Ok Libreals and Conservitives, you get to create a Digital standard for Radio

[Radiogeek500]

Since we have so much squabbling over a standard for Digital Radio

I'll sit back and let you all create a standard for Digital Radio. You have to have Multicasts, must have FM like sound for AM, and yes, no interference issues.

No, you are not staying Analog, and XM/Sirius is not your answer.

Something tells me the political parties here can't unite on a standard!

 

[hipporadio]

Since it’s been nearly a decade since I’ve last “crammed for this exam”, I may need to call on the likes of Tom Wells or radioskeptic for any required technical corrections, but here goes...

Back in the mid 90s as discussion mounted on a digital solution for analog over-the-air radio, a model that was frequently detailed was the Eureka 147 system under implementation in Western Europe, the Pacific Rim, and Canada. This would involve the use of a “little-used” swath of spectrum just above one-gigahertz (this is where correction may be required to accurately detail the actual frequency). It was projected that propagation characteristics would nearly mimic those of cell-phone service. In smaller urban areas—a one-site solution could provide adequate coverage... In larger or more difficult terrain areas—a multi-cell approach could be implemented to augment and expand coverage area as needed. Numerous collaboration scenarios were possible, but stations wishing to broadcast in digital would simply plug their program data stream (or streams) into the common “community transmitter” and share in the cost of its construction, operation, depreciation, maintenance, and expense. Up to this point, does any of this sound illogical, unfair, or unsound from a business standpoint?

In effect, the industry would create a dedicated “digital radio band”—no hybrid nonsense—no interference to existing services. Obviously, a new radio would become necessary (such is the case now with IBOC), but the marketing paradigm would be completely different. Some argued that its “new, pristine, and separate” nature would be a “technical turn-on” in the marketplace—and would totally eliminate any confusion with “that ‘ole fashioned radio”. Remember... DBS (XM Radio) was just a “business plan” at that time!

As I recall—there were two problems. First, that “little-used” spectrum was reserved by the federal government. While its actual utilization was never disclosed—many suspected it was military in nature, and investigation revealed its use to be confined to the San Francisco area. Despite this, Canada moved ahead with its DAB plan using the same frequencies with a protection and interference resolution pledge to the U.S. government (no coonflicts were ever reported). While some (generally the usual corporate radio suspects) claimed that the feds would NEVER surrender that real estate—many others steadfastly maintained that had the industry used half its muscle expended on many other self-serving lobbies, and not be pursuing OTHER motives, this range of frequencies COULD have been reallocated. Had this come to reality—the FCC would have certainly mandated that EVERYONE large and small - AM and FM - have the opportunity to “opt in”.

Interestingly, IBOC as we know it today was very much an ongoing “science fair project” in the lab at that very time—operated by a select consortium of large-market radio broadcasters and incorporated as the entity U.S. Digital Radio, Inc. They had even secured an experimental AM license in the yet to be populated AM X-band on 1660 kHz in the northern Cincinnati suburbs.

Second pitfall was large market radio’s obsession with its own “turf”. Implementation of any system based Eureka 147’s common “everyone can be a user—everyone’s a winner” topography challenged “big radio's” sacred disposition with the size and perceived value of its “stick”. Very simply—it could not support a system that allowed smaller FMs and AM stations in the same market to achieve technical and coverage parity—even if that required the “big guy” to shoulder the total cost of a digital transmission system.

In so many words... Don’t let your format be your foot-soldier when you head out to conquer cash in the digital world. Corporate broadcasting, to more than just a casual extent, has always enjoyed competing on an uneven field—so long as the elevation and power were in their favor. Since many decisions formative to digital radio were made BEFORE the results of the Telcom Bill became reality, “Big Radio” may very well have crippled its digital future by simply (and stupidly) deciding to maintain its competitive status quo. In short—they doggedly continued to pursue “instant gratification” at the total expense of future gratification!

 

[Chuck]

In so many words... Don’t let your format be your foot-soldier when you head out to conquer cash in the digital world. Corporate broadcasting, to more than just a casual extent, has always enjoyed competing on an uneven field—so long as the elevation and power were in their favor. Since many decisions formative to digital radio were made BEFORE the results of the Telcom Bill became reality, “Big Radio” may very well have crippled its digital future by simply (and stupidly) deciding to maintain its competitive status quo. In short—they doggedly continued to pursue “instant gratification” at the total expense of future gratification!

