More problems for in dash IBOC radios

[landtuna]

The electronics manufacturers even refuse to incorporate FM in cell phones.

Is that because cell phone providers would rather sell you data plans so you can stream rather than listen OTA for free?

 

[TheBigA]

Is that because cell phone providers would rather sell you data plans so you can stream rather than listen OTA for free?

Providers aren't manufacturers. The manufacturers are the ones battling radio.

One provider, Sprint, is actually co-operating with radio.

 

[jhardis]

Did any of you really expect for the coverage to be the same with that amount of power?

Since you ask ... yes.

According to the FCC, and based on the public comments that led up to this finding, "The NRSC tests show that both AM and FM IBOC systems offer enhanced audio fidelity and increased robustness to interference and other signal impairments. Coverage for both systems would be at least comparable to analog coverage." (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A1.pdf at 32)

From the NRSC test report: "In all cases, digital coverage extended to approximately the 45-50 dBu signal level. In several cases, digital coverage extended well beyond this point to the 15-25 dBu signal level. Although the differing characteristics of the field test stations make it difficult to generalize about the digital service area, the results indicate the IBOC system offers digital coverage meeting or exceeding each station's protected analog coverage area." (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=5508128760 at page 10)

- Jonathan

 

[jhardis]

the power for IBOC is (typically) 1/100th the power of the analog signal

By the way, the premise of the IBOC system was that they could make it work with 1/300th the power of the analog system (-25 dBc, which is what is allowed by the FM emission mask). The fact that the system launched at 1/100th the power (-20 dBc) meant that the FCC spotted them an extra factor of three -- that is, three times the power -- from the get-go.

- Jonathan

 

[Tom Wells]

Wow! That demonstrates how poorly the "designers" of the system understand rf and demodulation behavior.
If only they had been stuck with the -25 db.
Then iboc would have only been a tiny annoyance and died on the vine properly, without all the hand-wringing, back pedaling, and pleas for more power.

 

[landtuna]

Is that because cell phone providers would rather sell you data plans so you can stream rather than listen OTA for free?

The manufacturers are the ones battling radio.

Then why?

 

[landtuna]

According to the FCC, and based on the public comments that led up to this finding, "The NRSC tests show that both AM and FM IBOC systems offer enhanced audio fidelity and increased robustness to interference and other signal impairments. Coverage for both systems would be at least comparable to analog coverage." (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A1.pdf at 32)

From the NRSC test report: "In all cases, digital coverage extended to approximately the 45-50 dBu signal level. In several cases, digital coverage extended well beyond this point to the 15-25 dBu signal level. Although the differing characteristics of the field test stations make it difficult to generalize about the digital service area, the results indicate the IBOC system offers digital coverage meeting or exceeding each station's protected analog coverage area." (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=5508128760 at page 10)

- Jonathan

Which serve to confirm the ineptness of the so-called engineering staff involved with this study.

One can only hope they have all been fired and are now pursuing their second careers serving ice cream cones at Dairy Queen.

 

[Tom Wells]

According to the FCC, and based on the public comments that led up to this finding, "The NRSC tests show that both AM and FM IBOC systems offer enhanced audio fidelity and increased robustness to interference and other signal impairments. Coverage for both systems would be at least comparable to analog coverage." (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A1.pdf at 32)

From the NRSC test report: "In all cases, digital coverage extended to approximately the 45-50 dBu signal level. In several cases, digital coverage extended well beyond this point to the 15-25 dBu signal level. Although the differing characteristics of the field test stations make it difficult to generalize about the digital service area, the results indicate the IBOC system offers digital coverage meeting or exceeding each station's protected analog coverage area." (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=5508128760 at page 10)

- Jonathan

Which serve to confirm the ineptness of the so-called engineering staff involved with this study.

One can only hope they have all been fired and are now pursuing their second careers serving ice cream cones at Dairy Queen.

They would be, except they weren't able to make the trademarked little curled loop at the top.
They are stuck making shakes and malts where the little loop at the top isn't expected.

 

[TheBigA]

The manufacturers are the ones battling radio.

Then why?
[/quote]

The profit margin is far greater in other devices.

And the manufacturers resent the idea that they should be mandated to support AM/FM.

