Slashdot Mirror


FCC Approves Digital Radio, Kills Satellite Merger

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.

362 comments

  1. CD Quality? by jazman_777 · · Score: 4, Funny

    RIAA,baby.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:CD Quality? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      i submited that for a story a week ago, at least someone posted it somewhere on here

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  2. 4 voting members? by theRhinoceros · · Score: 5, Funny

    voted 4-0

    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?

    1. Re:4 voting members? by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, at least it assures a 3/4 majority. Simple majority can be dangerous; just look at the last presidential election.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    2. Re:4 voting members? by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the FCC Chairman has a tie breaking vote.

      --
      There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
    3. Re:4 voting members? by jeffy124 · · Score: 0, Informative

      whoever modded that offtopic needs to taken out back and whacked up side the head.

      that's a good question. the article doesnt seem to answer it either. normally, yes, there are 5 voters for FCC judgements. my guess: one voter did not participate due to affiliation with one of the groups, or was out sick today?

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    4. Re:4 voting members? by 403Forbidden · · Score: 1, Funny

      Then maybe we should have 101 senators... it'll be like 101 Dalmations and evil Kurella DeVille (Hillary Clinton) will try to capture them all.

    5. Re:4 voting members? by TheMatt · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, you are right. According to the FCC:
      The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.
      But, the FCC also acknowledges that there are only four commissioners at this time. I guess the Senate must be debating the fifth? Anyone know why there's four at the moment?
      --

      Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!

    6. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      i think something like one vote is kept in a sealed envelope, only to be opened in case of a tie. Otherwise, the envelope (and the extra vote) gets destroyed. IIRC eitehr the Chairman or Deputy Chairman makes that extra vote.

    7. Re:4 voting members? by teho · · Score: 3, Informative

      We do. The Vice President is the president of the senate and casts the tie-breaking vote.

      -C

    8. Re:4 voting members? by IEEEmember · · Score: 5, Informative
      FCC site shows only 4 commisioners are currently appointed. FCC is typically run by 5 commisioners.

      Michael K. Powell
      Kathleen Q. Abernathy
      Michael J. Copps
      Kevin J. Martin
      Additional Information

    9. Re:4 voting members? by jeffy124 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      so does that mean there's currently one unfilled seat? What if a 2-2 vote were to come up? Who casts the deciding tally?

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    10. Re:4 voting members? by rhwalker22 · · Score: 1

      Uh, excuse me, but you should know that the FCC has four members and a chairman (2 Dems, 2 Repubs, and a chairman, whose party is usually that of the prez). Currently, politics in the Senate are holding up confirmation of Bush's nomination of one Jonathan Adelstein to serve as a Dem. member of the commision.

    11. Re:4 voting members? by seanw · · Score: 5, Funny

      god, what a moron! rocks, paper, scissors, of course--best out of three

    12. Re:4 voting members? by RailGunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably for the same reason that there are numerous vacanies in the Federal Judiciary: Senate Democrats are not bringing any of Bush's appointments to a full Senate vote, choosing instead to kill off every nominee in committee.

    13. Re:4 voting members? by cornflux · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Sounds suspiciously similar to the problem with judical nominations, these days. Interestingly, the Democrats appear to be the source of the problem.

      The most recent example? The nomination of Judge Shedd:

      "...Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) had promised a vote on Shedd and then violated committee rules by removing the nomination from the agenda of a Tuesday committee meeting."
      The funny thing is that he's already a U.S. District Judge and has been confirmed by Congress, previously.

      What a world...

    14. Re:4 voting members? by carlos_benj · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess the Senate must be debating the fifth?

      How refreshing! Usually they're pleading the fifth....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    15. Re:4 voting members? by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      i think something like one vote is kept in a sealed envelope, only to be opened in case of a tie.

      No. You're thinking of Miss America..... or was it the Oscars?

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    16. Re:4 voting members? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      That's Cruella De Vil.

      And as already noted, the Vice President has a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Also he has a duty to protect the space-time continuum.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    17. Re:4 voting members? by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      They had three only a month ago. I believe there were some resignations and/or retirements or something along those lines.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    18. Re:4 voting members? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Never mind the fact that Bush is nominating far right wing folks, knowing full well the Senate won't confirm any of them. Then he gets to point the finger at the Democrats for obstruction. Karl Rove is a damn genius. Does it bother anyone else that he runs the country?

      -B

    19. Re:4 voting members? by skajake · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That silly bush, actually appointing people who stand for what he beleives in and not kissing the butt of the Senate.

      --

      ~ Maintainer of the Skajake Projects

    20. Re:4 voting members? by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Sergeant Beavis posts a bit up in the tree (j a post that, if correct, should be modded up more) that the FCC Chairman casts tie-breaking votes.

    21. Re:4 voting members? by jgrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Senate Democrats are not bringing any of Bush's appointments to a full Senate vote."

      Which continues the 6 year Republican tradition of never bringing Clinton nominees to a vote. Of course, they rarely even brought them to a committee vote.

      What's good for the goose...

    22. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Far right"? That'll be the day; imagine actually having judges who believe that the Constitution means what it says, and nothing else.

      No, Bush is appointing center-right folks who go along with leftist assumptions about the mutability of the Constitution, but who are a bit more conservative in their interpretations than the center-left people that the Democrats want.

      It has everything to do with Party politics, but you idiots out there believe in this "far-right" bogeyman, so the Democrats play you, convincing you that they are "standing up for their principles" rather than playing a silly game of vindictive tit-for-tat.

    23. Re:4 voting members? by Iamthefallen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      compromise Pronunciation Key (kmpr-mz)
      n.

      1.
      1. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
      2. The result of such a settlement.
      2. Something that combines qualities or elements of different things: The incongruous design is a compromise between high tech and early American.
      3. A concession to something detrimental or pejorative: a compromise of morality.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    24. Re:4 voting members? by BrerBear · · Score: 1

      Sure, the Democrats are the source of the problem NOW. The Republicans were the source of the problem when Clinton was in office, doing even more of the same. Both times nominations were blocked that were perceived as too far to one side of the political spectrum.

      This time, Judge Shedd is being protested because of his record on civil rights and disability cases. Other times a nominee is rejected because they are too far in favor of or against abortion rights.

      If one side backs down, then the other side ends up stacking the judiciary with judges who make decisions against their own position. You at least ought to be fair in your diatribe.

    25. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrats idea of compromise is for a "conservative" president to nominate liberal judges.

      In fact, the people Bush has nominated have been mainstream moderate and center-right Republicans; hardly "extremists". This particular (illegitimate) Senate would reject anyone Bush nomiated, no matter how much he "compromised".

      No, the "compromise" will come this November, when we vote this Democratic majority out of power (we never voted it into power in the first place!), and throw Dasch-hole out on his ass.

    26. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To a democrat, the definition of compromise is:

      1. Do things our way

    27. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, an awful lot of Clinton appointees were nominated and confirmed by the GOP controlled Senate. Methinks your partisan memory is playing tricks on you. There were some people not confirmed towards the end of the Klinton administration, but that hardly constitutes "six years". Pull your head out of your ass.

    28. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans have NEVER been as bad as the democrats always are. Republicans actually compromise in the true sense of the word, not the democrat sense ("Do it our way").

    29. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That silly Senate, actually not appointing people who they don't stand for or do not believe in, and not kissing the butt of the White House.

    30. Re:4 voting members? by WNight · · Score: 2

      It's nothing to do with parties.

      I'm probably what you'd call far left. I believe social programs (some, within reason, like universal schooling) are good. I believe people should be able to do anything they want in their bedroom.

      I'm also a very big fan of the US Constitution (despite not even being a USian). I think that in almost all cases it's a better guide to government that the people we elect, regardless of party.

      I'd call myself a strict constitutionalist, especially compared to most of the people who use that label.

      So, which side am I on? Right, because I support a constitution that's the only thing keeping corrupt politicians from passing any law they're paid for, or left just because I don't buy into the Republican party?

      The labels are harmful. Everything is so partisan and you're missing the big pictures. They're all corrupt, with one or two exceptions, on both sides.

    31. Re:4 voting members? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Um, d00d, that's the way it works. The president is elected, and he nominates the people who represent his way of thinking. It would not work if, upon being elected, a president made decisions and nominations that ran counter to the philosophies he represented he stood for during his election.

      Does it bother anyone else that he runs the country?

      I'm certain it does, although I'll guess not as many people on this board as you think.

    32. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ you fucking political cheerleaders are so goddamn boring. How anyone can turn a discussion about radio into a "partisan" argument is beyond me. Why dont you guys go arm wrestle or something.

    33. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter, they all vote the way the NAB wants anyway.

    34. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it does. That said, Bush was voted in and took control legitimately under the laws of our country. Now, I don't like how the FL fiasco turned out, how the Supreme Court stepped in, and all the other bullshit that occurred, but that is the nature of politics. Not being happy with how something turns out is not the same as something being invalid.

      But I ain't voting for him in 2004 unless Gore, Daschle, or Hillary runs. Maybe I'll vote Nader this time around. Bush is an adequate president for now, I don't like how he's handled things, but in comparison to the others, he's been ehhh, okay, esp. in light of 9/11.

      But I don't want another 4 years of this and he needs to show that the next 4 will be different. He's made no such move.

    35. Re:4 voting members? by gorgon · · Score: 2
      Its all a matter of perspective, Rush.

      I'd say both sides have been playing political hardball with nominations quite a bit of the time.

      Both sides comprise on some things, but not on others.

      The Democrats comprised on Welfare reform and tax cuts, for example. While the Republicans didn't do much compromising on impeachment.

      --

      And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
      Berke Breathed
    36. Re:4 voting members? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      This is why we need to get out there and vote Republican and have the Congress diominated by the right yet again.

    37. Re:4 voting members? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1, Troll
      compromise

      4. To Senate Democrats' way of thinking, it's what happens only when a Republican caves in and gives them everything they want.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    38. Re:4 voting members? by cornflux · · Score: 1
      diatribe -- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

      My comments weren't prolonged, bitter, or abusive. In fact, they were accurate and stated plainly. Democrats are holding up nominations -- even to a degree never before seen. Furthermore, Shedd's nomination "rejection" was a blatant violation of Senate rules. (If you care to be fair, you should at least aknowledge that fact.)

      Anyway, I'll grant you that this wrestling over judicial nominees has been a two-party tango, in the recent past. This whole thing makes me sick, regardless of who's doing it.

      However, it might be worth noting that this problem was initiated by the Democrats while H.W. Bush was in office -- from Salon (a very, uh, impartial source): "...[the Democrats] began slowing down the confirmation process when then-Gov. Clinton's campaign picked up steam."

    39. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Senate has the right to vote on the president's nominations. So what's your point?

    40. Re:4 voting members? by Dannon · · Score: 2

      It's nothing to do with parties.

      Quite right. From the articles I've read, Bush's nominees have come from almost all viewpoints around the political spectrum. All have had the highest ratings from the American Bar Association, which is a rather liberal organization.

      There's only one thing these nominees have in common with each other, and with Bush. And that is, like you (and me), they believe in strict, to-the-letter interpretation of the Constitution and the Law. They hold to the rule that the writing of Law is to be done in the Legislative branch, not the Judicial.

      This is seen as a threat by a very few ultra-out-there political activists who believe that their cause is more important to be inhibited by the legislative process. Most notably in the hijacked environmental movement, but elsewhere as well. These activists seek to use the court system, to get things accomplished through litigation that no elected public servant could ever propose while hoping to keep his or her seat.

      I'm with you, a strict interpretation of the Constitution is the only way to keep the government from just ignoring our rights. And, much as I think the Republican party has generally become wussified on issues dealing with personal liberty, I fear the only way to ever push more strict Constitutionalist judges onto the bench short of an astounding third-party victory in Congress would be for Bush to get his nominees approved... which won't happen as long as certain Senators currently in power are in charge of the calendar.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    41. Re:4 voting members? by BurntHombre · · Score: 3, Funny
      How refreshing! Usually they're pleading the fifth....

      And, in some cases, drinking a fifth!

    42. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the Republican defination of nonpartisan where Democrats cave in and give the Rove administration everything the Republicans want.

    43. Re:4 voting members? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Are you following along on this thread? Or is everyone typing too quickly...?

      The gentleman to whom I was responding expressed some dismay regarding a right-wing president nominating right-wing candidates for the FCC. I was pointing out how this should not be viewed as all that unusual, this country being a republic and all.

      I've a question for you: Why do you post as Anonymous Coward? Don't you feel you lose almost all credibility when you do that?

    44. Re:4 voting members? by Belisarivs · · Score: 1

      This gets modded to "5, Insightful"? If that were true, the nominees would have been voted down. They aren't even making to the floor for a vote thanks to Senator Leahy.

    45. Re:4 voting members? by T3kno · · Score: 2

      c - o - m - p - r - o - m - i - s - e

      Holy crap, you weren't even close.

      --
      (B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
    46. Re:4 voting members? by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Intelligent women are really scary, aren't they?

    47. Re:4 voting members? by KillboyPHD · · Score: 1

      It has everything to do with Party politics, but you idiots out there believe in this "far-right" bogeyman, so the Democrats play you, convincing you that they are "standing up for their principles" rather than playing a silly game of vindictive tit-for-tat.

      You call it "tit-for-tat", I call it Karma! Suck it up.

      --
      Bah weep granah, weep ninny bong!
    48. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life's not fair. Get over it whiner....

    49. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

      D'oh !

      Well, better get rid of the hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars-in-AOL-Time-Warne r-stock-owning charman, then . . .

    50. Re:4 voting members? by b-baggins · · Score: 0

      Actually, the reason these nominations are being killed in committee is because it's pretty common knowledge they would pass a full senate vote.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    51. Re:4 voting members? by jmorris42 · · Score: 2

      Amen.... unless they get TOO far ahead in the numbers game. Then start burning off some votes on third party (Libertarian in my case) to keep them from getting enough seats their moralistic and mercantilistic tendencies become too prominent.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    52. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually *some* of bush's proposed people have been far to right wing to hold the positions they were being nominated for. I think D's are raising a little too much fuss, but at the same time Bush should know better than to nominate people that are unable to undertake objective decisions.

    53. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh funny, I seem to remember 12M being spent by bush to fund violent protest that directly interupted the recount process.

      I wouldn't raise too much fuss about "didn't vote". Not that we live in a democracy anyway, but thats another issue.

    54. Re:4 voting members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I comprise myself

    55. Re:4 voting members? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      probably cause the reader above me does not knwo that over 86 of the over 100 nominess have been approves, learn what you are spewing before you do so.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    56. Re:4 voting members? by leandrod · · Score: 2
      > This particular (illegitimate) Senate
      > when we vote this Democratic majority out of power (we never voted it into power in the first place!)

      For the benefit of people who are not in the USNA, would you care to expand on the supposed illegitimacy of your current Senate? A good URL would suffice.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  3. Sigh by Marco_polo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's things like this that delay early adoption of technology (at least in my eyes).. People will hold off on buying anything until a clear 'winner' emerges from this mess. I was considering Sattelite radio, now I see this. What to do?

    Maybe I'm just bitter at losing my pants on Sattelite Radio stock..

    --
    I am the lord of the pun. Dance Knave!
    1. Re:Sigh by orev · · Score: 5, Informative

      These 2 things aren't even related.

      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.

