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.
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!
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
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.
Whoo hoo!
.... blech, what a broken piece of hardware THAT thing is :-)
...
:-)
This means my DirecTiVo is going to stay around for a while!
I was afraid that Dish Network would push the Dishnet PVR on us once the merger went through
Besides, DirecTV broadcasts in a higher quality than Dish does -- better picture, better sound, better service.
I'm glad to see we're not going to be subject to Uncle Charlie (Ergen)'s pet wishes and peeves
Now if we can avoid being bought by Rupert, we'll be OK
--NBVB
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.
Digital simulcast of your local stations gets you just that, your local stations.
I am perfectly happy to pay XM my $9.95 to bring me Fox News, BBC World Service, C-Span, CNET Radio
In this case the saying that you get what you pay for really does apply.
-jon
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.
Three reasons:
- Companies had extreme fears of perfect digital copies of works from the radio that were the same as what was on store shelves. Now that they have a better product, SACDs, to sell, they can afford to give away lower-quality versions for comparatively small radio licensing fees.
- Digital broadcasting equipment has finally come down in price, and, more importantly, the proliferation of digital tuners and MP3 receivers have proven that electronics can be built into car audio players at low cost.
- Finally, Sirius and XM have been making some waves with their coast-to-coast, good stations, but that's really more of a retention quality than a marketing quality. (How do we know if we like a particular DJ if we've never heard the station, which we wouldn't if we don't have the system?) Their biggest, best marketing move is "universal reception, digital quality." The digital radio folks can't promise the former, but the latter can be done very easily. After so long, the radio stations, which feared losing the listeners to CDs if they let them record their favorite songs, have come around to, "Well, if we don't give them the quality, someone else will--at a better profit margin!"
- And a fourth, bonus reason: with the slump in computer sales, Circuit City needed something new to sell the geeks.
;)
JousterIs 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is this like a normal signal broadcast subaudibly on the normal carrier, or something like SCA?
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.
The most recent example? The nomination of Judge Shedd:
The funny thing is that he's already a U.S. District Judge and has been confirmed by Congress, previously.What a world...
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.
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.
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); }
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?
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.
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.
http://milkshake.dexy.org
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.
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.
Intelligent women are really scary, aren't they?