I don't think I could have expressed it any better. Any system that has a potential of offering parity among broadcasters is doomed by the interests of big business. Right or wrong, that's the reality.

If you want to do digital radio, and do it right, you will need to open up new frequencies. Anything less is a compromise.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Since we have so much squabbling over a standard for Digital Radio

I'll sit back and let you all create a standard for Digital Radio. You have to have Multicasts, must have FM like sound for AM, and yes, no interference issues.

No, you are not staying Analog, and XM/Sirius is not your answer.

Something tells me the political parties here can't unite on a standard!

I like FM eXtra for totally compatible digital FM.
www.dreinc.com
It works better then iBiquty, has better coverage, and causes no harm.
Who said you necessarily have to have a digital copy of your analog FM program anyway?
That is just plain wasteful of spectrum, and is causing conflicts and interference.
Provide a digital copy of your analog FM or provide a new FM eXtra digital stream now, then later, if successful, drop the analog stereo subcarrier and add another digital channel. When ready to go totally digital, drop the analog entirely, and add 2 more digital channels for a total of 4 or more digitals.
That exposes the iBiquity deception that only their system provides for the transition to digital. But the whole HD Radio scam has been totally based on selling snake oil and deception.
As for AM, that may have to wait until a truly viable, compatible, AM system is publicly demonstrated.

 

[clouseau]

Hippo, I think you have it. (Funny how we all saw this years ago.)

Supercaster. Remember that FMExtra Kills SCA. That's the reading for the Blind. And a lot of ethnic stuff in big cities. And some data and a bunch of stuff that "Joe Average" doesn't care about, but means a lot to a small group of people.

New service = new frequency.

Hippo - long live Eureka 147. Even on a different frequency if we need to guide those smart bombs to their targets in the "L" band.

Remember NTSC color "IBOC" was a mistake... and so is IBOC AM & FM.

Clouseau.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

cluseau:

Supercaster. Remember that FMExtra Kills SCA. That's the reading for the Blind. And a lot of ethnic stuff in big cities. And some data and a bunch of stuff that "Joe Average" doesn't care about, but means a lot to a small group of people.

Nonsense, FM eXtra does not "kill SCA" it just updates it to higher quality stereo, digital. The blind and others will be delighted!

 

[clouseau]

>>Remember that FMExtra Kills SCA. That's the reading for the Blind. And a lot of ethnic stuff in big cities. >>And some data and a bunch of stuff that "Joe Average" doesn't care about, but means a lot to a small >>group of people.


>Nonsense, FM eXtra does not "kill SCA" it just updates it to higher quality stereo, digital. The blind and others >will be delighted!

To a degree you are correct it will not "Kill" the availablility of the service. It will just make all the receivers obsolete and require a HUGE expense to replace them. This in a service where there is basically NO REVENUE. In some cases that's a few dozen radios. In other cases it's as many as 8000. Check out http://www.htradio.net . I hear they have placed 8000 radios in their area. People like you and me that ponied up the 30 bucks each for a radio. And why is it that they and the blind and the Greeks and Hatians in big cities need to trash all their radios again??? FM Extra kills every SCA radio in the nation. Now that may not necessarily make it a bad idea, but perfume on a turd is still a nice smelling turd.

Clouseau.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

>>Remember that FMExtra Kills SCA. That's the reading for the Blind. And a lot of ethnic stuff in big cities. >>And some data and a bunch of stuff that "Joe Average" doesn't care about, but means a lot to a small >>group of people.


>Nonsense, FM eXtra does not "kill SCA" it just updates it to higher quality stereo, digital. The blind and others >will be delighted!

To a degree you are correct it will not "Kill" the availablility of the service. It will just make all the receivers obsolete and require a HUGE expense to replace them. This in a service where there is basically NO REVENUE. In some cases that's a few dozen radios. In other cases it's as many as 8000. Check out http://www.htradio.net . I hear they have placed 8000 radios in their area. People like you and me that ponied up the 30 bucks each for a radio. And why is it that they and the blind and the Greeks and Hatians in big cities need to trash all their radios again??? FM Extra kills every SCA radio in the nation. Now that may not necessarily make it a bad idea, but perfume on a turd is still a nice smelling turd.