    2. Re:Sigh by Frequanaut · · Score: 1

      Wha?

      Consider satellite radio for the quality of the programming and/or commercial free content.

      This new ruling means you'll hear poor music, stupid djs and commercials clearly.

      Satellite radio (as far as I've seen) provides good music selection clearly.

    3. Re:Sigh by Jason+Earl · · 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?

    4. Re:Sigh by JonTurner · · Score: 1

      "What to do?"
      How about an 87-hour Everquest marathon? Sure, you may die, but that's less painful than reading FCC rulings.

    5. Re:Sigh by M-G · · Score: 2

      maybe a digital readout of what's playing.

      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.

    6. Re:Sigh by Marco_polo · · Score: 1

      Put yourself in the seat of Joe Consumer for a minute.. if you only have a set amount of $$ to spend on a car radio.. which would you buy?

      I personally want a satellite radio, I just am hesitant as to which carrier will survive (BETA vs. VHS all over).. if I buy this technology now for better sounding crap.. it's a sale against Satellite radio..

      more options = more confusion

      --
      I am the lord of the pun. Dance Knave!
    7. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important to realize sattelite radio has a wider availability. It's comparing apples to oranges in my oppinion. It would be nice to listen to local stations with more clarity and possible more content (more stations), but when your out of town, not sure that helps the situation. Unless this is going to be a nationwide digital radio network using stations to broadcast there signal on SCA for a nominal fee (there are currently analog networks like this, and some digital content (stock tickers, news feeds, etc) that broadcast on these subcarriers. I didn't think there was enough bandwidth to provide CD quality audio in this method though. I'm certainly not a radio guru.

    8. Re:Sigh by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless this is going to be a nationwide digital radio network using stations to broadcast there signal on SCA for a nominal fee (there are currently analog networks like this, and some digital content (stock tickers, news feeds, etc) that broadcast on these subcarriers.
      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. ;-) Whatever would we do without our nationwide radio monopolies!? Thanks Telecommunications act of 1996! Before it was much more confusing with dozens of companies owning the different stations.

    9. Re:Sigh by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      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?

      No problem. The RIAA and the Clear Channel ^W^W the radio industry will come to an agreement where the DJs are obligated to talk over the beginning and end of each song. Actually, since this pretty much already happens, almost nothing will have to change.

    10. Re:Sigh by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You still get to listen to the same crappy programming."

      But it will be free (as in beer) crappy programming. I won't buy Schaefer but if someone hands me one I'll drink it.

    11. Re:Sigh by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      The rest of y'all must have more money than I do. The first few seconds of a song are not worth the $18 that purchasing the album would cost me. Besides, I would bet software could wash the voiceover right out anyhow.

      That's what this whole MP3 craze has proven, most of the people who are interested in listening to music aren't one bit interested in quality, but they are instead motivated by price. They want the music they like for less money.

    12. Re:Sigh by GreyDuck · · Score: 1

      The RDBS/RDS technology takes a slice out of the available broadcast bandwidth of the radio station. In our case (Entercom Portland) we're doing the digital readout broadcasts but we've got it dialed to use as little bandwidth as possible to give the actual broadcast programming the room it needs.

      Many receivers, even the fancy-pants tuners in our own equipment room, routinely skip letters (and entire words) from the text because we've pared the RDS feed so close to the bone... but there's no interest in expanding that capability since it would mean making the station sound worse. Let's see: Make the broadcast that provides our revenue sound better? Or expand the technology that scrolls goofy text bits on somebody's car radio? Tough call.

      Correction: There is interest in expanding the RDS capability, but only from the sales side of the building. *grumble* "What? Something else we can sell? Fantastic!"

      --
      I'm only wearing black until they come out with something darker.
    13. Re:Sigh by Thyrsus · · Score: 1

      I resemble that remark.

      - Stephen P. Schaefer

    14. Re:Sigh by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      The thing is some people like to call in requests and shout outs. Satellite radio does not have this. Also local radio stations are well local and that counts because I like to hear "New Yorks only classic rock station Q104.3" come over the air. Also how often do I wander away from local broadcast range? Not much and neither do many others either. Yes commercials suck but I don't mind and remember its free. Some people like the local programming and remember its free.

    15. Re:Sigh by twinpot · · Score: 1

      RDS is in widespread use in Europe, and has been for some time. Often used for traffic info, but also for short ads and telling you what's playing. It is also used to allow auto-retuning as you drive across the country.

      DAB on the other habd only seems to be up and running in the UK, courtesy of the BBC.

  4. Map of the radio spectrum? by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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?

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    1. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by JoeBlows · · Score: 0

      I would assume that the FCC cannot sell off the same part of a spectrum to two diffrent parties with wholey seperate ideas for that spectrum.

      --
      True capitalism = lots of similar companies = jobs for everyone who wants one.
    2. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by linefeed0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      More importantly, how much of the existing FM spectrum does this take up?


      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.

    3. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by noser · · 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.

    4. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by wheatking · · Score: 5, Informative
      Office of Spectrum Management (i kid you not) @

      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

    5. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by andyring · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe longer range, I'm not sure how digital works in that regard, but I know with AM, you can get extremely impressive range. I can recall numerous times driving in eastern Arizona at night and listening to KFAB, from OMAHA, NEBRASKA! That's nearly 1,000 miles. There's an AM station in Denver that, at night, advertises they're heard in something like 35 states, 2 Canadian provinces and Mexico!

    6. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by noser · · 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.

    7. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by rot26 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure how digital works in that regard, but I know with AM, you can get extremely impressive range.

      AT NIGHT. AM propogation is affected by the ionosphere, which is different depending on time of day; i.e. at night AM signals bounce off of it and can travel thousands of miles. During the day, however, they are ABSORBED and the only way to recieve the signal is by groundwave. For this reason AM stations (usually) decrease their broadcast power SIGNIFICANTLY at night.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    8. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by rgoer · · Score: 1

      I particular like the light-green sections of their spectrum chart; but I've got to wonder, just how much amateur satelite activity is going on?

    9. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by AB3A · · Score: 1
      I've got to wonder, just how much amateur satelite activity is going on?


      Uh, lots, actually. Since OSCAR 1, 40 satellites have made it in to orbit with some functionality.

      There is even a proposal afloat by AMSAT-DL to send one to Mars.
      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    10. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by Phreakiture · · 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.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    11. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by snookerdoodle · · Score: 2

      >digital radio offers no serious advantage on the
      >FM band other than possibly longer range; FM
      >quality is pretty damn good

      No, digital radio solves many of the signal problems with multiple paths, signals, adjacent channels, etc.

      I.e.: "flup"

      I wish it weren't at the expense of low power FM, but it fixes a lot of things.

    12. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by dirvish · · Score: 2

      It isn't going to take up very much and it is being combined with the current analog signal in the same spectrum. This is different than what has been done in some other countries where teh digital signal was made seperate from teh analog signal, thus using up more bandwidth. The technology to combine the two has only been around for a year or two and is part of the reason that digital radio in the US is lagging behind other countries which implemented it a couple years ago. The biggest benefit of combining the two, besides limiting the amound of the spectrum used, is that it facilitates a simulcast. Stations will be able to keep their analog frequency and add the digital at their leisure. And users will still be able to use their analog receivers (with the existing quality) or go out and buy a digital receiver to get the CD quality.

    13. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by leviramsey · · Score: 2
      There's an AM station in Denver that, at night, advertises they're heard in something like 35 states, 2 Canadian provinces and Mexico!

      That's nothing.

      Boston has several stations with significant reach.

      WBZ (1030 AM), being one of the earliest radio stations in the US aims their transmissions south and west and has a clear channel; there is not one other station east of the Rockies which broadcasts on 1030 at night. My father was once able to listen to the Celtics every night during his brief exile to southern Mississippi.

      The old WHDH (850 AM), being started in Gloucester and with a heavy audience of fishermen, aims their signal north and east. Every once in a while, they'd get phone calls from Dublin, or Glasgow, or Reykjavik, or Norway.

    14. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by elvum · · Score: 1

      What about the BBC World Service (receivable anywhere)? The Voice of America? Moscow? (if they're still broadcasting these days... anyone know?)

    15. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      Those are shortwave, which isn't quite the normal commercial AM broadcasting...

    16. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      In Las Vegas, I've picked up KCBS in San Francisco.

      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.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    17. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by jjsjeff · · Score: 1

      Will it be something we have to contend for 10 years down the road when 802.11X takes off?

      Probably not since 802.11b is in the 2.4GHz range and 802.11a is supposed to be in the 5.(something)GHz range.
      -Jeff

    18. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      Actually, a single tone into an FM transmitter will produce an infinite number of sidebands, with the amplitude determined by Bessel functions. Of course, the higher order sidebands will be significantly attenuated.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    19. Re:Map of the radio spectrum? by Wall,_The · · Score: 1

      How much "bandwidth" does this new digital radio take up?

      This "new digital radio" is called In Band On Channel which means that it takes up NO additional bandwidth. It slides in on both sides of the current FM signal. Older analog sets will still pick up the regular signal, and the new digital sets will put the pieces back together and provide the "new digital"

  5. OK by ez76 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Let's all brainstorm the ways in which Clearchannel Entertainment will sanction any radio station who broadcasts unadulterated CD quality cuts.

  6. cd quality, free music, on the airwaves? by krb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dude, RIAA is gonna be the biggest fan of this... Only not. Will radios no longer come with tape decks? Line outs? Speaker connections? Perhaps they'll only enable the audio out if the proper DRM key is inserted? I like the idea, but in the current climate, something tells me this is going to have an uphill battle.

    -k

    --
    1. Re:cd quality, free music, on the airwaves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Not quite. Ever notice how DJs will talk as long as they can before the words of the song start? No one will want a CD-quality recording of an Arkansas DJ talking about tonight's "Catch A Greased Pig and Win a Chevy" Contest down at the swamp bogs.

    2. Re:cd quality, free music, on the airwaves? by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      Uphill is right.

      The entire non-event of DAT 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.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  7. Wonderful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Does anyone know if this will require a new receiver in order to be utilized? If so, how long before these come to market?

  8. How can this be allowed to happen? by Prince_Ali · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CD quality music broadcast over wireless technology... for free?

    1. Re:How can this be allowed to happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sound will be obfuscated and encrypted so you have no idea what song you're actually listening to.... yeah. that's it.

    2. Re:How can this be allowed to happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like FM today. Well, obfuscated anyway.

    3. Re:How can this be allowed to happen? by Shelled · · Score: 2

      It will be CD quality in the same sense that MP3s are CD quality. In other words, in a marketing sense only.

    4. Re:How can this be allowed to happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly correct. The broadcasters will stuff up the quality by passing it through low pass, high pass, mid pass filters, normalizers, limiters etc till it sounds just like FM, but they'll call it CD quality anyway.

  9. good lord no! by z00ky · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ibiquity's IBOC system Sucks. Plain and simple. Am quality sounds like a 56k rated mp3. The side frequencies are hosed for advertising, and FM is no better, the side frequencies, are again hosed, and the sound quality is NOT CD, it's not even 128k!!! It's like 112! Seriously, the fcc is smoking the reefer. They cannot let this happen to radio.

    --

    ----
    djzooky.com
    I Like Cheese.
    1. Re:good lord no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is there a website where one could hear sound clips of AM and FM IBOC audio? I've read about it for a while, but have never really heard a detailed description of the quality until your post. I was particularly interested in the AM quality, now I am even more curious. 56kbps MP3 in mono or stereo? If mono, hmm! If stereo, eek!

    2. Re:good lord no! by Knightfall · · Score: 2


      I apologize up front, I normally don't subscribe to sarcastic remarks, but this is screaming at me.

      OH MY GOD ... ONLY 112!!! How will my normal, rational, non audiophile ears ever stand the crap that is 112.

      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.

      --


      Knightfall
    3. Re:good lord no! by CySurflex · · Score: 1
      Ibiquity's IBOC system Sucks. Plain and simple.

      You are implying you've had first had experience with it...how about some back up? Where was this? What kind of equipment? Can anyone do it? How much did it cost? details please.

    4. Re:good lord no! by z00ky · · Score: 1

      as a radio geek, and all around computer geek, i know this, because i've heard it on the air, during on air testing. The problem isn't the bitrate, but it's the adjacent frequency problem. It hoses other station's signals. That AND 112 makes it crap IMO. check Ibiquity's site to hear clips, i haven't been there but i'm willing to bet they've got some "comparison" thing. Another thing, If this continues, the Hobby of DXing will be gone forever.

      --

      ----
      djzooky.com
      I Like Cheese.
    5. Re:good lord no! by galaxy300 · · Score: 1


      Eh? No way! Any normal person can tell the difference between 128k and CD quality on a stereo with real speakers. On my walkman, even. I dare you to burn a CD with a 128k track and a WAV rip of the same track and tell me you can't hear the difference. Sure, some parts will sound fine, until your drums and bass turn to mush during the fast part of the song.

      Check out the "Quality" page of R3mix.net for a little more information.

    6. Re:good lord no! by Knightfall · · Score: 1


      I can't, but that is probably my early stages of hearing loss ;) I completely understand the point of view though, as I am one of those people that can see a VERY clear difference between S-Video and Component video from my DVD player. while my friends all say I'm nuts.

      --


      Knightfall
    7. Re:good lord no! by AGTiny · · Score: 1

      Uhh it still uses the same FM frequencies so DX will still be possible. Same goes for digital TV which is just another VHF/UHF signal.

    8. Re:good lord no! by photon317 · · Score: 2


      Any normal person can easily discern the difference between 64k mp3, 128k mp3, and the original CD - especially if they hear the same song from all three in a row. Even with no reference, if you hear a song you know well on 64k mp3, you'll certainly notice that it sounds "different" than you remember.

      Audio quality does make a difference, and I'm sure lots of artists would agree and not want their music spoiled, aside from the audiophiles.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    9. Re:good lord no! by SoCalChris · · Score: 3, Informative

      Am quality sounds like a 56k rated mp3

      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.

    10. Re:good lord no! by Knightfall · · Score: 1


      Warning again, I am in an unusally sarcastic mood ... must be the fact that I finally got a job offer!

      *BEGIN SARCASM*

      Well goodness knows I will be listening to all three side by side.

      *END SARCASM*

      That said, I again see the point but I can not tell the difference, as many people with even slight tone hearing loss probably can not. I can't usually hear the subtle cracking and popping that others can.

      --


      Knightfall
    11. Re:good lord no! by photon317 · · Score: 2


      When you say tone hearing loss are you talking about the gradual loss of high frequencies that all humans endure as they age, or something else that makes it hard for you to distinguish notes of different pitch from each other?

      Congrats on the job offer, I know how tough it is out there, I was out of a job for months at one point.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    12. Re:good lord no! by Shelled · · Score: 3, Informative
      Mod this up. Normal radio station practice is to record all music to hard drive in (usually) MP2 format and then multi-band compress the hell out of it before broadcast. Most music you'll hear on IBOC will be double-encoded MPG with extreme processing accentuating the noise and distortion coding generates. It will not sound pretty. It also been my experience that codecs don't respond well to highly processed audio, my guess being because of the increased L-R it generates.

      In Canada we can run 192 to 224 kbps and still have a dim hope of preserving a semblance of quality.

    13. Re:good lord no! by Knightfall · · Score: 1


      Serious ear infections at a young age ... trouble in both areas you mentioned.

