FCC Approves Digital Radio, Kills Satellite Merger 368
n8willis writes "...Just saw this AP article on Excite news: the FCC has just approved the first upgrade in broadcast radio technology in decades. It allows "CD quality" digital signals to be simulcast by stations along with their traditional analog feed. The tech comes from some company called iBiquity, and unlike Sirius or XM satellite radio, there will be no charge for listening. Some radio buff want to tell us what they know about this concept?" And wiredog writes "The Federal Communications Commission has voted 4-0 to reject a $26 billion merger between satellite TV providers Echostar Communications and Hughes Electronics.
CD Quality? (Score:4, Funny)
4 voting members? (Score:5, Funny)
Excuse me if this may seem like an extradinarily ignorant question, but wouldn't an agency that has as much power as the FCC be better served with a voting panel with an odd number off members?
Re:4 voting members? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:4 voting members? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:4 voting members? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:4 voting members? (Score:5, Insightful)
-B
I call BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:4 voting members? (Score:3, Interesting)
The most recent example? The nomination of Judge Shedd [google.com]:
The funny thing is that he's already a U.S. District Judge and has been confirmed by Congress, previously.What a world...
Re:4 voting members? (Score:5, Funny)
How refreshing! Usually they're pleading the fifth....
Re:4 voting members? (Score:3, Funny)
And, in some cases [senate.gov], drinking a fifth!
5th commissioner being held up by politics (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, because Senator Leahy is holding up several judicial nominees, the Republican have fired back and put holds on several Democrat nominees, including Jonathan Adelstein, a staffer for Senate Majority leader Daschle and the current nominee for the 5th FCC spot.
Traditionally, the FCC is filled with 5 commissioners, the majority and minority leader of the House and Senate choosing one each, and the President choosing the Chair.
This is actually a big mess right now and causing some to observe they have not seen this type of rancor EVER in the Senate (and that is saying a lot).
Meanwhile a gripe about the moderation system. I think it is ridiculous I can't mod any posts under this article now that I have chosen to add something to it. I comment on articles I am interested in, and I mod in threads I am interested, but I can't do both...that sucks (and yes, I understand the reasons to do so. But given the choice, I would rather comment than mod, but the best is to be able to do both).
Re:4 voting members? (Score:3, Informative)
-C
Re:4 voting members? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:4 voting members? (Score:5, Informative)
Michael K. Powell [fcc.gov]
Kathleen Q. Abernathy [fcc.gov]
Michael J. Copps [fcc.gov]
Kevin J. Martin [fcc.gov]
Additional Information [fcc.gov]
Re:4 voting members? (Score:5, Funny)
Sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I'm just bitter at losing my pants on Sattelite Radio stock..
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
Satellite lets you have all the channels no matter where you are in the coutry, and you have to pay for it.
The new digital FM is just an upgrade to regular FM, so you'll get some better sound and maybe a digital readout of what's playing. You still get to listen to the same crappy programming.
There's no "will they ever learn" here. It's 2 completely different things.
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Of course, that technology already exists in the form of RDBS/RDS. Can also be used to transmit traffic alerts, advertising, etc.
It's long been a real chicken and egg situation. Very few receiver mfrs implemented it in their products, and very few radio stations spent the money on the equipment.
Superstation (Score:3, Interesting)
A few years ago I did quite a bit of flying over Japan. I noticed that there seemed to be some sort of "Superstation" up and down the country. As soon as one broadcast began to fade from my scanner, I could tune in another identical broadcast (though on a different frequency.) If something similar was done in the U.S., but all on the same freq, there could be a digital superstation from coast to coast.
1. Would current FCC rules allow this?
2. Does anyone here know what the deal was with the station in Japan?
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
You are just bitter, but not as bitter as the RIAA is going to be once a Linux adaptor for this digital signal is available.
You almost have to feel sorry for the recording industry. They are increasingly between a rock and a hard place since the radio business was deregulated. Now the RIAA is going to be stuck paying your local station to broadcast CD quality music. How long before there is a Tivo for radio?
You need to ask yoursefl what you realy want? (Score:5, Interesting)
Digital simulcast of your local stations gets you just that, your local stations.
I am perfectly happy to pay XM my $9.95 to bring me Fox News, BBC World Service, C-Span, CNET Radio
In this case the saying that you get what you pay for really does apply.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
There currently is a nationwide network that broadcasts the same thing in every major city. It's called Clearchannel Communications. Go to Cleveland, Chicago, New York, L.A., Orlando, Seattle, and Dallas and you should be able to find a clearchannel station that is basically playing the same format and same playlist as in the other markets.
Map of the radio spectrum? (Score:4, Interesting)
How much "bandwidth" does this new digital radio take up? Will it be something we have to contend for 10 years down the road when 802.11X takes off?
