NORWAY TO DROP FM RADIO AND SOON! This is no joke.

[Chuck]

The big reason why DAB did not gain interest two decades ago is that the "internationally recognized" DAB band in the US had long ago been given to military use.

Quite so, but a pretty lame excuse at the time. Since the rest of the world seems to have adopted the same frequencies for DAB use, the US military would find them quite inhospitable anywhere outside of the US. From all I've been able to tell, the military doesn't even use those frequencies, although they are reserved for them. DAB frequencies run from approximately 174 MHz to 239 MHz. Most military frequencies start at 242 MHz and go up. The very idea that adopting DAB in the US would level the playing field between flame thrower stations and under-powered Class A's was repugnant to many larger broadcasters. As a result, the drum beat of "The military needs those frequencies" was amplified by NAB and others. It was similar to the way the anti-LPFM crusades were launched. As one poster on an earlier version of this board said, "If they are listening to one of 'those' stations, it means they aren't listening to my station, and I don't like that."

Things are different in Norway. It is a classic Scandinavian "nanny state". They will move to DAB, like it or not.

I was wondering if anyone here has actually visited Norway? I have. It is a lovely place in the summer with a friendly and well educated population that is mostly clustered along the coast line. You can keep it in the winter. Whenever you go, be sure to bring money. Lots of money. It is a very expensive place to visit.

The population is anything but ethnically diverse, and they like it that way. Norwegians enjoy a very high standard of living, mainly because they have a very small population (about 5 million people}. That is smaller than the population of many major US metro areas. Their government and its resulting life style is supplemented by income from North Sea oil, which pays a lot of bills. They also have some of the highest taxes anywhere. When I last visited, Oslo had the distinction of being the most expensive city in the world, edging out Tokyo. Because of their small population and relative wealth, a lot of things work for them that would not work in the United States.

 

[TheBigA]

The very idea that adopting DAB in the US would level the playing field between flame thrower stations and under-powered Class A's was repugnant to many larger broadcasters.

The only reason it's not a problem in Norway is that the only stations going on DAB are owned by the same entity: The government. If we had a similar situation here, there'd be similar response. But there, it's already a level playing field, so nothing was changed.

 

[davideduardo]

The very idea that adopting DAB in the US would level the playing field between flame thrower stations and under-powered Class A's was repugnant to many larger broadcasters.

Of course it was repugnant. Investors ranging from individuals to state pension funds had equity stakes in radio owners whose equity would be nearly wiped out. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and the transition would be so confusing ratings wise that many advertisers would shift budgets out of radio entirely for the duration.

When you look at a market like LA, where there are roughly 90 stations home to the market, with signal parity the audience might be so fragmented as to cause the loss of any kind of superior programming due to the destruction of the business model and the revenue base.

We saw a touch of this in Docket 80-90 which overflowed many markets with new stations to the point where all of them stopped making money and many of them cut back staff and programming budgets. Docket 80-90 was the match that lit the consolidation flame.

It was similar to the way the anti-LPFM crusades were launched. As one poster on an earlier version of this board said, "If they are listening to one of 'those' stations, it means they aren't listening to my station, and I don't like that."

The problem with LPFMs is that most of them do nothing but make the band more congested. A large proportion of them represent narrow religious interests, so no new community programming was offered. Many of them are struggling to stay in operation as the thrill wears off, and have ended up being somebody's automated playlist over and over with no intervention. Again, the FCC's idea of "community service" is at odds with what real-life listeners want and use.

I was wondering if anyone here has actually visited Norway?

I have, but you don't need to visit to see that the nation is a classic nanny state where the national government has much greater power than granted to our Federal government in the US. So decisions can be an arbitrary interpretation of "the greater good" or even of "we know what you need", just as the FCC's interpretation through the years of "community service" has been.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

And yet HDTV was a threat to billions of dollars of investment in TV properties, and Congress mandated a switch to HDTV. I really doubt very much that DAB wasn't pursued because it was a threat to OTA radio. If the Congress really wanted to authorize DAB, they would have, just as they authorized satellite and LPFM, both over objections from the NAB.

