Slashdot Mirror
NPR Finds XM's Achilles Heel
PreacherTom writes "In the ongoing radio wars, one only has to listen to 20 seconds of Howard Stern's language to know that the lack of regulation gives satellite radio a distinct advantage. Of all the challengers, it seems that NPR has finally found a weakness in XM, which supplements its satellite coverage with earth-bound transmitters. A recent test found that 19 of these transmitters were unlicensed and another 221 exceeded their authorized power level, giving NPR an opening to press with an apparently sympathetic FCC. It certainly doesn't help that XM's own filings support their case."
XM is cool -- I tried it out for a few months and actually found myself listening to the radio for the first time in a long time. That ended when the lady of the house gave me her old iPod, which is now my primary listening device. I download a ton of independent music, go to a lot of shows, and also produce a few bands so I get demos all the time. A few podcasts make their way to the little device, and I'm happier for it. I'm 32, but it seems that most teenagers don't even know what a radio is, except for 88.7 FM or whatever station their FM transmitter for their iPod uses.
I think radio technology is old and dated, and I can't really see a future for it. I've been calling for the FCC to deregulate (or lessen regulations) on the old analog TV channels -- and it looks like others have too because the FCC is doing just that. Setting up large chunks of bandwidth for broadcasting is ridiculous, it would be like setting up large chunks of the Internet for one-way non-interactive websites. The future is about a la carte selections, narrowcasting, custom playlists, whatever. The future is not massive 50,000 watt transmitters hitting the numb masses, but about individuals selecting what they want.
I think the future is either WiFi-based communications, or EDGE-network communications. I already stream my music from my home server to my PDA via EDGE (HP PDA with Bluetooth dialup to my cell phone). It works great and I have instant access to gigs of music (and limited video).
I realize that I am in the minority here, but everyone who checks out my system loves it and asks how they can do it. For now, they can't do it easily, but I don't expect that to last as more cell phone companies embrace wireless access for the web. For now it will stay proprietary (t-zones, vCast, etc), but give it time and as more bandwidth is deregulated, more people will jump on the narrowcast system. I even download a podcast of a few bands that put an hour playlist together, and it is perfect for my drive. Interactive real-time broadcasts aren't that interesting to me.
The short future will be both local and satellite radio stations bashing each other over legal infractions, and that's fine -- let them spend their money on lawyers and lobbying Congress for more power over the airwaves. That future is only good for a little while, though. Right now people love the web over TV because they demand what they want, and someone supplies it RIGHT NOW. As the TV becomes more copyprotected, more people will demand more of the web, and suppliers will meet their needs.
As wireless connectivity reaches more of the masses, and becomes easier to use, and becomes faster, the days of broadcasting (TV, radio, newspaper, etc) will fall away, left as a memory to what the previous generation did. How antiquated. How cute.
Sidenote: Funny how radio can not compete in the same way as XM because of the FCC. The FCC was created to support big radio conglomerates and keep out little competitors. They're still using the FCC to keep their monopoly, without realizing they're leaking customers like a sieve.
If the signal is encrypted, and you have to PAY to receive and decrypt the signal, so what if it is filthy language? Who cares where the signal originates?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
And why is public broadcasting using public funds to research FM modulators. I don't want donate to that research.
Government assistance only makes up a portion of NPR's funds. The rest comes from the support of its listeners and its advertisers. NPR spends that money investigating the news. That's what this is.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
The article says that NPR is filing a complaint with the FCC due to non-compliance by satellite radio broadcasters and devices. That's a perfectly reasonably thing to do. But both the article and Slashot summary imply that NPR has an axe to grind against Satellite radio. Is there some NPR -vs- satellite radio thing going on that I don't know about? It seems like that is pre-requisite knowledge for understanding this article.
Yeah, pathetic that they do investigative reporting. Who listens to NPR for that? I want my "Delicious Dish."
Something tells me you didn't feel bad to begin with. So why are you listening to NPR, if they offend you so much?
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
Perhaps not your rights online, but it is affecting your rights.
1. The FCC is involved. This is an agency that has some questionable pracitices and policies. Its primary purpose is to regulate the airwaves on the interest and behalf of the public. In this case the FCC can make or break a decision to give the public more choice in how it recieves its news and entertainment. This is a matter of your money (if you buy ANYTHING from the US or anything carring an FCC cert you have in some way paid taxes some of which went to the FCC) being used to control your airwaves and your choice for content delivered on those frequencies.
