Where do you see IBOC going?

[Chuck]

What I do see as the future is a cell phone-like "content delivery" system. Each radio will have an IP address, and access to a virtually infinite variety of stations, as long as they are in a coverage of a cell, which will be smaller in coverage range, greater in number, and higher in bandwidth than at present. I imagine this being the way most will listen to radio content by 2030-2040 or so. Analog FM or satellite radio will live on somewhat as terrestrial TV broadcasts do today, accessed by a small percentage of the population when out of cell range, who do not pay for access to the cell network (if it is not free and public the way roads or other infrastructure are today), or who do not yet possess an IP-capable radio (perhaps for security / privacy concerns).

I suspect the cell phone companies see it that way. I recently received an "invitation" from Nokia to have our station's web stream listed on their cell phones as (one of many) defaults. I said yes. It will be interesting to see how that works out.

In any case, I can see the cell phone companies becoming a major player in the delivery of broadcast programming.

 

[Radioman100]

Funny. I'm writing this message from last year's HD Radio killer - the iPhone.

Not sure how that works, as I can't listen to any web radio on it.

 

[Chuck]

Funny. I'm writing this message from last year's HD Radio killer - the iPhone.

Not sure how that works, as I can't listen to any web radio on it.

Maybe you are missing something. Have you read the instructions? I really don't know, since I'm too cheap to buy an IPhone. Maybe it doesn’t handle streaming audio, but I was under the impression that it was one of its “features.” In any case, it won’t be long until a cell phone does do it, and does it well.

On the other hand, I do have a Nokia N-800, which is a dandy Internet radio, PDA, pocket computer and more. Did I mention that it has Skype built in for FREE phone calls? It actually works.

The point of my post was not about "what is." It is about "what will be." I'm reasonably sure that the TV commercial I just saw for Sprint was talking about getting music from your cell phone. Have you seen it?

I can most certainly listen to streaming audio on my laptop computer using an EVDO card from my cell phone service provider. I'm doing that right now in my living room. It is not much of a stretch to see how that could be integrated into a cell phone.

Maybe you chose the wrong cell phone company????

 

[Radioman100]

Maybe you are missing something. Have you read the instructions? I really don't know, since I'm too cheap to buy an IPhone. Maybe it doesn’t handle streaming audio, but I was under the impression that it was one of its “features.” In any case, it won’t be long until a cell phone does do it, and does it well.

On the other hand, I do have a Nokia N-800, which is a dandy Internet radio, PDA, pocket computer and more. Did I mention that it has Skype built in for FREE phone calls? It actually works.

The point of my post was not about "what is." It is about "what will be." I'm reasonably sure that the TV commercial I just saw for Sprint was talking about getting music from your cell phone. Have you seen it?

I can most certainly listen to streaming audio on my laptop computer using an EVDO card from my cell phone service provider. I'm doing that right now in my living room. It is not much of a stretch to see how that could be integrated into a cell phone.

Maybe you chose the wrong cell phone company????

My point is around this time last year, EVERYONE here was talking about how the iPhone was going to KILL HD Radio, and probably terrestrial radio. As far as I can tell, there is NO internet radio available to iPhone users.

Sprint has been offering music via cell phone for a while now. They're partnered with one of the satellite radio providers and charge a premium for the service, a premium not too many people are apparently willing to pay.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I see IBOC as a waste of money. AM's problem, and for that matter much of FM also, is not fidelity, it's content. Radio is getting more boring by the day. Tuning across the dial, especially in a big market, it sounds like there are just a few stations cloned over, and over, and over. Digital boredom is just a boring as analog boredom. All IBOC is doing is driving me to satellite radio.

Are you serious? More choice is driving you to satellite radio?

I can't deny the fact that analog FM is pretty much the same ol' same ol'. Radio has to do its best to try to please Wall Street, and apparently most Americans don't really have eclectic tastes in music. If you want to make a buck, playing it safe isn't a bad way to go.

But those same radio stations are trying things on their HD2 channels that either weren't successful enough to continue devoting a regular FM channel to or have never been tried at all.

Take Wichita, Kansas for example. Do you think a dance station would be sustainable there on an analog FM? Probably not, but it's available on HD2.