      --


      Knightfall
  10. Will the technology would be open or propreitory? by trueaveragejoe · · Score: 1

    Will the technology would be open or propreitory? I am all for digital radio as long as it allows low-cost radio broadcasting and hobbyist.

  11. The Effect... by glamslam · · Score: 1

    Hopefully the radio stations that broadcast from this technology have more bandwidth than the company making the technology.

  12. Now, if only they did more of this. by sketerpot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If they would approve even more changes, it would be nice. I think that they should open up more radio frequency to unregistered use, for one thing. This would allow more room for technology like 802.11* and Bluetooth to work with.

    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.

  13. YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by nbvb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Whoo hoo!

    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 .... blech, what a broken piece of hardware THAT thing is :-)

    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

  14. this is good news by JoeBlows · · Score: 3, Informative

    now with digital signals, you can fit more stations on the local spectrum since digital will not "bleed" like analog does. better sound, and in 10 years or so, more choice...I can definatly see the end of satelite radio if local stations can keep up on the content.

    --
    True capitalism = lots of similar companies = jobs for everyone who wants one.
  15. Good news...or is it? by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The quality of radio today is pathetic (and I'm talking about the data itself, the content is a whole nother story). Static, pops, poor channeling, etc. Everybody knows this. And thus everybody thinks that it would be a good thing if we got the radio equivalent of HDTV, which is what this Digital thing is.

    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.

    1. Re:Good news...or is it? by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 2
      like the badly-named "SciFi" channel


      And MTV.....

    2. Re:Good news...or is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Sci-Fi channel is being broadcast over the air now? Wow! Our cable company doesn't carry it... which way do I have to point the antenna to receive it and what channel is it on?

    3. Re:Good news...or is it? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      Did you ever notice the Fi part of SciFi? That part stands for Fiction, as in "not real".

      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

    4. Re:Good news...or is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Both HDTV and Digital Radio employ an incredible amount of bandwidth.

      No, they don't. It is more efficent than current television.

      I think you are a troll.

    5. Re:Good news...or is it? by IEEEmember · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps if you should research this technology before you comment on it? This technology uses the existing bandwidth allocated for radio by allowing existing radio stations to additionally broadcast their signal in digital in their current frequency allocation using much less bandwidth and with additional information like traffic conditions. "It was in this environment that the concept of in-band/on-channel (IBOC) digital audio broadcasting was born [see figure]. The idea was to create a terrestrial broadcasting system using a new digital signal that could be transmitted in-band alongside a broadcaster's existing analog signal. In theory, this would be ideal. It would require no extra allocation of spectrum, replicate the coverage of the existing services, and allow broadcasters to remain independent from one another--no need for combining audio programs as with Eureka." From the IEEE Spectrum

    6. Re:Good news...or is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is -1, Troll? WTF? This guy is correct, morons. Read his links before you moderate! Someone boost him up to informative!

    7. Re:Good news...or is it? by Zathrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What crack are you on?

      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.

    8. Re:Good news...or is it? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      If you want real science shows, try Discovery and The Learning Channel.

      Long ago, TLC devolved into a channel of bermuda triangle, police chase and medical emergency pseudo-documentaries. (And to think, IIRC, years ago they ran excellent shows like "The Secret Life of Machines". Sad.) In my judgement, the Discovery channel has lately started a transition down the same path.

      The History Channel still retains some shred of respectability, but how long can it hold out?

    9. Re:Good news...or is it? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but at least TLC still has Junkyard Wars!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    10. Re:Good news...or is it? by mgs1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cellphone bandwidth a non-issue? If the cell phone spectrum was big enough already why did operators pay billions in the PCS spectrum auctions in the 90s? Why do you that the FCC is planning to have a 3G spectrum auction in the not-to-distant future? Even with the CDMA-based/spread spectrum 3G tech that's on the horizon, we're gonna need more frequencies. You're not gonna be able to get a 1.5Mb/s data connection when everybody else in your cell wants to use it too.

    11. Re:Good news...or is it? by program21 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, with neither of the original hosts, who IMO were much better than their current ones.

      --
      This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
    12. Re:Good news...or is it? by Rob+Parkhill · · Score: 2

      Right after TLC was bought by Discovery, it quickly became "The Xtreme Discovery Channel!"

      What I am waiting for is the new reality-based show, where two sets of neighbors are asked to build each other a house out of nothing but what can be found in the Junkyard. Fun for all ages!

      Now that Discovery is spinning off dedicated channels for all of their really good shows and themes, it too is starting the downhill slide.

      --
      "Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
  16. Same Top 40 Pap... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 0, Funny

    Only now with CD quality sound? What's the next headline going to be...man tries to polish a turd?

    1. Re:Same Top 40 Pap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's the next headline going to be...man tries to polish a turd?" If you scroll down a bit on the main page, you'll see some news regarding FreeBSD. There's the headline you want.

  17. Digital AM by rgoer · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought I remembered hearing, a few years ago, something about AM radio going digital starting sometime around October 2002. The original plan, as laid out by the in this news brief (and that's DRM as in "Digital Radio Mondiale", not the DRM we all know and hate) from the Digital AM Radio development Consotium, called for digital AM broadcast to start in 2001. Whenever digital AM does start (if it hasn't already), there may well be an AM renaissance, with many AM stations getting back to musical programming. The only other thing I remember right now is that I believe there are going to be multiple digital channels layered in with the analog broadcast, to give a quality of sound never heard before over free broadcast.

    1. Re:Digital AM by AB3A · · Score: 1
      Folks, please understand that digital modulation doesn't imply good audio quality. DRM is actually a suite of standards which may fit in to existing MW and SW AM broadcast band plans. Most modes aren't meant for good fidelity, though some modes are designed for quality up to FM broadcast standards. The beauty of DRM is in it's robust nature, with Forward Error Correction coding designed to survive tough signal propagation paths such as those found on MW at night and on shortwave.

      Another significant difference is that DRM makes no attempt at transmitting analog program along with the digital stream. It's all digital. It can be anywhere from a 16 state QAM signal to a 64 state QAM signal. Channel bandwidth requirements can be anywhere from 10 kHz to 30 kHz, depending on which modulation scheme is used. So it will fit in existing band plan channel schemes, but it won't be backward compatible.

      Another issue about DRM's effort: getting it in to a radio receiver economically. Right now the only receivers are a few prototype modified high performance receivers with sound-card based demodulators. For it to be viable, they need to find someone to produce ASICs for common radio configurations so that we can buy something the size of a Walkman for under $100. Until they reach that configuration in a format any idiot can use, this will be yet another failed MW attempt, similar to AM Stereo.

      Finally, the biggest bugaboo of all: Once you have a digital signal, what do you do with it? Music migrated to FM stereo in the 1960s and 1970's because it was a good medium for the task. DRM can't improve on it enough to make a significant difference.

      So DRM faces the same old problem: Yeah, it's cool, but how can I make money with it? I don't know. It's a chicken and egg market. And from what I've seen, this consortium isn't producing much result in bringing either a chicken or an egg to the scene. At best, I give them a 10% chance at success. One submarine patent and it's finished.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    2. Re:Digital AM by Mryll · · Score: 1

      Will this make it any more likely that an 850 kHz signal will be at all receivable inside an office environment overwhelmed with RF noise?

  18. What is this? by vought · · Score: 2

    A war between the entertainment cartel and the defense industry over controlling infrastructure? Or is it just another plain-old standards battle?

    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.

    1. Re:What is this? by adavidw · · Score: 1

      Of course, if XM offers Phil Hendrie 24/7 cross-country, I'll be signing up immediately.


      As luck would have it, they do. Now, go and get it

  19. Sure, it may be free... by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...but nothing comes without a price folks. Instead of paying out of your pocket, you'll be paying with your ears - by listening to commercials.

    1. Re:Sure, it may be free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I won't. I have a CD player. ;)

    2. Re:Sure, it may be free... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 5, Funny
      you'll be paying with your ears - by listening to commercials.


      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.... :)

  20. Can't Imagine no DRM by brandido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't that the RIAA is going to be happy with broadcasting Digital CD quality music for free without some sort of DRM provisions. Anybody know if the Digital Radio will include any sort of Broadcast Flag to disable recording? The article has Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy claiming that "We don't get many items where it's a win-win for everyone. There's no down side." From what I've seen, the RIAA sees a downside anytime there is Audio content that is digitized without protection.

    Favorite quote from article:
    Digital broadcasts use the same language as computers - a series of on and off electronic pulses.

    Now that is insightful!

    --
    First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
    1. Re:Can't Imagine no DRM by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      this clearly should tip you off to an important piece of insight:

      they are happy with radio, because its where you hear what you have to buy (if you're not the crate digging type), and because the pop (thats pop as in popular, of course .. covering all genres) artists get most of the air play .. the stuff they want to market. they like it because its a hot medium ..

      they hate the internet, because the shelf-space becomes unlimited so it is more difficult to ensure you own all of the real estate, and because its more prone to splintering peoples tastes .. the labels like an artist that sells to millions as opposed to many artists going to many different people. and of course, because its a cold medium where you decide what to listen to

      their very approval of digital radio and non approval of the internet is the very inidicator that radio does not pose a significant threat to them in terms of driving people to middle-tier or independant labels, where as the internet suits the kind of diversification that makes execs shudder.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Can't Imagine no DRM by hudsonhawk · · Score: 1

      Otherwise it won't be long before this happens!

    3. Re:Can't Imagine no DRM by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Uh, let's see... the MPAA pushed for it in Digital TV... I doubt that Hillary will settle for anything less than Jack got!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    4. Re:Can't Imagine no DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to imform the mass bunch of retards on /., but the current FM broadcast _IS_ CD quality. The only time it isn't would be if you're too far away from the station or there is other interference.

      Normal FM broadcast is damn good. The digital stuff just lets you cover the same distance with less power. The quality will be the same...

    5. Re:Can't Imagine no DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Favorite quote from article: Digital broadcasts use the same language as computers - a series of on and off electronic pulses.
      Uncle Owen: What I really need is a droid that understands the binary languages of moisture vaporators.
      C-3P0: Vaporators! Sir - My first job was programming binary load lifters ... very similar to your vaporators.
  21. IBOC by David+E.+Myers · · Score: 5, Informative
    This technique is also called IBOC, for In-Band On-Channel, since it coexists with existing analog signals. The brand name for the service is HD Radio.

    Can it be "CD-quality" at about 96 kbps? We'll see.

    A good site for learning more about IBOC is Radio World Online.

    1. Re:IBOC by PaulTownsend · · Score: 1

      >Can it be "CD-quality" at about 96 kbps?

      CD quality, my ass. With a 10 to 1 compression ratio, it's not even going to be stereo (or at least everything above 5khz will be collapsed to mono.)

      But the real sticking point isn't so much that the digital signal will sound worse than the current analog signal. It's that by adding a bunch of digital junk onto the sidebands, the quality of the analog signal will be reduced and the station's coverage area will be reduced.

      Now, I'm not a radio engineer anymore (I used to do it professionally, for about 10 years), so I'm glad that I don't have to explain to the general manager why the station's signal to fades out 20 miles sooner than it used to.

      My bet is that since it inevitably degrades the existing signal (yeah, yeah, Ibiquity swears that it doesn't, yada yada yada) a lot of stations are going to wait to install it until there's a user base before switching. And user will wait until there's a significant amount of product before buying.

      Which is to say that it probably won't fly. But that's to be expected, because the whole point of IBOC was to thwart digital radio and preserve the stations' investment in spectrum real estate.

  22. ugly: directtv proposes selling slots by swschrad · · Score: 1

    to make this go in a revised plan, the two conspirators are proposing that directtv sell enough satellite orbital slots before jan 21 to enable a competitor to come about.

    it also would kill DTV in a few years, as they would have no place to expand their service, or park enhanced satellites.

    this is a fools' bargain they propose. be very afraid.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:ugly: directtv proposes selling slots by RedX · · Score: 4, Informative
      to make this go in a revised plan, the two conspirators are proposing that directtv sell enough satellite orbital slots before jan 21 to enable a competitor to come about

      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.

    2. Re:ugly: directtv proposes selling slots by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      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.

      Right concept, wrong cable company. It's Cablevision that wants to launch a new satellite TV service. They already own a bunch of programming properties (Bravo, etc.), and are looking for a way to distribute them more widely, without going through the tollgates of the other cable companies. As a Cablevision shareholder, I think this is an incredibly bad idea, given their existing debt load, but that's a rant in and of itself.

    3. Re:ugly: directtv proposes selling slots by RedX · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right, I realized it was Cablevision after I posted but didn't want to make another post to correct myself. And I agree, it is a very bad idea for Cablevision to take on the sort of long-term debt that getting into the satellite business would bring.

  23. Nice, but... by gpinzone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The Federal Communications Commission voted 4-0 to adopt digital radio technology created by iBiquity Digital Corp., a company backed by large broadcasters including ABC and Viacom. "

    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.

    1. Re:Nice, but... by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I don't think they'll be putting a the full CD bitstream on the air either. But the lossy compression scheme they choose will decompress to 44.1kHz, 16-bit, stereo, so they'll call it CD quality.

    2. Re:Nice, but... by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      "forced commercials" = You are not allowed to touch the buttons or knobs while a comerrical is playing.

    3. Re:Nice, but... by niskala · · Score: 1
      "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.

      I for one would welcome the ability to pay for commercial-free radio without having to invest in a company like Sirius or XM, who have uncertain futures and limited diversity (since all their content comes from one company in either case -- longterm, how is that likely to be any better than the homogenous crap that comes from clearchannel?)

      Imagine a world where you can find channels that actually play things you're interested in, and things you've never heard before. Quality news not funded by advertisers but by listeners who want to hear what they have to say. Diversity would increase, since marketing dollars are conservative but people are less so.

      Assuming the system has the ability to employ encryption, digital technology opens up the ability for stations to charge their listeners directly, resulting in a more efficient (overall lower cost) system since there are no marketing middlemen. Analog with digital allows users of both types to participate, much like sites such as live365 do now. I won't claim that the DRM aspects won't get scary once the RIAA gets into the picture, but hopefully that day is long(ish) off.

      Diversity. A channel for news 24/7, and one for world music, and one for Rush Limbaugh since unfortunately some people want it, all because people will pay what marketers won't. Sign me up. And we know it's true too, because people already pay for several commercial-free stations in my area. It's difficult for those stations to make money right now because it's not simple for people to pay in small amounts, particularly when they're already getting the station for free. But with a free "teaser" channel full of commercials, there's a simple and direct incentive for people to contribute to stations they care about.

      I'm totally excited, this was an announcement that broadsided me. I only hope we don't somehow manage to screw it all up.

  24. Edge 102 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I believe Edge 102 in Toronto has been broadcasting a digital signal for some time now.

  25. You need to ask yoursefl what you realy want? by jcrb · · 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 :-), NASCAR, etc etc... and the music is good too, hell on *average* I hear the Sisters of Mercy on XM Fred, more times in one month than I have ever heard them in my entire life on comercial radio.

    In this case the saying that you get what you pay for really does apply.

    --
    -jon
    1. Re:You need to ask yoursefl what you realy want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      hell on *average* I hear the Sisters of Mercy on XM Fred, more times in one month than I have ever heard them in my entire life on comercial radio.


      Sounds like a good reason to stay away from XM to me!