Does anyone have a link to a good tutorial on how things are looking? Is there still a lot of "premium" airwave space for wireless internet to grow into, or are we heading towards another battle with corporate america?
Re:Map of the radio spectrum? (Score:5, Interesting)
Advocates for independent radio stations (a dying breed, I know) have been complaining for years that Clear Channel et al. have been using the threat of multiple digital radio standards to squelch the FCC's low power FM proposals (which were finally legislatively gutted last year, a move justified by the same rhetoric).
This is sad given that digital radio offers no serious advantage on the FM band other than possibly longer range; FM quality is pretty damn good.
Re:Map of the radio spectrum? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it's a shame about what has happened with low-power FM, but let's be serious- FM isn't going anywhere any time soon. In my area of New England, there are still several active AM stations to be found on the dial. I mostly listen to a lot of college, ethnic, and public radio stations while I'm in the car, so for me the track and title information on digial radio would qualify as a serious advantage all by itself, not even considering the increase in sound quality.
This uses _no_ additional spectrum (Score:2, Interesting)
As for FM quality, you obviously don't live in an area with lots of tall buildings, or one far away from the transmitters.
What would be really cool is if they use it to start transmitting 4.1 audio streams. Mmmmmmm.
Re:Map of the radio spectrum? (Score:3, Insightful)
KCBS is only 20 kHz away from the local 50-kW blowtorch, KDWN. There's also a mountain range between here and there that the signal has to bounce over.
I did that with a 50-year-old RCA tabletop radio, a smallish plastic five-tube (!) radio with the antenna in the back cover. (The circuit design is what was called the "All-American Five.")
Analog radio can be received with the simplest of equipment...an antenna, a ground connection, a coil, a capacitor, a diode, and high-impedance headphones can pick up an AM signal. I doubt that you could pick up a digital signal with something anywhere near as simple.
Re:Map of the radio spectrum? (Score:3, Informative)
The "technology" page on ibiquity's website is already slashdotted, but I seem to recall from something I read last week that the digital channels were going to be transmitted over existing radio frequencies.
Even if I'm wrong about that, I imagine that these digital radio channels will be carrying compressed audio, so that might allow stations to broadcast several content streams simultaneously. It would be cool if NPR could broadcast a high bitrate stream of a live concert at night, while running multiple low bitrate news and talk streams during the daytime. I would think that technology like this would increase programming diversity on the airwaves, once the price of equipment comes down.
Read their site. (Score:5, Informative)
I have to be careful not to say too much, since as their site is semi-Slashdotted, it's hard to say how much of this is public info and how much is "iBiquity proprietary" (I work at one of iBiquity's equipment partners, and have been working closely with some aspects of their system)
Basically, when the FCC allocated the current FM spectrum, they allowed for a LOT of channel spacing for special features in the analog sidebands and also to take into account inferior receivers/bad transmitters.
Modern transmitters can now output a much cleaner spectrum. Specifically, the FCC allocated a "guard band" around each FM channel, where an ideal FM station shouldn't have emissions but is allowed to "spill over". The guard band power can only be 1/100 of the power of the main band, but thanks to the SNR advantages of digital modulation, a digital signal needs only around 1/100 the power of an FM signal for the same range.
So IBOC can allow an FM signal and a digital signal to coexist on the *same* channel. A cleaned-up FM signal in the main band, and a digital signal in the "guard bands".
An eventual upgrade path is an all-digital signal, replacing the FM portion with a digital signal for greater bandwidth. This is a while off, due to the compatibility issues and also due to technical issues.
Re:Read their site. (Score:2)
I used to keep up with all the developments relating to IBOC, but have forgotten most of it. So will the digital stream be implemented on a subcarrier? Will existing stations need to go through the standard licensing process for adding a subcarrier service, or will their main license automagically cover the digital broadcast?
Re:Read their site. (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to the "guard band", the FM band has insanely wide channel spacing. Transmissions in the guard band that meet spec won't be noticed by your receiver, but if the main carrier itself is strong enough, it'll punch through your frontend filtering, no matter how clean its spectral purity is you'll be screwed. "Adjacent channel power", i.e. emissions on the next proper channel over, is basically not allowed for FM stations.
Re:Map of the radio spectrum? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/osmhome.html
Chart @
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html
Useful links @
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/sites.html
-wk
Re:Map of the radio spectrum? (Score:3, Informative)
The technology is called IBOC, which stands for In Band On Channel.
The technology works by using the portion of the 200kHz space that is allocated to every FM station, that the station is not using at that exact instant.
The original choice of 200kHz spacing was set up by observing the nature of FM. The carrier was allowed to deviate from its center frequency by up to 75kHz in either direction. This deviation is used to encode the information onto the carrier.
Audio is added to this carrier at a maximum frequency of 15kHz. The transmission of a 15kHz tone on a carrier, AM or FM, will result in sidebands (think "aliasing artifacts") developing on either side of the carrier at 15kHz away from the carrier.