Clouseau.

Let us compare that to the alternative, HD Radio, that potentially interferes with all or most of the over 1 billion analog radios in North America, is spending hundreds of millions, to make hundreds of millions of people to spend hundreds of dollars per radio to replace existing analog radios, and claims HD Radio is FREE!
Digital FM eXtra is compatible with existing transmission equipment, station assignments, analog reception, and causes no harm. To add FM eXtra to existing radio designs is simple and inexpensive. Not so with HD Radio, that is problematic and does not do what it claims.

FM Extra kills every SCA radio in the nation.

Compared to killing every analog AM and FM radio in North America, the SCA upgrade is miniscule. It is past time to update SCA to better, clearer, digital stereo reception anyway. Replacing a few thousand obsolete SCA radios is a much smaller disruption and price to pay then HD Radio, that disrupts everything.

but perfume on a turd is still (just) a nice smelling turd.

You've come up with a perfect description of HD Radio, not FM eXtra!
HD Radio causes millions of times the cost, disruption, expense, and interference that digitally upgrading (to FM eXtra) a small handful of obsolete, mono, low-fi, SCA radios, does. The new FM eXtra radios would not only pick up specialty services such as those for the blind, but all the new FM eXtra digital stereo stations as well, and do it way out to the FM stations stereo contour, and without all of HD Radio's major interference, expense, changes to the stations transmitting equipment, station allocation problems, and expensive, radio replacements.

To a degree you are correct it will not "Kill" the availablility of the service. It will just make all the receivers obsolete and require a HUGE expense to replace them.

That describes HD Radio, not FM eXtra. FM eXtra will standardize, high quality, long range, inexpensive, FM eXtra radios for all services, and give stations the opportunity to use and profit from them many ways.
The "huge expense" you object to is HD Radio, not FM eXtra.

 

[Chuck]

I believe that with FMExtra, you can keep one existing SCA channel and do one digital channel if you want to. It is a fairly versatile system.

 

[clouseau]

Remember the thread is "What should the standard be." I would suggest that ANY kind of IBOC digital is a bad idea. Still the FMExtra is intriguing. Remember though that this "Digital to the Stereo contour" is not correct. SCA is much less robust. Also if you were to "Reallocate" the SCA segment of a station's signal, most likely most SCA ox's will get gored.

Remember that's why IBUZZ is on adjacent anyway.

So as far as a new digital standard. I'd have to go with a Eureka 147 type system.

However we are stuck with the FM variant of this junk no matter what. As for the end of the world when FM HD Ibuzz starts... It's already started. Let me know when it's safe to come out from under my desk.

As for AM IBUZZ, forget it. Running that puppy at night WILL be the end of the world. (At least the AM world.)

How about a DRM band somewhere?

Clouseau

 

[hipporadio]

MANY good posts here... Let’s reward Joshua M (and his challenge) with some PRODUCTIVE conversation!

While I was less than 100% sold on the original “L-Band” proposal that “mimicked cell-phone coverage” for steady-state dependable digital coverage—it WAS an exciting plan to me in 1995! It addressed many concerns and promoted a future. Should it be at 26 MHz as suggested, or should it occupy the “original” FM band from 30-50 MHz?—('don’t think either viable for a number of reasons)... Or should it populate the soon to be vacated CH 5/6 VHF TV spectrum—VERY interesting proposition.

The “L-band Eureka 147” model (regardless of transmission frequency) presents a “win-win” in many ways.

* It accommodates the “players” AND smaller concerns that should NOT be diminished in this debate and their RIGHT to participate in the digital future.

* It DOES NOT present degrading interference to existing service on either band—which will remain important for MANY for years to come.

* It DOES allow for station-multicast—should that station wish to pay for the bandwidth and offer a service beyond a “PC in a broom closet” that will depend on public acceptance to survive and flourish.

* It provides for a “migration” from the crowded and degraded AM band should the FCC enlist “creative options” to those license-holders to TURN OFF their pathetic 39-watt night signals NOW!