    2. Re:You need to ask yoursefl what you realy want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pay for CNET Radio? What, do you pay for the toilet paper you wipe your ass with? At least don't cite CNET Radio with a big smiley face, telling the world you're a moron.

  26. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually Dish Network had intended to keep the networks separate for the foreseeable future. Their's and DirecTV's satelite systems are not compatible and it would cost BILLIONS to deobit and replace the DirecTV satelites. It would also cost Billions to replace all those recievers and I guarantee you consumers aren't going to buy new equipment. They would be more likely to get cable. IMO, this isn't really a bad or good thing. Combining Dish Network and DirecTV would have provided a strong competitor to monopolistic AOLTIMEWARNER, ATT, Charter, and Cablevision. Dish Network had promised to give up some satelite slots to Cablevision too so that they could start a satelite competitor. On the other side of the coin, we will still have two satelite competitors and DirecTV will most likely become the property of NewsCorp (if their hacking doesn't kill it) pretty soon. Now all I want is my NFL Sunday Ticket on Dish Network (coming next season).

    --
    There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
  27. Why so long? by Jouster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Digital technology has been around forever. Why are they finally moving now?

    Three reasons:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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!"
    4. And a fourth, bonus reason: with the slump in computer sales, Circuit City needed something new to sell the geeks. ;)
    Jouster
  28. Well Let's See by asv108 · · Score: 3, Informative
    We have only 2 major satellite companies: Direct TV and Dish Network, they want to merge to create one major DSS company? It's pretty obvious why they turned this one down, what's news about this story is that it's even a story. If the administration and the courts would actually uphold antitrust laws, they would have never even attempted this merger.

    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.

    1. Re:Well Let's See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EchoStar's rebuttle to your argument would be:

      1. They will charge the same rate urban/rural and thus rural rates will be competitive with urban cable rates.

      2. A combined company would allow for elimination of duplicate infrastructure costs thus :

      The merged company also will establish itself as a source of meaningful satellite-based broadband competition to cable modem and DSL offerings, fulfilling the mission to provide affordable high-speed Internet access to all of America, including the most rural areas of the country.

      The "digital divide" in the United States is real: some 40 million households in the United States do not have access to high-speed Internet and data services, in large part due to the high cost of wiring homes for these services in less densely populated areas.
      Combined, EchoStar and HUGHES will create a more robust satellite platform that will liberate these digital "have nots" by serving every household in the nation and will have the subscriber base and financial means to move current Ku-band satellite broadband offerings from their status as expensive "niche" services to a more competitive price point for consumers, and then ensure that next-generation Ka-band satellite broadband service becomes a reality for consumers everywhere in the United States.

    2. Re:Well Let's See by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I have a choice. 17 channels 25 dollars for cable or 150 channels for 60 bucks. Can I have locals since I have a choice?

  29. Oh great, that's all I need... by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh great, that's all I need...

    Digial quality Britney, Christina, and a bunch of Boy Bands.

    Excuse, me, I think I'll Pass.

    1. Re:Oh great, that's all I need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change the station, if your subconscious will let you.

    2. Re:Oh great, that's all I need... by ocie · · Score: 3, Funny

      They should make the radio cache the songs. This way, they could just transmit a command like "play boyband X song Y" Since there is a limited playlist, this could really free up some bandwidth.

      --
      JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
  30. Could be a good thing by andyring · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've had XM Radio in my car for several months, and really enjoy it. When I go back to regular radio, I have to stop myself from hitting buttons to see the song title and artist, etc., as I can with my XM. If this type of technology will be incorporated into digital radio (why wouldn't it be?), it could be a pretty cool thing. We hear from time to time about goofy systems using your cell phone where you can call a number and automatically purchase the CD containing the song playing on the radio (I don't think that idea ever took off) but I could see something more along these lines with digital radio.

    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.

    1. Re:Could be a good thing by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      LET THE MARKET dictate what happens!

      I don't think I agree with this sentiment. The space industry would not be an industry without government stepping in and jump starting it. Look where we are with private rocket launches and only now plans for the first private trip to the moon.

      Likewise, HDTV is a technology (for instance) that would have simply never taken off in the US. Content suppliers don't want to make the investment because there's no demand for it, manufacturers can't streamline and drop prices until there's demand for it, and consumers aren't demanding it because there's no content and the prices are too high. Without someone forcing these things to happen, the free market has spoken: they'll never happen in the US.

      While some people (perhaps you) are fine with that, I personally would rather there be something driving innovation when there's a clear benefit but stupid free market short-falls keep progress from being made. The free market economy is not perfect.

    2. Re:Could be a good thing by squarooticus · · Score: 2

      > The space industry would not be an industry
      > without government stepping in and jump starting
      > it. Look where we are with private rocket
      > launches and only now plans for the first private
      > trip to the moon.

      I know you think the concept of real-life space travel is cool, but I would ask you to name why it's objectively good. Perhaps private launches are becoming popular only now (33 years after the moon landing) because there hasn't been sufficient demand before this, due to lack of anything truly useful being done in space. (I am, of course, neglecting the decades of private launches of unmanned satellites; right now, I'm talking about manned launches.)

      Now that there are things that can be produced by actual humans only in zero-gravity (large quantities of carbon nanotube, certain crystalline structures, etc.), private launches will actually be feasible from an economic standpoint. I would argue that this would have been no different had government-sponsored launches never happened: given the static nature of manned launch technology over the past 22 years since the orbiter was first deployed, I seriously doubt even private launch technology would have been seriously hindered by the non-existence of NASA.

      Bottom line: LET THE MARKET dictate what happens! =)

      --
      [ home ]
    3. Re:Could be a good thing by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      I would ask you to name why it's objectively good.

      Personally? Survival of the species. Earth is a "single point of failure" for us. One good whack from another stellar body (which will happen), assuming we don't destroy ourselves first, and we are all extinct.

      The free market is only good for coming up with the best ways of moving money. This is why forms of government are generally independent from forms of economy. Government has to be there to decide what the people, as a group want to do. The free market relies on the acts and decisions of individuals spending their money in different ways.

    4. Re:Could be a good thing by hfastedge · · Score: 1

      actually its a US mandate for all tvs to be digital by 2007.

      --

      -- -- --

      Help my mini cause: My journal

  31. Already here in the UK but... by class_A · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Digital Radio is already up and running in the UK, although very few people are listening to it!

    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.

    1. Re:Already here in the UK but... by dre80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      DAB has been available in Canada for some time now, they've been advertising for it now for over 2 years. Take a look at the DAB Canada site, it explains the technology and lists the stations that already broadcast a digital signal. I know you can buy car receivers ready for DAB signals already...

    2. Re:Already here in the UK but... by spiny · · Score: 1

      most new 'set top boxes' have DAB built in, a freiend of mine has recently got one and he is pleased with it as it carries the extra 'radio five live' channels which broadcast most uk football matches.

      i've had my psion reciever for about 6 months now - they did a deal on their website where you could buy one for 35 pounds, thats why there are loads on ebay at the moment ...

      it'll be a lot better when they allocate more bandwidth for the data channels, i don't live anywhere near a phone exchange that can handle broadband, and sattelite is too expensive, so the thought of fast data over the radio is quite a nice one.

      --

      Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
      Leela: No he didn't.
    3. Re:Already here in the UK but... by Mystic+Smeg · · Score: 1
      They don't have DAB built in, but many DAB radio stations also broadcast on satellite and since yesterday digital terrestrial television.

      Interestingly DTT boxes are cheaper than DAB radios, and the BBC have abandoned plans to improve DAB coverage.

      --
      "God is a being of terrific character...cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:Already here in the UK but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if the body promoting digital radio in the UK (I forget their name) keeps being so unhelpful, no wonder.

      I checked their website some months ago and it was unreadable with anything but IE.

      I politely pointed out this to them and they basically told me to f**k off. So I could not check some important information in their IE only website.

      Very often we deride US regulations, but in this case I think something in the lines of the disabilty protection laws being discussed here a couple of days ago (regarding an airlines lack of help for blind people in their website) would be very much welcomed.

    5. Re:Already here in the UK but... by isorox · · Score: 2

      Tell them you are blind, and you'll sue them if they dont give you a text copy for your screen reader.

      Public funded institutions must since september, not sure about large companies, but the bad publicity wont be good.

    6. Re:Already here in the UK but... by isorox · · Score: 2

      The major difference between DAB and DTT is that DTT is directional (not good for cars/walking), DAB is omnidirectional.

  32. they're screwing community radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work as a DJ for a community radio station (WTJU wtju.radio.virginia.edu) and we just discussed this system at a recent meeting. It costs a fortune (in community radio terms) to upgrade to this system _and_ it requires a new device on the listener's end. iBiquity's ubiquity (sorry, I had to) could easily kill off another whole bunch of community radio stations, possibly mine.

    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.

    1. Re:they're screwing community radio by GoRK · · Score: 2

      Um. Nobody said you had to do a digital broadcast. Besides, even if you did get your license auctioned out from under you, you could probably persuade UVA to pick you up some digital AM equipment and an AM license. Digital broadcast on AM is easily better sounding than the current best analog FM technologies.

      Maybe digital AM is where community radio ought to be?

    2. Re:they're screwing community radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Nobody said you had to do a digital broadcast.

      That's the whole point, my friend, this will be the only way to broadcast. Either you buy the equipment from iBiquity, pay for the maintenance contracts, etc., or you don't broadcast.

      >Besides, even if you did get your license auctioned out from under you, you could probably persuade UVA to pick you up some digital AM equipment and an AM license.

      Why would the university sell off our our FM license and then buy us an AM one (not that there are any available ones to buy)?

      I doubt that the AM digital equipment is any cheaper than FM digital equipment.

      >Maybe digital AM is where community radio ought to be?

      Well, the above mentioned reasons aside (equipment costs, etc.), why should quality radio that directly serves the interest of the market it broadcasts into (serving the public vs. the corporate interests that pay to be the "hit o' the week") move aside? The FCC set aside parts of the band for NPR, etc., becuase it's non-commercial and information-packed. It's good stuff, and not what we want to have shoved aside for corporations that don't care.

      Does it sound like my answers are emotionally charged? Of course they are. Sure, there are probably dozens of technological and economic reasons to shove aside community radio, let the Clear Channel's of the world have their way and be forced to listen to Top 5 crap. Does that mean it's a good idea for the people of the community? No.

      As a parallel, I'm sure there are plenty of technological and economic reasons to force DRM into every hardware & software option out there. Clearly, it allows better quality music, right? It protects the musicians' (and they're backers) rights, etc., etc. That doesn't mean it's what's best for us.

      -Dan

    3. Re:they're screwing community radio by dodongo · · Score: 1

      I don't think you really have much to worry about, Dan. Don't forget several important things about this:

      -Most reassuringly, this new plan requires a pretty big change of listening habit for the end user. Every single radio every last one of us owns right now is obsolete as far as digital broadcasting is concerned.

      -It's going to cost Clear Channel the same arm and a leg it'll cost you, me, or anyone else to install digital simulcasting.

      -I'd venture to say the biggest impact this could ever have would be in the car, of course, with drive times being radio's big listenership numbers (as opposed to TV's prime time in the evening). I'm forced to ask what the hell difference a digital stream would make in the car: Great stereo system or not, you're still fighting LOTS of ambient noise in an environment like that. At least in my car, there's really no dramatic jump in signal quality from FM to CD.

      -Digital anything means you either got it or you don't. Lots of rural markets won't be able to get the signal anyway, because they're on the fringe of the signal as it is. It sounds OK analog on a decent receiver, but it'll be silent if it's grabbing a digital broadcast.

      My broadcast experience makes me moderate this story (1, Yawn).

    4. Re:they're screwing community radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I have been reading in Radio World over the last few months, small and publicly funded stations are going to have a tough time. Beyond the cost of equipment upgrades, iBiquity will be charging a licensing fee for use of the technology. This will apply to both the broadcaster and the manufacturer of the recievers.
      The whole IBOC issue has been a hot topic, especially for AM. It will be interesting to see how quickly, or if, broadcasters implement the new standard.

    5. Re:they're screwing community radio by Quarters · · Score: 2
      > Nobody said you had to do a digital broadcast.

      That's the whole point, my friend, this will be the only way to broadcast. Either you buy the equipment from iBiquity, pay for the maintenance contracts, etc., or you don't broadcast.


      What about the part in the article where it mentions that the digital broadcasts will be run along-side the standard FM broadcasts?

      Relax. Ibiquity will not get all American's to 'upgrade' to digital radio receivers. If American's are unwilling to purchase digital TV receivers in large quantities they will be even less likely to do the same for radios/stereos. With the majority of people still on FM there will still be need for FM broadcasts.
    6. Re:they're screwing community radio by Fastolfe · · Score: 2, Informative

      requires a new device on the listener's end

      It only "requires" it if the user wishes to listen to the digital broadcasts. I haven't heard anything that suggests they're going to be doing away with analog radio broadcasts any time in the near future, certainly not within the next 10 or 15 years. That's a lot of time for prices to come down.

    7. Re:they're screwing community radio by GoRK · · Score: 2

      >> Nobody said you had to do a digital broadcast.

      > That's the whole point, my friend, this will be the only way to broadcast. Either you buy the equipment from iBiquity, pay for the maintenance contracts, etc., or you don't broadcast.

      I happen to think that BMW is "the only way to drive" but that doesn't mean there isn't room for other cars on the road. The receiving radios still get analog FM. That's the whole point of broadcasting digitial in the subcarrier.

      > Why would the university sell off our our FM license and then buy us an AM one (not that there are any available ones to buy)?

      Because an FM license is worth more money than an AM license, and by liquidating the FM license and FM equipment in favor of AM and AM digital equipment you could probably actually afford to go to a digital broadcast.

      > I doubt that the AM digital equipment is any cheaper than FM digital equipment.

      No, but AM broadcasting equipment sure is. 5000W of AM goes a heck of a lot farther than 10,000W of FM. Just the cost difference in selling this would replace all your IF hardware with new digital magic. Plus, you'd actually increase your broadcast range.

      Look, I'm not a fan of commercial radio. I think it sucks. I have been in the radio business. I have written checkes to ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI. I wanted to license a LPFM 10W station for fun until Clear Channel, Cumulus, and AMFM (Before Clear Chanel sucked em up) ruined all that goodness. I don't think it's right to let money control who gets to broadcast, but you seem to think that it should also control how it is broadcast. That is bullshit. Allowing and promoting digital broadcasts can only help small stations. Here's why:

      By the time digital broadcasting are ubiquitous IF-stage digital equipment will be affordable, standardized, and probably available at much lower cost or even used. Until that time, analog broadcasts will still be able to be received by everyone's new digital radios. Just because FM analog will start sounding like shit compared to FM digital doesn't mean it won't work and you can't broadcast with it. Our cars still have AM radios don't they and they shound like ass!

      Digital on subcarrier broadcasting technologies also not only make the music sound better, but they increase the broadcast range tremendously due to decreased SNR requirements. Now your 10,000W FM station gets crystal clear reception another 35 miles away! 10W FM stations can have a coverage radius of 3-5 miles with digital broadcasts. Think of how much farther your 1000W AM station can go with digital - it's pretty wild! This is probably the most overlooked aspect of digital broadcasting, especially by low power stations.