Since the carrier is modulated by changing its frequency, if we modulate this carrier with a 15kHz tone at what is called "full deflection", i.e. we move it a full 75kHz above centre to a full 75kHz below centre, then the whole amount of spectrum required to do this will be 180kHz. This is 90kHz either side of the centre frequency.
Sanity check: The lowest-frequency artifact will be the lower sideband at the point when the carrier is at its maximum negative deflection. This will be the centre frequency, minus the deflection (75kHz) minus the width of the sideband (15kHz). This, in turn will be 90kHz below the centre.
Similarly, the maximum frequency artifact will be the upper sideband at the point when the carrier is at its maximum positive deflection. This will be the centre frequency, plus the deflection (75kHz) plus the width of the sideband (15kHz). This, in turn, will be 90kHz above the centre.
For stereo broadcasting, some additional, ultrasonic information is added to the carrier (this information is done via a transformation that is beyond the scope of this description). This higest frequency of the modulated data becomes 53kHz as a result of this. This, in turn, is not modulated to full deflection, so it still remains within the permitted space.
For digital broadcasting, the digital data will be carried by a non-FM technique, and will be put together in concert with the analog FM signal. This signal will then be modulated in such a manner as it dodges the current location of the carrier. How?
From my previous description, you can see that the carrier and its sidebands will, at any given instant, only occupy a 106kHz chunk of spectrum (carrier + both sidebands) for stereo, or a 30kHz chunk of spectrum for monaural. The remaining 94kHz or 170kHz of allocated space is empty. The digital data is placed there.
Now, I hear you asking, won't this cause interference to the analog signal? Ths short answer is yes. However, as long as the digital signal is maintained at a lower signal strength than the analog one, an FM receiver will ignore the digital signal, due to a feature of FM called the "capture effect," wherein a receiver is "captured" by the strongest signal it hears, provided that signal is a particular strength over any other signals. The ratio of the strongest signal to the next strongest that still results in the strongest signal winning is called the "capture ratio."
Nutshell, therefore, is that this will require no new spectrum, but will inestead make more judicious use of existing spectrum, unlike digital TV.
One last note, about content. XM and Sirius have the potential to deliver something other than the Clear Channels pablum. That doesn't mean they will, nor does it mean that they will continue to do so if they do in the first place. Broadcast FM, however, and its new digital counterpart, have the potential to continue to deliver community-originated content, where community radio stations exist, such as our own local, WRPI.
cd quality, free music, on the airwaves? (Score:5, Insightful)
-k
Re:cd quality, free music, on the airwaves? (Score:2)
Uphill is right.
The entire non-event of DAT [libertyhaven.com] in the United States is a testament to the power of the recording industry to control the introduction of new technology.
I have a feeling that we'll have analog connectors for a lot longer than is necessary or convenient from a technical perspective simply because of fears in some quarters that such connections endanger an existing revenue stream.
RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away FreeMusic (Score:4, Funny)
LOS ANGELES--The Recording Industry Association of America filed a $7.1 billion lawsuit against the nation's radio stations Monday, accusing them of freely distributing copyrighted music.
"It's criminal," RIAA president Hilary Rosen said. "Anyone at any time can simply turn on a radio and hear a copyrighted song. Making matters worse, these radio stations often play the best, catchiest song off the album over and over until people get sick of it. Where is the incentive for people to go out and buy the album?"
According to Rosen, the radio stations acquire copies of RIAA artists' CDs and then broadcast them using a special transmitter, making it possible for anyone with a compatible radio-wave receiver to listen to the songs.
Wonderful! (Score:2)
Yup... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that that receivers will not be the problem with market penetration - We've seen from the pricing of Sirius, etc. units that it won't be TOO bad.
The barrier to adoption will be the broadcasters. It's going to be an EXPENSIVE upgrade for them.
Re:Yup... (Score:3, Informative)
How can this be allowed to happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
good lord no! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:good lord no! (Score:2)
I apologize up front, I normally don't subscribe to sarcastic remarks, but this is screaming at me.
OH MY GOD
Seriously dude, most people can't (or don't want to) tell the difference between 64k, 128k, good radio signal, and cd-quality.
Again, sorry for the sarcasm, but I just couldn'thelp it.
Re:good lord no! (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, how great is the sound quality of stuff that is played on AM anyways? Probably 99% of the stuff on AM is either talk radio, or music that was recorded decades before digital music was even thought of. I'm sure MP3 encoded at 56k would be more than sufficient for AM broadcasts.
Re:good lord no! (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada we can run 192 to 224 kbps and still have a dim hope of preserving a semblance of quality.
Now, if only they did more of this. (Score:4, Interesting)
It would also be excellent of they would realize that with modern technology, they don't need to use so much of the radio spectrum for one TV or radio station. The spectrum is scarce, but the scarcity is largely artificial.