Some broadcasters actually wanted DTV because they were concerned that more people would subscribe to cable as long as their OTA signals could be affected by "snow" or "ghosting". Each customer getting hooked up to cable was a customer who would be watching broadcast channels less often as it brought new competition for viewers.

DTV was also supposed to save the US industry in the manufacture of TV sets, which was being hammered with sets imported from Japan and Taiwan. Japan had been testing an analog HDTV standard, so the US industry thought they needed their own to retain their place in the market.

Neither proved to be a factor, as in the ensuing years, 80+% of Americans hooked up to cable or satellite and even cheaper imported TV sets from China or Malaysia buried what was left of the American TV manufacturing industry.

In a classic exhibtion of the USA's "old economy", it would be about a decade between the launch of HDTV content (OTA mostly in major markets) and the time when one could actually try to buy an HDTV device.

The government gave HUGE protections to NAB.

In satellite radio, it was only approved as a subscrption-only service, and a concession to GIVE NAB members part of the bandwidth. Later, unequal music royalties were put in place to further protect NAB. If satellite radio were to have been configured as a common carrier, with franchisees using rented channels, and the franchisees given the option as to whether their channels were open (paid for with adversiting) or premium (subscription), it would have quickly florished. Many AM and FM stations would be affected, pressured to have local flavor to keep listeners.

In LPFM, they were protected by the decree that only non-commercial stations LPFMs would be allowed. This meant that while LPFMs would be going on the air, the advertising revenues of the existing stations would be protected.

 

[davideduardo]

The government gave HUGE protections to NAB.

The government frequently gives protection to existing structures and systems so as to not disrupt the economy and to give investors the security to continue putting money into new ventures.

In satellite radio, it was only approved as a subscrption-only service, and a concession to GIVE NAB members part of the bandwidth. Later, unequal music royalties were put in place to further protect NAB. If satellite radio were to have been configured as a common carrier, with franchisees using rented channels, and the franchisees given the option as to whether their channels were open (paid for with adversiting) or premium (subscription), it would have quickly florished. Many AM and FM stations would be affected, pressured to have local flavor to keep listeners.

It is a dangerous assumption that some entity would put billion-dollar satellite systems into orbit to rent channels to yet to be identified renters who would try to sell advertisers on pouring money into channels that likely would not show in local ratings.

Only the subscriber based services were able to use that subscription money to incentivise car manufacturers and their dealer organizations to install satellite radios. Your alternative would have no appeal to car manufacturers as there was no incentive. And since satellite radio reception basically sucks inside homes and offices, everything rode on the adoption of satellite by the auto companies. And even then, it took a decade, the loss of billions in operating costs and a merger for satellite to become profitable.

In LPFM, they were protected by the decree that only non-commercial stations LPFMs would be allowed. This meant that while LPFMs would be going on the air, the advertising revenues of the existing stations would be protected.

100 watts at 100 feet is not a big enough footprint to sustain a commercial station just about anywhere. And the revenues they might pick up from local shoe repair shops, auto repair services and neighborhood restaurants would come from advertisers who could never afford full market radio stations. The only threat that commercial LPFM stations pose to "normal" stations is making the entire FM band harder to use and more congested with useless junk.

 

[TheBigA]

Some broadcasters actually wanted DTV because they were concerned that more people would subscribe to cable as long as their OTA signals could be affected by "snow" or "ghosting".

I never heard anyone make that argument. What I heard was how much HDTV was costing stations in terms of capital equipment. And it was a lot. Even their old backdrops had to be replaced because of how they looked in HD. None of the expense was recoupable. I don't know if any broadcasters objected to consumers getting their signal from cable. Some of them even own cable companies. The main issue here was the government wanted the spectrum. It didn't matter what the NAB said. The government doesn't want FM spectrum. So they don't care.

With regards to satellite radio, AFAIK, it was always intended as a subscription service. The music royalties they pay have nothing to do with the NAB, but rather the RIAA, who complained at the hearings (which I attended) that consumers would be able to make CD-quality copies of their music from the satellite, costing them money. No one at the NAB or in their membership gets anything from that royalty. The music channels are always intended to be commercial free, and that has been a major selling point for them over the years. The other channels accept paid advertising.

