What is Glynn Walden smoking?

[diymedia]

Spectral footprint of an all-digital AM-HD signal is 20 kHz; digital bandwidth is roughly doubled. Same codec and error-correction modes as the hybrid model.

Indeed, the test-station was WBCN. I've written about these tests (and their opacity), as has Paul Thurst. He did have a link to the actual report from the WBCN tests but apparently it's been pulled?

 

[Carmine5]

I'm not sure why is it considered wise to use 200 khz to transmit 15 khz of audio, when AM modualtion requires only 30 khz of bandwidth for 15 khz of audio.
You'd think if the FCC wanted to really "help" FM the way they did AM, they would immediately reduce the
frequency deviation to something like 75-100 khz.

Changing AM, which has been abandoned in some countries, is being minimized by our two biggest neighbors and which, as a band, accounts for less than 15% of all radio listening, is much easier to think of. In some senses, it constitutes "heroic measures" to try to save a moribund patient.

Where did you get the "less than 15%" figure? Just curious.

 

[spt87]

First of all ever hear WBZ in glorious iBlock? Sounds like krap and second of all what you are proposing would make EVERY AM broadcast receiver in the US obsolete. I also doubt very much it would have anywhere near the coverage it does now and it's coverage now is compromised because of it's hashmaker which no one listens to. WBZ is not real strong in Worcester since it turned on the hash.

Yes, I listen to it almost every day in IBOC. Do I hear some artifacts - yes - but I wouldn't say it sounds like krap. I think it sounds a lot better and works better than it is given credit for on this board. It is orders of magnitude better than many of the Sirius/XM channels. For fun, try comparing Radio Disney on Sat. Rad. to AM-HD 1260 Boston. Would I rather hear wideband C-Quam again - yes (and I have all 6 of my C-Quam receivers ready to go). Do I expect that to happen - doesn't appear too likely.

I don't see that HD has hurt their analog coverage at all - at least not on my radios. Maybe some radios are more affected by the digital noise. I drive from Boston to Buffalo several times a year and also up to N.H. and haven't noticed any change.

Without the analog, they gain an extra 5-8khz that would give more bits for digital info so maybe codec would take advantage of that.

Wasn't proposing they go native digital full time, but rather than limiting testing to a small AM if CBS really wants to try it do a test on one of their 50KW flagships during off hours. Would be interesting to see how it worked.

 

[Carmine5]

Yes, I listen to it almost every day in IBOC. Do I hear some artifacts - yes - but I wouldn't say it sounds like krap. I think it sounds a lot better and works better than it is given credit for on this board. It is orders of magnitude better than many of the Sirius/XM channels. For fun, try comparing Radio Disney on Sat. Rad. to AM-HD 1260 Boston. Would I rather hear wideband C-Quam again - yes (and I have all 6 of my C-Quam receivers ready to go). Do I expect that to happen - doesn't appear too likely.

I don't see that HD has hurt their analog coverage at all - at least not on my radios. Maybe some radios are more affected by the digital noise. I drive from Boston to Buffalo several times a year and also up to N.H. and haven't noticed any change.

Without the analog, they gain an extra 5-8khz that would give more bits for digital info so maybe codec would take advantage of that.

Wasn't proposing they go native digital full time, but rather than limiting testing to a small AM if CBS really wants to try it do a test on one of their 50KW flagships during off hours. Would be interesting to see how it worked.

If you've been reading Radio World lately you'll notice that, since the NAB Show, there have been renewed calls to confiscate VHF ch. 5 & 6 for FM and to abandon the AM band altogether. If things go as predicted, Genachowski leaves ([best Irish brogue] "Saints be praised"), Tom Wheeler gets vetted for the post of chairman while Mignon Clyburn serves as interim chairman, this idea might have a shot. Clyburn has voiced strong approval for giving ch. 5 & 6 to radio ever since the idea was first proposed. She's convinced it will bring greater diversity in terms of broadcast property ownership.

So, HD-AM may end up becoming an even deader issue then it is already. Of course, Ajit Pai is intent on preserving and improving the AM service. Perhaps we'll see a synthesis of both ideas--weaker AM stations migrate to expanded FM thereby thinning the AM band for clear channels and powerhouse AM stations, allowing them to have more bandwidth.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

since the NAB Show, there have been renewed calls to confiscate VHF ch. 5 & 6 for FM and to abandon the AM band altogether. If things go as predicted, Genachowski leaves ([best Irish brogue] "Saints be praised"), Tom Wheeler gets vetted for the post of chairman while Mignon Clyburn serves as interim chairman, this idea might have a shot. Clyburn has voiced strong approval for giving ch. 5 & 6 to radio ever since the idea was first proposed. She's convinced it will bring greater diversity in terms of broadcast property ownership.