This is encouraging. I just hope that this sort of thing continues and the FCC adapts to modern technology.
YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! (Score:3, Interesting)
This means my DirecTiVo is going to stay around for a while!
I was afraid that Dish Network would push the Dishnet PVR on us once the merger went through
Besides, DirecTV broadcasts in a higher quality than Dish does -- better picture, better sound, better service.
I'm glad to see we're not going to be subject to Uncle Charlie (Ergen)'s pet wishes and peeves
Now if we can avoid being bought by Rupert, we'll be OK
--NBVB
Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! (Score:5, Insightful)
If ANYONE really thinks that preventing this merger is in the public interest, I'd really like some of whatever they're smoking. The FCC is bought and paid for by the CATV industry, as we've seen before with the must-carry rules for satellite and local rebroadcasting rules. Let's look at the facts:
1) Without a merger, it is not cost effective for either company to rebroadcast local channels is ALL markets. This means the cable companies will continue to have a monopoly on local content in these areas (yes, a lucky few can use an off-air antenna, but I don't know anyone that can get a decent signal this way). Echostar has committed to provide local service to ALL US markets within two years if the merger goes through.
2) Echostar has committed to having a flat pricing model across the US. This means that in order to screw the rural customer, they would have to raise their prices so much that they would be much higher than CATV in markets where it is available. Since the the vast majority of wealthy markets (big spenders on PPV & movie channels - where providers make the big bux) are well covered by cable, it would not make economic sense to screw the poor rural customer to lose the rich suburban customer.
3) An argument has been made that DirecTV users will need to shell out for new equipment. Echostar has stated that NO ONE will need to buy new equipment to receive the same services that they currently receive. They will provide new equipment for people that subscribe to services that are moved to DVB from the proprietary mess that DirecTV uses.
4) Neither Echostar or DVB have subscriber bases big enough to compete with cable companies for program purchases. This means that they pay more for programming that they resell, and have a harder time keeping costs down. That said, they are STILL well below most cable pricing.
People need to understand that although a merger will create a monopoly for DBS, it will create competition for TV providers - which is what really matters to joe consumer. Until satellite can deliver LOCAL broadcasts into all markets, they can't reasonably compete with cable - most people are not willing to give up local news and local used car dealer ads.
The cable industry already has a monopoly, and they have lobbied the FCC very hard to keep it. This merger would ruin the monopoly they have had over the majority of american households for 50 years.
Who honestly believes that anything the cable TV industry is FOR (preventing this merger) is in the best interest of the public?
Re:ugly: directtv proposes selling slots (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, everything I read made it sound like they had to have their revised plan in before the FCC voted, and the companies had just this week asked the FCC to delay the vote while they presented a revised plan, which the FCC did not do. I think this vote effectively kills this merger, and I really see GM selling Hughes/DirecTV off to the highest bidder at this point. Rupert Murdoch fought vigorously to prevent this merger, so I'd be surprised if someone besides Murdoch ends up with DirecTV.
The revised deal that Dish/Hughes was basically an offer to create/improve other satellite competitors since the FCC's major problem was that this merger essentially created a satellite monopoly. The first part of the plan was to lease space on their spectrum to Comcast, who is starting their own satellite service. Comcast has the spectrum to offer satellite service everywhere in the US except for the West Coast, and Dish/DirecTV would've provided them with the necessary spectrum to offer nationwide service as well as the ability to offer more channels. The second part of the plan was to offer other companies the ability to resell and bill for DirecTV/Dish service, similar to what DirecTV currently does with Pegasus in certain parts of the country.
this is good news (Score:3, Informative)
Good news...or is it? (Score:2, Interesting)
But it's not, it's pure opiate.
Both HDTV and Digital Radio employ an incredible amount of bandwidth. And we aren't talking about bandwidth in a wire where if you add more wires (or upgrade to fiber) you can magically fix the problem. There is simply a finite amount of broadcast bandwidth available, period. Widening the channels as these schemes require crowds out highly necessary bandwidth uses such as radio astronomy (including SETI), marine rescue channels, military radios, CBs (don't laugh, a lot of rural people depend on them) and of course cellphones.
The real solution to our problem is to decrease the amount of useless bandwidth wastage out there, like the badly-named "SciFi" channel (aka the Pseudo-Science channel. XFiles, I'm looking at you). But no lawmaker is interested in reducing the opiate that The People are getting, so you can say goodbye to anything meaningful being done via broadcast in the US.
Re:Good news...or is it? (Score:2)
And MTV.....
Re:Good news...or is it? (Score:2)
If you want real science shows, try Discovery and The Learning Channel.
If you're looking for a misnamed network, go to Comedy Central. It has evolved into the 18-30 male geek demographic network. They did bring us Crank Yankers, the funniest show I've seen this year, so I can't be too harsh on them.
