"Naysayers" Propose Workable Solution to AM IBOC Debacle

[Carmine5]

Where do you go on the FCC site to file comments?

The link is http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/

In the upper right corner, click "Submit a Filing" and enter 07-294 as the Proceeding along with your name and address.

Then, take satisfaction in knowing that you're part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.

Absolutely. FCC staff are legally bound to read each and every comment. And if those comments trend in a certain direction then those issues could very well be part of a rulemaking.

C5

 

[TheBigA]

FCC staff are legally bound to read each and every comment. And if those comments trend in a certain direction then those issues could very well be part of a rulemaking.

That's not exactly how things have worked at the FCC. Several groups organized comment campaigns about the newspaper crossownership rules, and we all know how the FCC ruled in that situation. Several other controversial issues attracted loads of comments in one opinion, and the FCC ruled in another.

 

[Play Freebird]

That's not exactly how things have worked at the FCC. Several groups organized comment campaigns about the newspaper crossownership rules, and we all know how the FCC ruled in that situation. Several other controversial issues attracted loads of comments in one opinion, and the FCC ruled in another.

But then, look at what has happened in the BPL rulemaking. The FCC disregarded thousands of well-founded arguments submitted by amateurs, in favor of nonsense put forth by utility companies and their lobbyists -- and got caught!

http://urgentcomm.com/policy_and_law/news/appeals-court-bpl-0502/

If we're not outraged, we're not paying attention.

 

[TheBigA]

If we're not outraged, we're not paying attention.

My point is that rules are not based on popular vote or the number of comments on one side or another of an issue. File comments to state your views, but don't assume that if your side has more comments than the other side, the Commission will simply add them up and decide in your favor.

Very similar to the view about requests received at radio stations. They typically represent a small vocal minority, rather than the average listener. Thus if you program a station mainly around requests, you're ignoring the majority of your listeners.

 

[Savage]

Leave it to TheBigA to equate pre-teen request-line callers with the concerns of actual licensed broadcasters and industry professionals - in Freebird's case, a major-market engineer and small-market station owner.

What else would we expect from a guy who admits he has no technical expertise and protests that he really doesn't care about IBOC one way or another, yet has posted here hundreds of times, hectoring legitimate pros who have an actual stake in the health of radio?

 

[TheBigA]

Leave it to TheBigA to equate pre-teen request-line callers with the concerns of actual licensed broadcasters and industry professionals - in Freebird's case, a major-market engineer and small-market station owner.

How has the FCC been responding to YOUR concerns? I obviously don't have to ask. But that might be an indication how they'll respond to this issue.

What else would we expect from a guy who admits he has no technical expertise and protests that he really doesn't care about IBOC one way or another, yet has posted here hundreds of times, hectoring legitimate pros who have an actual stake in the health of radio?

Ah so you've adjusted your number to "hundreds" instead of the thousands you accused me of before. I think if you actually counted, the number of my posts in this part of the board is probably around 50. Which is 50 more than you can stand. Clearly, you want this part of the board to be an extention of your anti-IBOC site. No one else is allowed.

I've read how you've jumped all over Tom Ray, who unlike me has technical expertise. But makes the mistake of disagreeing with you.

I'm starting to understand why the FCC may have put you on "ignore." Perhaps I should do the same. Since you obviously enjoy insulting and attacking people so much.

 

[Savage]

Tom Ray got what he deserved. As have you.

 

[Carmine5]

Well, look at what happened with the "Great Translator Invasion."

As we know a couple of organizations filed for hundreds of translators. This raised such an alarm and protest with so many entities, professional and citizens groups, that the FCC was forced to put the processing of these apps on hold. Eventually, they limited the number to ten translators per applicant.

So, yes, the FCC can be responsive. The key thing is writing comments that raise legitimate issues and carry weight (either legally or technically).

I think there have been some excellent points raised in this thread by Play Freebird and others that I plan on copying and pasting into my comments on this proposal.

C5

 

[jhardis]

My point is that rules are not based on popular vote or the number of comments on one side or another of an issue. File comments to state your views, but don't assume that if your side has more comments than the other side, the Commission will simply add them up and decide in your favor.

This is exactly right. When a Federal agency (FCC included) solicits public comments they are not running a public opinion poll. The point of public comments is to solicit information that the agency might need in order to do an informed rulemaking. Substantiated facts and clear, logical arguments are the most important things to include.

This is not to suggest that people shouldn't also offer opinions, too. This is, after all, a democracy. My point is merely that it's not the primary purpose of the process.