      Finally, once digital broadcasting IS indeed ubiquitous, we can start doing fun stuff like cramming low power digital-only stations right next to other stations on the dial.. You can't very well do that at all with analog broadcast. More air means more opportunity. Clear Channel is going to run maybe 6 or 8 stations maximum in a market, If there are 200 "spots on the FM dial" for stations as opposed to what we've got now, someone's going to be able to fill them up.

      > Well, the above mentioned reasons aside (equipment costs, etc.), why should quality radio that directly serves the interest of the market it broadcasts into (serving the public vs. the corporate interests that pay to be the "hit o' the week") move aside?

      It seems to me that you are way too locked into old ways of thinking about radio. Assuming digital radio takes off bigtime, the notion of frequency and band will likely become as meaningless as they are in the television industry today. I mean, you probably don't go apeshit when the cable company bumps your favorite channel from Superband to Ultraband even though there's less bandwidth for it there - the picture is still passable. Why should radio be any different if you can make a high-quality digital broadcast on AM, FM, Shortwave, Weather bands, whatever. Why fight for some specific frequency if you can produce a quality show that people will listen to?

      > Does it sound like my answers are emotionally charged? Of course they are. Sure, there are probably dozens of technological and economic reasons to shove aside community radio, let the Clear Channel's of the world have their way and be forced to listen to Top 5 crap. Does that mean it's a good idea for the people of the community? No.

      Never did I mention shoving it aside. I just mentioned that digital am with a lower startup cost, more available licensing, and the afforded range of AM would be an ideal place for community, college, and independent radio stations.

      > As a parallel, I'm sure there are plenty of technological and economic reasons to force DRM into every hardware & software option out there. Clearly, it allows better quality music, right? It protects the musicians' (and they're backers) rights, etc., etc. That doesn't mean it's what's best for us.

      DRM is a totally different issue. It's an access control technology. Digital broadcasting has little parallel to DRM. More of a parallel would be to liken it to the days before FM radio or before CD players or before video cassettes. I mean, thinking that way is like saying that the CD player was forced onto the market by the record companies to crush smaller producers who could not afford to produce the expensive discs. (And they really used to be insanely expensive to manufacture) -- Companies still produce tapes today even though they are now more expenve than CD's.

      Radio will live on. Mabye someday it will be free and good and all that other great stuff, but until then, don't knock the digital. You know you want it. I mean if iBiquity or whatever they are called dropped the transmitting equipment off at your station for free including a free reciever for your car to hear it, would you really not hook it up?

      ~GoRK
      ~GoRK

    8. Re:they're screwing community radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For anyone who doesn't believe Clear Channel is trying to put the community stations out of business (from the University of Minnesota radio station page Radio K):

      Q: Why does Radio K sign off the airwaves at dusk?

      A: Stations like Radio K (KUOM) go off the air at night so they don't interfere with the so-called "clear channel" 50,000 watt powerhouses like WCCO-AM. There are other station around the country that operate during the daytime on 830, WCCO's frequency. But those stations have to go off the air at monthly average local sunset so they don't interfere with WCCO's signal.

      The reasons for this are:

      AM radio waves travel much farther at night than in the daytime.

      Back when this clear channel system was set up (in 1934), there were radio stations only in larger towns and big cities. The clears were established and protected at night so that people in the countryside and small towns would be able to get news and entertainment over the radio.

      The fact that every small town has a radio station now days is generally ignored as the clears are generally owned by the big media conglomerates who don't want to give up any of their power and range, and have the clout to keep that from happening.

      Radio K, by the way goes off the air at sunset to protect WABC in New York City. WABC is owned by the same conglomerate that owns KQRS, 93-X and V105.

  33. On other news... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1, Troll
    ...RIAA Craps it's Pants a Dark Brown

    ...iPod Saled Tripple Overnight and Remain Steady

    ...P2P Systems Under Strain: Users Recording Radio for Full Day onto Hard Drives, using Audio Software to Trim Individual Songs and make .mp3 and .ogg Files.

    Lovely... whatever happens to CD's in stores, some *terrorist* is going to record a day of music, enjoy listening through it as they trim out the individual songs and plot them into .ogg sweetness. Simple lovely.

  34. Read their site. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ibiquity.com/navframe.html?03content.ht ml

    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.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Read their site. by M-G · · Score: 2

      Tried their site, but /.ed

      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?

    2. Re:Read their site. by jandrese · · Score: 2

      Is that true? If so, maybe we should tell the latin rap station one channel away from my regular station to stop stomping all over my favorite channel. Granted their transmitter is much closer than the one I care about, but I really hate it when I can't listen to my favorite station because the other one is taking it's own and the 4 adjascnet channels (my radio locks on to their signal in 5 different frequncies!) for itself.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Read their site. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

      As to the first question:

      I assume by subcarrier you mean that it will be a signal that modulates the main FM carrier and is found as a sideband after demodulating the carrier. In this case, the answer is no. The digital signal is independently modulated from the FM carrier. (In fact, one upgrade path, although one that is potentially running afoul of FCC antenna siting regulations/licensing, is to transmit the digital signal on a seperate antenna from the analog signal.)

      As to the second question: I don't know.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    4. Re:Read their site. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's probably your receiver. It most likely has an extra-wide IF passband/bad frontent filtering that is simply allowing the main carrier to pass.

      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.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    5. Re:Read their site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There would be nothing "magic" about a license carrying over, therefore your use of "automagically" was totally and completely 100% retarded. Welcome to my foes list.

  35. fsck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that when one cut-and-pastes a URL, Slashcode often seems to put a space in the .html (i.e. .html becomes .ht ml)

    I've seen numerous URLs mangled like this, including the one above in my post...

  36. Surprising! by MamasGun · · Score: 1

    I was expecting the FCC to rubber-stamp the DirecTV/Dish Network merger. Maybe this signals some sort of change in priorities? Maybe the FCC might be wising up about the possible risks of all this consolidation of the media?

    Nah.

    --
    "But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever....In the digital world, we don't need back-ups..."
    -- Jack Valenti
    1. Re:Surprising! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe the FCC might be wising up about the possible risks of all this consolidation of the media?
      Yeah, so now News Corp. will buy DirectTV. So much for preventing consolidation. Meanwhile, satelite internet bites the dust, cause neither Hughes nor Echostar feels they can deploy it now. So much for broadband in rural America. And just last month they were complaining that broadband wasn't being adopted fast enough. Irony, anyone?

      Chalk another victory up to big money (Rupert "The Billionaire Tyrant" Murdoch, and the cable industry perhaps?). I think I'll not aplaud just yet.

  37. Yup... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that can be sort of assumed.

    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.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Yup... by Sogol · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is currently estimated at $75,000 for a small radio station.

    2. Re:Yup... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

      Wasn't planning on saying anything, but this jives with what I've heard.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:Yup... by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

      IIRC, that's about a 6-month budget for an "Public Radio" station.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    4. Re:Yup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should do a google search...but I'll ask anyways.

      (1) How much is it for all the radio equipment and license fees, e.g. starting from scratch? Purely that which is absolute and necessary to run a station, e.g. not the real estate itself or lawyer fees. Pretend the person is willing to broadcast out of a tent.

      $75,000...while that isn't pocket change for the vast majority of people, I found that somewhat, well, low. Commercial ad sales have gotta cover that.

      (2) Do any of the webcast streaming laws apply to digital broadcasts? I forget the 2 laws--but they're the one applying to digital performances and mandatory licensing schemes. I thought most of the digital performance laws were passed before the internet took off and were general in nature...just that the focus is on the internet because webcasting is the major scenario where the royalty payments impact the most. Do the royalty rates apply to AM/FM digital broadcasts?

  38. This uses _no_ additional spectrum by IncohereD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This standard broadcasts in the sidebands of the current FM channels, usuing NO additional spectrum. No extra interference, no extra channels needed.

    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.

  39. They must have heard.... by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...that I don't listen to the radio now that I have a CD-changer in my car. Certainly, I'm not the only one who despises the radio. I stopped listening because of too many commercial breaks, too LONG commercial breaks, inconvenient commercial breaks, and ridiculously short playlists.

    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.

    1. Re:They must have heard.... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought I was the only one to quit listening to radio because of that. I used to listen to a talk radio station on my way to work in the morning - Half hour commute - one way - When I realized all I was getting was a weather report (one minute) and five minutes of content. Hooked up with 24 minutes of commercials.

      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.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re:They must have heard.... by satterth · · Score: 1

      Some punk stole my broken radio a few months ago. Haha... To bad for him...

      I now listen to the traffic and things around me. (I'm not going to buy another radio just to have it stolen) It amazes me when I'm the only one who pulls over for the fire truck barreling down the street with its sirens on.

      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
    3. Re:They must have heard.... by MCZapf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What I can't stand is when I switch between five radio stations and they are all playing commercials. Then I try five minutes later and they are still playing commercials! For this to happen on five stations at once, and for it to happen so often, means they are playing an ungodly amount of commercials. (I've never actually listened all the way through a commercial break to find out how long it is.)

      On Saturday Mornings I listen to Car Talk on NPR. They have two two-minute breaks per hour. That's right: four minutes total (approximatly). A few years ago, they only had one break, and I was mildly annoyed when they added the second. But, those two breaks are heavenly compared to commercial radio.

    4. Re:They must have heard.... by Ntense007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah...i'm sure they heard....to the deafening silence as ppl are just listening to the CD's they made at home of mp3 music, as well as the proliferation of CD changers.

      Commercial radiois garbage. Too many commercials, ALL the time. Heck, I try to listen to sports talk radio here in SoCal and it is filled with commercials....3 minutes of sports talk, followed by 8 minutes of commercials. (BTW, the sports station is owned by CheapChan....errr....ClearChannel.)

  40. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by pro-mpd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yeah, no kidding about the dish compression. i was at costco watching dish on one of the hdtv plasma monitors right next to an ota (over-the-air) signal, and the ota blew dishnet away. i would not push inferior technology on people simply because there was no other alternative, so i am *certainly* glad the merger was not approved. oh, and as for digital cable, i'd rather NOT see ads with my program guide, kthxbye.

  41. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is this like a normal signal broadcast subaudibly on the normal carrier, or something like SCA?

  42. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, DirecTV compresses their video data nearly twice as highly as Dish Network does. DirecTV is the Wal-Mart of satellite TV.

    This is an unfortunate deal, I was hoping that DishNet would put DirecTV out of its misery. DishNet is a far higher end service with generally better equipment and far more high-definition content.

  43. This Sucks by mozumder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The FCC should have at least chosen a different digital modulation scheme, that although may not be backwards compatible, would enable bandwith to open up. I would rather have 500+ channels from multiple local vendors than 20 ClearChannel/ABC owned station all broadcasting the same useless fucking Eminem/Nelly song over and over. Right now the FCC is not taking applications for any more FM radio stations (although thousand try to apply). The move to digital would have allowed more people to enter the market, but instead the FCC didn't open up bandwith using a different scheme.

    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.

    1. Re:This Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the Jews would ever let you have 500 local radio stations??? LOL! Get real. Only if they control them all!

    2. Re:This Sucks by Sherloqq · · Score: 1

      Also, why a proprietary audio encoding scheme? Why not open source, royalty free Ogg Vorbis?

      RIAA, my friend. RIAA.
      Do you think they'd let you build your own FM receiver coupled with an Ogg Vorbis decoder so that you could rip all of their high quality-encoded music to your hard drive and not pay for it? So what that MP3, Ogg and others are lossy compression -- given high enough bitrate, it's hard to tell. For listening in the car, with all the noise around you, even smaller bitrate is quality bitrate. But they'd be damned if they made your (or my) job of ripping their music easier.

      --
      Have EVDO, will travel.
  44. wonderful by Raiford · · Score: 4, Funny
    Now I can get CD quality lousy programming. At least with satellite I am not stranded in the programming desert that I find in broadcast radio here in Sacramento

    --
    "player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
    1. Re:wonderful by PatJensen · · Score: 2
      Could be worse. You could be in Fresno!

      I love my XM radio, and I just got a Dish PVR at home. Life is good.

    2. Re:wonderful by EvilStein · · Score: 2

      Oh, come on. At least we have Rob, Arnie, and Dawn.. :-)

      But you're right. I'm still pissed off that Power 105 became a stupid Christian station..105, The Fish.

      Clear Channel has ruined the Sacramento market as well.. KXOA is *still* floundering around trying to find a workable format.. =/

  45. Same old... by tigertigr · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is all well and good, but the DJ is still gonna talk over the start and ends of the song, thereby fucking up your nice digital recording.

  46. Open mouth, insert foot??? by unicorn · · Score: 2

    He's complaining about bandwidth being wasted on the airwaves . And his example (and the follow-on example from SomeoneGotMyNick are both Cable-only channels. I would LOVE an explanation how one relates to the other.

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
  47. Digital Modulation efficiency ( analog) by IncohereD · · Score: 1

    Again, yet another case of RTFA. The digital information is being broadcast within the current FM channels' guardbands, assigning NO new spectrum to anyone.

    And it's actually lower power. If you think moving things to digital INCREASES bandwidth usage, you're seriously misinformed. The most inefficient thing on the entire spectrum is analog TV......_6 MHz_ per channel. You can serve almost 200 simultaneous cellphone users on that, or maybe 30 of them watching better quality video than you could get on analog TV.

    Wake up and smell the spread-spectrum. Digital is increasing capacity, not lowering it. Compression, vocoders, low probability of intercept, it's all leagues more efficient than CB radio could ever be.

  48. just more proprietary equipment... by pro-mpd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    sure, it's a "standard," but think about this for a minute. gm vehicles have been coming with xm for a while. what happens to the people that bought xm? what about people who want digital radio but have a radio they want to keep, or a high-end head unit that they bought for quality but can't get any models with digital? car radios need to be more like home stereos. we're dealing with products that are basically a closed system, no expandability which need to be replaced whenever we want a new feature. not to mention that of the few forays into this matter, only a few are truly useful, namely the car stereos with line inputs. screw the "xm ready" proprietary hookups. it needs to be more universal.

    then again, i want a toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards, baby. sorry for the rant.

    1. Re:just more proprietary equipment... by changa_lion · · Score: 1

      >what happens to the people that bought xm?

      Like me... They will stick with XM not because of the "Digital Quality" but because of the Programing.

      Broadcast Radio... Sucks!

      Yeah I am so going to hear "The Aquabats" and "Me First and the Gimmie Gimmie's" On Kiss FM.

  49. satelite radio by newr00tic · · 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..



    --
    A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
    1. Re:satelite radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      khz = kbps? =)

    2. Re:satelite radio by FrankNputer · · Score: 1

      Uhhmm...they did. It's called XM Sattellite Radio. :^/

  50. No additional spectrum by IEEEmember · · Score: 4, Informative
    To address repeated comments about spectrum usage, no additional spectrum is required.

    Please see Digital Radio Takes to the Road specfically the section on IBOC (In-band/On-channel). Specifically see this figure which presents how the data is added to the current AM and FM channels.

    1. Re:No additional spectrum by IEEEmember · · Score: 2, Informative
      Sorry, forgot the article link:

      Digital Radio Takes to the Road

    2. Re:No additional spectrum by Kooglebot · · Score: 1

      The real question is whether IBOC interferes with adjacent freqencies. This is related to spectrum usage, but the graphic you linked to seems to indicate that IBOC uses quite a bit more spectrum. So what is the effect of this mode of broadcasting on other stations?