Obviously the NAB objected to LPFM, but the bigger issue was infringement on existing signals, not advertising. Having run several LPFMs, I can tell you that the chances of getting commercial advertising isn't easy, and would have interfered with our programming mission. It seems that the FCC is intent on allowing LPFMs to apply for translator licenses. That will certainly make some AM owners unhappy, but the FCC has its own agenda.

 

[Chuck]

Of course it was repugnant. Investors ranging from individuals to state pension funds had equity stakes in radio owners whose equity would be nearly wiped out. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and the transition would be so confusing ratings wise that many advertisers would shift budgets out of radio entirely for the duration.

When you look at a market like LA, where there are roughly 90 stations home to the market, with signal parity the audience might be so fragmented as to cause the loss of any kind of superior programming due to the destruction of the business model and the revenue base.

And that's the real reason we adopted HD, not DAB....

 

[MrDonT]

The only reason it's not a problem in Norway is that the only stations going on DAB are owned by the same entity: The government. If we had a similar situation here, there'd be similar response. But there, it's already a level playing field, so nothing was changed.

Not correct. The corvernment owned channels goes to DAB/DAB+ yes, thats correct. So does the privately owned commercial national networks, P4 and Radio Norge and all the commercial local stations. Left on FM will be the small non-commercial stations and LPFM stations. The move that is comming is a "shared costs" between NRK and the national commercial networks.

DAB has been tested in Norway by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (government owned) NRK since 1994, but the first test was run back in 1991 with at test network run by then-government-owned telecom supplyer "Televerket".

More info (in Norwegian (try google translate)) http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Broadcasting. Less info in the English version of the same page.

Back in 1992/93 I was one of the "not so lucky" ones picked out by a commercial station I worked for, to prepare the move to DAB. Back then I was the Tech Manager at 2 stations. I later left the commercial radio world and has been against DAB ever since. Nothing sounds as "neat" as FM Yes I love static.

 

[Kelly A]

Some broadcasters actually wanted DTV because they were concerned that more people would subscribe to cable as long as their OTA signals could be affected by "snow" or "ghosting". Each customer getting hooked up to cable was a customer who would be watching broadcast channels less often as it brought new competition for viewers.

I was CTO of a major broadcast group owner during the ramp-up to DTV conversion, and quality of Over The Air viewing wasn't even a concern for station owners, given the estimated nationwide penetration of OTA viewership was less than 20% at the time. For some broadcasters the interest in DTV was the ability to carry multiple SD channels in the same transmitted real estate, while most had interest in carrying their network affiliation's HD programming. For some, the hope was that HD programming would represent extra revenue, but was quickly determined that wasn't the case. As was mentioned here already, the cost of implementation was head and shoulders above any business benefit.

DTV was also supposed to save the US industry in the manufacture of TV sets, which was being hammered with sets imported from Japan and Taiwan. Japan had been testing an analog HDTV standard, so the US industry thought they needed their own to retain their place in the market.

This wasn't a consideration that I'd ever heard. TV manufacturing had been done overseas exclusively for 20+ years prior to any discussion of DTV migration. Back in the infancy of TV in the late 50's, major broadcasters were also manufacturers of TV's promoting things like color, but that rapidly changed when companies like RCA sold off stations and TV manufacturing went overseas. I remember very clearly what the motivation for the DTV migration was..spectrum, and the potential for Government auctions. The problem was it wasn't thought through to the goal. Nobody bothered to ask potential auction customers what spectrum they would be interested in 'buying'. So what ended up happening is the FCC gave TV broadcasters UHF spectrum as a migratory method, leaving the undesirable VHF spectrum open. Fast forward to 2011, and the FCC wants stations to give up their UHF channels for auction.

In a classic exhibtion of the USA's "old economy", it would be about a decade between the launch of HDTV content (OTA mostly in major markets) and the time when one could actually try to buy an HDTV device.


The government gave HUGE protections to NAB.

