The real reason for keeping “HD” FM on life support: Translators?

[radioskeptic]

Ever wonder why so many people who should know better are adamantly supporting “HD” radio? An item in Tom Taylor’s TRI newsletter this morning just might make everything fall into place.

It seems that EMF (the K-Love people) and Clear Channel have struck a deal in the 16th market. EMF is “selling” CC a translator they’ve been able to move into Minneapolis not for money, but for the right to program a CC Detroit station’s HD-2 for the next five years. EMF wants to use the HD-2 to feed several translators they already own in the Detroit area.

Northpine.com says the Minneapolis 170-watt move-in translator “should be [strong] enough to provide a good signal to Minneapolis, most of St. Paul, and many suburbs.” It will rebroadcast CC’s KTLK 100.3, but the application doesn’t specify whether it will be KTLK’s main program or the HD-2. Of course, the smart money’s on the latter. That will give Clear Channel a sixth analog FM signal in the market, albeit a weaker one than the vast majority of Class A’s. So much for the limit of five FM’s in a market

(See http://www.radio-info.com/newsletter/html/tri-03152010.html, fourth item; and be sure to follow the hyperlink in that story to http://northpine.com/broadcast/index.html. A cautionary note to future readers: that Northpine story may be gone as soon as the day after this post.)

So why does Clear Channel want that signal? Apparently, they hope to copy the success of WWWQ-HD-2 in Atlanta, which began to show up in the PPM’s only after it acquired an analog translator. See TRI from last July 17: http://www.radio-info.com/newsletter/html/tri-07172009.html (second item). And Tom followed that up with a report on September 11 about the HD-2’s of both WWWQ and Asheville, NC station WOXL sponsoring concerts—and both of those HD-2’s have analog translators. (That was http://www.radio-info.com/newsletter/html/tri-09112009.html, twelfth story.) What’s more, he cited Sean Ross’ report on those concerts (http://www.radio-info.com/newsletter/html/ror-09102009.html, fifth story).

As long as the FCC allows HD-2’s (and possibly HD-3’s) to serve as primary stations for analog translators, owners looking for more stations will keep those secondary channels in operation, just waiting for the day they can find one or more translators for each of them. If the FCC lets them use this shameless ruse to get around the limit of five signals on the same band per market, that’s all the motivation they need to stick with a system that doesn’t work, and which has elicited virtually no interest from the general public, only from radio professionals and some radio geeks—and at least half of the latter group who bought the things (the smarter half!) did so only to scoff, and to confirm their prognosis that the system would be terrible.

What do the rest of you think? Is the hope of making those “stations between the stations” viable through analog translators the only reason some industry “HD” advocates haven’t yet thrown in the towel?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That's an interesting "game plan" and I don't begin to predict if it will fly, if it will become an accepted norm going forward.

Here are some of the situations that will be yelling and crying that they have an equal or better expectation of controlling what few spaces are available on the dial.

The people with daytime only AMs and AMs with very, very low night time power have there hopes up and in their mind surely an available translator should be available to them before some kind of secondary channel affirmation.

The people who aspire to get their very own little LPFM are going to be in the room yelling and crying that they deserve a seat at the table. Currently they have to vacate a channel if a "real broadcaster" makes an application that makes an existing LPFM extra baggage. They think they have a commitment from congress and the FCC that in the future they will get permanent possession of their little place. The devil is in the details but it could be that when tht legislation is written the tables will be turned and a new LPFM application could force a traanslator to vacate a channel. That fight will be noisy.

Back home the people I went to school with sit a watch the paint dry for entertainment. We get to sit and watch the ink dry on future legislation. The excitement is just overwhelming.

 

[stacker]

Skeptic, You're right on track.

The FCC let the horse out of the barn on this trick a while ago, so now it has become one of their "accepted practices." You know, one of their rules that are not in the real rules.

Are these HD-2 translators providing fill in service? Hell no. If they were, they would re-transmit the HD signal in its original form. Digital. This is just a sham to allow adding another analog voice to the market. I've heard these HD translators imaged to fit the frequency of the translator. It's wrong.

 

[TheBigA]

The people who aspire to get their very own little LPFM are going to be in the room yelling and crying that they deserve a seat at the table.