      For an informed discussion of this question, you might look at http://www.worldofradio.com/dxld2144.txt. This is a rather long text file of mostly shortwave radio news, but if you do a search, you will find a very interesting discussion of IBOC on the mediumwave AM band by people who eat, breath, and sleep radio. There is some praise of IBOC, but some people who have heard actual over-the-air IBOC tests complain that they heard just AWFUL interference with neighboring stations. The ``buzz'' (if you'll pardon the expression) seems to be that IBOC could pose a real interference problem if you want to hear a weak station that is nearby on the dial. The problem seems to be sideband noise.

  51. Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The main reasons it's taken so long are technical.

    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.

  52. In "CD Quality" We Trust by jukal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    > It allows "CD quality" digital signals to be simulcast

    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?

    1. Re:In "CD Quality" We Trust by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      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?

      I blame Microsoft. Or maybe Creative.

      The first GUI PC I saw (A late-Windows 3.11 machine) had audio settings for "CD-Quality," "Radio Quality," and "Telephone Quality."

    2. Re:In "CD Quality" We Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said anything about Cd quality being the standard for excellent sound quality. Just using it as a guage that most can relate to.

    3. Re:In "CD Quality" We Trust by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      Hell, a lot of CDs I own aren't "CD quality" (whatever that might be).

      You'll probably hear most stations refer to this as "digital quality," anyway. Broadcasters won't wanna remind listeners that there's a CD player in front of them.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    4. Re:In "CD Quality" We Trust by JPelzer · · Score: 3, Informative

      > When did "CD quality" become the standard for excellent sound quality. And why?

      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.

    5. Re:In "CD Quality" We Trust by jukal · · Score: 2
      > CD quality (44.1KHz, 16bit) is the defacto standard because

      All I can say is thank you. These details made my day :)

  53. This will never take off by Klaruz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It suffers from the same problem as web radio. You're sending a digital stream to a user's reciever. Even with a flag, a user could bypass it and copy digital quality music from it. At least that's the theory behind the taxes that web radio must pay to the RIAA.

    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.

    1. Re:This will never take off by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      That's $0.0007 per performance? That's less than $1 a day. Doesn't sound too bad.

    2. Re:This will never take off by Klaruz · · Score: 2

      It's $.0007 per listener per song

      100 listeners
      * 480 3 minute songs a day
      * 30 days a month
      -----------
      1,440,000 performances a month
      * $.0007
      -----------
      $1008 a month in royalties due

      right now tag's trance trip has almost 2000 users connected, that's around $20k due in royalties each month.

      there's lots of other crap involved too like record keeping, check http://www.kurthanson.com/ for more info.

    3. Re:This will never take off by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      It's $.0007 per listener per song

      Show me somewhere official where it says that. I read $.0007 per performance, which might be per listener when unicasting over the internet, but this isn't about unicasting over the internet, it's about broadcasting over the airwaves.

  54. The RIAA shouldn't care that much by ianscot · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Until "zany" morning show hosts are prohibited by law from cutting into, fading out, and otherwise shredding music on the air, I can't see the RIAA sweating this one that much. Sure, the sound of "Dangerous Dan the Morning Man" and his "Zoo Crew" of backups might be crystal clear, but nobody wants to record it at the start and finish of "Thunder Road" for posterity.

    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.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:The RIAA shouldn't care that much by sopwath · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The whole point of satelite radio is to get away from Dan and the stupid zoo crew.(commercials, bad play lists, etc) Digital FM takes care of the least important factor killing radio.

  55. to prevent "page-widening attacks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone put a really long URL in a post, the browser might (heaven forbid) layout the page wrong.

  56. DTV Echstar merger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing this might be good news for people who live in rural areas, but it is terrible news for people(like me) who live nearer to metropolitan areas but cannot get local stations on DTV. This decision only helps reinforce local cable monopolies, their terrible service and gouging prices. I for one am VERY disappointed in this decision. I was so looking forward to adding a TivO recever too. Oh well, guess I'll keep not watching network stuff.

  57. Re:Approve Linux... by 613746 · · Score: 0

    Approve Microsoft, kill Linux

  58. I Still like SCA by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An ancient system, low quality muzak, Subsiderary Communications Authorization - commercial free elevator music! It's supposed to be a pay service for offices etc, but with the right decoder from Ramsey Electronics and connection to an FM set (has to pickup before deemphasis as it's up around 67Khz in the audio). Little known and fairly easy to pick up. But there's only one left in my metro area, probably they're dying off. I love it, I really do! There's no commercials, no vocals or words, nothing offensive or nerve wracking, no politics, news or sports, just plain, bland wallpaper music, ALL the time, heheh.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:I Still like SCA by Shamanin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since when does SCA mean anything but the Society for Creative Anacronisms... man, is any acronym sacred?

      --
      come on fhqwhgads
  59. Proper protocol? by Thud457 · · Score: 1, Funny

    This being the FCC, shouldn't their Roshambo protocol be "Rock,Paper,Scissors,Lizard,Spock"?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  60. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by -Surak- · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, the Dish PVR really sucks, doesn't it. It runs Linux, it's completely hackable, is standards complient, and you don't have to pay $10 or whatever for a monthly subscription just to get your program listings. What a lame product. Yes, the early versions were a little buggy, but it's mostly worked out now. The TIVO was bug-free from day 1?

    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?

  61. Republican vs. Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I find it funny that ATT/comcast merger is allowed even though it will create a company who has a virtual monopoly in each of its markets and will control > 50% of all cable customers. Yet, this merger would have 2 companies with a national charge (that is one price no matter where you live). This new company would have a better chance of competiting against the cables and providing lower costs.
    It is amazing what payola to the right person can do.

  62. Happy Happy Joy Joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What wonderful news! Now, I'll be able to tune in and hear the sounds of N'Sync and Brittney Spears in enhanced digital audio! I note that radio stations are commited to improving their signal, NOT their programming.

  63. How is that a troll? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    I agree with him, if anything, the original post is the troll.

    One of the biggest achievements to HDTV was achieving increased quality *IN THE SAME BANDWIDTH*

    The only really solid specification throughout the development of HDTV was that it had to fit in the existing 6 MHz channel spacing.

    I believe they extended this to allow multiple "standard definiton" channels per 6 MHz channel. Something like 4. So with digital techniques, broadcasters can use their spectrum four times more efficiently. (Either 4x the pixels, or 4x the content at "old" resolutions).

    IBOC one-ups this by fitting CD-quality audio into what is currently *waste spectrum* in the current FM band. (All channels are taken, but the channels are widely spaced. IBOC fits quite nicely in the guard bands of each channel.)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  64. USA Vs UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Digital Radio service has been running in the UK now for nearly 2 years!

  65. TiVo for Radio by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

    Funny, the site seems to be slashdotted:

    http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/TiVo_20Car_20Radio

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  66. Oh, I forgot to mention. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    The total guard band power for IBOC is approximately 1/100 of the analog FM carrier power for the same range covered.

    So not only is it more efficient spectrum-wise, it's more efficient RF power wise.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  67. Does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RIAA will start charging radio stations the web casting rates for the digital stream?

    This could be a boon for 'net broadcasting because if they don't charge, it proves the arguments they used to start charging web casters are false. This could be interesting.

  68. why can't they make more FM quality stations? by RocketRay · · Score: 1

    My radio knowledge is a bit rusty, but each FM radio station uses a pretty large chunk of spectrum. Why can't they use frequency modulation (or, amplitude modulation) to encode the sound digitally? It stands to reason that you could put hundreds of stations in the space of one current FM station.

    And then the whole problem of Clear Channel goes away. Each market can have a few *thousand* radio stations and we can have diverse stations like rave or metal back.

    Why isn't this being done?

    1. Re:why can't they make more FM quality stations? by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Informative
      Each FM station is currently allocated 200kHz of spectrum in the united states. The FM band currently sits between 88 and 108MHz, inclusive. That leaves 99 channels 200kHz wide a piece.

      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.... :)

    2. Re:why can't they make more FM quality stations? by sopwath · · Score: 1

      You seem to know what you're talking about...

      Why, if COFDM is better, would the FCC decide on 8VSB? Is it because 8VSB would interfere more with regular FM radio? Doen't Europe use FM too? I'm probably way off here.

    3. Re:why can't they make more FM quality stations? by Mystic+Smeg · · Score: 1

      Because they always choose a different (usually inferior - look at ATSC v DVB) standard from the rest of the world to protect American oligopolies from cheaper competition. One word, Patents.

      --
      "God is a being of terrific character...cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:why can't they make more FM quality stations? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1
      Well, I was indirectly involved, or at least very well informed on this process from the beginning. There was a bitter debate between various HDTV consortiums, and the one with the lesser technology won. I believe it was due mostly to the fact that many stations had already gone on the air and were complaining about the cost of using a different modulation scheme (i.e. replacing hardware.

      One more technical (and speculative) answer is this: COFDM, since it requires a lower signal to noise ratio, can cover a greater range than AM (8VSB) can, given the same power. Therefore, with moderate amounts of power, it would be more likely for a DTV station to intrude into another station's BTA. So, rather than use less power, it was decided to simply keep the lesser capable modulation standard and not require the hundreds of stations on the air to replace their equipment.

      Another more sound technical answer is this: in OFDM, Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing, there exists the possibilty to have a very high dynamic range in the signal. That is, the strength of the strongest signal versus the strength of the weakest signal. So, if you wanted, say, 10 Watts of average output power, you would have to design a very linear amplifier that was capable of something like 40 Watts (assuming your coding can get the dynamic range down to 6dB). If your coding is good for 10dB, you would need a 100 watt amplifier to transmit a 10 watt DTV signal. Europe decided on the more expensive approach in favor of providing a better service to its citizens. The US decided on what would make the most profit for the broadcasters.

      Hope this helps.

    5. Re:why can't they make more FM quality stations? by mozumder · · Score: 1

      Interstation interference is effectively solved in the Cell phone world by dividing regions into cells and seperating frequencies by cells. Cell methods could be applied to a larger area broadcast, as well. Stations could rent bandwidth on (upgraded) local cell towers, and since it will be digital radio/video, all that the users have to do tune into a station is to select a station call ID, which a digital receiver would be able to pick out among all the stations that it is currently receiving.

    6. Re:why can't they make more FM quality stations? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1
      Your statement applies to broadcasting as well:

      Interstation interference is effectively solved in broadcasting by dividing the regions into BTAs and separating frequencies by BTA.

      This is precisely what the FCC does, except BTAs are much more scientifically determined. Cell phone networks are designed for continuous coverage with as few holes as possible. BTAs are designed to guarantee a station can cover X number of people while at the same time PREVENTING a broadcaster from encroaching on the boundary of another stations BTA (on the same channel).

  69. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by -Surak- · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Arrgh. Must proofread TWICE next time.

    4) should read:
    Neither Echostar or DTV (DirecTV)

    To make this post worthwhile, here's a glossary for the uninitiated:

    DVB - Digital Video Broadcast. The worldwide standard for digital satellite TV. Echostar (Dish Network) uses this standard. Video is MPEG-2, audio is generally Layer 2.

    CATV - Community Antenna TV. An old term for Cable TV, from the days when they simply rebroadcast a signal from a big antenna on mountaintop, without no special programming.

    DSS - Digital Satellite System. The proprietary standard that DirecTV uses for video broadcast. If the merger goes through, this will likely be replaced by standards-complient MPEG2-DVB equipment over a few (many) years.

    TV - TeleVision. Probably the largest single reason 60% of americans are fat and lazy.

  70. Hold on to your public radio by wontonenigma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You may just have to kiss your public radio goodbye as well. The FCC just gave iBiquity a monopoly over something that ALL radio stations will be required to have in the next few years, like HDTV. However, iBiquity is charging thousands of dollars upfront for the encoders and will charge monthly for the use of their equipment! This is a bad thing!

    I work with a college station in VA that gets alot of funding from the university, and this development will raise operating costs exponentially. Only large commercial stations will be able to afford these digital broadcasts in the long run. What is it about iBiquity that warrants a government sanctioned monopoly?

    --
    A sig! What kind of person do you think I am?
  71. This is entirely different... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    XM/Sirius address completely different markets.

    XM/Sirius provide consistent radio channels anywhere in the country.

    IBOC provides digital capability for local content.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  72. Will it cost more? by anthony_dipierro · · 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.

  73. Or by sulli · · Score: 1

    it will be like Digital TV, whose five or six current viewers are now wondering where all those promised signals are.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  74. maybe not your radio... by lophophore · · Score: 1

    It might not be your radio. If I recall correctly, the maximum permitted deviation for a FM station is 82.5 KHz (for stations running SCA, otherwise, 75KHz), however, that is widely ignored. Many FM stations deliberatly overdeviate so they sound louder than other stations. I have measured several broadcast FM station using FM deviation of nearly 100 KHz. At 100KHz wide, it will surely be detected on the adjacent channels.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  75. DAB in the UK by fiddlesticks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some FAQs

    Some technical FAQs (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 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.

    1. Re:DAB in the UK by krazor84 · · Score: 1

      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 :) Actually it is the BBC. As the BBC has to show that it's staying in the forefront of technology (I think it's in the charter) to keep recieving public money. What does this mean? Well, every new gizmo that is available the BBC snaps up and uses it; digital TV, digital radio, web TV (only partial but coming soon) and of course, all it's radio staitions are streamed on the web with missed shows available on demand. If the BBC isn't the future of what broadcasting should be (technologicaly wise) then what is?

  76. IBOC Scheme by John+Leeming · · Score: 1

    Attended seminar on this, work with public radio station.

    Average cost per station to upgrade: $80,000 to $350,000, depending on wattage

    Average cost in licensing technology: $20,000 to $70,000

    Average cost of home/car receiver: $120 to $400

    Net effects: Forced change in SCA (sub carrier authorization) schemes will cause SCA users to engage new equipment, or abandon it.

    Signal loss in terms of reach/distance as well as clarity: Delta-V...you'll get "CD quality" for about 1/3 of the present "FM quality" signal, as IBOC mandates each station to broadcast 10% of current wattage.
    At 2/3 of present "FM quality" signal, you'll start noting degradation of signal.

    At the limits of present "FM quality" signal, IBOC will be AM quality or worse.

    Ultimate scheme? To utilize the 'blank' areas on the FM dial and increase available channels. The "blank areas" are the 'even number' settings (91.2, 94.4, 101.8) that analog technology interferes with.

    Net result? More channels, shorter broadcast range, reduced overall signal quality, forced introduction of new technology on consumers as well as businesses/non-profits running stations.

    Biggest problem? Will force elimination of non-profit/public radio stations that can't affort the ~$500,000 to access this technology.

    --
    "Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
  77. Sirius over ClearChannel's XM by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 2

    XM...
    (i) has commercials. Not much, 5mins/hr, but still. Who'd notice if it went up to 5.5, then 6?
    (ii) Own by Clear Channel. The same people who killed radio. Ok they didn't do it all by themselves :)

    Sirius...
    (i) more expensive. $13 as opposed to $10/month for XM.
    (ii) All commercial-free channels.

    I love radio. My favorite thing when I can't sleep ( which is very often ), is to go for a long drive and listen to the radio. Some of my best memories as a child is going out for sunday drives with my dad, talking and listening to the radio. But as so many have pointed out, radio is slowly losing its soul.

