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.

173 of 362 comments (clear)

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

    RIAA,baby.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  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 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.
    2. 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!

    3. 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

    4. 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

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

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

    6. 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.

    7. 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...

    8. 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.

    9. 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

    10. 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.

    11. 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...

    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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.
    16. Re:4 voting members? by BurntHombre · · Score: 3, Funny
      How refreshing! Usually they're pleading the fifth....

      And, in some cases, drinking a fifth!

    17. 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) + (&)
    18. Re:4 voting members? by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Intelligent women are really scary, aren't they?

    19. 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
    20. 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 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

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

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

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

  5. 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 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."
  6. 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?

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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 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
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.
  12. 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 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

    3. 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.... :)

  22. 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.

  23. 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 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
  24. 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 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 ]
  25. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  26. 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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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

  27. 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?
  28. 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?
  29. 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.

  30. 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 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.. =/

  35. 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.

  36. 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
  37. 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.

  38. 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.
  39. 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

  40. 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.

  41. 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 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.

    2. 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 :)

  42. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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?

  46. 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?
  47. 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?
  48. 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?
  49. 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.

  50. 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?
  51. 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?
  52. 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.

  53. 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.

  54. 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
  55. 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.

  56. 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.)

  57. 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.... :)

  58. 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....

  59. 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).

  60. 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"

  61. 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?
  62. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  66. 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

  67. 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.
  68. 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.
  69. 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.

  70. 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?"
  71. 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.

  72. 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).

  73. 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. ...

  74. 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
  75. "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
  76. 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.

  77. 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?

  78. 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...)

  79. 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.

  80. 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.

  81. 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.
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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.
  85. 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!

  86. 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.