So, HD-AM may end up becoming an even deader issue then it is already. Of course, Ajit Pai is intent on preserving and improving the AM service. Perhaps we'll see a synthesis of both ideas--weaker AM stations migrate to expanded FM thereby thinning the AM band for clear channels and powerhouse AM stations, allowing them to have more bandwidth.

While this might actually be a nice idea, it's just that...an idea. However, when you deal in what's practical, this idea falls flat on its face.

With AM listenership at an all-time low, continuing to decline, and its demographics essentially 55-to-death, how many AM listeners will make any attempt at all to find a radio that can tune 76-88 MHz? Yes, there are some older TV-audio radios out there, but those haven't been sold in the US since the digital-TV conversion...no market for them. You're talking about (by one estimate) over one billion radios that would become obsolete if the band were migrated, and many of the systems now being installed in cars cannot have their radio sections upgraded. Further, there's a question of how many years it would take for a significant number of listeners to make the change so that the AM-band signals could be shut down, because no owner with an ounce of common sense will cut off the signal that makes the money. Years? Decades? Ever? By the time that happens, if it does, will it matter? Will AM be a completely dead issue long before then?

I don't want to come off like a complete pessimist, but there are too many unknowns here for a viable business model. If AM station owners end up feeling they have no choice, it might be worth pursuing, but they would have to accept the very real possibility of the death of AM being hastened by migration to another band.

 

[Carmine5]

since the NAB Show, there have been renewed calls to confiscate VHF ch. 5 & 6 for FM and to abandon the AM band altogether. If things go as predicted, Genachowski leaves ([best Irish brogue] "Saints be praised"), Tom Wheeler gets vetted for the post of chairman while Mignon Clyburn serves as interim chairman, this idea might have a shot. Clyburn has voiced strong approval for giving ch. 5 & 6 to radio ever since the idea was first proposed. She's convinced it will bring greater diversity in terms of broadcast property ownership.

So, HD-AM may end up becoming an even deader issue then it is already. Of course, Ajit Pai is intent on preserving and improving the AM service. Perhaps we'll see a synthesis of both ideas--weaker AM stations migrate to expanded FM thereby thinning the AM band for clear channels and powerhouse AM stations, allowing them to have more bandwidth.

While this might actually be a nice idea, it's just that...an idea. However, when you deal in what's practical, this idea falls flat on its face.

With AM listenership at an all-time low, continuing to decline, and its demographics essentially 55-to-death, how many AM listeners will make any attempt at all to find a radio that can tune 76-88 MHz? Yes, there are some older TV-audio radios out there, but those haven't been sold in the US since the digital-TV conversion...no market for them. You're talking about (by one estimate) over one billion radios that would become obsolete if the band were migrated, and many of the systems now being installed in cars cannot have their radio sections upgraded. Further, there's a question of how many years it would take for a significant number of listeners to make the change so that the AM-band signals could be shut down, because no owner with an ounce of common sense will cut off the signal that makes the money. Years? Decades? Ever? By the time that happens, if it does, will it matter? Will AM be a completely dead issue long before then?

I don't want to come off like a complete pessimist, but there are too many unknowns here for a viable business model. If AM station owners end up feeling they have no choice, it might be worth pursuing, but they would have to accept the very real possibility of the death of AM being hastened by migration to another band.

I can only guess that these people who are pushing to assign ch. 5 & 6 over to the FM band are thinking that this idea would be successful if and when FM chips in cellphones become ubiquitous. As you know, the idea of putting FM chips (or activating them) in cellphones is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill and the tuners for these chips are only software and can be programmed to tune lower then 87.7 MHz. But, yes, most older or stand alone radios would be made obsolete.

Of course, these FM chips are analog not digital, at least, so far. I'm sure the migration would be voluntary and any stations that do migrate to X-band FM would operate on two channels for a while before shutting off the AM channel. Like I said, I'm just guessing and it would be nice to know just how these people see this move as being successful for AM stations.

 

[DaveBayArea]

You're talking about (by one estimate) over one billion radios that would become obsolete if the band were migrated, and many of the systems now being installed in cars cannot have their radio sections upgraded.

Realistically it would become another version of what is now 1600-1700 KHz (the expanded AM band). That works on most radios today.

Dave B.

