When will the HD be a full power increase?

[jras20]

Will HD Radio stations ever become full power? I am still waiting. I have the sangean HD1x tuner, I have the HD signal disabled until they make the signal more reliable.

 

[Len14043]

If you follow the following FCC link, you can get an idea of how many stations upgraded their power. Under the SERVICE category, select FM Digital. The list could also be narrowed down to specific locations Most of the stations listed increased their power to -14dbc, but a few increased to -10dbc. The stations in my area that increased their power have notably improved coverage, despite posts to the contrary from posters that desperately want to see the system fail for various reasons, i.e potential competition should the system gain traction, and interference that would affect dxers. I wish more stations would turn up the juice-especially to -10dbc.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_sear.htm

 

[audioguy]

I interpreted this question differently; i.e. when will stations transmit at full power in digital mode only (with no analog transmission). I would not expect this to happen for some years, if ever; mainly because I don't know of any station that is willing to relinquish its analog listeners in favor of the handful that are listening in digital. If it ever did happen, it COULD significantly decrease the amount of interference to adjacent channels, assuming that they reconfigured the transmission to operate ON the channel, NOT on the neighbors' channels.

Len, the system is not going to fail because we evil DXers "desperately want it to". It is going to fail because it doesn't work very well, because it causes a huge amount of interference even within the local market, and because it costs too much. The American listening public deserves better. If we don't serve that need, they will forget about radio entirely and adopt newer forms of media distribution. As far as I am concerned, online radio IS digital radio in this decade.

 

[Len14043]

Len, the system is not going to fail because we evil DXers "desperately want it to". It is going to fail because it doesn't work very well, because it causes a huge amount of interference even within the local market, and because it costs too much. The American listening public deserves better. If we don't serve that need, they will forget about radio entirely and adopt newer forms of media distribution. As far as I am concerned, online radio IS digital radio in this decade.

I am not saying dxers are evil or selfish, they just don't like interference at ANY level. I get that. I enjoy dxing the AM band and agree with most of the posters here that the AM system is useless and should wither on the wine. OTOH, the FM system has merit and works quite well-especially at elevated power. As I stated in a previous post, I am about 17 miles from most of the FM sticks in my area, and they all provide clean and dropout-free service at my location. Mobile coverage is even better. While some may say that 17 miles is not great feat, they serve me better than most of the AM stations during the nighttime hours. For Instance, all of the graveyard stations are buried, the other AM's (except WLW and WSAI) are severely degraded. WCKY, a 50,000 watt station, suffers from ground/skywave cancellation at that distance. So if you look at FM IBOC in the context of radio in general, the performance is actually quite remarkable given the fact that FM HD stations operate on the order of 1000 watts or considerably less of digital power, vs levels of up to 50,000 watts for AM stations. The FM HD stations provide clean audio to boot. It could be argued that AM is a flawed, bloated, and inefficient system for covering the distant suburbs.

 

[Play Freebird]

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, one of the local non-comm FM stations I work with increased digital injection to -14 dBc, but quickly heard complaints from the Korean broadcaster who leases the 92 kHz subcarrier, so the digital sidebands have been turned back down.

This problem will pose a dilemma for many other public stations that rely on SCA income.

 

[jras20]

I never understood why FM/AM decided to put IBOC on the same band. Why didn't they put it on a new band all together? That would of made sense. I can't see FM/AM going all digital unless they can have the same coverage as analog did. If they did kill analog to where I couldn't DX it any more, I'd probably go to Satellite radio.

 

[nd2023]

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, one of the local non-comm FM stations I work with increased digital injection to -14 dBc, but quickly heard complaints from the Korean broadcaster who leases the 92 kHz subcarrier, so the digital sidebands have been turned back down.

This problem will pose a dilemma for many other public stations that rely on SCA income.

Perhaps they could just lease the HD3 instead of SCA. Oh wait, there are more SCA radios out there than HD radios! How sad is that.

 

[kenglish]

What's the point of DX'ing, if you have pre-set limitations on what you can hear?

I think the DX'ers just don't want interference on channels that should be clear. I have the same problem with electrical and computer-caused interference....I would love for there to be none, but (realistically) I wonder how much I should just "accept".

It's kinda like, why play baseball or golf, if there's a limit on how far you're allowed to hit the ball. Or, run in a marathon, with a speed limit? Or, DX only within your local market : ?

 

[Len14043]

What's the point of DX'ing, if you have pre-set limitations on what you can hear?

I think the DX'ers just don't want interference on channels that should be clear. I have the same problem with electrical and computer-caused interference....I would love for there to be none, but (realistically) I wonder how much I should just "accept".