-B
Re:Good news...or is it? (Score:2, Informative)
Open mouth, insert foot??? (Score:2)
Re:Good news...or is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
DTV (which includes HDTV) uses no more bandwidth than current analog signals do. It's just that the technology is 50 years more advanced - you can do things in the same bandwidth that were previously impossible. And, better yet, it requires less spacing between bands because we're that much better about broadcasting too.
I don't know about this new digital radio, but I'd be surprised if it used more bandwidth than an FM station.
As for your concerns - one of the biggest proponents of DTV are the emergency services (police, fire, ambulance). Because they're in desperate need of bandwidth and Congress promised them a chunk of the current analog TV spectrum. Until DTV has completely replaced analog they can't get it. And they can't simply change their systems out and use the same bandwidth - it would require every single emergency service in the US to change at the same time, or else you'd wind up with areas of mixed mode traffic that are unusable for both systems.
Military? Uh... the military is not in need of additional broadcast bandwidth. In fact, they're giving a lot of it back. If you think the bandwidth magic performed by DTV is incredible you haven't seen the military systems yet. Most comms are now point-to-point via laser or directional antenna to either an airborne platform or a satellite. Broadcast is spread spectrum and digital. Both use heavy encryption. The military is feeling the crunch, but in other ways -- the dependance on sat comms means that they don't have enough bandwidth on the sats themselves. That can be solved by finding additional orbital slots and launching new birds with better comms equipment.
CBs and cellphones hardly need more bandwidth. Unless, of course, you're talking about illegal CBs that have had their wattage pumped way beyond FCC regs. Imagine that - they cause problems to everything on nearby or resonant frequencies. This is why the FCC limited them, and why there are newer technologies using different spectra and different encoding (often digital). Cellphone bandwidth is a total non-issue.
As for your pseudo-science claims, you've managed to ignore all the real science in bandwidth usage and allocation thus far, so I'm not surprised you're bashing a channel that makes no attempt at real science and instead just shows entertainment. Oh, and it uses no over-the-air bandwidth either.
Digital AM (Score:4, Informative)
What is this? (Score:2)
I don't like listening to today's radio, except for public radio in my area. (Santa Cruz) The last radio station I really liked was 105.3 before they got rid of Alex Bennett.
I hope this doesn't lead to a battle for standards. I don't need to be fiddling between FM1, FM/D1, XM, CD, etc. I just want to hear decent music.
Of course, if XM offers Phil Hendrie 24/7 cross-country, I'll be signing up immediately.
Can't Imagine no DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Favorite quote from article:
Digital broadcasts use the same language as computers - a series of on and off electronic pulses.
Now that is insightful!
IBOC (Score:5, Informative)
Can it be "CD-quality" at about 96 kbps? We'll see.
A good site for learning more about IBOC is Radio World Online [rwonline.com].
Nice, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a lot of confidence that this new technology won't be tainted with nasty things like DRM, forced commercials, etc.
"The digital broadcasts will be free, unlike the subscriber services offered by Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio Holdings, which beam music and talk to radios from satellites."
Yeah, until they want to start offering "Premium" channels.
"Supporters say the new technology will bring CD-quality sound to FM broadcasts, an end to static for AM and new data features."
The term CD-quality gets thrown around to loosely. I'm assuming the stream uses a lossy compression scheme like streaming MP3, OGG, etc. It may be good, but probably not truly CD quality.
Re:Nice, but... (Score:2)
Why so long? (Score:5, Interesting)
Three reasons:
- Companies had extreme fears of perfect digital copies of works from the radio that were the same as what was on store shelves. Now that they have a better product, SACDs, to sell, they can afford to give away lower-quality versions for comparatively small radio licensing fees.
- Digital broadcasting equipment has finally come down in price, and, more importantly, the proliferation of digital tuners and MP3 receivers have proven that electronics can be built into car audio players at low cost.
- Finally, Sirius and XM have been making some waves with their coast-to-coast, good stations, but that's really more of a retention quality than a marketing quality. (How do we know if we like a particular DJ if we've never heard the station, which we wouldn't if we don't have the system?) Their biggest, best marketing move is "universal reception, digital quality." The digital radio folks can't promise the former, but the latter can be done very easily. After so long, the radio stations, which feared losing the listeners to CDs if they let them record their favorite songs, have come around to, "Well, if we don't give them the quality, someone else will--at a better profit margin!"
- And a fourth, bonus reason: with the slump in computer sales, Circuit City needed something new to sell the geeks.
;)
JousterWrong... (Score:2, Informative)
IBOC has a lot of technical requirements that strain even modern transmitter technology to its limits. Old-school FM allows a relatively primitive transmitter to operate *extremely* efficiently since FM contains no information in the amplitude of the signal. Hence, a class-C amplifier can be used, which is pretty simple and on the order of 60-80% efficient.
