translator loophole and fmXtra

[Sgeirk]

I'm curious of the loophole stations are using to rebroadcast HD2/3 streams of programming over their translators applies to the fmXtra system.

I've been told that a rulemaking is necessary and I've also been told that if the radios are available to the general public to purchase, than fmXtra could be used to rebroadcast aux programming.

I've been told, as well that fmXtra is recognized as an SCA service, and therefore, the loophole does not apply to fmXtra. Thanks!

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Unfortunately the FMExtra stuff isn't intended for mass public consumption therefore (as I understand it) it's not able to be used for the grey-area loophole for rebroadcast of a HD2 on a translator.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

FMXtra is so superior to IBOC on countless levels...the makers of it need to concentrate on getting public receivers for it to market. Not many stations can afford IBOC just to feed a translator (thank you Jesus!). FMExtra...whole different ball game.

 

[TomT]

It may be a reasonable option for feeding an AM program to an FM translator. Remember, these are "fill-in" translators, so any terrestrial means can be used for a program feed.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

I'm curious of the loophole stations are using to rebroadcast HD2/3 streams of programming over their translators applies to the fmXtra system.

I've been told that a rulemaking is necessary and I've also been told that if the radios are available to the general public to purchase, than fmXtra could be used to rebroadcast aux programming.

I've been told, as well that fmXtra is recognized as an SCA service, and therefore, the loophole does not apply to fmXtra. Thanks!

Bradshaw has released an opinion that you can't use the superior FMXtra to feed translators...

 

[Chuck]

Bradshaw has released an opinion that you can't use the superior FMXtra to feed translators...

In a phone conversation almost a year ago, he told me "Absolutely not."

 

[DanStrassberg]

Bradshaw has released an opinion that you can't use the superior FMXtra to feed translators...

Who is Bradshaw?

 

[88.9 Miracle]

Jim Bradshaw at the FCC.

 

[TomT]

By "feed" I presume he means original programing from the FMXtra source to the translator. However, it could be used to relay programming, just as you could use FMXtra to feed programing to an AM station directly. I've used a regular 92 khz SCA to feed an AM for an LMA. The rules speak to "any terrestrial means" to feed a fill-in translator. But again, that contemplates the MAIN channel programming of one station (FM and now AM under the rules change) being relayed to the translator by off-air reception, by 950 STL, by telephone loop or digital wired feed, etc.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

The problem is the IBOC money has ruined a perfectly good amount of spectrum for real use.

The FCC sees a heritage product SCA as lesser than HD because of cash that bought this mess. The line I liked was "not enough receivers available" as opposed to "HD receivers" that when asked still weren't widely available.

You can use HD to feed translators but not SCA because this wouldn't foster HD development apparently.
No longer do you need to have a main channel feed if you use HD it can feed a translator.

So in larger cities you can send an urban format or other niche format to a translator. Us guys in the sticks can't afford to build HD just to feed a translator.

I understand RVR is selling a less expensive IBOC injector but we are at 37 k for a non com to get a License to generate HD?

If we could use FM extra I would pay a 10k fee to buy it outright. When digital was Ruled on it was to be available for "innovative uses by broadcasters" but innovative uses are only viable if you have cash for someone to walk it through....

 

[TomT]

Difference is that HD is a "broadcast" service, while SCA--any flavor, analog or digital, is a "subscription" service.

Hence, (apparently) you can relay the HD-2 "broadcast" on a translator, even though it is a separate program feed than the one on the main (analog) FM carrier because it is intended to be a broadcast service. However, you cannot use a translator to "re-broadcast" the independent (separate) program feed carried by the "subscription" SCA carrier because the SCA not not intended or permitted to be a "broadcast" service.

Where the SCA is used as a relay of a program "broadcast" on a licensed AM or FM channel, it can be used to feed a fill-in translator. In that service, the SCA is used as a point-to-point feed, just like a 950 STL, but since the end receiver is used to feed a translator that is licensed to relay the programing run on the originating AM or FM station, that type of use would be permitted under the rules.

 

[nd2023]

How can SCA be a subscription service if it's not encrypted? An SCA receiver is easily available and you don't have to pay a monthly fee for it. HD could be encrypted but it isn't.

 

[TomT]

True, but SCA receivers are not commonly available to the public. We know where to buy them, but your Aunt Matilda can't waltz on down to Wallie-world and find one.