It's kinda like, why play baseball or golf, if there's a limit on how far you're allowed to hit the ball. Or, run in a marathon, with a speed limit? Or, DX only within your local market : ?

Skywave reception is the main advantage of AM. If there is an event with national implications in Salt Lake, Denver, Des Moines, etc, and I have relatives in any of those cities, I want the ability to listen to skywave signals and not have the channel cluttered and sound like a regional or graveyard channel. The AM band was great back in the 70's when for example, I could hear KSL in Cincinnati, not WDJO; and WLW in Salt Lake, not KALL. There are numerous other examples. For fidelity, AM is useless as well as for metropolitan coverage, except for the 50,000 blowtorches. Leave the AM band for the big guys and implement IBOC of the FM band for both fidelity and great local coverage.

 

[Mike Walker]

As for why AM/FM stations chose digital on the same band...THEY DIDN'T! The FCC insisted that any digital system MUST BE IBOC (in band, on-channel). In the 90s there were hopes that the L-Band would be made available for digital transmissions in the US, as in Canada. It didn't happen. And because Canada is such a tiny market (in terms of population), they're now moving toward HD, and away from L-Band. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be first!

 

[jras20]

What's the point of DX'ing, if you have pre-set limitations on what you can hear?

I think the DX'ers just don't want interference on channels that should be clear. I have the same problem with electrical and computer-caused interference....I would love for there to be none, but (realistically) I wonder how much I should just "accept".

It's kinda like, why play baseball or golf, if there's a limit on how far you're allowed to hit the ball. Or, run in a marathon, with a speed limit? Or, DX only within your local market : ?

Well the point is, to hear more. When your out in the middle of the country and only 2 local FM stations come in, yeah you wan to DX something to get more. I still refuse to pay for radio because I can still get it for free.

 

[davideduardo]

As for why AM/FM stations chose digital on the same band...THEY DIDN'T! The FCC insisted that any digital system MUST BE IBOC (in band, on-channel). In the 90s there were hopes that the L-Band would be made available for digital transmissions in the US, as in Canada. It didn't happen. And because Canada is such a tiny market (in terms of population), they're now moving toward HD, and away from L-Band. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be first!

Canada's population, I think is not the factor here. After all, after the US, Brazil and Colombia, Canada, at 33 million, is the largest country in the Hemisphere.

THe real issue is that consumers in Canada, as in Europe, have shown little interest in buying radios with new bands because they are not interested in buying radios... consumers are looking for multifunction devices that combine entertainment options. That's also why expanding the FM band is not going anywhere.

 

[w9wi]

As for why AM/FM stations chose digital on the same band...THEY DIDN'T! The FCC insisted that any digital system MUST BE IBOC (in band, on-channel). In the 90s there were hopes that the L-Band would be made available for digital transmissions in the US, as in Canada. It didn't happen.

To be honest I don't buy that.

I think if the broadcasters wanted digital radio to be on a separate band, (say, "OBOC" -- "out-of-band, off-channel") the FCC would have found a way to get them some low-microwave spectrum. Indeed, the arguments given at the time for not using the same band as the Canadians looked awfully flimsy to me.

I think it was the *broadcasters* who decided the digital system must be IBOC, and the Commissioners saw little choice but to go along.

 

[Play Freebird]

To be honest I don't buy that.

I think if the broadcasters wanted digital radio to be on a separate band, (say, "OBOC" -- "out-of-band, off-channel") the FCC would have found a way to get them some low-microwave spectrum. Indeed, the arguments given at the time for not using the same band as the Canadians looked awfully flimsy to me.

I think it was the *broadcasters* who decided the digital system must be IBOC, and the Commissioners saw little choice but to go along.

I agree -- and that decision was made because the major players didn't want to upset the status quo.

The L-band segment that was under discussion (1452-1492 MHz) has been allocated (on a primary basis) to digital audio broadcasting in Canada and everywhere else in the world. Here in the US, it's still used for aeronautical flight telemetry (there's a popular misconception that it's a "military" band, but there are both defense-related and civilian users.) With a little effort, I think another place could have been found for the aeronautical users if we had really wanted to put broadcasting there.

But a better choice probably would have been in the UHF TV band - which was already allocated for broadcasting. In the conversion to DTV, seventeen channels were taken away from television and given back to the government to auction off or designate for public safety. Could we have negotiated a deal in which three or four of those channels would be retained for digital radio? This would have been a suitable wavelength to reach mobile and portable devices while having better coverage range than L-band.

We lost our opportunity on that idea, but perhaps we have a second chance to do something in 76-88 MHz. Canada is reportedly looking at this again quite seriously.

