Since the FCC authorized the power increase for FM, I notice that many of the regular posters disappeared. Although I am pro IBOC for FM, I enjoyed reading the thought provoking posts of members on the other side of the issue. After all, we are all brothers (and possible sisters) in radio and are concerned about its future.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Where is everybody?
- Thread starter Len14043
- Start date
Len, here's my theory: on the pro-HD side, they're all out at the transmitter adjusting the diversity delay so the analog and digital streams match. (These things take time. They don't have time left to post here.... 
)
On the anti-IBOC side - it kind of goes like this.
In a major eastern city not far from you, about twenty years ago hundreds of citizens, photogs and TV crews gathered on the bank of a river downtown to watch the implosion of an old railroad bridge, timed to occur on the 6pm news. The countdown ticked to zero, klaxons blared, and a huge blast rocked the ground. After the smoke cleared the audience burst out in laughter: the bridge was still standing. The anticlimax was repeated over and over on successive nights in front of always-dwindling crowds with the identical result: it appeared there wasn't enough explosive power on Earth sufficient to bring the bridge down. Eventually it was mostly dismantled using barge-mounted cranes. Drama turned to derision: instead of live-covering the intended implosions, TV news started mocking the project with anchors appearing in front of Chyron graphics making statements like "Bridge 4, Demo Experts 0."
The point here: it gets boring watching something not happen.
IBOC: not happening. Outside of our navel-gazing radio-geek world, nobody cares about HD. Analog radio works just fine for listeners and advertisers. And the technical problems are mounting, not abating - read the HD4 thread on this board and learn that more subchannels are actually degrading the digital audio further and increasing the interference.
BTW: I'd like to chime in on the debate you were having with other posters about interference "being in the ear of the beholder." There's a reason why all of a sudden the Commission is interested in interference complaints (re:HD) from the public when historically the staff has ignored non-technical consumer complaints about radio. It's because there won't be any. When there's interference, listeners simply go away. They just conclude, consciously or subconsciously, "that's radio. Sometimes it doesn't come in so well." Consumers can't distinguish among sources of noise. Therefore: they won't complain, because that's not what they do. It's like getting frustrated at your dog because she won't practice the piano like you told her.
By relying on "actual reports of interference," once again the pro-HD FCC staff (read: the non-engineers) is stacking the deck in favor of IBOC. "No consumer reoprts of interference? Aha!! That means it doesn't exist!!"
)On the anti-IBOC side - it kind of goes like this.
In a major eastern city not far from you, about twenty years ago hundreds of citizens, photogs and TV crews gathered on the bank of a river downtown to watch the implosion of an old railroad bridge, timed to occur on the 6pm news. The countdown ticked to zero, klaxons blared, and a huge blast rocked the ground. After the smoke cleared the audience burst out in laughter: the bridge was still standing. The anticlimax was repeated over and over on successive nights in front of always-dwindling crowds with the identical result: it appeared there wasn't enough explosive power on Earth sufficient to bring the bridge down. Eventually it was mostly dismantled using barge-mounted cranes. Drama turned to derision: instead of live-covering the intended implosions, TV news started mocking the project with anchors appearing in front of Chyron graphics making statements like "Bridge 4, Demo Experts 0."
The point here: it gets boring watching something not happen.
IBOC: not happening. Outside of our navel-gazing radio-geek world, nobody cares about HD. Analog radio works just fine for listeners and advertisers. And the technical problems are mounting, not abating - read the HD4 thread on this board and learn that more subchannels are actually degrading the digital audio further and increasing the interference.
BTW: I'd like to chime in on the debate you were having with other posters about interference "being in the ear of the beholder." There's a reason why all of a sudden the Commission is interested in interference complaints (re:HD) from the public when historically the staff has ignored non-technical consumer complaints about radio. It's because there won't be any. When there's interference, listeners simply go away. They just conclude, consciously or subconsciously, "that's radio. Sometimes it doesn't come in so well." Consumers can't distinguish among sources of noise. Therefore: they won't complain, because that's not what they do. It's like getting frustrated at your dog because she won't practice the piano like you told her.
By relying on "actual reports of interference," once again the pro-HD FCC staff (read: the non-engineers) is stacking the deck in favor of IBOC. "No consumer reoprts of interference? Aha!! That means it doesn't exist!!"
Savage said:
Sometimes it's hard separating a mistake from a deliberate direction, because it appears to me that the net result of this is fewer listeners for distant stations, which may (emphasis on "may") result in either fewer radio listeners, or more listeners for local non-fringe stations. (Or both. Looking at Monmouth-Ocean, NJ, where I am, I'm sure the broadcasters here would love it if listeners suddenly couldn't get NYC stations so well...) Missing a format out of NYC? Here's an HD2 to fill the gap...
Or not. Dunno, really.
Savage said:
Your statement, Mr. Savage, sent me back to re-read the R&O on the HDR power increase. Sure enough, here it is:
"If a full-service analog FM station is receiving verifiable listener complaints of interference within its protected contour from FM digital facilities operating with FM Digital ERP in excess of -20 dBc, the licensee of the affected analog FM station must contact the licensee of the station operating the FM digital facilities."
And then the injured station needs to receive at least three such complaints from listeners before the FCC will intervene. That just about locks the interference complaint process in permafrost.
But if, by chance, a station did receive such a complaint, I suppose the questions to ask the listener are: 1. Where are you listening?, 2. What does the interference sound like?, 3. When did you first notice it? Listener observations are sure to be untechnical so will the offending station respond cooperatively? Will the FCC treat them seriously?
c5
The FCC doesn't care unless it brings them revenue. Been that way for years. Check your tower lights and "Broadcasting and the Public" pamphlet in your public file. They'll nail you for that stuff.