No one "deserves" a seat at the table. That is fiction. When you throw minnows in with the sharks, the sharks eat lunch. It's every minnow for himself. The FCC has far bigger fish to fry. If you want their protection, you need to play in the internet fishbowl.

 

[Savage]

Actually, BigA, it does appear that "some people" do "deserve a seat at the table." Who the deserving parties are depends on shadowy politics running behind the scenes at the FCC. The "deserving parties" are generally special interests who have the most "persuasive" Commission lobbies - in the current political atmosphere, those would be (a) big radio groups and (b) shrill and elite minorities alleging they "lack a media voice."

This manifests itself in clandestine "accepted practices" which have subverted the allocation system and shoved regular broadcasters without the requisite lobbies to protect them off into a backwater while the broadcasters with priority status are granted preferences at the expense of others. The formal rulemaking process at the FCC has been essentially discarded. Any "FCC rulemaking" generally is a mere theatrical exercise pursuant to which agendas secretly arrived at, are made law solely for public display.

Therefore: big radio gets to circumvent the ownership limits using HD subs as analog translator primaries. Big radio groups get to stomp over entrepreneurial broadcasters with their HD adajcent-channel interference; the latter have no recourse. And established commercial broadcasters can look forward to the prospect of having FM translators acquired for legitimate coverage-correction purposes, be snatched away so elite minorities can get LPFMs.

Welcome to America 2010. Government has become an almost completely captive tool of special interests, always at the expense of individuals. With increasing arrogance and cynicism, I must add. The FCC is but one example.

The only fix for a government this broken is to create a replacement government approximately 10% its current size.

 

[TheBigA]

The only fix for a government this broken is to create a replacement government approximately 10% its current size.

Not gonna happen.

I disagree with your assessment of the FCC. Your view has two lobbies that contradict and cancel each other out. My view has an FCC with an agenda that doesn't care about lobbies. Especially big radio lobbies. If big radio had a seat at the table, they wouldn't be subsidizing the internet. The FCC has its own internal agenda that goes beyond lobbyists. When everyone is a "special interest," no one is really special. To the government, an 87 year old granny is the same as a corporate bond trader. They both have their hand out.

The FCC wants to shape and control the future of communications, without regard to private businesses. If private companies fall apart in the process, oh well. What this means is not smaller government, but bigger government. This is not to say that horse trading doesn't happen. But that they already know the outcome they want to see.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This manifests itself in clandestine "accepted practices" which have subverted the allocation system and shoved regular broadcasters without the requisite lobbies to protect them off into a backwater while the broadcasters with priority status are granted preferences at the expense of others. The formal rulemaking process at the FCC has been essentially discarded. Any "FCC rulemaking" generally is a mere theatrical exercise pursuant to which agendas secretly arrived at, are made law solely for public display.

I don't know if you got to live through the 1950s and 1960s.... but you would have loved it! We all looked under our beds every night to make sure there wasn't a communist hiding under there. It was a time we could not have survived had the John Birch Society not stepped to the front of the stage and put us all at ease. Of course the icing on the cake was that we had Joe McCarthy early on.

I think it was our friend TheBigA who used a very interesting word picture the other day.... something about some group or organization that could get smashed if government "so much as shifted its position in the chair."
And that can happen. If the health care reform passes, there will be some functions that will get squished while other functions breathe a sigh of relief. But pick up grandma's embroidery hoop and look at the other side of image: government that is too small will get squished by big international companies and other nations if we make government too small.

We're just trying to come to consensus in this country what is too small and what is too large.

And we have traditional broadcasting and NPR and Internet delivery and HD and translators and dying AM daytimers all yelling and screaming that government is squishing them and favoring one of the others. This thread is built around a concept I had not thought of before..... that an otherwise so far rather useless service.... the secondary channels of HD need a marriage with satellites in order to survive. Strikes me as something of a perversion of communications law.... but something worthy of discussion while it is considered and thrashed out.

 

[hubcity]

Eh, I wouldn't say a marriage with satellites; I'd say the opposite, in fact. What HD2s need is unfettered programming latitude to develop compelling programming that listeners cannot duplicate on their iPods. (The same thing, in fact, that HD1s need.)