Digital techniques have amplitude information in the signal. Hence, the amplifier has to be linear, which means that good 'ole class C is out of the question. Most linear amplifiers are at best 50% efficient, and that's theoretical. (Cutting edge technology allows 45-50% to be achieved with the linearities required, but it's a LOT harder than building a simple class-C amp.)
Meeting the iBiquity specs means that transmitter manufacturers need to use the latest and most modern technology they can, stuff that's cutting-edge even for people who have been doing linear amplifiers for a long time.
It's not as much of a problem with digital TV - These guys are AM to begin with, hence have been using reasonably linear systems from the beginning.
Well Let's See (Score:3, Informative)
I believe they were trying to use cable companies as the reason for merging since satellite customers only make 25% of the pay TV market, but a large amount of DSS customers have no other choice but satellite. Go take a drive in a rural area and you will see a dish mounted on top of every trailer.
Oh great, that's all I need... (Score:4, Funny)
Digial quality Britney, Christina, and a bunch of Boy Bands.
Excuse, me, I think I'll Pass.
Re:Oh great, that's all I need... (Score:3, Funny)
Could be a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
But, I could see this end up like digital TV as well, where it's hindered with restrictions, requires expensive equipment, and will ultimately (likely) result in the FCC forcing it upon us. I can see five or ten years down the road when my beautiful vacuum-tube antique console stereo won't have any radio signals to pick up! Ultimately, sadly, this is probably a way for the big shots to control more and more of what we listen to and how we listen to it, not to mention it'll probably make obsolete the nice, expensive receiver I purchased recently (thinking I'd use it for years to come).
Why can't the cronies at the FCC get it through their thick, ugly skulls to LET THE MARKET dictate what happens! C'mon, it's basic economics. Look at satellite TV and digital cable. No government agency forced this upon us, but people buy it in droves! Granted, digital radio isn't being forced on us (yet), but it's probably on the horizon.
Already here in the UK but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a large ILR station and whilst we now broadcast digitally, I don't think anyone is really interested in promoting the fact in the short term.
The cheapest standalone DAB radio is £99. I think there is a USB device for a PC which retails around £50. Most people have 5-6 radios to replace if they want to go digital! Plus there is no portable, battery powered solution right now.
Listening numbers may increase in the next couple of years as car manufacturers start to build DAB tuners in to the cars, as Ford will start doing shortly.
Most of the national digital radio broadcasters also get their channels carried on the Sky Digital TV platform otherwise they would have next to no listeners!
In Europe, we use a standard called Eureka 147, which is referred to as Digital Audio Broadcasting or DAB. This is incompatible with the system that is being proposed for the USA.
Then there's the content problem. Existing stations merely rebroadcast and most of the new specialist stations are automated so you may as well listen to your iPod anyway. The only group seem to be doing anything useful with the technology is the good old BBC.
Re:Already here in the UK but... (Score:3, Informative)
they're screwing community radio (Score:5, Interesting)
Did the big guys (Clear Channel, etc.) know this would be the case when they lobbied for it? Of course! They're simply trying to kill off more competition.
As it is, community radio stations are having a really tough time. WTJU's FCC license is owned by the Univerity of Virginia (which provides _some_ support for the station), which means that they can sell it to the highest bidder if they want. This is happening all over the place to financially strapped universities. When an FCC license goes for 10+ million dollars, and their budget from the state is skimpy, it's a pretty attractive proposition for the schools.
This blows.
-Dan
p.s. So do the unrealistic reporting regulations for internet broadcasting of radio. WTJU could have it's payments to BMI, ASCAP, etc., for internet broadcasting paid for by a non-profit (can't remember which one, it's something along the lines of PBS), but we can't afford to keep track of all of the information they require with the filings.
They must have heard.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes when i'm just driving to work, I get the tail end of a song and then 17 minutes of commercials. I hear one song, and then I'm at work. It's just not worth it.
Re:They must have heard.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I occaisionally listen to a classical station that has no commercials - or more often, just enjoy the silence of my ride.
I wonder what happened to quality instead of quantity in advertising - Charge more for the ad time and have less commercials that way I am not deluged by unwanted annoying ads, and the radio station still makes the same amount.
This Sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, why a proprietary audio encoding scheme? Why not open source, royalty free Ogg Vorbis? And a good digital encoding scheme doesn't need to have fixed bandwitdh requirements, either - some channels could be 8kbps mono, while other channels could be full 1Mbps surround+data/video, all using the same decoder/tuners.
