What public stations should consider about upgrading HD Radio power - #pubmedia

The public media newspaper, Current, published an article by myself and my NPR colleague, Mike Starling, on this topic in its May 17, 2010 issue.  I’m quoting it verbatim below.  --Dennis

Commentary by Dennis Haarsager and Mike Starling

Dennis: Digital radio broadcasting is a reality now in most American communities, though adoption is still modest. About 2.5 million receivers have been sold, but assuming multiple receivers for early adopters and counting methodologies, household penetration might be roughly 2 percent — about as many households as in  a market the size of Washington.

Public radio has aggressively invested in digital radio transmission. Some stations, such as WAMU in Washington, have also made significant programming investments in new channels. But general managers and their boards are asking: Where is this all going? Should we upgrade to a higher power level? What would that mean for analog coverage? Mike Starling and I are going to try to provide some answers.

Where is HD Radio going?

HD Radio has been buried by commentators more times than Nosferatu (Mike and I have even touched a shovel once or twice), yet was very much alive at this year’s NAB Show.  The pace of consumer acceptance is slow and we’re an impatient bunch. No one really knows where this is all going, but a couple of examples from broadcasting’s past will provide some context.

FM stations now get 80 percent of radio listening, but the technology didn’t always look like a winner. The first FM station went on the air in 1938 when broadcasting itself was less than two decades old, and it took roughly 40 years before FM overtook AM to become the dominant aural medium. You could start in radio, have a full career, and retire in that time. Stereo, first available in 1961, contributed to the eventual disruption of AM, but even that took more than 15 years.

The first digital television station in the U.S. went on the air in 1996, but it was a full decade later before a fourth generation of decoder chips delivered receiver performance that even approached an acceptable level. Fourteen years later, penetration of receivers with HD-capable tuners is only 17 to 40 percent, depending on the market. If you look at what was happening in the consumer video world during that lost decade and shortly before, you’ll see that American TV broadcasters were hugely disrupted by competition from cable and satellite providers, videocassettes and DVDs.

Radio broadcasting has been disrupted for decades by television, tapes, CDs and digital music players. We’ve survived, but have been changed.

The disruption continues. A large number of Internet radios have been released to the marketplace, and new services including the enormously successful streaming service, Pandora, and its competitors are bringing customizable music to multiple platforms. And what about the news/talk listener? Stitcher and RadioWeave stream podcasts that users can assemble into their own on-demand “stations.” The iPhone and other smartphones have taken locality out of portable radio, providing access to any station anywhere. In December, Pandora had 300,000 “average active sessions” online — almost as many as CBS Radio and Clear Channel combined.

This past year was a good one for digital radio in the U.S. Receiver manufacturers came out with the first digital radios that didn’t require a giant “wall wart” to power them, including Microsoft’s well-reviewed Zune upgrade. And they’ve learned more about how to build digital radios with less internal noise. More car manufacturers have signed on. And at year’s end, NPR and iBiquity Digital negotiated a compromise, which the FCC adopted, enabling a meaningful power increase (four-fold or, in some cases, up to ten-fold) for digital radio while providing important protections for analog FM reception.

These are all necessary — though not sufficient — steps for success. Radio needs to show that it’s ready to provide value to listeners in a very competitive and disruptive marketplace.

One brilliant thing about the U.S. digital radio standard is that it rather easy to develop new capabilities for it — more or less like developing new web pages. There are many exciting innovations in the works that will make today’s receivers look rather pedestrian. Visual and data elements are coming. And it would be surprising if we don’t, within very few years, see hybrid radios incorporating analog, HD Radio and IP radio in one dashboard unit.

HD Radio is neither DOA, nor is it assured of success. Rather, it has a plausible shot at market acceptance if we’re patient and learn from our disruptors. Disruptive technologies don’t need to overtake radio, they just have to skim our margin — and margins are pretty skinny where they exist at all.

Mike will explain the new digital radio power increase and what general managers and their boards should know about this important development. As with stereo, there is “no free lunch” with in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital — not even at current power levels. But we believe the FCC’s balanced approach will moderate the costs to analog reception, permitting digital radio services to grow while protecting analog services and their far greater number of listeners.

Upgrading HD v. analog coverage

Mike: It should come as no surprise that there are tradeoffs when you add power in the FM band. The power increase for IBOC FM stations resides on each station’s first-adjacent channel. Therefore, the roughly 10 to 15 percent of stations that operate with minimum spacing may suffer interference with their fringe reception (near or beyond their protected contours). So, for stations that rely on coverage beyond their protected contours, an HD power increase by a closely spaced first-adjacent neighbor could be particularly problematic.