 

[KB1OKL]

According to the FCC, and based on the public comments that led up to this finding, "The NRSC tests show that both AM and FM IBOC systems offer enhanced audio fidelity and increased robustness to interference and other signal impairments. Coverage for both systems would be at least comparable to analog coverage." (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A1.pdf at 32)

From the NRSC test report: "In all cases, digital coverage extended to approximately the 45-50 dBu signal level. In several cases, digital coverage extended well beyond this point to the 15-25 dBu signal level. Although the differing characteristics of the field test stations make it difficult to generalize about the digital service area, the results indicate the IBOC system offers digital coverage meeting or exceeding each station's protected analog coverage area." (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=5508128760 at page 10)

- Jonathan

Which serve to confirm the ineptness of the so-called engineering staff involved with this study.

One can only hope they have all been fired and are now pursuing their second careers serving ice cream cones at Dairy Queen.

They would be, except they weren't able to make the trademarked little curled loop at the top.
They are stuck making shakes and malts where the little loop at the top isn't expected.

I've heard that after they got fired from Dairy Queen they bought ice cream trucks except that the trucks are too wide for the road and run out of gas in a mile or two.

 

[diymedia]

Providers aren't manufacturers. The manufacturers are the ones battling radio.

One provider, Sprint, is actually co-operating with radio.

Sprint is "co-operating" thanks to the $45 million dollar subsidy (plus a revenue-sharing agreement) that Emmis brokered, to run for three years. The broadcasters did a lot to cheese off the CE industry during HD's developmental years: publicly excoriating them for not backing IBOC out of the gate, freezing them out of the NRSC, etc. Then, later, trying to tie a radio chip mandate to performance royalty agreements with the music industry. Who can blame them for their reticence?

 

[TheBigA]

Who can blame them for their reticence?

Be serious...no amount of "public excoriating" matters. They're all grown ups. Sticks & stones.

The truth is the last really fun and innovative AM/FM radio was the Walkman. That was a very long time ago.

 

[MRFLASHPORT]

Is that because cell phone providers would rather sell you data plans so you can stream rather than listen OTA for free?

Providers aren't manufacturers. The manufacturers are the ones battling radio.

One provider, Sprint, is actually co-operating with radio.

the providers, however, are the actual customers of the device manufacturers- when you buy a cellular phone in this country, you are buying a customized (to the hardware and software level)- a piece of equipment ordered by the carrier from the manufacturer built to their specs.

Look at the same models of non-US devices and you'll find at least FM radio chipsets activated in the same handsets. It's because over in the EU and other nations, but then most handsets aren't as heavily subsidized, and aren't nearly as customized to specific providers. They have ONE network standard (GSM, now UMTS/LTE) and simply insert their SIM cards. The marketplace demands FM radios in phones as a feature.

I don't see that happening here. The device manufacturers say another radio chipset means valuable board "real estate" taken up by functionality their end user and customer (the cellular carriers) for the most part do NOT want. Then there is the problem of antenna build in. For FM, the headphone cord is usually the option- but then you have to either have keep a wired headset plugged in (even to listen through the louspeaker) all the time or some type printed circuit board antenna. The PCB antenna couldn't occupy much real estate as these phone radio boards are already crammed full. AM isn't even a reality, some small ferrite loop is useless and will make a phone bigger. No one wants big phones anymore. Then a phone's internal circuitry will make enough RFI and hash to make all but reception of strong nearby AM's impossible.

IBOC on FM needs a good antenna to work well. A headphone cord fully extended away from the body with an electrical loading can be the equivalent of a 5/8 wave on FM, but anything inside the case of the phone is going to suck. These are the engineering challenges to putting usable radios, especially IBOC, into a modern cellphone. Even worse if the phone has a metal case.

Personally, I like having an FM radio on my phone. My Sprint HTC One has an FM analog tuner with RDS, it actually works VERY well considering the limited antenna, and uses almost no battery power to operate. It sounds as good as any high quality walkman type, I don't know what chipset it's based on, but it has excellent sensitivity and selectivity, doesn't overload in downtown areas- and has a very good "mono blend" feature that matches what most car radios do when FM Stereo gets weak.

But them I'm a radio geek. Most people would not use this feature. My girlfriend has the same phone. She didn't even know it had an FM radio. It certainly wasn't promoted as a prime feature and you have to swipe through a few menus to find the shortcut to use it. It does require a hardwired headset to be plugged in for it to work, even if you pipe the audio to a stereo BT headset or the speaker.