How about the gay or all 90s or all Beatles HD2 channels in Dallas? Do you think any of those formats could sustain an analog FM in that market? There's also a Triple A format on HD2 in Dallas. Could the market sustain it on regular FM? Maybe, but probably not. Austin has a very successful one, but DFW is nowhere near as eclectic as Austin. It does have a home though on HD2. Smooth Jazz got the boot from analog FM in Dallas, but it lives on via HD2.

All the formats you mention and many more have been available worldwide on internet/WiFi/WiMax for some time. So what's so new and compelling about HD2, 3, 4 etc.?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Most of the US population does not live in far rural areas where there is only little or very weak local or suburban AM or FM analog radio coverage.

Yet you incessantly contend HD radio is not receivable? Pick a beef and stay with it. Is it "Doesn't wpork with fringe signals" or "Only good for those in rural areas"?

A- Where did I say that HD radio was "Only good for those in rural areas"?
I said "Most of the US population does not live in far rural areas where there is only little or very weak local or suburban AM or FM analog radio coverage." You don't dispute that do you?
Take your own advice: "Pick a beef and stay with it".



How about "Whatever it is I just hate it." There's a winner.

A- Perhaps for you.

Because you like listening to the 1 or 2 HD FM signals you might be able to reliably receive the rest of the public is supposed to quietly accept HD radio's destruction of the public's airwaves?

So now RURAL listening of HD is the big problem?
A- It isn't unless you make it one.

And now there is destruction on FM?
A- HD radio always did block adjacent channels, which are not clear to add new hissing signals in the most heavily populated areas of the country.

Does HD cause global warming?
A- Yes it does. HD radio is a notoriously inefficient power hog, and many transmitter sites are finding it necessary to also add additional air conditioning all for very few listeners.

Give us a break.
A- If you need one, then take it.

No way, Jose. (Or is that another HD supporter?)

Funny. You might want to stick to humor. Your analysis isn't as good.
A- Don't bet on it.

I have an interesting question.
If your super high gain FM antenna so vastly improves a tiny, much less robust 1,000 watt (approximately) HD FM signal so well that you can reliably get it from almost 100 miles away, why does it not provide at least the same gain and signal improvement for the 100,000 watt main analog carrier of the same stations?

This from womeone who calims to have a technical background and regularly addresses these issues. If you had the vaguest idea of how digital signals swork, you'd see why you assertion is more "Soup Junk Science."
A- It is clear you don't understand that antenna gain for a certain frequency is not a function of modulation scheme. HD antennas are Clouseu's junk science.

Here's a hint. Digital has a much lower signal requirement than analog. (See DTV).
A- But antenna gain on the same antenna is equal for a given frequency, so digital and analog will get equal improvement. Check it out yourself before posting misleading information.

However I'm sure you, as an engineering type, knew this. In which case you just ignored it and misled us to advance your position. Or is it you didn't know this. In which case...???????

Which is it?
A- Yes, your statements are misleading.

Have you stumbled upon a secret HD only FM antenna?

Only in your world. Out here in reality it's called PHYSICS.
A- I'm glad you stumbled upon it. Now you have something new to study.

Please, I'm asking you, Stop applying 2nd grade knowledge & LOGIC to college level questions. Whether you agree with HD or not, the signal levels required for Digital are much different. ANYONE with a respectable backgrond accepts this. iF YOU HAD THAT BACKGROUND, SO WOULD YOU.
A- The signal levels are different, HD is much lower, and antenna gain maintains that ratio. There are no antennas that give digital HD a preference over analog. No digital HD antennas. Check that physics book you just found.

The improvement (gain and other factors) of digital and analog signals are the same for a given antenna and frequency. In HD radio the digital part of the signal starts out with much less power then the analog and therefore will never overtake the analog distance (since they attenuate equally) and the digital HD signal will be lost in noise sooner then the analog signal.

 

[clouseau]

The improvement (gain and other factors) of digital and analog signals are the same for a given antenna and frequency. In HD radio the digital part of the signal starts out with much less power then the analog and therefore will never overtake the analog distance (since they attenuate equally) and the digital HD signal will be lost in noise sooner then the analog signal.

I don't recall reading that anyone asserted the digital will go furthur (Wild postings about digital noise without analog carrier aside).