DTV-capable sets were out around the same time some stations were broadcasting on their migratory DTV channels too. The real issue for consumers was cost. In the beginning HDTV/DTV tuner-equipped sets were very expensive and the amount of HDTV programming was limited. That, and there was a lot of confusion for consumers who purchased 16:9 screen TV's what would stretch or zoom the SD 4:3 image into 16:9. "See I bought this TV and how I'm watching HD"! This is a similar confusion for folks who still think the migration to DTV was purely for presenting HDTV. That was quite simply never the case.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

@DavidEduardo:
Yes, the government is now in the business of protecting investors from competition. This is the antithesis of free enterprise, and is the hallmark of an old economy. It encourages rent-seeking behaviors, puts cash into investment accounts and out of circulation, choking off production and services, but it worked well for investors in Cuba as long as Batista was in office.
I disagree with your claim that there would have been no incentive to include satellite receivers. People have always been clamoring for alternatives to the limited options of broadcast radio. Case and point would be the introduction of 8-Track cartridge players (later cassette, still later CD, and now audio inputs).
And in some cases (especially ethnic enclaves) 100w @100' can be profitable, especially if the venture capital is just a one-room studio/office, a 100' tower, a ground-plane antenna, a 125w transmitter and 150' of coax - and not a $10,000,000 license.

@Kelly A:
Talk of DTV was actually getting serious in the mid-1980s, when about half of homes were OTA-only. At this time, even cellular telephone service was on "public airwaves", licensed like broadcast radio and television, from multiple applicants (with the exception that the "B" franchise was offered first to the local ILEC). RCA and Zenith were still turning out TV sets in the US (though even they had started building some sets in Mexico and were sourcing some portables offshore).
One of the original benefits of DTV was to be that all television could be moved to the UHF band, on channels 14-69, so that homes would need only small antennas, even for fringe areas, and disruptions from lighting and ionospheric propagation would be eliminated. Only later, when they decided spectrum could be real estate, did they add VHF channels and take away more UHF channels (52-69) from the top for auctioning. (Specifically, they first chopped 63-69 and promised no TV on low-VHF, then later chopped 52-62 and kept both VHF bands for DTV).
Many DTV transmitters came up before the year 2000. It was almost impossible for anyone to watch them. HD-capable TV sets of the early and mid-2000s were "HDTV ready", which meant they could produce an HD picture from an external source. Most retailers were not carrying HDTV tuners, as by that time they were also in the business of selling cable and satellite subscriptions.

 

[davideduardo]

@DavidEduardo:
Yes, the government is now in the business of protecting investors from competition.

No, that is not the business of government. But what is their business is regulating the economy to avoid the destructive collapses such as we saw in The Great Depression. One part of doing this is to give investors confidence that the government will not change the rules so much that large sectors of the economy are disrupted. This is what allows venture capital to pour in seed money and burn capital into new ideas for years and years before a profit can be obtained. In a less stable economy, money would only go to safe investments rather than speculative ones.

This is the antithesis of free enterprise, and is the hallmark of an old economy.

Not really. A huge segment of investors look for predictability and income and invest to fund pensions, 401-k's and IRA's. They invest to endow hospitals and universities and even the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. For such funds and entities to exist, the government has to exercise a prudent stewardship of the economy.

It encourages rent-seeking behaviors, puts cash into investment accounts and out of circulation, choking off production and services,

Money invested goes to buy shares in companies that sustain our economy, pay taxes and pay taxed salaries. Investment is not wrong. In fact, there are classes of investment ranging from the very secure like government and municipal bonds to the speculative, such as startups. All of these sustain different portions of the economy; the bonds fund schools and roads and water projects while the funding of startups fosters innovation and creative activities.

but it worked well for investors in Cuba as long as Batista was in office.

Hardly. Most industry, commerce and agriculture in Cuba was not owned by shareholders in public companies but by the families that constituted the Cuban oligarchy. It is not at all similar to anything in the US... not even to the era of Rockefeller, Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and the monopolists of the turn of the century 115 years ago.

I disagree with your claim that there would have been no incentive to include satellite receivers. People have always been clamoring for alternatives to the limited options of broadcast radio.

No, they haven't. While there is a vocal fringe, in general niche formats tend to have small, unprofitable audiences because those dissatisfied listeners envision stations programmed to their specific tastes and would not be happy with anything else.