Digital stations have been operating at a power level that is 1 percent of the analog level. The FCC now allows a blanket 6 dB (four-fold) power increase from this level, but that’s expected to cause some new instances of first-adjacent HD Radio stations interfering with neighboring analog FM stations.

The FCC, in adopting these rules, stated that it had received “no bona fide complaints of interference” after HD Radio had operated several years at the 1 percent power level. And they stressed again that interference beyond protected contours is not actionable. So if your station relies on listening beyond your protected contour, you should consult with qualified engineering personnel to determine the likelihood of new interference from stations increasing IBOC power nearby — and consider targeting important communities in such areas as priorities for translator or repeater upgrades.

Contrary to what you’d expect, we don’t expect worsened interference from stations that go for the greatest power increases — those that boost power up to ten-fold (to as much as 10 percent of analog power). Those stations will have to operate under tougher anti-interference rules.

Interference is more likely to occur with the closely spaced HD Radio signals with smaller power increases (those going to 4 percent of their analog power). Many but not all of these stations are in the congested Northeast. 

Again, remember that regardless of separation criteria, detecting IBOC interference is highly dependent on modulation density masking and the most vulnerable stations are those programming talk or lightly processed music. 

The bottom line is: be on the lookout for stations that are likely to upgrade power on your first-adjacent frequencies. We expect these to initially be stations that are participating in traffic services, such as Clear Channel or Broadcast Traffic Consortium outlets, or others that are investing heavily in the success of the HD offerings, whether multicast streams — or emerging datacast services. Here again, qualified engineering help can point out where these moves are likely.

There has been discussion about the need for a systematic means of tracking increases as filed with the FCC for stations that might reasonably be on a “watchlist” of most vulnerable stations. Remember that the NPR Labs testing (www.nprlabs.org) showed that the most vulnerable stations are those running news/talk or lightly processed, high-fidelity music with extended passages at low volume levels. If you operate a moderately processed jazz format, you will be less susceptible than if you are operating a news/talk or classical station. And monaural stations will be less susceptible than stereo stations.

Should we upgrade?

If you’re running a multicast format important to your station’s community mission on HD2, HD3 or HD4, you should plan an upgrade to the highest available power at your earliest opportunity. If you would like to maximize your opportunity to participate in emerging HD data services, a power upgrade should be important to you, too.

Because the rules will trigger 3-dB power step-downs when six or more bona fide complaints cannot be resolved between affected stations, it would be advantageous to have your station on the air before the launch of a potentially interfering new analog station.  In addition, listeners will be more likely to complain about IBOC interference, which is indistinguishable from noise, if it begins after they develop expectations about the sound of an analog station.

At the very least, every station should ask its HD equipment manufacturer what it would cost to upgrade power to 4 percent of analog power, as well as to the maximum power allowable.

Many stations will be able to eke out a further increase in power when iBiquity releases new software to transmitter manufacturers later this year. That will enable them to increase HD Radio power asymmetrically — more on the side where there’s less potential interference. Stations will benefit by determining a.s.a.p. how much they can increase power symmetrically and asymmetrically, and what it costs, so they can take advantage of matching funds offered by CPB. There’s no guarantee that the funds will always be available or that you’ll continue to have any elbow room among nearby frequencies.

Dennis: In its 90-year existence, radio has proven amazingly adaptable to both technology and competitive challenges. However, never in that time has our industry faced so many disruptors as we have now. Even the disruptors have disruptors.

Surely, radio must adopt multiple distribution strategies for web and mobile devices, and we’ve made notable inroads in that regard. But since our “gross tonnage” of listening will come from over-the-air broadcasting for many years to come, we must look at modernizing its technology and business strategies as well.

The IBOC radio standard has the flexibility and initial take-up to be an important tool in this effort to continue and increase service to our audiences.  The collaborative RadioDNS project (radiodns.org) is developing exciting new ways to combine radio broadcasting with Internet Protocol capabilities. It’s also entirely feasible now to give HD Radio a back channel  for interactivity by building broadcast radio receivers that can also send and receive 3G or 4G wireless services. The more HD Radio can assume the capabilities of Internet services such as Pandora and Stitcher, the sooner our investments in digital transmission will pay off.  If radio broadcasters as a group are smart, the receivers of the relatively near future will have interactivity as well as the scalability of radio broadcasting.   

