FM IBOC Power Increase Sought

[Chuck]

Speaking of "stranger things happening", now it seems that NAB is prodding the FCC to adopt the 10 dB digital power increase as a way to help LPFM stations -- which they oppose.   What gives?   

That is amazing.  The fact of the matter is the ONLY way HD could work on either LPFM or translator service is with a significant power increase.  One watt or less of digital signal would simply be a waste of time money and effort.

In the past, our friends at NAB have made arguments that fluctuate, depending on what they want.  If you check, I think you’ll find they have a long history of switching sides for the sake of convenience.  I guess they think the FCC is actually trying to help LPFM.  It’s fashionable, so you go with what is popular with the politicos.

In their LPFM tests, they selected the five worst radios imaginable to "prove" that LPFM stations would cause unacceptable interference.  Now, to prove that HD is wonderful with a 10 db power increase; they have selected the very best radios available to prove their point.  Keep in mind that these are the same people who circulated a CD to your elected representatives that contained a fake demonstration of supposed LPFM interference.  Their credibility is very low in my opinion. 

The one thing they do right is they put on a great trade show.  I suppose that helps pay for the rest of this nonsense. 

[Savage]

The FCC "will address unexpected high levels of interference on a case-by-case basis??"

Absolute, unadulterated, unmitigated crap.

This is precisely the soothing language used when IBOC-AM was authorized at night.  It's meant to anethsitize future victims into believing that there will be an effective "safety valve" to provide relief in egregious cases of interference.  Then, when horrible instances of adjacent-channel problems crop up, the FCC simply ignores them in flagrant defiance of all evidence.

WYSL has filed FIVE separate pleadings including two detailed interference studies, over a period of 19 weeks encompassing a variety of local weather conditions, in all three antenna modes and powers, reply pleadings to two CBS responses (notably thin on data and highly implausible) including scores of field readings and audio recordings on CD.  All of WYSL's data is supported by engineering statements from TWO unimpeachable professional radio engineering firms representing many decades of experience, all submitted UNDER OATH.  One of these engineers is renowned as an experienced researcher in the development of terrestrial digital radio.  All in all, including exhibits, over 100 pages of text and measurement data were filed with the Enforcement Bureau with copies to the Mass Media Bureau.

The FCC's response to this mountain of persuasive data?  They simply ignored it.

I even appealed to Mass Media Bureau Chief Peter Doyle.  As if nothing had ever been filed, he advised me to "put something in writing and be sure to serve a copy on CBS counsel."  Despite this exasperating response, I did as he requested.  This has been ignored as well.

Potential FM IBOC increase victims: better note this, if you think for a moment that the Commission is going to take any action to protect you "in cases of unexpected interference." 

In point of fact, there does not exist a SINGLE INSTANCE of the FCC's granting relief to any station complaining about IBOC adjacent-channel interference.  Not one.

[KB1OKL]

The FCC "will address unexpected high levels of interference on a case-by-case basis??"

Absolute, unadulterated, unmitigated crap.

This is precisely the soothing language used when IBOC-AM was authorized at night.  It's meant to anethsitize future victims into believing that there will be an effective "safety valve" to provide relief in egregious cases of interference.  Then, when horrible instances of adjacent-channel problems crop up, the FCC simply ignores them in flagrant defiance of all evidence.

WYSL has filed FIVE separate pleadings including two detailed interference studies, over a period of 19 weeks encompassing a variety of local weather conditions, in all three antenna modes and powers, reply pleadings to two CBS responses (notably thin on data and highly implausible) including scores of field readings and audio recordings on CD.  All of WYSL's data is supported by engineering statements from TWO unimpeachable professional radio engineering firms representing many decades of experience, all submitted UNDER OATH.  One of these engineers is renowned as an experienced researcher in the development of terrestrial digital radio.  All in all, including exhibits, over 100 pages of text and measurement data were filed with the Enforcement Bureau with copies to the Mass Media Bureau.

The FCC's response to this mountain of persuasive data?  They simply ignored it.

I even appealed to Mass Media Bureau Chief Peter Doyle.  As if nothing had ever been filed, he advised me to "put something in writing and be sure to serve a copy on CBS counsel."  Despite this exasperating response, I did as he requested.  This has been ignored as well.

Potential FM IBOC increase victims: better note this, if you think for a moment that the Commission is going to take any action to protect you "in cases of unexpected interference." 