* It DOES allow for “selectable quality”—“Talkers” obviously would NOT require the data-rate that do serious music operations thus optimizing digital transmission capacity.

* It DOES lessen interference on that “natural resource” known as “skywave AM radio”—one that may become very important in the times we live in.

I am TOTALLY CONVINCED as a successful radio marketer that the presentation and consumer sales paradigms would be very different IF “radio” could present a “pristine new band” with desirable fidelity and programming options to the consumer marketplace. This IS—simple logic... Think like a buyer of XM at the “big box retailer”.

WHY do some of you guys in corporate radio not see the “forest because of the trees” and continue on with this iBiquity debacle?

 

[clouseau]

Hippo,

I think the answer to your last question is simple. The "Haves" want to remain the "Haves" and they want to do so at the expense of the "Have Nots".

There is a slippery slope here though. If there were four times as many stations as there are now, would the revenue ever justify anything but a computer in a closet?

(It might take wiser men than us to figure this one out.)

Clouseau.

 

[Chuck]

Or should it populate the soon to be vacated CH 5/6 VHF TV spectrum—VERY interesting proposition.

Annexing TV Channel 6, and hopefully Channel 5 would solve many problems. It would even allow the current form of IBOC to live on for those who wanted it. My bet is the FCC will never mandate any digital standard for broadcast radio. They will leave it to the market to figure it out. That has been the kiss of death for quite a few technologies the FCC has failed to bless, but it does seem to be working in the land of HDTV. My TV can decode 18 varieties of digital TV.

If my prediction comes to pass, it will mean that multi standard radio receivers will become the norm. I’ve been told on this board that Ibiquity won’t stand for that, but the jury is still out. I suspect that when push comes to shove, Ibiquity will prefer to license their technology, rather than to go broke. Besides, if it ever becomes worth the trouble, there is a 15 year old whiz kid out there who will crack the code, and figure out how to make a receiver that can decode the signal. There isn’t much that is software based that can’t be cracked. Once that is done, our friends building radios in China will take it from there.

At least, if these TV channels were annexed, it would allow for increased space to do whatever seems to work best. That could be the NAB's proposal to allow daytime AM stations to have FM translators. It could mean an increase in LPFM or community radio stations. It would certainly help the noncom stations who are short spaced, to find a little room for their digital broadcasts. Even large corporate radio could find more outlets for their programming. Of course, traditional analog broadcasting could be done on those frequencies and you could switch on the FMExtra, or go all digital with DRM. The choice could be yours. There may be an even better system that none of us are aware of.

Naturally, all of this would take new radios to achieve the full impact, but we are talking about that anyway. It wouldn’t instantly obsolete anything, including your brand new BA Receptor, or my venerable Zenith FM console radio. They'd all still work. They just wouldn't be able to receive every signal out there. As far as analog is concerned, there is a ready supply of radios that can tune channel 6 up through the current FM band. The only people who would be negatively impacted would be less than a half dozen legacy channel 6 TV stations that plan to revert to their original frequency for DTV. Let them stay on their new channel, and call themselves “Channel 6.” With HDTV right now, the general public doesn’t know what channel they are really watching anyway. My local Channel 3 actually broadcasts on channel 27 (I think). It is also fair to point out that low band VHF isn't all that big an advantage for HDTV or DTV.

The “L-band Eureka 147” model (regardless of transmission frequency) presents a “win-win” in many ways.

The reason for not adopting L Band Eureka was officially, "Those frequencies are reserved for military use." That's great, but I'd kind of like my military to be portable. If the rest of the world is using Eureka 147 on the L band, then our military folks might want to think about finding another frequency. It would be a real drag to have a covert military operation jammed by an Arabic Rap Station.

Truthfully, Eureka has not met with a lot of acceptance, but I understand that Norway is planning on ceasing analog FM broadcasts, in favor of the standard, and in the United Kingdom, it is doing well, albeit in another band.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

clouseau said:

Remember though that this "Digital to the Stereo contour" is not correct. SCA is much less robust.

But digital FMeXtra has been proven to be much MORE robust then analog SCA.

Coverage results

The coverage achieved with the system was impressive. With 20 percent injection, on most radials, solid dropout-free reception was experienced to each station’s 51 to 53 dBu contour.