Most people want more memory, larger screen, faster/more CPU cores, more battery life- FM/AM radios isn't on that list.

I think it SHOULD be a requirement, but then this is me thinking with my professional hat on. My sister lived through Hurricane Sandy in Lower Manhattan, and her T-Mobile Blackberry was useless until she WALKED into Brooklyn. She certainly appreciated the $12 Sony AM/FM pocket radio I gave her after 9/11/2001 for Christmas and it was her ONLY source of information. She was one of only two people on her floor of her co-op who even had a working battery powered radio and they all gathered around the little Sony to listen to 1010WINS which was simulcasting on FM at the time.

She remarked to me that she "wished her BB had an FM radio like her older Sony Ericcson phones did". Maybe the broadcasters should lobby the FCC to make this a requirement, but I don't think even the NAB has this kind of pull or budget when it comes to the telecom cartels. The cartels look at broadcasters as the "enemies" and "those old farts sitting on the valuable pieces of real estate (radio spectrum) that refuse to sell out" to make way for more commercial wireless auctions.

 

[jhardis]

The broadcasters did a lot to cheese off the CE industry during HD's developmental years: ..., freezing them out of the NRSC, etc.

Huh?

The NRSC is cosponsored by the NAB and CEA, and both communities worked together closely on IBOC development.

- Jonathan

 

[Uncle Fester]

JHardis--thanks for bringing to light that first FCC reference. It's a good one I've saved. Let's also put your quote in context by including the entire paragraph:

IBOC system performance
. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that IBOC is the best way to advance the Commission’s DAB policy goals.
This technology enjoys strong support from the broadcast industry and is the only approach that could be implemented in the near future. The iBiquity IBOC system is spectrum-efficient in that it can accommodate digital operations for all existing AM and FM radio stations with no additional allocation of spectrum. The NRSC tests show that both AM and FM IBOC systems offer enhanced audio fidelity and increased robustness to interference and other signal impairments. Coverage for both systems would be at least comparable to analog coverage. Considering that iBiquity’s IBOC systems achieve these objectives in the hybrid mode, in which the relatively low-powered digital signal must coexist with more powerful analog signals, we expect that audio fidelity and robustness will improve greatly with all-digital operation. The NRSC performed extensive tests to assess the iBiquity systems’ effects on existing analog radio. We agree with the NRSC and the majority of commenters that the potential for new interference from IBOC operations is insignificant when compared with the advantages and opportunities inherent in this digital technology.

I'm not disagreeing with the point you are making but I do want to point out that 'comparable' simply means that they can be compared; it doesn't mean that they are the same. Definitely subject to interpretation in this context. More than 10 years after the fact, we all have the benefit of hindsight and can point out performance issues that fall far short of what was anticipated by the FCC (as read from that paragraph). Let's also not forget that we're still in the hybrid (or transitional) mode. Also from the above paragraph:

Considering that iBiquity’s IBOC systems achieve these objectives in the hybrid mode, in which the relatively low-powered digital signal must coexist with more powerful analog signals, we expect that audio fidelity and robustness will improve greatly with all-digital operation.

Also JHardis, The 2nd reference you gave points to a study on IBOC interference to SCAs. Are you sure that was the reference you intended? Regarding the power level references--where did you find those? I'm interested in reading and saving.

Finally I just want to say that I've participated in this thread (which has turned out to be a good one) because I'm tired of constantly reading the misinformation about HD radio that is put forth here. To say that 'it doesn't work' and/or 'HD radio is a failure' are of course simply opinions, but some assert them very aggressively. Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. From a technical standpoint, it does work. I use it all the time. It's unfortunate that many of you haven't experienced the benefits HD does provide. When in LA I listen to KROQ's HD2 a lot, and KRTH's HD2 quite a bit as well. Up here in Seattle (on vacation) I listen in to KZOK's HD2, as well as KPLU's HD2 (otherwise known as Jazz24). Each of those 4 have great coverage. KUSC in LA has a great sounding simulcast ('HD1') going on--they use the entire 96 kpbs for it. They also have HD one of their boosters. (Great programming too.)

 

[diymedia]

Yeah, like broadcasters taking over the chairs of the relevant subcommittees and reducing CE co-chairs to figureheads, convincing members to abstain rather than cast no-votes, etc. This was all precipitated by studies from the CE industry in the mid-1990s that did not cast IBOC in the appropriate light and demonstrated a penchant for Eureka 147. By the time you engaged in the NRSC process, this schism had already pretty much been solidified.