 

[jhardis]

But then, look at what has happened in the BPL rulemaking. The FCC disregarded thousands of well-founded arguments submitted by amateurs, in favor of nonsense put forth by utility companies and their lobbyists -- and got caught!

That's not quite how it went down. Read the court decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/061343p.pdf

Pay particular attention to the comments of Judge Kavanaugh. What he seems to be saying is that they had to decide the case based on the Portland Cement precedent, which in his view doesn't comport with the Supreme Court's more recent Vermont Yankee precedent. That sounds to me like an open invitation to the FCC to appeal to fix the problem, and perhaps prevail.

 

[Carmine5]

FCC staff are legally bound to read each and every comment. And if those comments trend in a certain direction then those issues could very well be part of a rulemaking.

That's not exactly how things have worked at the FCC. Several groups organized comment campaigns about the newspaper crossownership rules, and we all know how the FCC ruled in that situation. Several other controversial issues attracted loads of comments in one opinion, and the FCC ruled in another.

You failed to read what I said and assumed something I didn't say.

I said they "could" be part of a rulemaking. And I didn't say the Commission would necessarily agree with the comments.

Case in point was the RM on IBOC. The FCC acknowledged the many comments pointing out that there were other, better digital radio systems such as DRM and FMeXtra but, for its own reasons, the agency ruled them out. And there were many other points that had been brought up in comments which the FCC acknowledged and addressed, even referencing them in footnotes.

So the process does work. It may not yield the results we want and it may be painfully slow, but it works.

C5

 

[TheBigA]

You failed to read what I said and assumed something I didn't say.

I read what you said, and my follow-up in reply #43 covers your point.

 

[Play Freebird]

That's not quite how it went down. Read the court decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/061343p.pdf

Pay particular attention to the comments of Judge Kavanaugh. What he seems to be saying is that they had to decide the case based on the Portland Cement precedent, which in his view doesn't comport with the Supreme Court's more recent Vermont Yankee precedent. That sounds to me like an open invitation to the FCC to appeal to fix the problem, and perhaps prevail.

Thank you for the clarification.

Your "handle" has me curious -- Was it you who filed the Petition for Reconsideration of FCC authorization of iBiquity's system?

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519550109

You made many strong points in your argument, yet the FCC turned a blind eye. Any further insight you're willing to share?

 

[jhardis]

Your "handle" has me curious -- Was it you who filed the Petition for Reconsideration of FCC authorization of iBiquity's system?
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519550109
You made many strong points in your argument, yet the FCC turned a blind eye. Any further insight you're willing to share?

Yup. That's me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "insight." The Commission waited until the final rule became fully effective after OMB approval http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2008_register&docid=fr22ja08-10.pdf and then they took the next procedural step, which was to post notice of the petitions and the opportunity to oppose them. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279578A1.pdf

Three oppositions were received, from
NPR: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519840697
NAB: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519840698
and iBiquity: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519840688

I replied to each of them:
NPR: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519841437
NAB: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519841895
iBiquity: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519841896

...and that's where it stands today.

 

[KB1OKL]

That's not exactly how things have worked at the FCC. Several groups organized comment campaigns about the newspaper crossownership rules, and we all know how the FCC ruled in that situation. Several other controversial issues attracted loads of comments in one opinion, and the FCC ruled in another.

But then, look at what has happened in the BPL rulemaking. The FCC disregarded thousands of well-founded arguments submitted by amateurs, in favor of nonsense put forth by utility companies and their lobbyists -- and got caught!

http://urgentcomm.com/policy_and_law/news/appeals-court-bpl-0502/

If we're not outraged, we're not paying attention.

I believe this happened in part as the ARRL of which I am a member just doesn't give up and it does have some power and does it's homework, there is strength in numbers.
Those political hack idiots over at the FCC are being forced to take another look. BPL could do to us hams (and actually AM radio) what IBOC is doing to broadcast radio, especially AM.

 

[Play Freebird]

Interesting commentary by Dave Wilson, Sr. Director, Technology & Standards at CEA:

http://blog.ce.org/index.php/2008/08/04/video-was-framed-radio-committed-suicide

 

[Carmine5]

Interesting commentary by Dave Wilson, Sr. Director, Technology & Standards at CEA:

http://blog.ce.org/index.php/2008/08/04/video-was-framed-radio-committed-suicide

Excellent observations both from Dave Wilson and from the reply comments.

It's a confluence of negative factors. 1) Broadcasters and the NAB fighting to keep the status quo 2) radio consolidation leading to boring, homogenized programming turning listeners off, while 3) new media technologies and devices from the lowly iPod to smart phones and web radio lure listeners away from terrestrial radio.