With 30 percent injection, dropout-free reception was received to the station’s 46 to 50 dBu contours. In the case of the 100 kW station, 20 percent injection provided solid coverage to distances of 57 to 59 miles. With 30 percent injection those distances increased to 61 to 66 miles.

Five of the radials extended out over generally flat but somewhat rolling countryside. Two of the radials extended in an eastward direction crossing the Mississippi River valley 35 to 40 miles away. On those two radials, dropout-free reception ceased once the 600-foot descent into the very wide Mississippi River valley was begun.

Conservatively, from these field tests, it would be safe to say that strong, dropout-free FMeXtra reception can be expected out to a station’s 55 to 60 dBu contour with 20 percent injection.

Radios
The FMeXtra digital system, however, is of little value unless there are radios to receive the signal. DRE says it would have a tabletop radio with a satellite speaker available called the Aruba priced at $150 in November ( www.dreinc.com).

Digital FMeXtra is not your grandpa's analog SCA.
Here is the link:
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.463.html

 

[hipporadio]

Hippo,

I think the answer to your last question is simple. The "Haves" want to remain the "Haves" and they want to do so at the expense of the "Have Nots".

There is a slippery slope here though. If there were four times as many stations as there are now, would the revenue ever justify anything but a computer in a closet?

(It might take wiser men than us to figure this one out.)

Clouseau.

Clouseau... I would hope we could have some more "technical" posts on this topic here considering the very fine individuals who have contributed to this site. Joshua M has thrown down a fair question and challenge. Seems sad that more chose to post about radios at auction on eBay and Radio Shack sales on the Friday past Turkey-Day. I enjoy your your posts here, Clouseau--and hope others will join in!

I'm not sure "the big guys" have a choice at this point (in the IBOC debate)--they program or own radio stations that are dropping in listenership--they go to NAB conventions and view presentations that scold them, then head home and make that Mercury Research CD-ROM they collect at the convention--a coaster at their holiday party!

It seems--corporate radio has very little uumpf to change the current state-of-affairs in "over-the-air" broadcasting--and thus the system for digital transmission. Their "target audience" remains uninterested, and they seem compelled to accept their status quo... And IBOC is merely an "auxilary save all" to them--defective and destructive--yet they remain commited to the cause [??]. SAD! NO ONE said they were very smart!

 

[hipporadio]

[Annexing TV Channel 6, and hopefully Channel 5 would solve many problems. It would even allow the current form of IBOC to live on for those who wanted it. My bet is the FCC will never mandate any digital standard for broadcast radio. They will leave it to the market to figure it out.

I have reviewed many plans, and I find the one involving VHF-TV Ch5/6 to be most interesting... But the "players" in radio seem to ignore that logic... WHY? 'Seems they are invested in the defective and destructive iBiquity technology... 'Seems they are at a point that doesn't allow them to say NO... 'Seems they will go down in a consumer response that equals the "AM Stereo experiment" back in the 80s--SAD because CQUAM AM-Stereo had more going for it than does IBOC.

The reason for not adopting L Band Eureka was officially, "Those frequencies are reserved for military use." That's great, but I'd kind of like my military to be portable. If the rest of the world is using Eureka 147 on the L band, then our military folks might want to think about finding another frequency. It would be a real drag to have a covert military operation jammed by an Arabic Rap Station.

Canada did it with "permission" from the "feds"... Why not domestic radio? Sure--it was "reserved"--in ONE PLACE on the whole national landscape--could have that government service been moved given its VERY LIMITED use?

 

[Tom Wells]

Yes, the military use should be relinquished, as it does not comply with the ITU plan for worldwide allocation.
We are in the wrong here, internationally.

Now I would first agree that a higher frequency, 26 mhz or tv 5-6 will be a good choice for a data mode.

I propose that local and regional broadcasters opt into a digital overlay parallel feed at these higher frequencies,
and local coverage could benefit from an intelligent version of diversity reception, at two frequencies.
The seven second delay may have to become a standard for this to work, or some faster encoding scheme.

Pick up the all-digital at the higher frequency, or add on a diversity module to your existing radio.
This can be designed to go at the detector, or even at the speaker output.