I own two FM's. A class A Here *---25 miles---a B-1 Here*-20 miles--our rated market Here*
Our late PD (died of a aneurysm at 51--don't smoke, it ain't worth it!) lived down in the rated market, 45 miles from the Class A, so I put the audio from that station on a 67 Khz SCA of the B-1. At his house, using a rebuilt Hi-Fi receiver with an SCA decoder, he could then monitor the Class A. Technically, of course, so could anyone else who bought an SCA receiver in the rated market, well outside the coverage area of the Class A. But I doubt that even the most rabid FCC "compliance specialist" would find that I am illegally using the SCA to extend the range of the Class A.

 

[audiophile.]

Bradshaw has released an opinion that you can't use the superior FMXtra to feed translators...

In a phone conversation almost a year ago, he told me "Absolutely not."

More backwards thinking on part of FCC staff that only helps big broadcasters.

 

[Ted Russell]

I was under the impression that FM stations could use SCA for whatever they wanted. Some use it for telemetry, some used to use it for subscription serices such as Muzak and Stock data. Nowadays, around here its mostly ethnic broadcasters. Perhaps before the internet it was more tricky to find a consumer SCA receiver, but really all one had to do was walk the streets of Brooklyn or Queens. The ethnic SCA broadcasters would sell units on sidewalk stands that recived their SCA broadcasts. They would set up tables in the intended target neighborhoods. They also would advertise the radios in small local ethnic publications aimed at the target community. Of course now all you have to do is look online. I recently bought an AM/FM/SCA radio for $29 and it works great. Of course I can't understand most of the languages broadcast on the Subcarriers, but there surely is plenty SCA programming available.

My small Non-Comm FM uses the subcarrier as a talkback for when we do live remotes. This way the studio operator can talk to the field talent without it going over the air.

As for FMeXtra, it really is a shame that this system is sitting by the wayside. It really does perform better than Ibiquity's system. SCA generally operates at 10% modulation, and the same goes for FMeXtra. Therefore the signal strength is ten times stronger than the current Ibiquity HD signal. Best of all, I can run it without affecting my 1st adjacent neighbors and they could run it without affecting my station. That is not the case with Ibiquity's system. I got a small local class A signal sandwiched between two big class B's both running HD. The sidebands clobber our signal any time there is just a little bit of skywave. I am dreading the day that any kind of power increase is authorized for HD. It's going to have a very negative affect on our signal.

There's also no way we could ever afford install and operate the HD system by Ibiquity. However a one time expense of $9,000 for FMeXtra is fairly realistic. I think that if FMeXtra was available on as many models of consumer radios as HD currently is, that FMeXtra would gain serious ground with broadcasters. Its really too bad the industry has embraced a truly inferior system that really discriminates against the smaller operators.

Lastly, if the HD radio makers can include code on their chips to decode analog FM Stereo, Analog cQuam AM stereo, and FM RBDS, then why can't they add the additional code to decode FMeXtra as well? The hardware is already in place, so it really should just be a matter of code on the chips.

 

[Chuck]

Lastly, if the HD radio makers can include code on their chips to decode analog FM Stereo, Analog cQuam AM stereo, and FM RBDS, then why can't they add the additional code to decode FMeXtra as well? The hardware is already in place, so it really should just be a matter of code on the chips.

Well, you are right, but don't look to Ibiquity to voluntarily include code to work with FMeXtra. Why should they? That is just a bad business plan, since it has the potential to eat their lunch. In fact, I think you can look for the people who bring you HD to violently oppose any other system.

What we need are software-defined radios that are capable of decoding any and all digital signals that come their way. It isn't that hard to do. Give me enough money for R&D, and I'll figure it out.

Incidentally, I've demo's FMeXtra on a 74 watt LPFM. It worked fine, covering about the same area as the analog signal. The only thing that was missing was added noise and multipath problems. It even passed through the composite input of a translator and worked very well. There isn't much to not like about FMeXtra, except it's inventors aren't willing push for its acceptance, and the FCC considers it to be a private SCA service. It could be so much more than that...

 

[audiophile.]

Maybe we should push it for them..

 

[Chuck]

Maybe we should push it for them..

That would work for me....

 

[BobOnTheJob]

Lastly, if the HD radio makers can include code on their chips to decode analog FM Stereo, Analog cQuam AM stereo, and FM RBDS, then why can't they add the additional code to decode FMeXtra as well? The hardware is already in place, so it really should just be a matter of code on the chips.

Well, you are right, but don't look to Ibiquity to voluntarily include code to work with FMeXtra. Why should they? That is just a bad business plan, since it has the potential to eat their lunch. In fact, I think you can look for the people who bring you HD to violently oppose any other system.

What we need are software-defined radios that are capable of decoding any and all digital signals that come their way. It isn't that hard to do. Give me enough money for R&D, and I'll figure it out.