In point of fact, there does not exist a SINGLE INSTANCE of the FCC's granting relief to any station complaining about IBOC adjacent-channel interference.  Not one.

Of course not, look at the way IBOC was rammed through with little or no thought to the havoc it would wreak on the AM band. Also look at all the big boys who use it it: WBZ, WOR, etc. All long time former clears who obviously impress the boy who runs the FCC who hopefully will get his walking papers soon. Obviously money still shouts.

[RememberWHEN]

With regards to:

part2: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520014138

Go to the top of page 9 of iBugs report and note that the 1st adjacent to the Detroit FM is described as an "interferer" to the (tested 10 db increase) HD signal of said Detroit station. Despite the fact that this 1st adjacent is an "interferer" the glowing report states that the range of the hybrid-digital signal is significantly better for the 10 db increase. What an interesting word to use.

How nice to know that the carefully thought out plan of allocation of FMs throughout the decades has apparently been a sham all along! With the 'new technology' of hybrid-digital, it has resulted in a FM band with a bunch of stations interfering with each other!! Now that's real progress. And at an affordable price, too!

[ve3jf]

The FCC "will address unexpected high levels of interference on a case-by-case basis??"

Absolute, unadulterated, unmitigated crap.

This is precisely the soothing language used when IBOC-AM was authorized at night.  It's meant to anethsitize future victims into believing that there will be an effective "safety valve" to provide relief in egregious cases of interference.  Then, when horrible instances of adjacent-channel problems crop up, the FCC simply ignores them in flagrant defiance of all evidence.

WYSL has filed FIVE separate pleadings including two detailed interference studies, over a period of 19 weeks encompassing a variety of local weather conditions, in all three antenna modes and powers, reply pleadings to two CBS responses (notably thin on data and highly implausible) including scores of field readings and audio recordings on CD.  All of WYSL's data is supported by engineering statements from TWO unimpeachable professional radio engineering firms representing many decades of experience, all submitted UNDER OATH.  One of these engineers is renowned as an experienced researcher in the development of terrestrial digital radio.  All in all, including exhibits, over 100 pages of text and measurement data were filed with the Enforcement Bureau with copies to the Mass Media Bureau.

The FCC's response to this mountain of persuasive data?  They simply ignored it.

I even appealed to Mass Media Bureau Chief Peter Doyle.  As if nothing had ever been filed, he advised me to "put something in writing and be sure to serve a copy on CBS counsel."  Despite this exasperating response, I did as he requested.  This has been ignored as well.

Potential FM IBOC increase victims: better note this, if you think for a moment that the Commission is going to take any action to protect you "in cases of unexpected interference." 

In point of fact, there does not exist a SINGLE INSTANCE of the FCC's granting relief to any station complaining about IBOC adjacent-channel interference.  Not one.

Bob is absolutely right.  Broadcasters who are not part of the HD Alliance got suckered by the soothing language about interference mitigation in the FCC's IBOC Report(s) & Order(s).  It turns out that the FCC's stance is, at best, actually this: if an IBOC station is operating in compliance with the rules, the interference that it generates must be tolerated by other stations.

FM stations have filed complaints too, and gotten nowhere (but usually outright dismissal rather then the stone wall that Bob has faced).  The procedure goes something like this:

1. Station A files a complaint that they are being interfered with by Station B, documenting an impact on their listeners within their protected contour.

2. The FCC asks Station B to ensure that they are operating in compliance with NRSC-5 (e.g., no spurious products above the mask), as well as the other Part 47 rules that apply to the FM service.  Station B replies that they are in compliance.

3. The complaint is dismissed.

That's all she wrote, folks - it's the New World Order in American broadcasting!

[Savage]

The irony of all this is that despite all the lying, cynicism, chicanery, technical alchemy, political intrigue and insider-dealing that characterizes HD Radio - the biggest scam ever perpetrated in the history of American broadcasting - despite the Alliance/NAB/iBiquity's "we've covered all the bases" stacking of the deck in their own favor, and, haw-haw wink/wink, at the expense of others....

....HD Radio IS STILL A FLOP!!!

It doesn't work well.  There are few radios, and most of them are crap.  Retail has bailed.  AM is a disaster, and FM won't be much better, even after 15 or 16 stations actually implement the 10db increase.  Lousy cookie-cutter corporate-suit programming keeps dragging the industry down while they fiddle desperately with HD.  Most foreign countries have turned thumbs-down on HD.  Conversions have slowed drastically.  And with this assortment of plagues the ever-savvy Ibiquity is going to increase costs 75% next month.