Savage said:
I have read many posts here that nobody cares about HD and the consumers have spoken. I believe that is flawed logic because in this case, the radio industry will eventually decide if FM HD increases in popularity, and not the consumer directly. To consumers, a radio is a radio. It doesn't have the wow factor with consumers like Ipods, computers, or even HDTV, its just a radio. The other day my wife saw me playing with my new Insigna radio and asked me, "Whats the big deal, its only a radio." I instantly realized that that statement spoke volumes. Consumers are indifferent about HD radio, and not for or against it. When the price of HD radios comes down enough, a tipping point will be reached in which radio manufacturers will readily include HD in the radios. When consumers purchase a radio in the not to distant future, it will include HD - even if the consumer doesn't set out to purchase an HD radio. At that point, some of the subchannels will gain traction. The power increase will also prove to be a needed shot in the arm. The millions of analog radios will eventually be replaced through attrition and HD radio will slowly gain acceptance. I could be wrong, but my gut tells me otherwise.
On another point, I think the HD radio alliance should discontinue their ads and just promote the HD subchannels. For instance, a station could occasionally mention the programming available on the sub channels, and followup with a short message saying that an HD radio will be necessary to hear those subchannels. Niche programming will probably be more successful than the programming normally heard on the regular channels. Successful formats may include liberal talk, sports channels, comedy, politics, traffic info, all Beatles all the time, all Elvis all the time, and many other possibilities. Like many posters stated here before, content is what sells, and the consumer is oblivious as to the logistics of transmitting that content.
Savage said:
If you plug in stations into the NPR calculator, you will see that the digital signal of an adjacent station is usually 20 db below the protected analog signal at the 60 dBm contour. If the stations are short spaced, there will be problems with the adjacent digital and analog signals. In other words, if the FCC abided by its own rules with respect to spacing requirements, than the HD signals could be easily be accommodated. Like it or not, the FCC decided that stations are protected to the 60 or 54 dBm contour. A station can easily be received beyond that contour, but that coverage is not protected. The FCC must demarcate where the protection stops. There may even be areas within a stations protected contour where analog reception is difficult. In those areas, IBOC from adjacent stations may interfere with an analog signal, but that wouldn't be the fault of the digital station if the analog signal was already impaired. The bottom line is that if there are no complaints about interference, than there probably is no interference. But if there is ongoing (not transient) interference within a stations protected contour where the analog signal is not already impaired without IBOC, then the FCC should act accordingly.
RadeoEngineer said:
No lie, and they are just slightly above being totally merciless (that is, they will sometimes reduce a fine for an overall history of compliance). I'm trying to figure out how best to implement these new closed captioning complaint rules for television. Screw it up and I'm sure they'll nail the station.
Consumers may not care whether they're listening to analog or HD, digital or old-fashioned, but there are factors they DO care about when it comes to radio.
First of all is cost. They have no interest in trundling out and laying out anywhere from $39.95 (Insignia cheapo) to $200 just to replace something they overwhelmingly see as perfectly suitable and serviceable. The other thing is satisfactory service in the field. On both counts to date, HD Radio has been a pronounced failure. I know, I know - a few brave promoters of IBOC insist that -10 dBc will fix the performance problems. No, it won't - even if most HD broadcasters were to immediately increase digital the max permitted, which is simply not going to happen, for reasons amply discussed here and elsewhere.
Len takes the position that the radio industry will force the issue by overwhelmingly adopting HD at some point in the murky future. (SEE: above comments regarding listener attitudes about IBOC.)
Radio operators are collectively and individually too smart to wind the anchor chain around their necks and heave it overboard. They simply will not compromise their existing audiences and/or run up unnecessary and self-defeating costs. NOT happening....NOT going to happen.
First of all is cost. They have no interest in trundling out and laying out anywhere from $39.95 (Insignia cheapo) to $200 just to replace something they overwhelmingly see as perfectly suitable and serviceable. The other thing is satisfactory service in the field. On both counts to date, HD Radio has been a pronounced failure. I know, I know - a few brave promoters of IBOC insist that -10 dBc will fix the performance problems. No, it won't - even if most HD broadcasters were to immediately increase digital the max permitted, which is simply not going to happen, for reasons amply discussed here and elsewhere.
Len takes the position that the radio industry will force the issue by overwhelmingly adopting HD at some point in the murky future. (SEE: above comments regarding listener attitudes about IBOC.)
Radio operators are collectively and individually too smart to wind the anchor chain around their necks and heave it overboard. They simply will not compromise their existing audiences and/or run up unnecessary and self-defeating costs. NOT happening....NOT going to happen.
The bean counters are looking at the zero ad revenue brought in by their HD installation over the past 5 years or so. Most of those bean counters don't have an HD radio in their own cars. Some HD2 format programmers are tired of programming to nobody if their HD2 doesn't stream online.
Even if every HD radio that existed, even the ones collecting dust, in a market were tuned to one station continuously for the ratings period, it would barely register a blip in the ratings.
Even if every HD radio that existed, even the ones collecting dust, in a market were tuned to one station continuously for the ratings period, it would barely register a blip in the ratings.
Len14043 said:
It appears that some people do care about HD radio, or at least they do in their Hyundais and their BMWs. See the posts in Hyundai Genesis Forum: HD Radio problem in this forum. I wonder how many of these owners will rush out and buy another car with HD radio? I wonder if they will recommend their friends "upgrade" to IBOC radio? This is the most common type of comments about HD radio from consumers: how krappy it is and what in the hell is wrong with my radio?
- Status