That latitude may include a complete lack of traditional commercials in the early going. Yes, I know it's a commercial medium, but the sales guys won't have anybody to sell to until there's an audience with the radios in hand. The only way to get radios in those listeners' hands is to program things they can't hear otherwise.

Now the $64,000,000 question: program *what*?

 

[TheBigA]

government that is too small will get squished by big international companies and other nations if we make government too small.

Or other bigger governments.

The music industry liked radio a lot better when it could tell little programmers what to play. Maybe toss them a free TV or some drugs every now and then. Once radio became bigger, and told promoters they couldn't play a song because of someone else, radio became the enemy.

So the bad word in Washington these days is "special interests." Everyone says it, regardless of what side you're on. The bottom line is that we're all "special interests." We like being one when it works in our favor. We demonize them when they don't. So we like the NAB when they fight for something we want. We hate them when they do something we don't. The government is great when it provides free healthcare. It's bad when it raises taxes to pay for it. But it's the same government.

 

[TheBigA]

What HD2s need is unfettered programming latitude to develop compelling programming that listeners cannot duplicate on their iPods.

They have total freedom and latitude. Anything you want, commercial free. No problem. It still doesn't matter, because no one is buying radios. The content isn't driving the hardware. I didn't buy my iPhone because of content. Most people who listen to iPods listen to smaller playlists than what a typical radio station plays. But THEY control it. No radio station, AM, FM, HD or satellite can do that.

 

[Lee Rust]

Judging from this and other recent actions (or inactions), it appears to me that the Commission is now so focused on broadband internet that they have decided to throw most of the old analog radio practices right out the window and let the pieces fall where they may.

If a fortunate few just happen to be standing on the street outside when the tastiest morsels come floating down, so much the better.

 

[hubcity]

They have total freedom and latitude. Anything you want, commercial free. No problem. It still doesn't matter, because no one is buying radios. The content isn't driving the hardware. I didn't buy my iPhone because of content. Most people who listen to iPods listen to smaller playlists than what a typical radio station plays. But THEY control it. No radio station, AM, FM, HD or satellite can do that.

I'd have to disagree, regarding "total freedom and latitude". Satellite does a much better job providing a wide latitude of programming choices, when compared to a single market's HD selections. Most stations' offerings are automated repurposings of the library of the station's previous format, programmed with a lovingly "don't care" attitude. The radio industry - admittedly not one to promote on-air cooperation between broadcasters - probably should have thought that strategy through more thoroughly. But then I wonder what pert of the radio industry actually supported it.

Agreed, when you're listening to an iPod, you're in control. The question I have is whether or not most people (and I'm not talking about just computer users - which is necessarily a superset of iPod users) *want* to program their own listening experience. Everyone can be their own program director - do they want that? iTunes has done a lot to address this, but sometimes you just want to hear music without being bothered to pay iTunes (or expending the mind share and computer knowhow necessary to get it for free, albeit illegally.)

I'd have to fault the radio industry for refusing to promote formats that place a value on untried tracks as though it was the mainstream thing to do. It's true that "safe" programming has always been the biggest moneymaker, and that when it comes to promoting new artists and styles, most stations regard it as someone else's job. Unfortunately, year after year of "safe" programming has left its mark on the listening public. A public that isn't conditioned to enjoy anything new is a public that tunes out when they realize they can do it themselves. Radio that gets excited by new music - of any genre, and that includes old music that didn't hit the mainstream the first time around - is capable of courting an audience that will get equally excited about it, and depend on radio to keep providing it. A smaller audience perhaps, but a more devoted one.

Radio that sees money as its only reason for being is radio that its audience will abandon the moment something more interesting comes along.

At the same time, I feel it's also an open question whether or not a listening experience (as opposed to a viewing experience, or an interactive experience) is what people want. In cars it's mandatory, but elsewhere? What can radio do to make people that didn't listen before start, and to do so in places they haven't thought to before? Salespeople don't think about this, and they shouldn't, but station ownerships think stealing existing listeners is less of a risk than creating new audiences, and that's a game of attrition.

 

[TheBigA]

Satellite does a much better job providing a wide latitude of programming choices, when compared to a single market's HD selections. Most stations' offerings are automated repurposings of the library of the station's previous format, programmed with a lovingly "don't care" attitude.