The mom-and-pops so dissed here and elsewhere may well be the last ones standing when it's all over for corporate radio. 

[Carmine5]

Speaking of "stranger things happening", now it seems that NAB is prodding the FCC to adopt the 10 dB digital power increase as a way to help LPFM stations -- which they oppose.   What gives?   

That is amazing.  The fact of the matter is the ONLY way HD could work on either LPFM or translator service is with a significant power increase.  One watt or less of digital signal would simply be a waste of time money and effort.

In the past, our friends at NAB have made arguments that fluctuate, depending on what they want.  If you check, I think you’ll find they have a long history of switching sides for the sake of convenience.  I guess they think the FCC is actually trying to help LPFM.  It’s fashionable, so you go with what is popular with the politicos.

In their LPFM tests, they selected the five worst radios imaginable to "prove" that LPFM stations would cause unacceptable interference.  Now, to prove that HD is wonderful with a 10 db power increase; they have selected the very best radios available to prove their point.  Keep in mind that these are the same people who circulated a CD to your elected representatives that contained a fake demonstration of supposed LPFM interference.  Their credibility is very low in my opinion. 

The one thing they do right is they put on a great trade show.  I suppose that helps pay for the rest of this nonsense. 

Unless the thinking is to move many LPFM's off of the FM band in terms of each having a unique channel and onto the HD2/3 channels of existing commercial stations. 

Doing this would certainly allow for the 10 db increase without having pesky low power stations getting in the way and having to help move elsewhere on the band. 

Plus broadcasters can collect some rent on, what are turning out to be, costly, non-revenue producing side channels.

C5

[Chuck]

Unless the thinking is to move many LPFM's off of the FM band in terms of each having a unique channel and onto the HD2/3 channels of existing commercial stations. 

Doing this would certainly allow for the 10 db increase without having pesky low power stations getting in the way and having to help move elsewhere on the band. 

Plus broadcasters can collect some rent on, what are turning out to be, costly, non-revenue producing side channels.

C5

I don't believe very many LPFM operators would be pleased with that scenario.

[hipporadio]

Hey fellow radio survivalists, have you aficionados who embrace how 'n why - counter to the “IBOC Zombies”... Interesting, they have mostly-deserted this forum due to THE SIMPLE TRUTH about defective and destructive IBOC... They clearly CAN NO LONGER defend their jaded position in the face of Savage, KB, rbruce, radioskeptic, "me Hippo" and more...INTERESTING.  Me-Hippo is mere a “laymen” in the technical world, but no-less practical [I’m an old "record-setting" radio sales rep, First-Phone, pirate operator, and multi-station owner – NO excuses - 'just been there and DONE-IT], but nonetheless committed to the continuance of “radio as relevant”.  Understand, that you guys, here, are making A DIFFERENCE.  I received an email from a major “consumer producer” yesterday that has observed and taken-notice of this forum - I have no-less than five rendezvous per week with consumer electronics manufacturers.  This IS the value of these interactions... KEEP THE FAITH, Bros!... And keep the pressure ON – DO IT... It will PAY-OFF, I promise!

I would say to Bob Savage [and his friends here] – KEEP IT UP... AM radio is worth preserving... KB, your “DX hobby” IS NOT worthy of discredit.  You FINE MEN need to keep-it up!

We have a genuine opportunity here – to promote the continuation of a legendary and contemporary medium as “AM Radio” as necessary and relevant... We need to FIGHT... BUT – we HAVE to provide programming that is relevant – failure to do-so will result in demise.

A prior poster said – “say to receiver manufacturers that you like AM performance” – “silly”—NOT, let them know... There are a few “big companies” that continue to build decent AM receivers... We need to tell them that we are consumers BECAUSE of their imitative... TELL THEM – do-it or else... It’s all additive... They will listen in as the comments and opinions accumulate.  I can confess that as a marketing pro in concert with these folks... I have been praying for you folks to stop bitching – AND STEP FORWARD and ACHIEVE!  DO IT-NOW! PLEASE, "broadcasters"!

[hipporadio]

OH... I forgot to mention, "Tom Wells" - an obvious AM pro, who has a technical reality that would benefit the AM industry... His "old" insight is actually "new"... Please pay attention to Tom here!... He has a "past voice" worthy of being listened to!  He also has a complete "AM understanding".  COOL, Tom!