By as early as 1998, CEMA made its position clear: “only the Eureka 147 DAB system offers the audio quality and signal robustness that listeners would expect...in all reception environments.” CEMA concluded that in-band digital radio was “not feasible at this time due to deficient performance.” Critically, however, CEMA pledged to refrain from conducting official “advocacy of any system at the request of the broadcasters who said they needed more time to correct the flaws of the [in-band] system.” Since then, CE commenters have been by and large lukewarm in their support in the regulatory record, and have shown little marketplace engagement. Like I said, who can blame them given the maneuvering of the '90s?

 

[TheBigA]

Like I said, who can blame them given the maneuvering of the '90s?

So you're saying they would purposely lose money or choose not to offer a product that would sell for personal reasons?

 

[diymedia]

That is not what I am saying; what I am saying is that broadcasters were so adamant that it would be IBOC or nothing at all that they ran roughshod over an important constituency in the early stages of the consensus-development process. CE manufacturers have been subsequently aloof about HD's proliferation ever since. What do you chalk all of this up to?

 

[TheBigA]

CE manufacturers have been subsequently aloof about HD's proliferation ever since. What do you chalk all of this up to?

My point isn't strictly about IBOC, but rather AM/FM radio as a whole. And it seems to predate the IBOC issue.

 

[jhardis]

Let's also put your quote in context by including the entire paragraph

IBOC system performance
. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that IBOC is the best way to advance the Commission’s DAB policy goals.
This technology enjoys strong support from the broadcast industry and is the only approach that could be implemented in the near future. The iBiquity IBOC system is spectrum-efficient in that it can accommodate digital operations for all existing AM and FM radio stations with no additional allocation of spectrum. The NRSC tests show that both AM and FM IBOC systems offer enhanced audio fidelity and increased robustness to interference and other signal impairments. Coverage for both systems would be at least comparable to analog coverage. Considering that iBiquity’s IBOC systems achieve these objectives in the hybrid mode, in which the relatively low-powered digital signal must coexist with more powerful analog signals, we expect that audio fidelity and robustness will improve greatly with all-digital operation. The NRSC performed extensive tests to assess the iBiquity systems’ effects on existing analog radio. We agree with the NRSC and the majority of commenters that the potential for new interference from IBOC operations is insignificant when compared with the advantages and opportunities inherent in this digital technology.

I'm not disagreeing with the point you are making but I do want to point out that 'comparable' simply means that they can be compared; it doesn't mean that they are the same. Definitely subject to interpretation in this context.

No doubt that it's subject to interpretation, but here's what I think a fair reading reveals. The NRSC test report made the point that "coverage" would be the same, since, at a minimum, the receiver would blend to analog if the digital signal were too weak. This was before the advent of secondary channels. "At least comparable" means something more than "they can be compared," which is an obvious point not worth mentioning. "At least" means the same or better -- which is exactly what the NRSC test report claimed. Now, "coverage" is not the same thing as "digital coverage." The NRSC test report said that, "the results indicate the IBOC system offers digital coverage meeting or exceeding each station's protected analog coverage area." This is a rather straightforward statement, not subject to much interpretation.

Also JHardis, The 2nd reference you gave points to a study on IBOC interference to SCAs. Are you sure that was the reference you intended?

Yes, I'm sure.

Today, a typical FCC comment filing is made via an electronically generated PDF file, which is uploaded to their website. However, back in 2001, many filings were made on paper. The paper was then scanned into PDF files containing only images (not structured text). Since this generated large PDF files, a single filing was often broken into many, smaller PDFs.

In December 2001, iBiquity made a large paper filing that now exists on the FCC website as 26 separate PDF image files. Each image file covers about 20 to 40 pages of scanned paper. It included a cover letter, the SCA report to which you refer, and also the NRSC test report of the FM system, to which I referred. The link is to the directory of all 26 files, so you can read the whole thing. My quote was taken from the fifth file [View(32)].

Regarding the power level references--where did you find those? I'm interested in reading and saving.

You, yourself pointed out the 1/100th of carrier factoid (-20 dBc). The FM emission mask (which is -25 dBc in the spectrum of the IBOC subcarriers) is § 73.317 of the Commission’s rules (47 C.F.R. § 73.317(b), to be specific).

- Jonathan