I think its time to drop AM/FM/VHF/UHF entirely.
wonderful (Score:4, Funny)
Same old... (Score:2, Funny)
Both stories had the word FCC in them...SO? (Score:2, Interesting)
New functionality (Score:5, Informative)
just more proprietary equipment... (Score:3, Insightful)
then again, i want a toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards, baby. sorry for the rant.
satelite radio (Score:2, Interesting)
What if(tm) someone launced a satelite "dedicated" to high-quality radio broadcasts? Wouldn't that have conserved some of the "earthly" bandwidth apparently being wasted on this-and-dat(tm)? A "side-effect" would be that the channel(s) would be (potentially) available globally..
This is expensive and yada yada; move the rainforests to another planet, and so on.. It still should be possible to do this, technically.
- In space @ 96khz someone is bound to hear you scream..
No additional spectrum (Score:4, Informative)
Please see Digital Radio Takes to the Road specfically the section on IBOC (In-band/On-channel). Specifically see this figure [ieee.org] which presents how the data is added to the current AM and FM channels.
Re:No additional spectrum (Score:2, Informative)
Digital Radio Takes to the Road [ieee.org]
In "CD Quality" We Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Try searching for example /. for "CD quality", just in the "stories" part this string is matched hundreds of times. When did "CD quality" become the standard for excellent sound quality. And why? Is it because you can call anything to be of "CD quality" - if your quality prooves to be crap, then just select a lousy CD.
Although this might sound like a joke, it would be interesting to back-trace whether someone or some organisation started marketing this standard actively some time in the recent history. Or is just an accident?
Re:In "CD Quality" We Trust (Score:3, Informative)
If you really want to know, CD quality (44.1KHz, 16bit) is the defacto standard because
A) It was the first digital format that consumers adopted, and was clearly superior to analog, and
B) Because 44KHz is the lowest sampling frequency that does not produce audible artifacts from sampling the CD's target 20-20KHz bandwidth (with a 2KHz buffer for noise filter clamping) as the noise introduced by quantization is above the range of (most) human hearing and can be safely filtered.
Now, one can debate bit depths, because it is likely that 16bit vs. 24 bit might be audible to some people, but sampling rate is pretty much a non-starter. You really don't need higher than 44KHz for playback. You won't hear a difference.
During actual (studio) mixing, you want to keep the bitrate and sample rate higher... While I think 'cd quality' is good enough, continuous requantization at the minimum levels CAN produce audible artifacts. So 96KHz/24bit actually has a place at the mixing stage. You don't need it for playback though.
So, CD quality is the standard because anything 'better' requires more storage, with no audible results, and the technology of the CD at the time very handily held 74 minutes of audio at that rate, enough to fit a normal-sized album. There was some science involved with the initial selection of the sampling rate, and the bit depth just came about from the fact that 16 bits is an even byte-depth, and the minimum required so that no one complained about quanitization anomalies.
This will never take off (Score:3, Interesting)
Essentialy that $.0007 (for now, legislation is in the works to change it) is to pay for the users who will copy the music off the streaming station. Analog broadcasters don't pay it because they're analog. They wanted digital to pay it because it would mean web radio never got a chance to foothold and give them some competition. The RIAA wants it so they can line their pockets, unlike ASCAP/BMI (that most web radio stations pay and all analog pay) that goes right to the artists.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The RIAA shouldn't care that much (Score:3, Interesting)
If this substantially increases the range of local FM stations, suppressing static until the signal's at the point of total breakup, it's just an enhanced advertizing venue to the RIAA people. Their canned programming lists -- and they already feel in control of that area of music distribution -- can just get to more people.
They understand radio, it's a broadcast medium, not a point-to-point one.
I Still like SCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Will it cost more? (Score:3, Interesting)
It allows "CD quality" digital signals to be simulcast by stations along with their traditional analog feed.
Sounds like a "digital audio transmission". Don't radio stations have to pay (a lot) extra to broadcast that due to the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995?
If not I think I'm going to start my own radio station - over 802.11b.
DAB in the UK (Score:3, Interesting)
Some technical FAQs [bbc.co.uk] (from the BBC)
We've had DAB in the UK since 1995. (Don't know why the UK is so ahead on some of the broadcasting innovations, but hey. Maybe it's the BBC
Takeup has been slow, gradually starting to take off with a) Cheap (~150USD) sets [worlddab.org] and b) digital radio being able to be received on Digital TV sets as well
Sound quality is excellent, reception seems miles better than analogue radio, usability great - tune via genre, station, etc. Newer DAB sets have track/ artists info displayed on the set.
I haven't yet succumbed, as I get many new channels through my DTV set, and also as I live in London where there are many, many local/ pirate stations to choose between
If I lived outside a city, you betcha.
More info at Wired (Score:5, Informative)
Ibiquity is in band on channel digital... (Score:3, Informative)
Reasons for rejection of merger (Score:3, Informative)
Alfy says What It's All About (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's [thelocalplanet.com] all you need to know:
(Yes, the article is about LPFM.)