There are many more satellite channels than HDs available in a market, so the comparison isn’t fair. Also, I have friends who work at SiriusXM, and they tell me their formats are mostly voicetracked and automated. But that's not the point. This isn't a comparative thing. Satellite radio isn’t growing either. The point is that a lot of stations, especially the NPR stations, are offering unique programming on their HDs. Depending on the market, you can hear deep tracks, classic cuts, and just about any alternative format you could imagine. But it doesn't matter because no one can hear them. As I said, content is not driving hardware.

The radio industry - admittedly not one to promote on-air cooperation between broadcasters - probably should have thought that strategy through more thoroughly.

What kind of co-operation would you like? Right now, stations co-operate so they don’t offer competing formats on HD. No duplication of formats already available on main channels, and no duplication of formats on HD. So that means that all HD formats are unique and unavailable anywhere else in the market.

I'd have to fault the radio industry for refusing to promote formats that place a value on untried tracks as though it was the mainstream thing to do.

That’s not an “industry” thing. It’s done by stations. Some stations have promoted those kinds of formats with very predictable results: small audiences. But they do it on HD. For example, WUSN Chicago is using one of its HD channels specifically for new releases and new artists. This idea is being repeated in other markets. But music discovery isn’t the kind of mainstream idea that will drive people to buy new radios, especially unpopular table models.

A public that isn't conditioned to enjoy anything new is a public that tunes out when they realize they can do it themselves. Radio that gets excited by new music - of any genre, and that includes old music that didn't hit the mainstream the first time around - is capable of courting an audience that will get equally excited about it, and depend on radio to keep providing it. A smaller audience perhaps, but a more devoted one.

I think you’re making generalizations here. Because when these formats are available, people don’t rush to them the way you describe. I’ve worked at numerous NPR stations that experiment with all types of new music, and sure, we get a small devoted audience, but the majority of people have no idea we’re there. And only a small percentage of that small, devoted audience supported us financially.

Radio that sees money as its only reason for being is radio that its audience will abandon the moment something more interesting comes along.

I don’t think anyone feels money is their “only reason for being.” Then again, it would be interesting to see how you would behave if your personal money was at risk. And the facts are that people aren’t “abandoning” radio. They’re combining it with other media. The other media they use aren’t always “more interesting.” I’m not seeing a huge increase in listening to the riskier music channels on satellite or the internet. I’ve seen the data on the types of music people listen to on the streaming services, and it tends to mirror what’s available on mainstream radio.

At the same time, I feel it's also an open question whether or not a listening experience (as opposed to a viewing experience, or an interactive experience) is what people want.

That’s a whole different subject. What we see is that it’s not an either/or thing. People want it all. And that’s what they do. So radio listening is shared with other things. That will be the new reality. There’s nothing radio can do that will get me to throw away my iPhone or my computer. I think it's up to the listener to take some responsibility here, and seek out alternatives, and not simply blame the powers that be for not hitting people over the head with new formats or new music. The alternatives are there, if people will simply look for them.

 

[hubcity]

I agree that a comparison between satellite formats and radio formats is unfair, but I also think that unfair comparison is exactly what the public does when weighing HD radio against satellite. It doesn't help that (in my experience) they still think you have to pay for a subscription when you get it. That's if they've actually heard of it at all.

Why haven't they heard of it? Because they don't listen to commercials. Anecdotal evidence: a friend who commutes a couple of hours each day saying "hey, I finally heard an HD Radio commercial yesterday!" after I'd been telling them about my own HD endeavors. The truth is they'd been hearing commercials for HD radio for years - just not listening.

TV commercials for HD radio? Nonexistent, as far as I can see.

So, yes, some HD multicast channels are very interesting, but generally within the noncommercial band. I haven't ever seen an HD multicast station promoted outside of the station's own environment. A billboard for an HD2? Not likely.

Cooperation? The guideline here is satellite, and in that case (at least as far as XM) Lee Abrams coordinated the creation of all the formats XM ran. No such coordination is possible for HD, outside of the handful of stations owned by a single owner in a market - stations run what they will, and that's generally "the last format we mothballed". You're in agreement with me, though - there isn't really an "industry", there's just stations.

