Second Adjacent Chaos for HD Radio

[Chuck]

If both pump out white noise on 94.7, which HD signal wins that battle? Probably the same scenario with 104.3 (100kW-Utica) and 104.7 (50kW-B) from Syracuse.

That is a very good point and the ultimate irony. "HD kills HD." Isn't that called suicide?

Obviously, the answer is "you aren't supposed to be able to listen to either station."

 

[Chuck]

To me, there should be a classification of HD as a "Secondary Service". If you treated HD as an FM translator or LPTV, if it caused actual interference, you could just use 74,1203
(Changes to HD from FM Translator/booster in bold
§ 74.1203 Interference.
(a) An authorized HD transmission will not be permitted to continue if it causes any
actual interference to:
(1) The transmission of any authorized broadcast station; or
(2) The reception of the input signal of any TV translator, TV booster, FM translator or FM booster station; or
(3) The direct reception by the public of the off-the-air signals of any authorized
broadcast station including TV Channel 6 stations, Class D (secondary)noncommercial educational FM stations,and <deleted> FM translators and FM booster stations. Interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the signals radiated by the FM translator or booster station, regardless
of the quality of such reception, the strength of the signal so used, or the channel on which the protected signal is transmitted.
(b) If interference cannot be properly eliminated by the application of suitable techniques, operation of the offending [b}HD transmission[/b] shall be suspended and shall not be
resumed until the interference has been eliminated. Short test transmissions may be made during the period of suspended operation to check the efficacy of remedial measures. If a
complainant refuses to permit the HD licensee to apply remedial techniques which demonstrably will eliminate the interference without impairment to the original reception,
the licensee of the HD station is absolved of further responsibility for that complaint.
(c) An HDstation will be exempted from the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to the extent that it may cause limited interference to its primary station’s signal, provided it does not disrupt the existing service of its primary station or cause such interference within the boundaries of the principal community of its primary station.

I only bring this up because it already exists. I suspect it's WAY too logical to actually be considered.

Now it looks like the subject HAS been changed. Sorry...

Clouseau

Inspector, that makes way too much sense. Unless the FCC undergoes some major changes under the new administration, I doubt that using a rule which already exists and that has worked pretty well, would be allowed to be transplanted to the HD radio service. That would be entirely too simple.

Of course, it might cause a LOT of finger pointing......

 

[clouseau]

Nobody has mentioned the FM translators of AM station. We suddenly got two in the DFW area - on second adjacents! How long before they want HD so they can multicast? Let's see how many second adjacent situations we can get before no HD stations can be received at all!

I suspect some would like HD on a translator right now. However considering the economics of translators and the cost of HD, I wouldn't hold my breath. Most HD installations cost more than the entire traanslator originally. HOWEVER, an FM translator can relay an HD station "HD and all" for a reasonable price using some kind of "Broader composite". At least that's what I understand.

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

Don't forget that the FCC seems to think it is OK to rebroadcast your HD sub channel on an analog translator. It is becoming an increasingly popular idea to make your HD-2’s receivable by the general public, thus economically viable. Just about anywhere, there are a lot more people who can receive a 250 watt analog translator than there are who can receive anything in HD.

I haven't figured out the Commission's logic in this, since it allows for a translator to, in effect; originate local programming (or at least programming targeted at the translator's coverage area). I don't actually have any problem with the concept of translators originating programming; in fact, I think it should be allowed. It beats having some national satellite programming dropped in your community with no local content. The funny thing is if you do this, it should be called LPFM, except this "Translator LPFM" can run commercials, have much higher power and antenna height, and fit in places where LPFM can’t be licensed. The contradictions are mind boggling.

 

[clouseau]

Don't forget that the FCC seems to think it is OK to rebroadcast your HD sub channel on an analog translator. It is becoming an increasingly popular idea to make your HD-2’s receivable by the general public, thus economically viable. Just about anywhere, there are a lot more people who can receive a 250 watt analog translator than there are who can receive anything in HD.

I haven't figured out the Commission's logic in this, since it allows for a translator to, in effect; originate local programming (or at least programming targeted at the translator's coverage area). I don't actually have any problem with the concept of translators originating programming; in fact, I think it should be allowed. It beats having some national satellite programming dropped in your community with no local content. The funny thing is if you do this, it should be called LPFM, except this "Translator LPFM" can run commercials, have much higher power and antenna height, and fit in places where LPFM can’t be licensed. The contradictions are mind boggling.

There appears to be a sense of situational ethics that has developed at the FCC over the years. Gary Murrow (IIRC) got jammed up for LMA'ing an FM in Monticello, NY and then translating it on his transators in "Metro" Ft Lee NJ many years ago. Jukebox radio IIRC. I believe he eventually won the case (Just saw a reference to that recenty), but he had to sell the translators in the interim. I wonder how an HD2 on a translator would be viewed today.

It was George Washington who warned about entangling alliances. Now we have entangling rules.

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

I wonder how an HD2 on a translator would be viewed today.

According to the FCC, it is perfectly OK. It's a done deal. I’ve been told that there are some on the air right now. Funny, they won't allow the same thing if you use FMeXtra to originate the signal. They say that is "not a broadcast service." It kinda makes you wonder what planet the folks in Washington live on.