Case and point would be the introduction of 8-Track cartridge players (later cassette, still later CD, and now audio inputs).

People have always wanted to "own" the music they love the most and to have it accessible on their timetable. The phonograph record, the 45 and then the cassette and 8-Track are just ways of having access to one's personal music collection. For many decades, from the fall of Petrillo and the AFM's control of music on the radio until the advent of file sharing, music producers knew that radio and records had a marvelous symbiotic relationship that produced mutual benefits.

And in some cases (especially ethnic enclaves) 100w @100' can be profitable, especially if the venture capital is just a one-room studio/office, a 100' tower, a ground-plane antenna, a 125w transmitter and 150' of coax - and not a $10,000,000 license.

The kind of commercial programming that a 100 watt station could produce on the income from such a small area (less than 50 or so square miles with a 65 dbu signal in most cases) would not generally be competitive with the major stations and would only have as customers the smallest businesses who would pay low, low rates.

Even the smallest viable ethnic community is going to be more spread out than an LPFM signal will cover. The decision to make LPFM a non-commercial service was evidence of a rare stroke of intelligence within the government as it essentially said "you won't be able to make money off this kind of facility, but you might provide a good service to a small area in a big city or a rural community not big enough to sustain a "real" radio station.

A good example is a very well engineered and run station, KFXM-LP in Lancaster, CA. It's in a metro area of around 500,000... yet the 100 watt transmitter puts a 65 dbu signal over just slightly over 8,000 of them. There is no business model that would make this station commercially viable but as an LPFM it is a pretty neat little station.

 

[Kelly A]

@Kelly A:
Talk of DTV was actually getting serious in the mid-1980s, when about half of homes were OTA-only.

Cable was rapidly taking over local TV viewing from OTA in the 80's. HOA's limiting receive-side antenna use, higher-density housing, and local must-carry rules along with standard cable programming, increased adoption of cable and the subscription model. Japan had already adopted analog HDTV in the 80's, but interest didn't even move the needle in the US or Europe. Cost of program production was prohibitive, so programming was almost nonexistent, combined with the lack of a US standard for broadcasting in HD. It wasn't until the adoption of COFDM modulation in Europe and later, 8VSB in the US, that interest in "digital" broadcasting for call letter TV stations interested anyone. Digital is sexy and modern. Analog isn't.

One of the original benefits of DTV was to be that all television could be moved to the UHF band, on channels 14-69, so that homes would need only small antennas, even for fringe areas, and disruptions from lighting and ionospheric propagation would be eliminated. Only later, when they decided spectrum could be real estate, did they add VHF channels and take away more UHF channels (52-69) from the top for auctioning. (Specifically, they first chopped 63-69 and promised no TV on low-VHF, then later chopped 52-62 and kept both VHF bands for DTV).

The original assumptions were that existing VHF TV stations would flash-cut to digital. The channels 52+ were already earmarked for auction, regardless of the interest in DTV adoption. When broadcasters and TV manufacturers presented the chicken-and-egg argument that moving viewership to DTV could take years, the Commission was forced to offer migratory channels on a market by market, first served allocation up to a deadline. By August 1998, ( I remember because of the 35 applications I needed to prepare) TV stations needed to decide and file-for whether they would indeed flash-cut their existing channels to digital at the yet-to-be-determined deadline, or simulcast their primary station on a companion UHF channel. Because of the problems of destructive impulse noise in low-VHF channels, most broadcasters who were thinking ahead anyway, chose to keep their UHF migration channel, shutting down the analog at the switchover.

Many DTV transmitters came up before the year 2000. It was almost impossible for anyone to watch them. HD-capable TV sets of the early and mid-2000s were "HDTV ready", which meant they could produce an HD picture from an external source. Most retailers were not carrying HDTV tuners, as by that time they were also in the business of selling cable and satellite subscriptions.

I wouldn't say "many", but more like a handful. One of my former stations, KOMO-TV in Seattle, was one of the first to fire up a full power DTV simulcast in the 90's. Most of the content was up-converted 16:9 SD to 720P HD anyway. Broadcast Engineering Magazine even did an article on KOMO being one of the pioneers in broadcasting HD but the fact is, all of our newscasts were up-converted 16:9 SD from our production control room. Even the experts couldn't tell the difference.