Your "unpopular table model" comment is interesting, because it spurs the question "what radios *do* people buy?" How often does one leave the house with money in one's pocket, thinking "I'm gonna spend this on a *radio*?" Not often these days, I'd say...

And yes, that was a generalization, but not the one you think I'm making. Outside of a certain audience, putting up a signal and saying "we're gonna play new music" is a sure way to ignominy, I agree. Radio has to entertain in ways other media cannot in order to stay alive; new music is only an ingredient to that strategy. Talk radio is most successful, but talk radio doesn't have to compete with iPods. When you're playing new music, the station's presentation needs to be engaging enough to serve as the "sticky" aspect when unfamiliar tracks are being played. Familiar tracks don't provide the sticky aspect any longer, because listeners have them on their iPods.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Your "unpopular table model" comment is interesting, because it spurs the question "what radios *do* people buy?" How often does one leave the house with money in one's pocket, thinking "I'm gonna spend this on a *radio*?" Not often these days, I'd say...

I have a clock radio beside my bed that is "held together by baling wire" figuratively speaking. I have left home several times with money in my pocket to replace it.... and when I look at what is offered in the stores... I keep my hands in my pocket and just keep walking.

It's "chicken or egg first" dilemma. Do they not build and merchandise radios because no one is buying.... or do we not buy them because no one is offering us one that is palatable?

Apparently no one in the receiver building and merchandising game is really comprehending what has happened to cities. Something like 80% of the population now lives in metro areas. Thus we can all use these cheap drugstore models that pick up any station within 10 or 15 miles. That's where we all live, right? I'm at the "edge" of Atlanta. I'm 50 miles from city center. There are not very many table radios made to function well out here in the horse and chicken country.

Talk radio is most successful, but talk radio doesn't have to compete with iPods.

I don't know how many people belong to my tribe, but TALK is all that ends up on my mp3 device. And the people who build and merchandise mp3 devices give little or no attention to the members of my tribe. Try to buy an mp3 device with "bookmark" feature. Try to find a store clerk who even knows what that means. If you download an hour of Bob Edwards Weekend, or a lecture from Emory University or other long form talk content and half-way through the content you run into a fellow walker and you stop the mp3 and either walk together for a while, or converse for 15 or 20 minutes and then go on.... the mp3s that I have shut them selves off if you leave them on pause and when you restart... you get to listen to the first half of your program all over again.

When we get past the idea that mp3 devices are ONLY for music, then talk radio WILL have to concern itself with competition from the iPod and it's look-alikes.

 

[TheBigA]

Why haven't they heard of it? Because they don't listen to commercials.

They haven’t heard of it because none of the radios they own have it. They have to go out of their way to buy a radio that offers HD, and let’s face it…that’s not a priority today. I don’t think it’s fair to say they don’t listen to commercials, because we run listener-response spots all the time and get overwhelmed with the response.

I haven't ever seen an HD multicast station promoted outside of the station's own environment. A billboard for an HD2? Not likely.

Would it make a difference? Really? Would a billboard on the highway or a TV commercial make you spend $100 on a table radio? Be honest with me.

The guideline here is satellite, and in that case (at least as far as XM) Lee Abrams coordinated the creation of all the formats XM ran. No such coordination is possible for HD,

Maybe you didn’t read what I said. There IS an agreement that there should be no duplication of format on HD. And from what I’ve seen on the format lists, they’ve held to that. But comparing a single owner to a multiple owner industry is unfair. Everyone has their own strategy. But there is no format duplication.

Your "unpopular table model" comment is interesting, because it spurs the question "what radios *do* people buy?" How often does one leave the house with money in one's pocket, thinking "I'm gonna spend this on a *radio*?" Not often these days, I'd say...

To me, that’s the key point to this entire discussion. No one is buying radios unless they come with a car, a clock, or some other device. Most of the HD radios are table models, which are terrible sellers. Only one or two portables, and they’re not very cool looking. The consumer electronics industry has done a terrible job here. Then again, iBiquity’s program doesn’t really encourage private electronics manufacturers to take risks. I have long said that iBiquity’s requirement for licensing fees on the front side, rather than give it away, get people hooked, and then add the fees, was a bad strategy. By the time FM became popular, the patent had run out, and manufacturers could add it at minimal cost without paying a royalty.