The all-digital at the higher frequency can be given sufficient BW for AM and FM correction of static/multipath, and yet provide the streams necessary for SCA. I suppose extra streams could be accomodated, but again requires more bandwidth and tradeoffs.
If a common carrier supplies the 'enhancement' data on several "servers" a new intelligent HD radio would "find" the stream on the
frequencies in use locally, and correct the signal tuned in AM or FM. There need be no "marrying" of frequencies.

If a station chose not to put the data up to the server, they can stay as they are.
If a station should chose to de so, their listener can buy whatever equipment satisfies their inclination, incuding nothing.
I would be first to buy an adaptor or complete radio with this system, which would not require wide-banded spurious modulation products
in a wavelength ill-suited to such high data rates as MW.

If the higher frequency were FM modulated instead of digital, the whole thing could be damn-near real-time,
and I would like that even better than a digital solution.

Digital solutions have a tendency to get more and more complicated rather than more elegant.
Look at a tuning output phasor or microwave waveguide, then at microsoft.
I argue that the RF engineered devices are more robust and suited to the task than the computer, only adapted for use here,
not really designed with radio in mind.
I didn't say they don't work, I mean they don't inherently make radio, they must be directed to do so.
The previously known and used modes for broadcast have been passive rather than active.
This great efficiency is still one ibuity must conquer, for having so much processing downstream is a drag in many ways.

 

[clouseau]

>>Remember though that this "Digital to the Stereo contour" is not correct. SCA is much less robust.

But digital FMeXtra has been proven to be much MORE robust then analog SCA.

Coverage results

The coverage achieved with the system was impressive. With 20 percent injection, on most radials, solid dropout-free reception was experienced to each station’s 51 to 53 dBu contour.

OK I wasn't there. And I won't say it did not happen. But this is crazy - engineering wise.

With 30 percent injection, dropout-free reception was received to the station’s 46 to 50 dBu contours.

OK, you can legally have another station 's protected contour at the 40 DBu level. You got 30% injection reliable at 46 DBu? Again, I won't say this is Impossible, but I will say this. If it works, I'll buy it and put it on my translator RIGHT NOW. This is VERY close to violating the laws of Physics. BTW, what's the story on that "Radio" I wonder? 46 DBU? How far does these guys "Stereo" go?

In the case of the 100 kW station, 20 percent injection provided solid coverage to distances of 57 to 59 miles. With 30 percent injection those distances increased to 61 to 66 miles.

Five of the radials extended out over generally flat but somewhat rolling countryside. Two of the radials extended in an eastward direction crossing the Mississippi River valley 35 to 40 miles away. On those two radials, dropout-free reception ceased once the 600-foot descent into the very wide Mississippi River valley was begun.

Conservatively, from these field tests, it would be safe to say that strong, dropout-free FMeXtra reception can be expected out to a station’s 55 to 60 dBu contour with 20 percent injection.

If this really works this well, then I'm amazed. It is so far superior to real world SCA it's not funny. As Scotty would say. "They've reinvented the laws of Physics."

Radios
The FMeXtra digital system, however, is of little value unless there are radios to receive the signal. DRE says it would have a tabletop radio with a satellite speaker available called the Aruba priced at $150 in November ( www.dreinc.com).

I'd love to see how this "Massed produced" radio works.

Digital FMeXtra is not your grandpa's analog SCA.
Here is the link:
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.463.html

If it does this, I'd say not.

Clouseau.

 

[Chuck]

There is a fellow named Lyle Henry, who frequents several radio engineering type Boards. He is an expert at the subtleties of all things SCA, and seems well respected by other broadcast engineers. Late last summer he toured around several states experimenting with FMExtra. He found that it far exceeded everyone's expectations. It was quite reliable in the mid 50's dbu contour, and workable in many instances to 50 dbu or beyond. That's quite remarkable, but I have no reason to doubt his claims. I have communicated with him several times, and he seems to have no particular axe to grind. My communication with him was because he was originally hoping to get to my part of the country, and we were going to try it on a translator, as well as a local full power NCE. Unfortunately, we could never get our calendars to synchronize. I would have been very interested to see how it works at low power, if it works at all.