_________________________
Dennis Haarsager is NPR’s senior v.p. for system resources and technology and former acting chief exec, and the author of the blog Technology360.com. Mike Starling is NPR v.p. and chief technology officer and executive director of NPR Labs.
Web page posted May 25, 2010
Copyright 2010 by Current LLC

Comments

[Bill K]

Bottom line - Radio listeners are declining. This is a fact of life and it isn't because the modes are outdated. It's because competetion is everwhere. Going "digital" won't save it. That's clearly being demonstated. The answer is to capitalize on what you're doing right and radio doesn't do that. Instead, they hold NAB confrences and pass out stupid awards for stupid things then make a big deal when a single NPR station announces their new HD4 service (as if anyone rally cares) or they believe that success is just around the corner if they sell a few digital radios to a few radio insiders (and then make outlandish claims about the number of HD radios sold). If they keep looking in the wrong direction like they've been doing they'll eventually have no listener base. Maybe that's what they want so they can start all over again and become "radio pioneers" (isn't that Stubles thinks of himself?) I can assure you - they might get it but they won't live long enough to see it.

[Charlie Demerjian]

The one thing no one seems to be talking about with respect to HD radio is DRM. Have you looked for an HD radio with analog outs to put into your stereo or wire into your car? What's that I hear you say, you can't find one? I have been looking for three years, since the standard was first announced, at CES, CeBIT, and many other shows I attend. So far is zero units.

When you talk to the proponents of HD radio, and I have probably a dozen times, if you bring up analog outs, interoperability, or DRM infections, you will be amazed at how quickly the topic is changed, or how the person has to go do something else NOW. I think I am 11/12 for that score. The last person didn't understand the technology at all, but he was representing the consortium at their CES booth. SIGH.

Anyway, HD radio seems to be nothing more than a standard meant to remove some of the last vestiges of fair use rights. Create a walled garden, kill alternatives, then monetize. And you wonder why people are not lining up in droves?

-Charlie

[Craig Hattersley]

I'm incredibly impressed with the fact that you are posting this entire discussion. Please don't get me a wrong: I am a dedicated listener to NPR, and have been since 1979. I just truly believe that mistakes are being made, and the website I run, keeppublicradiopublic.com, along with allied Facebook sites and others, are an attempt to correct these mistakes. Once again, kudos for airing this... Many other media sites will not countenance even the mildest criticism.

[Jack Hannold]

I want to make three very important points.

First, you’re being disingenuous, to say the least, when you say that FM “didn’t always look like a winner.” Granted, FM took a long time to attain the acceptance it deserved, but that was primarily because the dominant forces in commercial radio — the networks — were doing their utmost to undercut it. Why? Because they didn’t want competition from independent operators in a new band. (Yes, they applied for FM licenses, but they were just hedging their bets. They wanted to have FM licenses in case FM did catch on; and every license awarded to one of the majors was a license that wouldn’t go to an upstart independent.)

Today, the dominant forces in commercial radio, most of them members of the “HD Radio Alliance,” are doing their best to promote IBOC, which has been mendaciously relabeled “HD” (it’s anything but high definition!), for the same reason: because they don’t like competition. They were happy to have digital audio broadcasting in the United States tied to existing stations, instead of having it licensed in an entirely new band, where all comers would have a chance to get a digital license, at least in theory.

Unfortunately, they were able to persuade the public radio establishment that this deeply flawed technology was the wave of the future. It was CPB that irresponsibly allocated taxpayer money for IBOC conversion at NPR member stations. The money didn’t go to NPR. (You see, Dennis, I know exactly how this played out, and I’ve been careful here in how I worded this. So please try not to be so condescending!) But NPR and other national program suppliers benefitted from that money, because the secondary channels expanded the market for their programs. And it was NPR Labs made that possible by developing the protocols for multicasting. So NPR’s fingerprints are all over this.

And that brings us to my second point.

Multicasting is very desirable, especially for public radio, but you don’t need IBOC for multicasting. FM Extra works much better and costs far less. Digital subcarriers in the range otherwise occupied by a narrowband FM SCA are usable wherever a station’s analog stereo subcarrier is usable. (See “Road-Testing the FMeXtra,” by Tom H. Jones. Radio World, Nov. 8, 2006. http://www.rwonline.com/article/276).
The FM Extra signal falls entirely within a station’s assigned channel. It doesn’t occupy one half of each first-adjacent channel, so there are no adjacent interference problems. And because the FM Extra signal is a true subcarrier of a constant-amplitude FM signal, a station using FM Extra can keep using its analog transmitter with high-efficiency Class C finals.