Radio has to entertain in ways other media cannot in order to stay alive; new music is only an ingredient to that strategy. Talk radio is most successful, but talk radio doesn't have to compete with iPods. When you're playing new music, the station's presentation needs to be engaging enough to serve as the "sticky" aspect when unfamiliar tracks are being played. Familiar tracks don't provide the sticky aspect any longer, because listeners have them on their iPods.

Radio is not in the music business. And the music industry is doing everything it can to discourage radio from playing music. The music they create is appealing to smaller and narrower niches, and that doesn't work for ad-supported radio. Adding a new royalty without the ability to charge consumer subscription fees will kill it completely. That is why radio companies are phasing out music in market after market and replacing it with news, talk, and sports.

 

[hubcity]

Would a billboard on the highway or a TV commercial make you spend $100 on a table radio? Be honest with me.

No, because nobody'll even plunk down $35.99 (overstock.com for the Insignia portable) much less $100 specifically to gain access to one radio station. (Paraphrasing Pulp Fiction, that'd have to be one charming radio station.) But billboard after billboard, station after station, piling on the message that there's another universe of options available for the price of admission only? It could work. It'd be better than the current approach: "There's lots of options! What kind? Lots of 'em!"

There IS an agreement that there should be no duplication of format on HD. And from what I’ve seen on the format lists, they’ve held to that. But comparing a single owner to a multiple owner industry is unfair. Everyone has their own strategy. But there is no format duplication.

Well, it's nice that that's the case on multicast HD, but I think this is a point where I have to switch back to standard terrestrial FM and say "not true there" - and thus, the shiny new HD Radio (including the HD1s - the first things the customer sees that light up and say "HD") primarily shows there being *lots* of format duplication.

There's an argument here that it's also too durn difficult to get to an HD2/HD3/HD4 using most radios, by the way.

No one is buying radios unless they come with a car, a clock, or some other device. Most of the HD radios are table models, which are terrible sellers. Only one or two portables, and they’re not very cool looking. The consumer electronics industry has done a terrible job here. Then again, iBiquity’s program doesn’t really encourage private electronics manufacturers to take risks. I have long said that iBiquity’s requirement for licensing fees on the front side, rather than give it away, get people hooked, and then add the fees, was a bad strategy. By the time FM became popular, the patent had run out, and manufacturers could add it at minimal cost without paying a royalty.

Fully agreed. HD's true viability is severely limited until HD becomes a standard function of buying a device that happens to include a radio. It's why FM's viable now.

Radio is not in the music business. And the music industry is doing everything it can to discourage radio from playing music. The music they create is appealing to smaller and narrower niches, and that doesn't work for ad-supported radio. Adding a new royalty without the ability to charge consumer subscription fees will kill it completely. That is why radio companies are phasing out music in market after market and replacing it with news, talk, and sports.

That there's another discussion - one I fully agree with you on, to the point where I'm wondering whether the music business is in the music business. I'd extend it, though, to say "anywhere one can play recorded music in any way the public can hear, the promotional consideration of that play is equivalent to the playback royalty the recording commands."

That, by the way, includes webcasting.

 

[TheBigA]

I'd extend it, though, to say "anywhere one can play recorded music in any way the public can hear, the promotional consideration of that play is equivalent to the playback royalty the recording commands."

That, by the way, includes webcasting.

No argument from me, but unfortunately there is a federal law that requires those payments, and I doubt the music industry will be willing to do a give-back, regardless of the promotional benefit. The current focus is to prevent another punitive law from being passed.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There IS an agreement that there should be no duplication of format on HD. And from what I’ve seen on the format lists, they’ve held to that.

Companies are duplicating their AM station as HD-2 on a co-owned FM in some markets. KMOX in St Louis. WSB in Atlanta.

 

[hubcity]

No argument from me, but unfortunately there is a federal law that requires those payments, and I doubt the music industry will be willing to do a give-back, regardless of the promotional benefit. The current focus is to prevent another punitive law from being passed.

And that's why we still have prohibition.

Obviously, I'm being facetious, but the exact arguments being used by radio failed in webcasting's case - though radio has the legal precedent necessary to give the lie to the whole set of shenanigans. As long as those webcasting royalties are there, it's a threat to radio.