 

[clouseau]

According to the FCC, it is perfectly OK. It's a done deal. I’ve been told that there are some on the air right now. Funny, they won't allow the same thing if you use FMeXtra to originate the signal. They say that is "not a broadcast service." It kinda makes you wonder what planet the folks in Washington live on.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was "I wonder if a translator owner leased an HD2 like Murro did and retranslated it" if the FCC would cause such a stink. Since the "Owner" of the station Analog isn't extending his programming, just the "Diversity minded" HD2 leasee/LMAer or whatever? My head is ready to explode. Even the FCC seems to be confused on this. This is what comes from grocery shopping various rules to promote HD.

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

I wholeheartedly agree with Clouseau that if a digital FM power increase is to be implemented, that an across-the-board 10db is probably not advisable and that injection levels should be set and interference issues fixed on a case-by-case basis.

But there's a little problem with that: we're talking about the FCC, and excuse me: once bitten....

Let's all recall not only the notorious FCC 2002 First Report and Order on IBOC but many subsequent declarations by the Commission that they "recognized" the potential for destructive skywave interference with HD-AM, and laying out a specific regimen - it was described by the time as an interference "safety valve" - for victim stations to file simple complaints with the Commission, which would then instruct the HD station to turn down the digital injection 6db. If that didn't cure the interference, the HD stations would be subsequently instructed to turn it down ANOTHER 6db, and if THAT didn't cure the problem, night HD operation would be ordered terminated.

And the Commission has, to my knowledge, NEVER followed this mitigation procedure. Not once. In cases such as WFIL vs. WHP and other instances, the Commission has essentially said, "you boys fight this out among yourselves." In cases of wide disparity in political clout and legal/financial resources, such as WYSL vs. WBZ, "working things out" translates to the big guy giving the little guy the finger.

That's the problem here. The FM increase holds enormous potential for conflict and litigation because of the vast array of engineering gray areas and semantic and legalistic arguments that can be advanced. I would argue that conflict and expenditure of scare resources in the financially-troubled industry is NOT a wise thing to do - especially over an issue as completely irrelevant to most radio listeners and advertisers as "HD."

Scott Fybush, I will note in advance your likely protest that HD is working just fine as a side-channel distribution channel for pubcasters.

 

[Chuck]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was "I wonder if a translator owner leased an HD2 like Murro did and retranslated it" if the FCC would cause such a stink. Since the "Owner" of the station Analog isn't extending his programming, just the "Diversity minded" HD2 leasee/LMAer or whatever? My head is ready to explode. Even the FCC seems to be confused on this. This is what comes from grocery shopping various rules to promote HD.

Clouseau

As far as I can tell, what you describe is perfectly OK, because the translator is rebroadcasting a "Broadcast Service." Unless there is some kind of ownership issue that I am not aware of, then the party is on...

It does increase the pressure on the old cranium, doesn't it?

 

[scooterodell]

In an irony-rich situation IBOC drum-beaters Crawford used to have really good penetration of the western suburbs of Rochester with their 80-90 Class A on 102.7. As the original Clouseau said, "not-enny-meure" since grandfathered Class C 102.5 from Buffalo started walloping them with USB HD.

Actually, the reception of 102.7 in western Monroe county hasn't really changed since IBOC came on the scene. I've lived on the westside for well over a decade, and I've been in the employ of 102.7 for most of that time, so I've listened to the signal more than any sane individual probably should. I can tell you this: the 102.7 signal in western Monroe county has always been poor, but it isn't noticeably worse now than it was five years ago. With a good car receiver, I can pick up 102.7 all the way to Albion, but a clock radio in Spencerport has always had trouble with the signal, and even a decent stereo in one of the dorms in North Chili can't pick it up. Brockport, further west, is even worse. And it's not just 102.5 that causes problems... out that way, it is a very common thing to pick up 102.7 Cape Vincent instead of 102.7 Webster.

 

[Play Freebird]

There appears to be a sense of situational ethics that has developed at the FCC over the years. Gary Murrow (IIRC) got jammed up for LMA'ing an FM in Monticello, NY and then translating it on his transators in "Metro" Ft Lee NJ many years ago. Jukebox radio IIRC. I believe he eventually won the case (Just saw a reference to that recenty), but he had to sell the translators in the interim.

How true. This was Gerry Turro who owned W276AQ in Fort Lee and I recall talking with him about this case back when it was a hot topic. He was forced to sell the translators to cover his legal expenses.

iBiquity is actively promoting the use of FM analog translators to relay HD-2 programming -- and so far, the FCC has taken a laissez-faire attitude towards this practice. As long as AM stations are also allowed use of FM translators, I'm not strongly opposed -- but I would like to see the AM rule adopted soon so I don't have to keep filing and waiting for 6 month STAs. In the interest of localism, priority in MX situations should be given to AM broadcasters who are providing a live, local news and information service, rather than corporate behemoths running a low-budget automated jukebox in the back room.

The FCC is a very "political" branch of government; therefore, people with lots of influence and money can expect preferential treatment. I could discuss this for hours, but it's a holiday and we should focus on better thoughts.