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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Can it be "CD-quality" at about 96 kbps? We'll see.
A good site for learning more about IBOC is Radio World Online.
"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.
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.
Digital simulcast of your local stations gets you just that, your local stations.
I am perfectly happy to pay XM my $9.95 to bring me Fox News, BBC World Service, C-Span, CNET Radio
In this case the saying that you get what you pay for really does apply.
-jon
Three reasons:
- Companies had extreme fears of perfect digital copies of works from the radio that were the same as what was on store shelves. Now that they have a better product, SACDs, to sell, they can afford to give away lower-quality versions for comparatively small radio licensing fees.
- Digital broadcasting equipment has finally come down in price, and, more importantly, the proliferation of digital tuners and MP3 receivers have proven that electronics can be built into car audio players at low cost.
- Finally, Sirius and XM have been making some waves with their coast-to-coast, good stations, but that's really more of a retention quality than a marketing quality. (How do we know if we like a particular DJ if we've never heard the station, which we wouldn't if we don't have the system?) Their biggest, best marketing move is "universal reception, digital quality." The digital radio folks can't promise the former, but the latter can be done very easily. After so long, the radio stations, which feared losing the listeners to CDs if they let them record their favorite songs, have come around to, "Well, if we don't give them the quality, someone else will--at a better profit margin!"
- And a fourth, bonus reason: with the slump in computer sales, Circuit City needed something new to sell the geeks.
;)
JousterYes, 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....
But, I could see this end up like digital TV as well, where it's hindered with restrictions, requires expensive equipment, and will ultimately (likely) result in the FCC forcing it upon us. I can see five or ten years down the road when my beautiful vacuum-tube antique console stereo won't have any radio signals to pick up! Ultimately, sadly, this is probably a way for the big shots to control more and more of what we listen to and how we listen to it, not to mention it'll probably make obsolete the nice, expensive receiver I purchased recently (thinking I'd use it for years to come).
Why can't the cronies at the FCC get it through their thick, ugly skulls to LET THE MARKET dictate what happens! C'mon, it's basic economics. Look at satellite TV and digital cable. No government agency forced this upon us, but people buy it in droves! Granted, digital radio isn't being forced on us (yet), but it's probably on the horizon.
Digital Radio is already up and running in the UK, although very few people are listening to it!
I work for a large ILR station and whilst we now broadcast digitally, I don't think anyone is really interested in promoting the fact in the short term.
The cheapest standalone DAB radio is £99. I think there is a USB device for a PC which retails around £50. Most people have 5-6 radios to replace if they want to go digital! Plus there is no portable, battery powered solution right now.
Listening numbers may increase in the next couple of years as car manufacturers start to build DAB tuners in to the cars, as Ford will start doing shortly.
Most of the national digital radio broadcasters also get their channels carried on the Sky Digital TV platform otherwise they would have next to no listeners!
In Europe, we use a standard called Eureka 147, which is referred to as Digital Audio Broadcasting or DAB. This is incompatible with the system that is being proposed for the USA.
Then there's the content problem. Existing stations merely rebroadcast and most of the new specialist stations are automated so you may as well listen to your iPod anyway. The only group seem to be doing anything useful with the technology is the good old BBC.
I work as a DJ for a community radio station (WTJU wtju.radio.virginia.edu) and we just discussed this system at a recent meeting. It costs a fortune (in community radio terms) to upgrade to this system _and_ it requires a new device on the listener's end. iBiquity's ubiquity (sorry, I had to) could easily kill off another whole bunch of community radio stations, possibly mine.
Did the big guys (Clear Channel, etc.) know this would be the case when they lobbied for it? Of course! They're simply trying to kill off more competition.
As it is, community radio stations are having a really tough time. WTJU's FCC license is owned by the Univerity of Virginia (which provides _some_ support for the station), which means that they can sell it to the highest bidder if they want. This is happening all over the place to financially strapped universities. When an FCC license goes for 10+ million dollars, and their budget from the state is skimpy, it's a pretty attractive proposition for the schools.
This blows.
-Dan
p.s. So do the unrealistic reporting regulations for internet broadcasting of radio. WTJU could have it's payments to BMI, ASCAP, etc., for internet broadcasting paid for by a non-profit (can't remember which one, it's something along the lines of PBS), but we can't afford to keep track of all of the information they require with the filings.
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?
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
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?
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.
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. ;-) 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.
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.
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?
2 good articles over at Wired. One on the approval of the digital standard and another on the merger rejection.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
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.... :)
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).