In fact, one of the big problems I have with IBOC is how will it work with low power devices such as translators. Armstrong is making a translator just for the purpose, but I have no idea what kind of coverage 2.5 watts or less of a digital signal can deliver. I expect not much more than a couple of miles, which makes it not worth doing in most instances.

At last summer's Texas Association of Broadcasters Convention, I posed the question of low power HD at an IBOC Seminar that was sponsored by Harris, BE and others involved in the technology. I was told that a translator was in use on the Rice University Campus in Houston. This was because they could not get reliable HD coverage inside campus buildings from their regular transmitter site, which is located of campus. I'm not sure how far away the transmitter site is, but I thought it was odd that they couldn't cover their own campus with their regular HD signal, although it evidentially has always worked OK in analog. The report was the translator did a good job of covering the campus. I'm not that familiar with the Rice Campus, but I think it is less than a couple of square miles. That's not much coverage. Maybe FMExtra can do better.

 

[dbdigital]

Or should it populate the soon to be vacated CH 5/6 VHF TV spectrum—VERY interesting proposition.

Annexing TV Channel 6, and hopefully Channel 5 would solve many problems. It would even allow the current form of IBOC to live on for those who wanted it. My bet is the FCC will never mandate any digital standard for broadcast radio. They will leave it to the market to figure it out. That has been the kiss of death for quite a few technologies the FCC has failed to bless, but it does seem to be working in the land of HDTV. My TV can decode 18 varieties of digital TV.

If my prediction comes to pass, it will mean that multi standard radio receivers will become the norm. I’ve been told on this board that Ibiquity won’t stand for that, but the jury is still out. I suspect that when push comes to shove, Ibiquity will prefer to license their technology, rather than to go broke. Besides, if it ever becomes worth the trouble, there is a 15 year old whiz kid out there who will crack the code, and figure out how to make a receiver that can decode the signal. There isn’t much that is software based that can’t be cracked. Once that is done, our friends building radios in China will take it from there.

At least, if these TV channels were annexed, it would allow for increased space to do whatever seems to work best. That could be the NAB's proposal to allow daytime AM stations to have FM translators. It could mean an increase in LPFM or community radio stations. It would certainly help the noncom stations who are short spaced, to find a little room for their digital broadcasts. Even large corporate radio could find more outlets for their programming. Of course, traditional analog broadcasting could be done on those frequencies and you could switch on the FMExtra, or go all digital with DRM. The choice could be yours. There may be an even better system that none of us are aware of.

Naturally, all of this would take new radios to achieve the full impact, but we are talking about that anyway. It wouldn’t instantly obsolete anything, including your brand new BA Receptor, or my venerable Zenith FM console radio. They'd all still work. They just wouldn't be able to receive every signal out there. As far as analog is concerned, there is a ready supply of radios that can tune channel 6 up through the current FM band. The only people who would be negatively impacted would be less than a half dozen legacy channel 6 TV stations that plan to revert to their original frequency for DTV. Let them stay on their new channel, and call themselves “Channel 6.” With HDTV right now, the general public doesn’t know what channel they are really watching anyway. My local Channel 3 actually broadcasts on channel 27 (I think). It is also fair to point out that low band VHF isn't all that big an advantage for HDTV or DTV.

The “L-band Eureka 147” model (regardless of transmission frequency) presents a “win-win” in many ways.

The reason for not adopting L Band Eureka was officially, "Those frequencies are reserved for military use." That's great, but I'd kind of like my military to be portable. If the rest of the world is using Eureka 147 on the L band, then our military folks might want to think about finding another frequency. It would be a real drag to have a covert military operation jammed by an Arabic Rap Station.

Truthfully, Eureka has not met with a lot of acceptance, but I understand that Norway is planning on ceasing analog FM broadcasts, in favor of the standard, and in the United Kingdom, it is doing well, albeit in another band.

...and Sweden has, for now, decided against digital broadcasting altogether.

Annexing channel 6, though, makes total sense. This part of the spectrum (82-87.9 mHz) is not good for DTV as it makes the DTV signal vulnerable to noise but it would open up some 30 new channels to FM.

Most radios sold in the U.S. can tune to, at least, 87.5 and a few (like my old Sony GX50ES receiver) are able to tune to 87.1 so the FCC could, at the very least, extend the FM band down to 87 and still be compatible with many existing radios.

db