 

[local oscillator]

Of course, expanded band stations were the offspring of existing AM stations that were chosen for future deletion in order to eliminate the excessive nighttime interference they caused to the band. At the end of 5 years, broadcasters were "required" to choose one or the other to silence. In the late '90s while the FCC was distracted admiring what consolidation had wrought, it didn't notice that these stations were being operated and programmed separately, split up and sold to separate buyers, and treated as though the piper would never have to be paid. In many cases, the piper is still holding out his hand. That was probably the beginning of the FCC's policy of benign neglect toward broadcasting. These days, they have such a case of Broadband Fever that they don't have much use for us -- outside of squeezing us for some $$$ for fees/fines and some spectrum from our TV brethren for . . . wait for it . . . broadband. Oh, yeah . . . and watching us squirm under the weight of IBOC interference (FCC: Silly broadcasters, be careful what you ask for. We just might grant it! HAAAA!!!!).

Isn't it sad that the C-Quam, AMAX, wideband, thinned-out AM band envisioned in the '90s has turned into the super-crowded, noisy, narrowband, IBOC-riddled mess that it is? Commissioner Pai has his work cut out for him.

Getting back to the OP's question: Bob Strubles' leftovers. Probably crystalized psychedelic Kool-Aid.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Isn't it sad that the C-Quam, AMAX, wideband, thinned-out AM band envisioned in the '90s has turned into the super-crowded, noisy, narrowband, IBOC-riddled mess that it is? Commissioner Pai has his work cut out for him.

If Pai is really, REALLY serious about getting AM back into the marketplace as a real contender, the best thing he could do is convince his fellow commissioners to give AM-HD a resounding two-in-the-hat.

 

[MarioMania]

I'm all for Expanding FM down to 76 MHz

FCC had a chance in 2009, When TV went all Digital, But they didn't

 

[davideduardo]

I'm all for Expanding FM down to 76 MHz

FCC had a chance in 2009, When TV went all Digital, But they didn't

Nobody buys stand alone radios today; nobody is going to replace radios they have with ones with a different FM band.

... just as they have not replaced radios to get HD.

AM and FM are becoming less important while streaming to mobile devices is of growing significance.

 

[audioguy]

I don't think we should discount the possibilities that would accompany the release of a new band. Channels 5&6 would be an ideal replacement for the AM/MW band. With today's technology using software defined radios, it would be extremely easy to add a new band to smart phones, tablets, etc. I will compose a separate post on this topic.

 

[Carmine5]

I don't think we should discount the possibilities that would accompany the release of a new band. Channels 5&6 would be an ideal replacement for the AM/MW band. With today's technology using software defined radios, it would be extremely easy to add a new band to smart phones, tablets, etc. I will compose a separate post on this topic.

When you consider that even the widest of today's home reception antennas for TV are tuned to go no lower than 174 MHz (ch. 7) it is with the assumption that the lower VHF is virtually useless for DTV and has been mostly abandoned. So why not give some of it to FM and the rest for other uses like emergency services. This is provided that the FCC is prepared to relinquish an equal number of channels to TV in its plan to confiscate 600 MHz spectrum for wireless services.

 

[Tom Wells]

It's interesting that lower frequencies, which carry distance well are being relegated to the "unusable"
category. The whole idea of wireless is maximum reach without wiring.

The idea that everything must move to shorter wavelengths and lower reach, presumes ( and expects) a lot
less from a wireless signal. This is all about market control per economics, and disregards the user's
best interests to protect stations' local economic interests...(the market).

So let's just kill radio, and go to cellurlar content delivery, which works or not, by each quarter mile.

 

[Casey]

You guys are not considering that if the FCC did expand FM to channels 5 & 6 or whatever channels, it would almost certainly have to be an all-digital band. Other countries have migrated to DAB/DAB+. Unlikely that would happen here, but in the digital era, there is no place in the FCC for analog.

It could very possibly require all new radios and suffer from most of the problems HD FM has. You really think people are going to migrate to an all new band and one that would render even their HD radios obsolete? It would be a significant expense to broadcasters. I don't see how it would be anything short of a disaster.

 

[diymedia]

Real fortitude on the part of broadcasters would require some sort of rethink. Either double down on HD by committing to (and successfully selling) an all-digital transition, or open up to new ideas, which may include other technologies. I, for one would love to see a comparative analysis of DRM+ and HD, for curiosity's sake if nothing else.

 

[audioguy]

Since it will require most people to buy new radios, I vote for adopting a more modern, up-to-date digital transmission system than HD radio-- one that WORKS and doesn't require the payment of royalties or licensing fees. Alternatively, there would be nothing wrong with using analog FM since it works quite well. There are some receivers that can pick up that band and others that could easily be modified to do so. HD radio is antiquated and dysfunctional. Let's pick something better this time. I'm all for evaluating DRM as a potential candidate.