The sad thing is that the powers that can affect change are the ones most resistant to it.

C5

 

[TheBigA]

Excellent observations both from Dave Wilson and from the reply comments.

I disagree. For someone who represents a Consumer Electronics Association, his observations are faulty.

First of all, "radio," such as it is, is not a single united entity. There are many forms of radio, from consolidated conglomerate radio to community non-commercial radio, and a few dozen variations in between. Radio hasn't come to this point a single monolyth, although it's popular to see it that way.

The public, and the consumers, have not deserted radio. They've made adjustments. Radio is part of their overall media diet. Even with all the "evils" of consolidation, there are two very obvious facts: Over radio listening is only down about 2% since 1996, and the consolidated companies seem to be attracting the largest audiences. Both of those facts fly in the face of Wilson's opinions.

The biggest point Wilson ignores is that for all of the "boring homogenized" programming on AM-FM radio, the programming available on the alternatives is, for the most part, no better. Satellite radio offers more choices, but not better presentation. Same with the internet. Meanwhile, there are lots of challenging and interesting programming choices on terrestrial radio, often in non-commercial frequencies, but they get ignored because that audience has made its mind up, and is prejudiced against a specific technology. Pretty complicated situation, and far more complicated than the view presented by Wilson.

I think someone who represents consumer electronics, Wilson should be outraged at electronics manufacturers, who seem more interested in their own greed than providing proper choice and options for the consumers. Why shouldn't the CEA promote the inclusion of AM & FM in the iPod? Sure it doesn't fit Apple's agenda, but since when does the CEA work for Steve Jobs? Why shouldn't the CEA support all forms of media on all devices? That is the proper approach to this situation, and would benefit the consumer by making those devices cheaper.

 

[KB1OKL]

Excellent observations both from Dave Wilson and from the reply comments.

I think someone who represents consumer electronics, Wilson should be outraged at electronics manufacturers, who seem more interested in their own greed than providing proper choice and options for the consumers. Why shouldn't the CEA promote the inclusion of AM & FM in the iPod? Sure it doesn't fit Apple's agenda, but since when does the CEA work for Steve Jobs? Why shouldn't the CEA support all forms of media on all devices? That is the proper approach to this situation, and would benefit the consumer by making those devices cheaper.

Following your logic why doesn't the CEA promote the inclusion of radio into TV's and CD players? The iPod is not a radio any more than a CD player is, the only common denominator between an iPod and a radio is that they both play music, radio should stand on it's own two feet just like anything else. I agree with many of the things he said except for his statement that terrestrial radio is dead. Consolidation was almost the ruination of radio and is falling apart right now, that was and is still the main problem with radio. The letters about homogenized content were right on which also was caused by consolidation.

 

[Carmine5]

Excellent observations both from Dave Wilson and from the reply comments.

I think someone who represents consumer electronics, Wilson should be outraged at electronics manufacturers, who seem more interested in their own greed than providing proper choice and options for the consumers. Why shouldn't the CEA promote the inclusion of AM & FM in the iPod? Sure it doesn't fit Apple's agenda, but since when does the CEA work for Steve Jobs? Why shouldn't the CEA support all forms of media on all devices? That is the proper approach to this situation, and would benefit the consumer by making those devices cheaper.

I agree with many of the things he said except for his statement that terrestrial radio is dead.

Actually, Dave didn't say radio is dead.

Here's what he said:

"Of course radio is still alive and strong today, but the preceding paragraph could easily be the beginning of free local radio’s final chapter, written sometime in the future."

From here he goes on to relate the CEA's findings that public interest in radio-only devices is zilch.

For the purpose of this thread Dave says this:

"Just this summer the NAB Radio Board adopted a resolution opposing the use of television channels 5 and/or 6 for radio broadcasting after analog TV signals are turned off. Think of the great new services radio could provide if it were to unleash the full potential of HD Radio with 100 percent digital service in channels 5 and 6, or in some other spectrum."

Of course, opening up more spectrum isn't, in and of itself, going to bring more listeners back to radio. But it can allow for more adventurous and diverse programming as well as ancillary services which could prove to be even more useful to the public than passive audio listening.

The point I think he's making is that the status quo is no longer working and that fighting change is both useless and not in the radio industry's best interests.

I'm sure the CEA wants to see more radios sold but the demand has to be there. As I think Dave sees it, it's up to broadcasters to create that demand by firing up the public's passion for radio while embracing any future innovations so that the industry itself will have a future.

C5