

I guess you'd have to figure out what constitutes "larger" and "more effective." I applaud you folks actively involved in this. I've been out of it for two years now and don't even listen to any form of radio (with the exception of some of the PBS weekend shows). I don't even use an iPod or similar device. My car has an excellent CD changer and I don't mind loading and rotating.

As I was leaving a very good 20 year position as a DE, the final question from my corporate DE was "which one of your five stations would you put HD on first." My answer was none of them. Save the money to keep the air staff when everyone else has gone juke box. I understand they're completing the HD on the last of them this month for all six of the local engineers that have receivers and the 15 radio groupies that took the plunge. How that's worth an average of $300k per station conversion is beyond me. At least my replacement got nice new studio facilities and some really great STL gear out of the deal. That's about the only up side I see out of the whole fiasco called Ibiquity.

What's going to be really hilarious, is if the power increase goes through. Explaining to the GM why you have to spend another couple of hundred large because the system you just installed a couple of years ago can't make the new parameters is not a job I'd want to have.

 

[K4WRF]

What's going to be really hilarious, is if the power increase goes through. Explaining to the GM why you have to spend another couple of hundred large because the system you just installed a couple of years ago can't make the new parameters is not a job I'd want to have.

Whats the old saying? "you can fool some of the people some of the time, and the rest; you just tell them what they want to hear". "we'll pay for it with advertizing growth!" Right!

LOL!

w/

 

[Play Freebird]

What's going to be really hilarious, is if the power increase goes through. Explaining to the GM why you have to spend another couple of hundred large because the system you just installed a couple of years ago can't make the new parameters is not a job I'd want to have.

And once you spend the money to install the new system,what happens if another licensee determines you're causing harmful interference at -10 dB, the FCC intervenes (on the ol' "case-by-case basis") and says "turn it down 7 dB" -- and then the GM realizes the original system would have been quite sufficient to make the reduced power level.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

What's going to be really hilarious, is if the power increase goes through. Explaining to the GM why you have to spend another couple of hundred large because the system you just installed a couple of years ago can't make the new parameters is not a job I'd want to have.

And once you spend the money to install the new system,what happens if another licensee determines you're causing harmful interference at -10 dB, the FCC intervenes (on the ol' "case-by-case basis") and says "turn it down 7 dB" -- and then the GM realizes the original system would have been quite sufficient to make the reduced power level.

And then you're fired for wasting the companie's money and making the GM look bad. Even though that's what you were told to do.