    It seems satellite is the only way to go. But I'd bet that if ClearChannel's XM wins the greater market share, then satellite will suffer the same fate as AM/FM.

    As usual, I'm betting on the underdog. XM is own by ClearChannel/DirecTv and a much of others, but sirius seems to make up by delivering a more appealing product.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  78. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Higher quality? Better picture, sound and service? I personally don't see it. I've been a happy Dish customer for two years now.

    Even if that is true, I hope you enjoy paying DirecTV's ridiculous HIGHER RATES to get it. :P

  79. More info at Wired by dirvish · · Score: 5, Informative

    2 good articles over at Wired. One on the approval of the digital standard and another on the merger rejection.

  80. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by -Surak- · · Score: 2

    The satellites won't need to be replaced, since they all operate in the same band. A communications satellite is nothing more than a "bent pipe in the sky" - it just retransmits whatever it receives. It doesn't know or care about the signal itself, or even if it's digital or analog. (Hence the name "Echostar").

    Replacing the consumer's equipment WILL cost a lot of money, however. Echostar has stated that they will replace a customer's equipment if it is necessary to receive the same programming the currently get. No one will need to "go out and buy" new equipment to keep their service.

    (another minor nitpick - GEO satellites are rarely "deorbited". Because they are so far out, it would take much more fuel than they carry (especially at end of life) to deorbit them. Instead, they generally use the last little bit of fuel to push them a little bit out past GEO orbit where they won't get in the way of anything.)

  81. Ibiquity is in band on channel digital... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ibuiquity is on channel FM. A digital carrier is inserted at a level about 20 db below the main carrier. Because of the 'capture effect' of FM modulation, a signal 20 db down will not interfere with the main (analog)FM signal. However there is a caveat: The above is true only when the FM receiver is in full limiting (strong signal). With a weak signal, all bets are off. By the way, Ibquity runs with a (MASSIVE) 96 Kbits/sec, using a modified form of APT-X compression. Try listening to a 96K MP3 file and you'll get the idea of how good (or bad, depending upon your point of view) Digital FM will sound. By the way, Digital AM radio by Ibquity runs with a (HUGE) 32Kbits/second stream. It just don't sound too good....

  82. 5th commissioner being held up by politics by dcgaber · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a very timely question. It is answered in this article and this op-ed.

    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).

  83. CB or Ham? Piracy protection? by sharph · · Score: 0

    Yeah, this is pretty cool, but could it be adopted for CB or ham radio? Also, as things start to get digital, would you start getting copy protection, etc? That would be bad.

  84. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by "Zow" · · Score: 2
    The TIVO was bug-free from day 1?

    Yes. Okay, we bought ours on day 1, but didn't set it up until a few weeks later (it was my Christmas gift) -- still we were running 1.0 and it was rock solid. The stability has actually decreased over time: in the 2.x line I had to do the unplug to reset trick twice. Other than that, bug-free from day 1.

    -"Zow"

  85. I find that hard to believe... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Such a thing would be a pretty quick road to FCC license revocation...

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:I find that hard to believe... by lophophore · · Score: 1

      The FCC doesn't have staff to watch all this anymore. They won't bother unless someone complains.

      --
      there are 3 kinds of people:
      * those who can count
      * those who can't
  86. Reasons for rejection of merger by wyopittsa · · Score: 3, Informative

    The FCC and DOJ were particularly concerned that the merger of DirectTV and Echostar would effectivle create a monopoly. Charlie Ergan and the rest of the advocates of the merger argued that the merger was necessary in order to effectively compete with cable. The problem is that in many areas of the country (rural areas, and more than you might think) consumers have a choice of either satellite or nothing. So, the merger would have effectively been a 2:1 and created a monoply in many areas of the country. While it's true that competitive efficiencies may have increased in some urban areas (big satellite company v. cable), the FCC's general policy is that creating competive efficiencies in one market isn't worth creating a monoply in other markets.

    1. Re:Reasons for rejection of merger by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Yeah yay, so I get to keep my mast with antenna so I can get my locals. I do have a cable company but it offers 17 channels. DISH is cheaper for me and is a better quality. But hey thanks FCC, I don't need to see my local news without snow.

    2. Re:Reasons for rejection of merger by wyopittsa · · Score: 2

      Well, the FCC is of the opinion that competition is the better route to go. In other words, by pitting DirectTV and Echostar against each other they'll compete by offering better services at lower prices. So, in your case the thinking is that either Echostar or DirecTV will begin offering you local channels due to competition in an effort to garner your business. On the other hand, if they had merged then there would have been no incentive (in your case) to offer the local channels since you're already a customer.

    3. Re:Reasons for rejection of merger by sunking2 · · Score: 2

      Give me a break. The number of people who cannot get cable is insignificantly small. I back this up with dtv's claim that with only 64 out of over 1000 tv markets they claim to give over a 65% population coverage. And the rest can always go big dish. Up until satellite, I had no choice but cable or big dish, yet that was perfectly fine with everyone. This merger pretty much means I'll never get local channels except over the airwaves whereas I'd probably have to wait a year or so if the merge went through.

    4. Re:Reasons for rejection of merger by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      That is one view. I look at it liek this: DISH is cheaper than cable in most markets. But people don't want DISH or DirecTV if tehy can't get locals. cables will always offer locals. If it takes til 2010 to get the whole country's locals on DISH or DirecTV that sucks.

  87. I call BS by _damnit_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I call bullshit! The Republicans did the same thing to Clinton for six years. This is simply what happens when the White House and Senate are held by different parties. You can't expect Dems to approve the conservative right to life'rs that Bush sends up there. Toward the end of his term, he will send up a load of more centrist appointees (with hidden right-wing gems mixed in) to try to get some seats filled prior to a dem taking over. It happened with Clinton and Bush the First, it'll happen again. Don't sweat it too much.

    --


    _damnit_

    It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
  88. But will they allow DRM? by Mystic+Smeg · · Score: 1

    Two questions. Will the FCC approve DRM? Or will the FCC approve DRM?

    --
    "God is a being of terrific character...cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." Thomas Jefferson
  89. Digital AM? by JPelorat · · Score: 1

    Great, that's all the 'morning moron' jockeys need is a legitimate excuse to say "DAM Radio" a lot.

    "We're on the DAM Radio this morning! Turn up your DAM Radio and listen to this! Hyuck!"

    --
    Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  90. Incorrect info on XM vs Sirius commercials by jcrb · · Score: 2

    Both have commercials.
    All of Sirius' music is commerical free, the other 40 channels have commercials.
    Maybe 1/2 of XM's music channels have commercials, but depending on what you listen to you might never notice it. If you like classic/alternative rock (Top Tracks, Deep Tracks, Fred, Ethel, The Loft) you never hear commercials. Same goes for Jazz and Classical, of which only 1 out of 10 channels has commercials.

    Now if you listen to Top 20, KISS, The Heart, MTV radio, VH1 radio.... well then you get commercials..

    as far as ClearChannel's investment leading to dull boring content.... ok I'll admit on XM you get NASCAR while Sirius gives you three different channels of PBS........ um thats bad right... not that I listen to DNC .. I mean public radio any more.... but come on, their commedy channels are so "live and uncut" that they have a form you can submit to turn them off if you dont want your kids to tune them in by mistake :)

    --
    -jon
  91. Sirius by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    I've had Sirius for a couple months now, and love it. Plain and simple, it's better radio. The subscription isn't necessarily the hurdle, however, as the special receiver costs a couple hundred, plust the antenna (70 after a rebate.)

    The nicest thing is: while driving thru the Mojave and hitting the SEEK button and watching it spin through all frequencies, AM and FM, without a catch, I will have 100 channels to choose from day or night. Yeah, I could get KSL (Salt Lake City) and some other clear channel (not the company) stations after nightfall, but it do get boring while driving during the day.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  92. The really cool part ... by yusing · · Score: 1


    Since everyone's feeling lazy today, I guessed it was my turn to find a URL.

    A check here reveals that:

    1. "With the FCC action, IBOC technology is the approved digital broadcast AM/FM system for the U.S. market...."

    The really cool part is that this is one company's technology that's been approved for use on the Public Airwaves (TM).

    2."The Federal Communications Commission ... approved the digital broadcasting technology of iBiquity Digital, which allows digital broadcasting in the AM and FM bands."

    So look ... it's not just FM.

    3. "IBiquity's investors include 15 of the nation's top radio broadcasters, including ABC, Clear Channel and Viacom; financial institutions such as J.P. Morgan Partners, Pequot Capital and J&W Seligman; and strategic partners Ford Motor Company, Harris, Texas Instruments and Visteon...."

    With investors like that, clearly we're going to get better and better quality music. We should Pequot happy. The Harris standing up on the back of my neck.

    4. "one of the most sweeping advancements in broadcasting in nearly a century...."

    Translation: same old crap will now come in clear as a bell. A big tolling Bell of Death.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  93. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  94. I would rather have a little static, thank you by LoRider · · Score: 1

    There is no way this is going to work. Ever watch DirecTV and have the signal go alittle wacky? It's either on or off, it doesn't just get fuzzy. So you are driving in your car with your new fangled digital radio rocking out to Britney and it starts to rain really hard and the signal gets alittle sketchy. Do you know how annoying that is going to be to listen to music completely stop and then start. "Hit ... baby ... time".

    Bad idea number 3,330,549,023.

    --
    LoRider
    1. Re:I would rather have a little static, thank you by AlphaOne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As far as I know, DirecTV doesn't put a lot of error correction into their signals... loss of a block of data just scrambles up your picture.

      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).

      --
      All opinions presented here aren't mine.
  95. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by gstevens · · Score: 1

    "Without a merger, it is not cost effective for either company to rebroadcast local channels is (sic) ALL markets...."

    So what's preventing DirecTV and Echostar from standardizing their local channel satellite broadcasts? They could have some sort of agreement, short of a merger, that would allow both services to offer local channels for all major markets. They could pool their local satellite channels, and broadcast them in some form that both companies' receivers could decode. If there had been a merger, it would have required new equipment to receive their combined satellite broadcasts anyway....

  96. Alfy says What It's All About by yusing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's Digital FM really about?

    Here's 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."

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  97. Stations currently testing this tech by charnov · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is a list of stations that is CURRENTLY testing this technology. I have no idea what type of receiver you need for this.

    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.

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
    1. Re:Stations currently testing this tech by charnov · · Score: 1

      After reading up on it, it looks like they expect demos of receivers at the CES in January (Japan). Also, ClearChannel, Ford, et al. are in on this so I think we can all look forward to this soon becoming the next standard. Sorry XM, ouch...

      Wonder how long it'll take them to design pop-up ads for the receivers (I bet less than 24 hours after it goes live...heh)

      --
      [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  98. TLC does indeed suck now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the History channel is, if anything, worse. Have you seen that "history come alive" show? Recently they had that guy making a surfboard. On the History channel. Oh yeah, that's historical.

  99. Dish Network/direct TV merger by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 1

    Merging these two would indeed create a Monopoly. They need not bother trying to appeal, that would be a Trivial Pursuit. Peole who think the merger would be a good thing need to get a Clue. Rates for satellite TV would go as high as cable, and then they would be Sorry!

    --
    That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
  100. Michael Powell's curious record by Jasn · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's time (again) to ask for whose interests friend-of-Verizon Michael Powell is really working? And whether our economy (especially the communications industry) can thrive during his tenure?

  101. It has NOTHING to do with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the main reason companies like ours (Clear Channel) backed this was to remain marketing-competitive with the digital audio of XM and Sirius. It had nothing to do with "squeezing out the little guy," since it maintains a conventional signal in addition to the new digital subcarriers.

    It will be MANY years before anyone is ready to consider transitioning away from analog service, and production receivers will handle both systems until long after that.On the bright day a decade or so down the line when we're all ready to become a fully digital service, there will be buttloads of bandwidth for new stations. Let's do it.

    Rather than whining about The Injustice Of It All, team up with other nonprofits and form a 501 C-3 trust to fund digital upgrades for smaller braodcasters. You will find Clear Channel and other companies willing to donate to such a group: we can use the write-off, and it will demonstrate that our intent was to improve the technical quality and long-range viability of our medium, not strangle nonprofits. Everybody wins.

    In-band digital is good for broadcasters and consumers. Thank Wodin they went with a single system.

    Oh--regarding your ASCAP and BMI reporting. If you can't handle the paperwork, stop your streaming. It ain't that damn hard.If you're a "community" station, why are you streaming, anyway? Vanity?

  102. Why not just use DAB? by FeatherBoa · · Score: 1

    Man, why can't you guys use DAB like everyone else?

  103. Community Radio Shouldn't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who has worked in small market radio for 10 years (yeah, I have no ambition, whats your excuse) and a two year stint in college at a public radio station, I respect Dan's opinions. But I think this could be the best thing since FM radio, not only for broadcasters but for the listeners as well.

    Provided your frequency is between 88.1-91.9 FM, the frequencies reserved for non-commercial broadcasting, the Clear Channels of the world wouldn't have any interest. Public radio can't figure out how to support itself without commercials and they've been doing it for decades. What chance does a commercial station that makes 95% or more of its revenue from commericals have? No commmercials = Unhappy Shareholders.

    I have my doubts Clear Channel lobbied for this to kill off traditional non-commercial community stations (those between 88.1-91.9 FM) or even kill off small market stations. Clear Channel has a monopolistic position in many major markets and stations outside those cities can't make a dent in their performance.

    The important thing to remember is, this isn't a forced change. There are stations that still do well on the AM band today, and I imagine if digital radio catches on, there will be non-digital stations doing well five years from now. Yes the Clear Channels of the world are going to make more money from this change. Clear Channel has probably figured out a way to make thier audience pay for "extra content" too, but hey, the kids will just have to forgo that Teen Cosmo.

    Digital radio has the potential to revitalize the AM band, stations primarily owned by family and small corportae radio groups. Outside the high-power AM signals, there hasn't been a lot of interest in the AM band for years, especially from the Clear Channels of the world. There are a large number of lower power, community serving, AM stations that will never make enough money to attract the interest of a big corporation.

    The whole internet broadcasting fiasco is an entirely different rant for another day, the rules are unrealistic but what do you expect from the record cartels?

  104. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by -Surak- · · Score: 2

    The 721 is available now... check Ebay or any of the online retailers. I just ordered one, in fact.

    And the standard I referred to is MPEG-DVB. This is the international standard for TV broadcast. It also means that you can (on the DishPlayer and 501, at least) pull the original MPEG-2 program stream from the drive and edit it on a computer. This is the only way to edit content with NO analog stage, from the content provider (in most cases) all the way through your DiVX encoder. Granted, I'm sure the MPAA isn't real happy about this "feature", and the 721 may store the stream encrypted, but having the content MPEG-2 is a big start. Even if you can pull the content off the DirecTIVO, it will be in the proprietary encoding used in DSS, or it will have been re-encoded/transcoded by the TIVO hardware - not sure if it records the satellite transport stream or not.

    I wasn't thinking of it in the original post, but another standard it uses is USB... so you can use off the shelf ethernet adapters, instead of some funky custom hack the TIVO needs. For what it's worth, Echostar runs their GPL compliency web server on a 721.

    And yeah, the drive upgrade issue is a pain, but all of the vendors go to some effort to make that difficult. Tivo doesn't exactly make it a supported process, either.

  105. Right about now... by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Echostar's Board of Directors is wondering who the hell forgot to give the check to the GOP last week.