Incidentally, I've demo's FMeXtra on a 74 watt LPFM. It worked fine, covering about the same area as the analog signal. The only thing that was missing was added noise and multipath problems. It even passed through the composite input of a translator and worked very well. There isn't much to not like about FMeXtra, except it's inventors aren't willing push for its acceptance, and the FCC considers it to be a private SCA service. It could be so much more than that...

It could be so much more and with future FCC rule tweaking, it could allow for the most graceful of transitions in that each station could decide how much of their signal would go to analog & how much to FMeXtra. As it is now, 20% of FMeXtra results in 90% analog & 20% FMeXtra (as FCC allows a minor increase in total mod with an SCA, but this doesn't extend beyond 110% total mod). If a station in a given market saw the FMeXtra taking off, they could gradually decrease their analog modulation & apply the difference to FMeXtra. Say 50% FMeXtra modulation & 60% analog. And unlike IBOC which creates massive interference to it's neighboring channels, costs tens of thousands of extra dollars to increase power & requires more electricity to operate the increase & more HVAC capacity to cool, adjusting the FMeXtra modulation level requires a greenie screwdriver & about 1 minute of your time...period. And if the 74 watt LPFM experienced coverage similar to analog with 20% SCA modulation, imagine what 40, 50 or someday even 100% would produce. The goals here are to provide better sounding service to more people--NOT FEWER PEOPLE. I'm not convinced that the first goal is met by IBOC, and I'm positive the second goal isn't provided for with IBOC. IBOC is nothing more than an FCC approved bail out for the folks who designed it.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

Lastly, if the HD radio makers can include code on their chips to decode analog FM Stereo, Analog cQuam AM stereo, and FM RBDS, then why can't they add the additional code to decode FMeXtra as well? The hardware is already in place, so it really should just be a matter of code on the chips.

Well, you are right, but don't look to Ibiquity to voluntarily include code to work with FMeXtra. Why should they? That is just a bad business plan, since it has the potential to eat their lunch. In fact, I think you can look for the people who bring you HD to violently oppose any other system.

What we need are software-defined radios that are capable of decoding any and all digital signals that come their way. It isn't that hard to do. Give me enough money for R&D, and I'll figure it out.

Incidentally, I've demo's FMeXtra on a 74 watt LPFM. It worked fine, covering about the same area as the analog signal. The only thing that was missing was added noise and multipath problems. It even passed through the composite input of a translator and worked very well. There isn't much to not like about FMeXtra, except it's inventors aren't willing push for its acceptance, and the FCC considers it to be a private SCA service. It could be so much more than that...

It could be so much more and with future FCC rule tweaking, it could allow for the most graceful of transitions in that each station could decide how much of their signal would go to analog & how much to FMeXtra. As it is now, 20% of FMeXtra results in 90% analog & 20% FMeXtra (as FCC allows a minor increase in total mod with an SCA, but this doesn't extend beyond 110% total mod). If a station in a given market saw the FMeXtra taking off, they could gradually decrease their analog modulation & apply the difference to FMeXtra. Say 50% FMeXtra modulation & 60% analog. And unlike IBOC which creates massive interference to it's neighboring channels, costs tens of thousands of extra dollars to increase power & requires more electricity to operate the increase & more HVAC capacity to cool, adjusting the FMeXtra modulation level requires a greenie screwdriver & about 1 minute of your time...period. And if the 74 watt LPFM experienced coverage similar to analog with 20% SCA modulation, imagine what 40, 50 or someday even 100% would produce. The goals here are to provide better sounding service to more people--NOT FEWER PEOPLE. I'm not convinced that the first goal is met by IBOC, and I'm positive the second goal isn't provided for with IBOC. IBOC is nothing more than an FCC approved bail out for the folks who designed it.

If we had an IBOC clone like days past of Fm being "phase moduulation" we could get around this.

Something that we could use to utilize IBOC in a different way that doesn't utilize their patent requiring 37 grand to use it but still uses the receivers out there, or new cheaper receivers we could get way past this.

Radio Mondale supposedly had a new modulation scheme for Fm that never happened.

The other issue with Extra is the kinda flakey ownership in that thye change their mind what they are doing with it or they want you to buy 1000 receivers with the box....

If Extra became public domain and could have receivers out there the Commission would approve it's use. Right now it is an excellent idea whose time has not arrived because it hasn't been adopted by the Commission as a digital service. Read the R and O on Digital and tell me Extra doesn't meet the criteria. Commission Staff is calling it SCA and it isn't. Any more than IBOC is On Channel.///