"What it comes down to -- again -- is money, pure and simple. If an LPFM station takes a slot on the FM dial, then it's one less corporate FM station that can make money off of that allotted frequency. Another argument posed by NAB was that, with the appearance of digital FM, corporate radio stations need all the bandwidth they can get because digital FM takes twice the amount of bandwidth needed by conventional FM broadcasting [emphasis added]. Corporate FM wants to give you, the listener, "CD quality" sound. Digital FM has failed to produce the desired effect, thus making "hogging the FM dial" another groundless NAB contention.
"With Kennard out of the way, the current FCC Chairman Michael Powell is considerably less tolerant of LPFM. And why not, since the NAB is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, DC, and can pretty much whip out its wallet and buy whomever they want."
Stations currently testing this tech (Score:3, Informative)
WNEW-FM (102.7) in New York; WETA-FM (90.9), WHFS-FM (99.1), WJFK-FM (106.7), WAMU-FM (88.5), and WTOP-AM (1500), in Washington, D.C.; KLLC-FM (97.3), KDFC (102.1) and KABL-AM (960) in San Francisco; WILC-AM (900) and WPOC-FM (93.1) in Baltimore; WNOP-AM (740) in Cincinnati, WPST-FM (97.5), and WBJB-FM (90.5) in Central, N.J.; KWNR-FM (95.5), KNPR-FM (89.5), and KSFN-AM (1140) in Las Vegas; and WGRV-FM (105.1) and WWJ-AM (950) in Detroit; WWMO-FM (98.9), in Orlando.
Right about now... (Score:3, Funny)
Bastards! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hughes and Echostar were saying that such a merger would give them the hardware to give more areas access to local stations through the satellite signals. Now that that's fallen through, it seems the only way I'll get decent reception for Enterprise is by paying ~$12 a month to Cox for their lifeline service.
Or does anybody know of a decent low-profile VHF/UHF antenna?
Re:Sure, it may be free... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but with the clarity of digital radio, maybe I can finally hear and understand the fast talking 'legalese' at the end of some of the promotional ads....
Re:why can't they make more FM quality stations? (Score:5, Informative)
That's a lot of channels
Now, the reason that you can't have 99 radio stations in a given market is because the FCC has established what are called Basic Trade Areas, or BTAs. Each station on a given frequency is assigned a BTA that is determined by running a longley-rice propagation model based on tower height and the effective isotropic radiated power, EIRP. There are 3 classes of FM stations, and each is allowed a certain tower height and a certain EIRP. Once the propagation model is run, it is overlaid with the US Census Bureau's population density models to determine how many people that FM station will cover. Once that FM station is given its BTA with so many recipients, any new station that applies for a construction permit, REGARDLESS OF THE FREQUENCY OR LOCATION, must PROVE that it will not interfere with that stations BTA, if the propagation model run on that proposed station shows at all that it will be throwing power into the established station's BTA in a manner that will reduce the number of people who can receive the established station. Due to the nasty nature of reactance modulated radio (FM), there is a high potential for intermodulation distortion, third order products, and many other nasty phenomena that will cause interference to desired stations. The capture effect of FM can mitigate this to some degree, and this effect is precisely the reason FM was chosen for its band.
Herein lies a problem with massive digital broadcasting. Sure, if you chose a datarate, say 128kbps, and used digital modulation such a QPSK, 16QAM, or some other amplitude/phase modulated signal, you would use less spectrum, but you have to be MUCH more careful about interference and signal to noise ratio. FM does not require a huge S/N ratio to work, and it only has to be about 3dB above an on-frequency interferer for the capture effect to fix the problem. However, digital modulation methods aren't so immune. In the case of something like 256QAM, the symbols are very close to each other in magnatude and phase, so it doesn't take much noise to corrupt a symbol.
It should also be noted that the FCC has settled on an amplitude modulated method (8VSB) for DTV in the US while Europe uses COFDM, which is a lot more like FM (because it's orthogonal, COFDM has much less intersymbol interference). I'm aware of tests run by a consulting firm in the DC area that showed conclusively that COFDM was the better choice over 8VSB. FM is also used for the audio subcarrier in analog television.
So, the moral of the story is, you can't just have more.... :)
Re:I would rather have a little static, thank you (Score:3, Interesting)
You're forgetting something, though... a digital signal takes up MUCH less space than an analog one, especially when you're encoding voice or music (MP3 or Vorbis, anyone?). Since the signal is much smaller, you can encode error correction in the remaining bandwidth.
This means that what you're listening to through the speakers isn't a real-time signal... it's delayed slightly because you want an opportunity to not only receive the primary signal but the redundant error-correction stream as well.
If you were to interleave all of this data over a period of 30 seconds, you could conceivably have a drop-out of about that long in the signal and still have full-quality audio playing out the speakers.
Of course, if your signal drop-out exceeds the available correction data, you're right in that you'd get nothing (or something other than static).