    --
    "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
  106. CD Quality? Ha!!! by Xenu · · Score: 2

    If you think your typical FM station is going to broadcast CD quality music, dream on. They are incapable of broadcasting FM quality music. The average FM station has a program director who doesn't think his signal is competitive unless every last decibel of dynamic range has been exterminated. They use multi-band compressors to get 100% modulation in every frequency range. They don't care if it sounds like shit, with high distortion and no dynamics.

  107. UK Digital Radio by BandoMcHando · · Score: 1

    It seems that in the UK we are a bit luckier on the digital radio front, since we have two main digital networks , the BBC and DigitalOne. Both of these have been up for several years now (since November 1999 for DigitalOne, before that for the BBC).

    For the beeb, there are the standard 6 analog stations rebroadcast, and 3 digital only sations, with 2 more to follow. Most of the beeb stuff doesn't overlap much, so that's 11 reasonably different stations just from the bbc.

    DigitalOne is the usual spread of uk commercial radio, half of which is normally only available in big cities or London, and now available nationally.

    Add this to the free-to-air terrestrial digital tv stuff, and it's beginning to look quite nice on the digital front here in the UK.

    It's just unfortunate that the digital radio receivers are still quite expensive. hpmh. :(

    1. Re:UK Digital Radio by BigBadBri · · Score: 1

      £99 expensive? For the equivalent quality to my DAB set, I'd have to spend £300 plus on analogue equipment. The worst thing about DAB is that you get all the background sound as clear as day - when a cellphone goes off at a press conference, I still leap up and see if it's mine.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  108. Lots of Toronto Stations Do Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the Digital Radio Canada industry website. You can find a list of them on there.

    I don't know what exactly they're broadcasting as I don't have a receiver (nobody really does). I read on the CRTC website that the digital subchannels on some stations would be used for ethnic broadcasting.

    I don't know what standard digital radio in Canada uses either.

    Another curious thing is the Toronto Coverage Map. Certain areas in Scarborough apparently can't receive a signal. I'm not sure why that is. (Scarborough can receive all analog stations perfectly since most are broadcasting form the CN Tower.)

  109. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by -Surak- · · Score: 2

    The problem is that there is no way to broadcast in a format that's compatible with current DSS and DVB receivers at the same time - they are completely different formats. It's much easier for a single, large company to manage a conversion to new hardware, than for two smaller companies to come to an agreement that will force one to replace ALL of their consumer hardware, at least for consumers that want to receive locals.

    I'm sure they are looking at ways to make a receiver that will work on both standards, but that won't help the millions of existing receivers.

    It's definately a good idea - I would do it by creating a new company to handle the local content for both parent companies - but the format conversion is a real problem. Another lesson in benefits of being standards complient...

    (to be fair to Hughes, DSS was chosen before DVB was finalized).

  110. RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away FreeMusic by cpeterso · · Score: 4, Funny

    RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away Free Music

    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. ...

  111. CD Quality, is it? by xercist · · Score: 2

    Well being as the Red Book standard defines CDDA to be stereo, 16 bit, 44.1 kHz audio, then I suppose I can only assume they've figured out a way to transmit the 1.3 mbit/sec rate used by CDDA data over the gaps between the FM stations. That's quite impressive! Well, given they losslessly encode it, you can expect perhaps a rate of only 50-75% of that.

    Anything else and they better stop advertising "CD Quality" audio. I'm really sick of people using "CD Quality" to describe anything they want for their own marketing purposes. Microsoft is actually trying to claim that WMA at **64 kb/s** is "CD quality". Disgusting.

    --

    --
    grep "xercist" /dev/random ...you'll find me in there someday
  112. "FCC...Kills Satellite Merger" by JungleBoy · · Score: 2

    Call me simple, but it seems to me that if two satellites merged, they'd both be killed.

    Why on earth does the FCC need to get involved?

    --
    "You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
    -Calvin
  113. Superstation by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Satellite lets you have all the channels no matter where you are in the coutry

    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?

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
    1. Re:Superstation by Mr.+Pibb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It actually is happening, some stations in the US carry very little or no original programming. The programming for Radio Disney in San Francisco (and in other markets I assume) is generated by 2 satellite recievers and automation equiptment that inserts local commercials in a room that houses equiptment for several other stations that Disney owns.

      Until recently "The Mikey Show," broadcast throughout the country, was instantly edited to make it seem like "Mikey" really was in your market.

      Also, having a network of radio repeaters throughout a country broadcasting the exact same programming is common practice. What are BBC Radio 1 and 2? Some NPR stations carry a pretty much straight satellite feed as well.

      The question I raise is: Do we really want a station that loses all of its local identity? Playlists don't vary much from station to station now anyway, thanks to rigid formatting by conglomerates such as Clear Channel (see the Salon articles about Clear Channel). Another satellite station would just probably be as bland as the rest of radio now anyways.

  114. Bastards! by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The Federal Communications Commission has voted 4-0 to reject a $26 billion merger between satellite TV providers Echostar Communications and Hughes Electronics."

    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?

  115. Yeah? So? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    Digital radio? What's the point in shelling out extra $$$ just to hear the latest Clear Channel tripe with slightly better sound quality? Crap is crap, no matter how it's encoded.

    If public radio stations installed this equipment, the cost may be justified. If not, I'll save my cash for Sirius.

    Silly question: How about a digital radio with a digital audio out interface?

    (I can hear the RIAA rolling in the aisles now...)

  116. Follow digital radio at radioworld.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radioworld is widely distributed and read in the broadcast community. Follow digital (and analog) radio stuff there, as well as a lot of audio related info. "In Radio, sound is a rather important element" -Alfred Hitchcock-

  117. Nope: cd quality and free music are a Red Herring by cappadocius · · Score: 1
    Dude, RIAA is gonna be the biggest fan of this... Only not. ... Perhaps they'll only enable the audio out if the proper DRM key is inserted?

    Digital Quality is a red herring. The real issue is marketing.

    Option 1) With the internet and P2P, people can find niche artists. The people then spread their money out over a wide spectrum of artists, rather than only buying top 40 artists because they've only heard of them.

    Option 2) With radio, people are exposed to a much smaller number of artists. Fewer artists make much money, but those that do will make a very large amount.

    The RIAA desparately wants Option 2. It is a better bussiness model to have one artist sell 10 million records than to have 100 artists sell a hundred thousand records. Why? Because you have to spend less money to market one artist than to market 100 artists.

    This entire issue is not about digital quality or stealing music: people don't always care about digital quality and many people buy more music than if they didn't use P2P. It is about the RIAA preserving their bussiness model.

    If the RIAA has lost money because of P2P, it is not because people are buying less music, it is because they aren't buying the "right" music.

    But ultimately, that could be because the current Pop artists are growing tiresome to the American public.

    --

    omnia tua castra sunt nobis

  118. Re:I call BS (mod parent up) by spoon42 · · Score: 1

    Not only is that the first intelligent thing said on this topic, but this Democratic controlled Senate has, in fact, approved MORE of Bush's nominations than the Republicans ever did under Clinton.

    Funny, I thought /.ers were smarter than this. When the fuck did the RNC decide this was a worthwhile place to astroturf?

    --
    --- this comment is presented in WIDE SCREEN STEREO!!!
  119. No DRM Here by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

    I'm halfway down the page on this and haven't seen a single mention that here in the sunny old, UK, we've had digital radio for quite some time.

    It's about to get a boost in take-up since the recievers have just come down in price from about £300 ($200) to around £125 ($115) for a hi-fi seperate or a standalone radio with stereo speakers.

    There's no DRM, that I know of, and no one is complaining about the whole free-access-to-cd-quality-music.
    I dunno, you crazy Americans and your **AA's.

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    1. Re:No DRM Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just come down in price from about £300 ($200) to around £125 ($115)

      Huh? Don't you mean "£300 ($450) to around £125 ($180)"?

      I think you've got the exchange rate the wrong way around.

    2. Re:No DRM Here by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      You are ,of course, absolutely right.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  120. DBS already has hurt cable broadcasters! by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    Actually, even without the Echostar/DirecTV merger, small DBS dishes have done serious harm to local cable systems anyway.

    Because both DirecTV and Dish Network can offer hundreds of channels of programming, they already can do things that very few cable systems can do. I mean, things like multichannel HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and TMC first started on DBS systems. And DBS systems are a sports junkie's delight: you can get ESPN's multichannel packages for college football and college basketball, and on DirecTV you can get multichannel packages for MLB, NBA, NHL and NFL, which allows you to see almost every game in its entirety. How many cable systems are capable of such enormous programming choices?

    Because of the design of DBS systems, they may by 2010 be the primary means to deliver 1080i HDTV programming to most of the country, since it'll be vastly cheaper to transmit HDTV programming by satellite than by upgrading cable systems to support 1080i HDTV.

  121. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My biggest problem with the merger is Dish's less than perfect track record. IIRC most of their promises were made for a span of 2 years - they merge, hold out for 2 years, then start nailing their customers with higher and higher rates (just like the cable companies).

  122. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the cable market that should allow competition. If Charter, Roadrunner, Cox,... could sell there product nationwide, then the prices would be competitive.

    Right now if the SatTV companies joined together, 25% of their workforce could be cut (Look at HP-Compaq). Then prices could go up $5-$20/month, and the only option you would have is to switch to $50/month cable, or nothing if it isn't in your area.

    Mergers are bad for the economy, and there would be no incentive for them to improve their product. Why do you need to send down HDTV until it is required? If one company offers it, and I have a HDTV now, I'll get that one.

  123. Re:tit for tat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See following post on "5th commissioner being held up by politics"

  124. Excite is still around? by yomoma · · Score: 1

    I guess the most interesting part of this article, was that it was linked from Excite! They still exist?!

  125. Re:YEAH! No crappy DISHNET! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check your info ... DirecTV's signal is compressed ... allowing them to fit on 1 bird what DISH has put onto 2 ... Better Picture? Better Sound? Do your homework!!!

  126. It needed to be said: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Digital kills the satellite star!

  127. Radio Pays to play by acomj · · Score: 2
    Every time you hear a song on the radio the authors are compensated (I don't think the performers are though interestingly enough.)

    ascap (american society of composers and authors) does some of the tracking for authors.

  128. Yes! We need to go the other direction. by autechre · · Score: 2


    What we certainly don't need is the McDonalds of radio, where everything is exactly the same across the whole country. As Mr. Pibb pointed out, with ClearChannel, most radio stations play almost exactly the same thing already.

    We need more small, community-based radio stations that are actually connected with and serve the people in their area. Not something that broadcasts a bland national inoffensive monoculture, and not dozens of radio stations owned by the same company.

    You might think by my signature that I'm a bit biased here, and I am :). But I wouldn't be involved if I didn't think I were right...or something like that...

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
  129. Hillary Intelligent? by jmorris42 · · Score: 2

    Haven't seen too much that would imply intelligence. Raw animal cunning and an undying hunger to enslave the world to her perverted will perhaps, but not much brains. Look how far she got with HillaryCare and tell me again how smart she is.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Hillary Intelligent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should watch C-SPAN. There is more to Hillary (and everyone else, for that matter) than your "news" sources would lead you to believe.

  130. As long as we're all being trolled... by adolf · · Score: 2

    This isn't MP3.

    This isn't OGG.

    This isn't PAC.

    This isn't VQF.

    This isn't AC3.

    This isn't RA.

    This isn't MPEG-2.

    This isn't WMA.

    This isn't MP3Pro.

    This isn't VOC.

    This isn't FLAC.

    This is something different. The bitrate at which it operates is not relevant. The subjective effect of this compression scheme is something to be determined by a skilled listener with a good playback chain with a typical amount of bit-rot in the stream, not wild guesswork.

    You're doing noone else a favor by spreading FUD in any circle, let alone yourself. Until you have listened to the system for yourself, just shush.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:As long as we're all being trolled... by photon317 · · Score: 2
      My comment was a reply to a reply to a this comment:
      Ibiquity's IBOC system Sucks. Plain and simple. Am quality sounds like a 56k rated mp3. The side frequencies are hosed for advertising, and FM is no better, the side frequencies, are again hosed, and the sound quality is NOT CD, it's not even 128k!!! It's like 112! Seriously, the fcc is smoking the reefer. They cannot let this happen to radio.
      It's reasonable for me to assume there's some merit to this guy's conclusions that the audio quality is similar to 64-128kbit mp3. I'm doing slashdot a favor just like everyone else here by discussing the issue. I'm not spreading FUD. You need to shut the fuck up. Thanks.
      --
      11*43+456^2
  131. Re:Yes! We need to go the other direction. by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 2

    I agree with you, and with the parent to your post, but I was thinking more along the lines of a commercial free (yeah, right!) subscription service as an alternative to satellite. Could we just tune into one "superstation" freq, select a "channel" on that freq, and drive coast to coast with music in the genre of our choice?

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
  132. Apologies.... by N+Monkey · · Score: 2

    Just a post to cancel moderation - the stupid system magically gave a flamebait to one of the posts at random!

  133. Hard for Echostar to match Rupert Murdoch's... by freeBill · · Score: 2

    ...contribution when that "contribution" is in the form of Fox News and relentless bias in favor of the Republicans.

    Hughes Electronics was the object of a bidding war between Charlie Ergen and Rupert Murdoch. There are four reasons:

    • DirecTV (US) -- Combined with Echostar's holdings, would give the merged company 90% of the US satellite TV market, but the government looks at it as a broader market which includes cable (the merged company would probably be less than 20% of that market). Combined with NewsCorp's holdings, it would fill a big gap because Murdoch has been unable to get a toehold in US satellite markets (he has coverage just about everywhere else).
    • DirecTV Latin America -- Fills the other big hole in NewsCorp's satellite coverage. With this and DirecTV (US), Murdoch would have the ability to broadcast anything he wanted anywhere in the world. (This has political as well as economic value to Rupert.)
    • Hughes Network Systems -- Provides hardware for the other divisions as well as for other companies. Every satellite company needs this in-house because of the prevalence of industrial espionage in this industry with some companies accused to helping crackers break other companies' systems.
    • PanAmSat -- Satellite capacity which all these guys know how to use. They've all got it. They all want more. Echostar gets more out of these parts of the deal because they're putting up signal that duplicates Hughes signal. So, Charlie Ergen (who desperately wants more bandwidth) not only gets additional birds, but also could use more of the bandwidth for new products).

    Many were surprised when Murdoch walked out of negotiations with DirecTV's board when the board member from GM seemed to be persuaded (by his boss) to side with Echostar. Given the vital importance to NewsCorp of getting a US satellite property, it didn't make sense that he would just give up.

    Now it is pretty clear he walked out of that meeting thinking he could buy DirecTV for less after his cronies in Washington shot down the Echostar merger. It's much easier to buy something you want badly when there are no other bidders.

    --
    Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
  134. Re:Nope: cd quality and free music are a Red Herri by TinCanFury · · Score: 1

    wow, someone that really understands what is actually going on. Plus it was well written...
    a slashdot rarity...

  135. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    The term "fire" brings up visions of violence and mayhem and the ugly scene
    of shooting employees who make mistakes. We will now refer to this process
    as "deleting" an employee (much as a file is deleted from a disk). The
    employee is simply there one instant, and gone the next. All the terrible
    temper tantrums, crying, and threats are eliminated.
    -- Kenny's Korner

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...