2. Current media oligolopy. The traditional broadcasters (ie ClearChannel) are trying to maintain their hold over the radio market. I expect this kind of behavior from such agencies but NPR, though a private organization, has traditionally worked hard for the public. I suspect that NPR is invovled here because NPR isn't being broadcast on XM/Sirius because they can't pay or won't make enough revenue for the satellite providers. I personally find that not broadcasting public radio/tv is socially irresponsible, but it is well within their rights as a private corporation.
3. NPR has an important role to play here. NPR is the friendly bully for all public interest and community radio. A lot of community/low power radio efforts can be assisted by the rules and regs that help the bigger public broadcasters like NPR and PBS. The social climate in the US is not currently favorable for public broadcasting. I would hope that in the long run people and corporations will realize that this is important and use their voices and dollars to support it. We need to put some other pressure on media rebroadcasters (cable compaines, satellite radio companies, regular broadcasters) to continue to push public interest programs and support the little guy, not because the law says they do, but because its what they ought to do.
I have no idea how to parse that sentance (or sentance-like string of words, anyway), but from context I'm assuming you're expressing skepticism that an NPR listener might have Stern suddenly interrupt the program they're listening to.
I can vouch for this, it happens to me about once or twice a week now. Not always Stern, sometimes it's classic rock, and there's one house I pass that's usually listening to what appears to be and all-Sinatra channel. They have some sort of repeater (like the ones people use to listen to their iPod via the radio, but much more powerful) that is set to broadcast the XM content on 88.1FM, the same channel as our local NPR station.
Dunno. Maybe. But I can state from my own direct experience that around here, you'll have trouble listening to 88.1.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Because you obviously didn't read the article. NPR is upset at the makers of satellite (and other) FM modulators. The modulators are overpowered and do not comply with FCC regulations. The manufacturers of the units have admitted this and just went on their merry way. So NPR is asking the FCC to hold these manufacturers to the regulations.
This is perfectly reasonable. Think of it this way. If Linksys sells a router with increased coverage area (because they exceed the power limits imposed by the FCC), and your neighbor buys one which causes your router to stop working, don't you think Linksys should have to comply with the law?
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
Frankly, their interest here seems to be "let our listeners actually hear our content", which is pretty hard to argue against, especially when the other guy is flagrantly breaking the law.
I read the internet for the articles.
When modern-ish radio was first becoming commercialized, the belief was that programming had to be "local local local!" in order to generate any viewership...
You'd think to generate any viewership it would have to be "television television television".
-=Maggie Leber=-
I've got a solution to propose: why doesn't the FCC just designate a "national ultra-low-power frequency"? It seems like we need one; everyone has their iPods and XM Radios and other things that they want to play into their car stereo, and it's a real PITA to find an open channel. Plus, if you drive more than 50 miles, you have to retune it, because the "open frequency" in NYC is in use in Philly.
We need to take a single, or maybe a handful, of FM frequencies (probably at the low end of the band) and designate them for low-power portable operations -- usable only by transmitters below 200mW (or whatever the cutoff is for unlicensed FM transmitters now).
That would simplify people's lives who use portable audio equipment, because they wouldn't have to hunt for unused frequencies, and it would also make electronics designers lives easier (you'd just need a selector switch to choose between a few of the low-power-designated channels, or maybe not even that), and it would keep the unlicensed broadcasts from interfering with existing fixed service. It would pretty much be good for everybody.
It seems like this is just common sense; these sort of micro-FM-transmitters aren't going to go away anytime soon; in fact there are more of them being made every day. So the interference problem is only going to get worse if we don't do something.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
A SMALL (and ever shrinking) portion of their funds come from the government. The largest portion come from people like me, who donate $x/year to them so that I can continue to listen to their excellent content. Another large portion comes from corporate sponsors.
- First of all, you have no idea how they funded this research and complaint. You're making assumptions. If let's say I donate x thousands of dollars for NPR to figure out why I am getting all kinds of interference while trying to listen to it, would that be something you think you should have ANY say about?
- Second if it is funded by their government grant, why is it not ok? Making sure their spectrum is not being infringed by the competition is a perfectly legit use of their money regardless of source. It's called customer service. People seem to be saying they're trying to cause trouble to the competition. That is a weird statement for two reasons: 1) they pretty much are one of a kind, they don't have any competition that I am aware of. 2) NPR has a channel on either XM or Sirius (or both)