 

[Kelly A]

Returning to the topic in progress.. In weighing various options being bandied about saving the AM (MW) broadcast band, I'm starting to lean toward the gradual abandoning-it camp. I can't believe I'm saying it, but maybe the US is getting ripe for something like DAB. In theory we could gradually migrate all the existing AM broadcasters in major markets to a single carrier/channel DAB model.

For example, if the government were to allot one low 6 MHz former VHF TV channel in each market to begin broadcasting in DAB mode, literally most of the surviving AM stations in that market could start simulcasting their existing program audio for a yet-to-be-determined length of time. As with DTV tuners, the government requires all radio manufacturers build SDR radios that include DAB channel(s). Then at some point in the future as DAB listening begins to pass AM listening (which at this rate with increasing noise and interference, won't be too long), AM transmission is discontinued. Think of it, all the things that limited AM broadcasters to compete in the market head-to-head would be eliminated. Signal quality and reception wouldn't be a competitive advantage or disadvantage anymore. Content would be the only differentiation between the leaders and losers.

 

[TheBigA]

In theory we could gradually migrate all the existing AM broadcasters in major markets to a single carrier/channel DAB model.

None of the Commissioners have even suggested this as a possibility.

The FCC would have to make a major commitment, and do it basically for free, unless they sell the new frequencies the way they're selling other parts of the spectrum. Plus, the time to have done this was 20 years ago.

 

[Kelly A]

None of the Commissioners have even suggested this as a possibility.

The FCC would have to make a major commitment, and do it basically for free, unless they sell the new frequencies the way they're selling other parts of the spectrum. Plus, the time to have done this was 20 years ago.

And I submit the reason this hasn't been explored is because if you review the comments collected through the comment open period, the only things suggested by broadcaster's who bothered to comment were: (for the most part) Granting access to FM translators for simulcasting or night operation of AM programming and expanding the traditional FM broadcast band into some former TV channels.

I completely agree that this sort of thing should have been pursued 20 years ago, but common to the way we do business in this country, nothing happens until it reaches crisis status. That, and as was the case with DTV, the U.S. had to come up with their own technical standards for DTV implementation, rather than moving toward an international standard like Europe did with DTV and for radio, DAB.

 

[TheBigA]

And I submit the reason this hasn't been explored is because if you review the comments collected through the comment open period, the only things suggested by broadcaster's who bothered to comment were:

But it HAS been explored by the FCC, and it was dismissed many years ago.

 

[Chuck]

But it HAS been explored by the FCC, and it was dismissed many years ago.

That is primarily because existing broadcasters did not want to upset the balance of power. If the success or failure of a station existed solely on programming and not signal quality, the deck chairs would have been shuffled in ways large broadcasters would not have been happy about.

 

[TheBigA]

That is primarily because existing broadcasters did not want to upset the balance of power.

As I said earlier in this thread, the FCC has done many things over opposition from "existing broadcasters." And at the same time, they've said no to proposed rules changes from "existing broadcasters." The latest idea was to remove AM stations from the ownership cap. That idea got a big fat no.

But think for a moment of the number of boat anchor AM stations companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus own thanks to various mergers. Don't you think they'd love to have those signals on equal footing with others?

 

[Chuck]

A

But think for a moment of the number of boat anchor AM stations companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus own thanks to various mergers. Don't you think they'd love to have those signals on equal footing with others?

When a lot of this was being considered, those AM's weren't such big "boat anchors." Since the frenzy days of 1996 and beyond, most large groups have been living for quick profits right now and not thinking long term.

 

[TheBigA]

Since the frenzy days of 1996 and beyond, most large groups have been living for quick profits right now and not thinking long term.

None of that explains why an independent regulatory agency, whose role is to oversee a major national resource, would simply rubber stamp whatever a small number of licensees want. I've not found that to be the case. Even then, there was a lot more money promoting digital conversion than preserving status quo. There's more money in speculation than preservation, then and now.