Perhaps a more interesting question might be "How much gain is necessary to receive the HD-2 programming on an analog receiver at that location?"

Oh my goodness. HD=More Choices.

Heavy man.

Clouseau

 

[SUPERCASTER]

The improvement (gain and other factors) of digital and analog signals are the same for a given antenna and frequency. In HD radio the digital part of the signal starts out with much less power then the analog and therefore will never overtake the analog distance (since they attenuate equally) and the digital HD signal will be lost in noise sooner then the analog signal.

I don't recall reading that anyone asserted the digital will go furthur (Wild postings about digital noise without analog carrier aside).

A- Yes the digital signal is much weaker, shorter range, less robust.
Digital noise can be heard on an analog radio long after the HD bits are scrambled beyond repair. A distant distorted HD signal can be heard as digital noise, far after it can be digitally decoded.


Perhaps a more interesting question might be "How much gain is necessary to receive the HD-2 programming on an analog receiver at that location?"

A- Obviously most listeners don't find HD2 signals interesting at all, otherwise they would be listening.

Oh my goodness. HD=More Choices.

A- HD radio hiss jams more "stations between the stations" = Fewer Choices.

Heavy man.
Clouseau

A- Why make your weight an issue?
What does it have to do with HD radio?

 

[clouseau]

A- HD radio hiss jams more "stations between the stations" = Fewer Choices.

Got it.

DX station programming to someone far away & beyond it's service contour = GOOD
Local station programming to YOU with additional programming choices = BAD

A- Why make your weight an issue?
What does it have to do with HD radio?

If I was a "person of size" this might piss me off.
Then I consider the source.

Then I realize you probably don't even know...

It was an expression in the 60's. Try Wikipedia.

Clouseau

 

[Radioman100]

All the formats you mention and many more have been available worldwide on internet/WiFi/WiMax for some time. So what's so new and compelling about HD2, 3, 4 etc.?

Here's how HD Radio works: Get into car, turn radio on, listen to HD2, 3, etc. At home or work, unbox radio, set it on shelf, turn it on, listen to HD2, 3, etc.

Here's how internet radio works in the car: Get into car... Oh wait, I forgot a few steps. Go buy mobile wireless adaptor, preferably from Verizon because all of the other guys offerings suck. Pay monthly for mobile internet access, approximately 5X the cost of satellite radio. Get a laptop computer. Get an inverter (if you're planning to drive for any length of time,) get a cooling stand for laptop. Devise some way to keep laptop from flying if you have to hit the brakes. Plug laptop and cooling stand into inverter. Boot computer. Log into computer and wireless service. Connect laptop's audio output to car stereo input. Listen to horrific buzz. Drive to Radio Shack to get isolation transformer. Connect isolation transformer between laptop audio output and car stereo input. Finally, call up your favorite webcast and enjoy, unless you happen to live in a "red state." If you do, don't waste your time with any of the above unless you live in one of the very largest metropolitan areas, and even then it's iffy in the 'burbs. Unless you're inside the city limits of a large city, your wireless access probably won't deliver sufficient speed or reliability.

Here's how internet radio works in the office: Surf to internet radio website. Enjoy. Use up TONS of bandwidth. A few days later, wonder where your stream has gone since it will no longer connect. Ask IT guy. Have fight with IT guy when he tells you he's blocked it and why. Have fight with IT guy. Get fired. Go looking for new job. Repeat process at new job.

 

[awj223]

Got it.

DX station programming to someone far away & beyond it's service contour = GOOD
Local station programming to YOU with additional programming choices = BAD

HD on AM: Jams adjacent frequencies, makes the analog sound like crap, and offers NO additional programming. All of the drawbacks of HD with none of the benefits. It's FEWER choices no matter which way you look at it.

Here's how HD Radio works: Get into car, turn radio on, listen to HD2, 3, etc. At home or work, unbox radio, set it on shelf, turn it on, listen to HD2, 3, etc.