Best of all, the FM Extra encoder costs only $12,000, putting it within reach of almost any station — even Class D’s and LPFM’s.

If NPR, which has devoted a lot of air time and space on its homepage to promoting “HD” radio, had put only a fraction of that effort into promoting FM Extra instead, word of mouth would have done the rest, and that system would be the accepted standard for multicasting.

So why doesn’t the public radio establishment jettison the unworkable IBOC technology and embrace FM Extra? The only tenable explanation I can offer is that they’ve invested so much of their money—and their prestige—in IBOC that their egos won’t allow them to admit that the whole thing has been a mistake.

And what’s the third point I want to make?

It’s about asymmetrical IBOC. The only real advantage IBOC transmission has had so far is its relative immunity to multipath. But that immunity is the result of the redundancy of data in the upper and lower first-adjacent channels. Without that redundancy, IBOC will be less immune to multipath than either the double-sideband suppressed carrier analog stereo difference signal or an SCA signal — whether that SCA is a conventional analog narrowband FM signal or a digital FM Extra signal. So in any additional area covered by only a single IBOC signal, there will be no multipath advantage.

[Scott Wilson]

One significant issue with digital radio (among many) is that it displaces existing services. No other technology that I know of - past or present - sought to directly eliminate an existing service like iBiquitys questionable system. (And no, the onset of FM radio didn't do that to AM radio so don't even go there.) It's unfortunate that digital radio proponents have been given what is essentially a free ride both from a funding standpoint as well as Government handouts in an attempt to make it successful despite a demonstrable lack of consumer acceptance. Imagine that same business model used by Apple or Microsoft. They would have been gone long ago. But not radio. It continues to limp along trying to keep up with the rest of the world with this "me too" attitude using all kinds of gimmicky tactics. Meanwhile, NPR station listener numbers are dropping every year. But that doesn't matter. They just keep throwing good money after bad. What was it that Einstein said about insanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Keep up with the commentary Dennis Haarsager and Mike Starling - it's insane but entertaining.

[Greg]

"Oh Well, on With the Experiment..."

"The saga continues. It’s remarkable that the development of the IBOC system began well over 20 years ago, yet it still seems to be an ongoing experiment... In their 2008 report, they warned of dire consequences that would ensue from a blanket FM IBOC power increase. They had plenty of statistics to back this up, derived from studies of numerous stations, using sophisticated propagation prediction tools. According to these results, there were some significant interference problems even at the existing –20 dBc power level. But then another study is hastily done, and now we’re told: Oops, our mistake, a blanket increase of 6 dB is actually just fine, and even a 10 dB increase will be okay in most cases."

http://rwonline.com/article/99768

Besides the total lack of consumer interest in HD Radio, with nonsense like this from NPR, it's no wonder stations are balking at any power increase (aside from the costs).

[Greg]

"The Wonderful World of HD Radio"

"Perhaps it is because it is the American Public that has been paying a large portion of the development costs for HD radio? Yup, that is you and I. An FCC filing from North Carolina’s Public Radio Stations cites: Just a few weeks ago, the House Appropriations Committee approved an additional $40 million to assist public radio stations’ transition to HD radio technology.”

http://tinyurl.com/57ksx6

@Dennis: The CPB has received tens-of-millions of taxpayers dollars from Congress to disperse to NPR for upgrades to this useless, destructive technology designed to block distant, adjacent-channel stations, and force listeners to listen to only local HD Radio stations. HD Radio is a massive fraud perpetrated onto the General Public and broadcasters.
_______________________
Dennis replies: Again, for the record, NPR didn't get a dime of this money. It goes to hundreds of independent public radio stations, each of which makes its own decisions relating to digital radio.

[Craig Hattersley]

HD radio is a scam perpetrated by iBiquity and those with a vested interest — such as NPR, Dennis — on the American people. It is a substandard system run by a monopoly, which has never been done in the history of the public airwaves. It does not work, it degrades neighboring analog channels, and its use by NPR (funding HD radio in stations through the CPB) is sucking money from local stations, costing local jobs, and attempting to homogenize public radio. If you've got three stations now instead of one, and two of them air canned NPR, PRI, and BBC product, how does this help the local station? How is the cost of all of this promoting local sensibilities? Don't drink the Kool-Aid, people.
_________________________
Reply from Dennis: For the record, NPR does not fund HD Radio or anything else. CPB and NTIA provide some funding, but are completely independent of NPR.