 

[Chuck]

Out of necessity, making any changes will be a very long term affair which should be taken in small steps. For the purposes of "Saving AM," adding an expanded band of analog transmission in the 76 -88 MHz band makes more sense to me. It would be relatively cheap to do. That is important, since struggling AM stations frequently have cash problems. Going to the Ibiquity system from the start could easily cost more than many of them can afford.

I'd suggest that the minimum power for these new stations be 1000 watts with a HAAT of 250 feet, and they be granted Primary Status, unlike an FM translator which only have Secondary Status. Such a station should render coverage as good as, or maybe better than, many existing small AM stations currently enjoy. They would also get the benefit of being 24 hour operations. I suspect that most owners of a small AM station would cheerfully swap their existing AM signal for a 1000 watt FM signal. By starting out as analog, the cost for a 1000 watt FM transmitter, audio processing and antenna wouldn't be much more than that of a modest new car. Most small stations could afford that.

Starting these stations as analog operations would also be enhanced by the fact that some radios currently exist to receive these signals. That should help in the transition process. Adding this expanded FM band to future radios, even cheap ones, would be a very inexpensive process.

Those new signals could remain analog as long as the entire FM band allows analog broadcasting. They would be allowed to go HD hybrid if and when they wanted to (even from the start). The analog sunset - if it ever happens - will take a very long time. That is no different than we currently see it. It would take at least 10 years of simulcasting on AM and the new FM band for much of an impact to occur. After that, you would sunset the small AM signals. This time, clearing out the AM band would have to be for real, not like the debacle that followed movement into the expanded AM band.

Once many of these lower powered AM stations are no longer with us, it would open up enough spectrum for higher power AM's to either raise power and/or go full time digital. Everybody wins.

Since new chip sets currently exist that can decode all know flavors of digital radio (as well as current analog signals) we might want to consider allowing DRM as a replacement for HD at the broadcaster's discretion. It seems to me the market would decide when it is time to make the switch. Obviously, the penetration of radios that can do this is nearly non-existent at this point, but in 10-15 years, a lot could change.

 

[Carmine5]

By starting out as analog, the cost for a 1000 watt FM transmitter, audio processing and antenna wouldn't be much more than that of a modest new car. Most small stations could afford that.

If you're talking 1kW ERP, you could do it with a 600 watt TX and a 2-bay CP antenna with 3.6 dBd gain and with all the other necessary gear, have the station on air for under 10K.

But the FCC needs to do the right thing (for a change) for TV broadcasters. They need to give us the spectrum we need to stay on the air and grow our businesses--and that includes those of us in the low power TV business. I don't think any of us would be opposed to assigning ch.5 & 6 over to FM if we had those kinds of assurances. And that's why it's important for radio broadcasters to fight in behalf of broadcast television to help us preserve as much UHF spectrum as necessary for our needs and growth. Because, I can tell you, if we don't have enough channels, we will be fighting to keep 5 & 6. I'm sure you don't want that.

 

[Chuck]

By starting out as analog, the cost for a 1000 watt FM transmitter, audio processing and antenna wouldn't be much more than that of a modest new car. Most small stations could afford that.

If you're talking 1kW ERP, you could do it with a 600 watt TX and a 2-bay CP antenna with 3.6 dBd gain and with all the other necessary gear, have the station on air for under 10K.

But the FCC needs to do the right thing (for a change) for TV broadcasters. They need to give us the spectrum we need to stay on the air and grow our businesses--and that includes those of us in the low power TV business. I don't think any of us would be opposed to assigning ch.5 & 6 over to FM if we had those kinds of assurances. And that's why it's important for radio broadcasters to fight in behalf of broadcast television to help us preserve as much UHF spectrum as necessary for our needs and growth. Because, I can tell you, if we don't have enough channels, we will be fighting to keep 5 & 6. I'm sure you don't want that.

For purposes of Illustration, I was trying to price things on the extravagant side. Besides, the cost of installing antennas might actually be more than the equipment. Like the real estate people say,"location, location, location." It just depends. Under the right circumstances, it can be done very inexpensively.

Otherwise, I think broadcasters need to stick together. We are all in the same boat together in the struggle against the telecom industry. I'm not sure what the new FCC Chairman will mean to broadcasters, but considering he is reported to have been a significant fundraiser for the current administration, and a lobbyist, I think you can expect the worst. It is a time to band together.