Once tuned into HD2, HD3, etc., listen to the signal drop out every time you drive behind a building, into a tunnel, or slightly out of the 60 dBu contour! And to those who say little listening occurs outside the city grade contours: how do you know this? I just did Arbitron last week and there is NO way for them to tell where all of the listening is taking place. The only reliable locations they can get are if you mark "at home" or "at work" (assuming you aren't mobile during your job e.g. delivery person) since you tell them your home and work ZIP codes. The other options are "in a car" or "other place". They simply cannot figure out where you are when you're driving down the freeway at 70 mph because they don't ask! Now most stations might draw from listeners who spend at least part of their day in the city grade contours, but how many of them keep the car radio tuned to their favorite station while they're driving far beyond those contours? They simply do not get the information they'd need to make that determination.

And by the way, listening to stations outside the city grade contours is NOT DXing. Just tell any serious DXer that you heard an FM from one city over out in the burbs and see if they're impressed at all.

Here's how internet radio works in the car: Get into car... Oh wait, I forgot a few steps. Go buy mobile wireless adaptor, preferably from Verizon because all of the other guys offerings suck. Pay monthly for mobile internet access, approximately 5X the cost of satellite radio. Get a laptop computer. Get an inverter (if you're planning to drive for any length of time,) get a cooling stand for laptop. Devise some way to keep laptop from flying if you have to hit the brakes. Plug laptop and cooling stand into inverter. Boot computer. Log into computer and wireless service. Connect laptop's audio output to car stereo input. Listen to horrific buzz. Drive to Radio Shack to get isolation transformer. Connect isolation transformer between laptop audio output and car stereo input. Finally, call up your favorite webcast and enjoy, unless you happen to live in a "red state." If you do, don't waste your time with any of the above unless you live in one of the very largest metropolitan areas, and even then it's iffy in the 'burbs. Unless you're inside the city limits of a large city, your wireless access probably won't deliver sufficient speed or reliability.

You mean take mobile phone that I already have, and data service that I already pay for anyway, and tether phone to laptop I already own. Take car power adapter that I already bought with the laptop. Connect laptop to car stereo with a cable sitting in a pile of spares and have no issues with sound quality. Call up favorite webcast and enjoy, even from the freeway at 75 mph. Webcasts take up so little bandwidth, you can usually run them on GPRS and EDGE. 3G networks have so much extra speed that buffering is never an issue. I've never had issues with audio over 3G even in the 'burbs. And by the way, I use AT&T not Verizon and it works great.

Here's how internet radio works in the office: Surf to internet radio website. Enjoy. Use up TONS of bandwidth. A few days later, wonder where your stream has gone since it will no longer connect. Ask IT guy. Have fight with IT guy when he tells you he's blocked it and why. Have fight with IT guy. Get fired. Go looking for new job. Repeat process at new job.

Gimme a break. Audio uses next to nothing when it comes to bandwidth especially by modern standards. This isn't youtube.

 

[Chuck]

[My point is around this time last year, EVERYONE here was talking about how the iPhone was going to KILL HD Radio, and probably terrestrial radio. As far as I can tell, there is NO internet radio available to iPhone users.

Sprint has been offering music via cell phone for a while now. They're partnered with one of the satellite radio providers and charge a premium for the service, a premium not too many people are apparently willing to pay.

My point is the cell phone companies must see this as the future. Otherwise, why would they be asking stations for permission to list them in their web stream databases?

As for the cost, give that time. Many people have plans with very high or even unlimited minutes. I imagine those plans are both popular and profitable. Otherwise nobody would buy them and the phone companies would not offer them.

Just like cell phones, people who do have wireless Internet capabilities usually have it for some other purpose. The fact that George Shearing is tinkling the ivories in the background while I type this is just icing on the cake. As our lives become more and more Internet dependant, it will become even more common.

Can HD and Internet radio get along? Sure. Why not? Broadcasters need to get used to being "content providers." That is the job at hand. Bickering over the method of delivering that content is counterproductive.

The spoiler is that none of these technologies are exactly “mature.” We all know they all have their limitations. Figuring out how to work around those limitations is certainly worth talking about.

 

[Radioman100]

Once tuned into HD2, HD3, etc., listen to the signal drop out every time you drive behind a building, into a tunnel, or slightly out of the 60 dBu contour! And to those who say little listening occurs outside the city grade contours: how do you know this? I just did Arbitron last week and there is NO way for them to tell where all of the listening is taking place. The only reliable locations they can get are if you mark "at home" or "at work" (assuming you aren't mobile during your job e.g. delivery person) since you tell them your home and work ZIP codes. The other options are "in a car" or "other place". They simply cannot figure out where you are when you're driving down the freeway at 70 mph because they don't ask! Now most stations might draw from listeners who spend at least part of their day in the city grade contours, but how many of them keep the car radio tuned to their favorite station while they're driving far beyond those contours? They simply do not get the information they'd need to make that determination.