Meanwhile, nobody should be surprised that IBOC is a flop. After all, its primary objective was to maintain the status quo!

 

[BRNout]

Canada's population, I think is not the factor here. After all, after the US, Brazil and Colombia, Canada, at 33 million, is the largest country in the Hemisphere.

Huh?????

Geez David, surely you know better than this. In the western hemisphere, Canada's population ranks behind the USA, Brazil, Mexico, Columbia and Argentina - 6th and not 4th in population. With Venezuela and Peru coming up fast. In terms of area, it is the largest nation in the hemisphere; slightly larger than the USA, even with all of our various offshore territories thrown in.

Not certain what either stat has to do with HD Radio, but to get back to the thread.....

Despite Canada's vast size, most of the population is scattered around about a half-dozen mid-sized to large metropolitan areas. And aside from those in Alberta, these larger cities are generally within 100 miles of the US border. In other words, most of the land mass is sparsely populated with the bulk of the population located in areas where HD Radio will work as well (or as badly) as it does here.

It actually makes sense for Canada to pursue the IBOC standard, flawed as it may be. Why? Because most consumer appliances sold in Canada tend to be the same appliances as sold in the US. So, adopting this standard (versus DAB) takes advantage of economies of scale (such as they are for HDR). This is why, for most product standards, Canada tends to follow suit with whatever the US has done - though generally with some little wrinkle thrown in to make them feel 'unique'.

Lastly, though it makes sense for me that they do this, personally I don't like the idea. Why? Because it will add even more cross-border interference than there already is. I just spent some time around the "Golden Horseshoe" and Buffalo/Niagara Falls areas and noted how the CRTC and FCC have respectively managed to shoehorn tons of stations on previously clear adjacent frequencies. Prior to that, you had clear reception of most Toronto signals in and around Buffalo/NF and vice versa. Now, not so much. Toss in HD and it will be impossible.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - that listening isn't within the protected contour. Well, let me tell you, listening to the radio around Buffalo is a Hell of a lot more interesting with the slicker and more interesting sounding Toronto market signals as an option than without them. And, it's nice to have Buffalo signals as an option when hanging around a place like Mississauga or Oakville as well. The mutually assured destruction of HD on both sides will obliterate that option in many areas. Which is why I hope (probably in vain) that it doesn't happen.

 

[w9wi]

I agree -- and that decision was made because the major players didn't want to upset the status quo.

I certainly believe that's a large part of the reason.

Broadcasters have also made the point that IBOC allows leveraging of much of the existing transmission infrastructure (antennas, especially) and avoids the political complaints about "free" spectrum. (TV was taking a licking at the time over the second channels for DTV) And I think there's some validity to that.

But all of that originated from the stations' side, not the government's.

But a better choice probably would have been in the UHF TV band - which was already allocated for broadcasting. In the conversion to DTV, seventeen channels were taken away from television and given back to the government to auction off or designate for public safety. Could we have negotiated a deal in which three or four of those channels would be retained for digital radio? This would have been a suitable wavelength to reach mobile and portable devices while having better coverage range than L-band.

The British indeed put their DAB in ex-TV spectrum. (high-band VHF in their case) I think at the time radio could indeed have probably received three TV channels' worth of spectrum. That would have been enough room for everyone to at least have a 100% power digital-only station with the IBOC standard, if not with some other standard.

Today I don't think any UHF spectrum is on the table for any form of broadcasting. I don't think 76-88 is going to do it either. Problem is, there's nowhere else to put the TV stations that are already there.

 

[Ai4i]

I never understood why FM/AM decided to put IBOC on the same band.

It had to be done this way to preserve relative stick values and to insure that any additional content would be provided by existing broadcasters.

 

[audioguy]

So now that we have adopted this inferior system in order to to protect the stick value for the existing broadcasters, exactly what are they doing with the additional capacity? Generally speaking, nothing except for NPR, which gets a lot of its funding from your tax dollars.

 

[Ai4i]

...exactly what are they doing with the additional capacity?

Sitting on it.
They don't need to do anything with it.
The competition has been effectively locked out.

 

[Savage]

Yes, but "existing broadcasters" have used HD successfully as a foil to head off the considerable potential threat of DAB. If DAB were adopted and were to gain a foothold, you'd have the terrestrial equivalent of satellite radio, dumping scores of new signals in every market and giving entrepreneurial broadcasters parity in facilities with the big guys.

If and when HD finally croaks for good, the "existing broadcasters" will have long since written down their investments in IBOC.

It'll always be around for the same purposes - and in real time, as an obtuse digital SCA primarily to give pubcasters subchannels for classical and jazz, and provide HD-2 primaries to allow commercial group operators to evade ownership caps via FM translators.