You and I have apparently had very different experiences with HD Radio, assuming you have any experience with it at all and aren't just believing the anti-HD hype. It works GREAT here, even in the 'burbs.

You mean take mobile phone that I already have, and data service that I already pay for anyway, and tether phone to laptop I already own. Take car power adapter that I already bought with the laptop. Connect laptop to car stereo with a cable sitting in a pile of spares and have no issues with sound quality. Call up favorite webcast and enjoy, even from the freeway at 75 mph. Webcasts take up so little bandwidth, you can usually run them on GPRS and EDGE. 3G networks have so much extra speed that buffering is never an issue. I've never had issues with audio over 3G even in the 'burbs. And by the way, I use AT&T not Verizon and it works great.

Yup. It's exactly like that. Obviously, people can't wait to tether a PC to their phones and set up an inverter so they can listen to internet radio driving down the road, praying they don't have to slam on the brakes and send their laptop flying into the passenger side floorboard. As far as ground loop hums are concerned, YMMV. Some laptops are prone to them, others aren't. Mine is.

I won't even bother debating the networks. You've had your experiences, and I've had mine. I've had zero luck with Sprint, marginal luck with AT&T and pretty good luck with Verizon. I will tell you that I've had to cancel a remote broadcast from the 'burbs because we could get no signal with an AT&T mobile broadband card there for a Comrex Access.

Gimme a break. Audio uses next to nothing when it comes to bandwidth especially by modern standards. This isn't youtube.

You guys seem to think this is all about bandwidth. It's not. It's also about network traffic. IT guys spend a lot of time tuning networks for optimum performance. Do you think they would spend big bucks on configurable switches from Cisco if a non-configurable switch from any number of vendors works just as well? Large corporate networks are tuned for optimum performance. They are simply not going to let internet radio listening compromise that performance, or waste their bandwidth.

 

[Radioman100]

My point is the cell phone companies must see this as the future. Otherwise, why would they be asking stations for permission to list them in their web stream databases?

As for the cost, give that time. Many people have plans with very high or even unlimited minutes. I imagine those plans are both popular and profitable. Otherwise nobody would buy them and the phone companies would not offer them.

Just like cell phones, people who do have wireless Internet capabilities usually have it for some other purpose. The fact that George Shearing is tinkling the ivories in the background while I type this is just icing on the cake. As our lives become more and more Internet dependant, it will become even more common.

Can HD and Internet radio get along? Sure. Why not? Broadcasters need to get used to being "content providers." That is the job at hand. Bickering over the method of delivering that content is counterproductive.

The spoiler is that none of these technologies are exactly “mature.” We all know they all have their limitations. Figuring out how to work around those limitations is certainly worth talking about.

I was recently approached by a company out of the Netherlands that wanted to stream one or more of my signals to cell phone users. For now, I'm saying no. Why? Many cell phone data plans are limited or charge per minute. I figured the listeners would be pissed if they got a huge cell phone bill out of the blue. Do you think they would be mad at the streaming company or the radio station?

I figured the people with unlimited or near unlimited data plans are already using a smartphone and (unless it's an iPhone) could probably access our web streams via our websites if they want to.

 

[sbe1]

IBOC will soon be brokered programming, brokered religion. Anyone that wants to play radio. That will get some action going on the extra channels. I do not see much use for the HD2 3 etc except maybe to put a daytimer AM on one of those channels so they could have 24 hr operation.

 

[ve3jf]

HD on AM: Jams adjacent frequencies, makes the analog sound like crap, and offers NO additional programming. All of the drawbacks of HD with none of the benefits. It's FEWER choices no matter which way you look at it.

Once tuned into HD2, HD3, etc., listen to the signal drop out every time you drive behind a building, into a tunnel, or slightly out of the 60 dBu contour! And to those who say little listening occurs outside the city grade contours: how do you know this? I just did Arbitron last week and there is NO way for them to tell where all of the listening is taking place. The only reliable locations they can get are if you mark "at home" or "at work" (assuming you aren't mobile during your job e.g. delivery person) since you tell them your home and work ZIP codes. The other options are "in a car" or "other place". They simply cannot figure out where you are when you're driving down the freeway at 70 mph because they don't ask! Now most stations might draw from listeners who spend at least part of their day in the city grade contours, but how many of them keep the car radio tuned to their favorite station while they're driving far beyond those contours? They simply do not get the information they'd need to make that determination.

And by the way, listening to stations outside the city grade contours is NOT DXing. Just tell any serious DXer that you heard an FM from one city over out in the burbs and see if they're impressed at all.

Well said. The flaws of "HD" on AM are well known, so I won't belabor that point. As for FM, it seems to be taken as gospel that HD provides reliable coverage to the 60 dBu contour (say something enough times, and it becomes a fact, it seems). But NPR field tests showed that the actual coverage can vary dramatically from one station to the next. I believe their early results showed a range of something like 50 to 80 dBu coverage for different test stations.

This is certainly one of the reasons why Canadian broadcasters have expressed reservations about the FM HD system. Even if they could count on digital coverage to 60 dBu (which they clearly can't), the fact remains that the protected contours for all classes of FMs in Canada is 54 dBu, and most broadcasters tend to believe that they currently have good analog coverage to at least 48 dBu, if not further. There are listeners out there. The reality is that, if they go HD, digital interference may remove their analog coverage beyond 54 dBu, while reliable digital may not go beyond 70 dBu or so. It's not a great tradeoff, is it?

Barry

 

[awj223]

You guys seem to think this is all about bandwidth. It's not. It's also about network traffic. IT guys spend a lot of time tuning networks for optimum performance. Do you think they would spend big bucks on configurable switches from Cisco if a non-configurable switch from any number of vendors works just as well? Large corporate networks are tuned for optimum performance. They are simply not going to let internet radio listening compromise that performance, or waste their bandwidth.

If that Cisco router that they spent big bucks on can't give different QoS levels to streaming audio vs. more critical services, they overpaid for that router. The correct solution is to give the critical services the highest priority, and boot audio streaming to the lowest priority queue, not block it entirely. If the IT guys are such ****** that they can't understand that listening to internet radio makes employees happier/more productive, they have serious problems.

It's like the IT guys at a company I was at for the summer who decided it would be a great idea to block outbound port 5190 (AIM). Do you know what I used AIM for at work? Usually it was to IM friends to ask what the best way was to do x in programming language y, because I could often get a response faster than trying to look it up if I spoke to the right person for that particular question. Anyway, this caused some lost productivity because instead of actually getting work done, I had to spend time setting up SSH tunnels to get back on AIM.

Anyway, my point is that some people may work better when they're listening to their favorite station, and IT's job is to manage the traffic by assigning appropriate priorities for different types of traffic, not take the lazy way out and piss off employees by blocking it entirely, which often causes lost productivity when everyone spends time setting up tunnels instead of actually working.

 

[KeithE4]

Gimme a break. Audio uses next to nothing when it comes to bandwidth especially by modern standards. This isn't youtube.

Many employees listening to streaming audio certainly does take bandwidth. The company VoIP phone system (which most companies will be using in the future - it's already starting to happen, slowly but surely) takes even more bandwidth. Guess who gets the priority.

(Full disclosure: My employer makes VoIP-based phone systems so I'm not exactly unbiased, but I do test the systems and know how much bandwidth a given codec uses - approximately 8 to 80 kbps depending on the codec. Multiply that by 100 or so for a small company.)

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

IBOC will soon be brokered programming, brokered religion. Anyone that wants to play radio.

Too late......Shortwave and AM got there first. In any event, the folks who use radio to advocate or sell ideas or products are much more interested in reaching the largest potential audience, not necessarily whether that idea or product is being talked about in digital.

I would think "Brother Stair" would sound just as frightening whether in HD, AM, or Shortwave.

 

[Radioman100]

Hey awj223, in the battle of the receptionists vs. the IT guys, I'll put my money on the IT guys. 99.9 percent of employees wouldn't have a clue about working around blocked ports or IPs.

As for employee morale, regular radio works fine and doesn't tax company resources.