Many HD Radio stations abandoning their digital transmissions when parts break

[HDRadioFarce]

HD RADIO

Despite the excitement about increasing the HD carrriers, it doesn't
seem a lot has happened, other than many stations abandoning their
digital transmissions when parts break. Some car radios are being
touted, but whether they will prove a success is another matter. NPR
is the big foundation holding HD from being totally irrelevant. And
why not? With all the free steaming on the Internet, what good is a
secondary channel with a jukebox on it? NPR at least uses the channels
for solid programming.

http://www.thebdr.net/articles/myview.html

It's dead...

[phalanx]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:55:34 -0800 (PST), HDRadioFarce
<gosmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>With all the free steaming on the Internet, what good is a
>secondary channel with a jukebox on it?

Free for now. Enjoy it while you can.
As soon as we're all hooked on streaming, they'll start charging.
Podcasting used to be free, too, and now more and more, we have to
pay.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[John Higdon]

In article <9bb3j7tt73g5ct0ia...@4ax.com>,

phalanx <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Free for now. Enjoy it while you can.
> As soon as we're all hooked on streaming, they'll start charging.
> Podcasting used to be free, too, and now more and more, we have to
> pay.

The secondary "HD" channels have the capability of selective enabling.
How long do you think it will be before a charge is made for that
material?

Try to keep up.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

[phalanx]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:45:16 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:

Never thought of that! You can bet that if there is a way to charge
for it, they're working on it. We might as well enjoy the remaining
days of free radio.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 8, 12:50 pm, phalanx <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:45:16 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
> wrote:
>

> >In article <9bb3j7tt73g5ct0iatsrnmktp7u5bmu...@4ax.com>,

> > phalanx <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Free for now. Enjoy it while you can.
> >> As soon as we're all hooked on streaming, they'll start charging.
> >> Podcasting used to be free, too, and now more and more, we have to
> >> pay.
>
> >The secondary "HD" channels have the capability of selective enabling.
> >How long do you think it will be before a charge is made for that
> >material?
>
> >Try to keep up.
>
> Never thought of that! You can bet that if there is a way to charge
> for it, they're working on it. We might as well enjoy the remaining
> days of free radio.
>

> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---

Ah yes, when channel 48 had their pay service, nobody in Silicon
Valley hacked it. ;-)

[SMS]

On 2/8/2012 12:50 PM, phalanx wrote:

> Never thought of that! You can bet that if there is a way to charge
> for it, they're working on it. We might as well enjoy the remaining
> days of free radio.

TV or radio or internet, wired or wireless, there's always been the need
to make the decision of whether to finance the programming with
advertising or to charge the listener for the programming. If a station
believes that they can make more money charging for HD programming than
they can make by selling advertising on the HD sub-channel, so be it.
Some listeners will gladly pay a little in exchange for avoiding
commercials, and some listeners will move to other stations.

Meanwhile more car-makers are adding HD-Radio (Mazda just announced) and
more stations are adding HD.

No station is abandoning HD simply because some part of the transmission
system requires a repair. Repairs are necessary to analog equipment as well.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

The difference being there are people listening to the analog part of
the business. Analog repairs are required.

I haven't heard a Clear Channel promo for HD in months. They are
plugging iheartradio. I suspect it is way easier to create a money
stream with that service than HD.

[spamtrap1888]

On Feb 8, 8:42 pm, "leanstothel...@democrat.com"

<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:50 pm, phalanx <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:45:16 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <9bb3j7tt73g5ct0iatsrnmktp7u5bmu...@4ax.com>,
> > > phalanx <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Free for now. Enjoy it while you can.
> > >> As soon as we're all hooked on streaming, they'll start charging.
> > >> Podcasting used to be free, too, and now more and more, we have to
> > >> pay.
>
> > >The secondary "HD" channels have the capability of selective enabling.
> > >How long do you think it will be before a charge is made for that
> > >material?
>
> > >Try to keep up.
>
> > Never thought of that! You can bet that if there is a way to charge
> > for it, they're working on it. We might as well enjoy the remaining
> > days of free radio.
>

>

> Ah yes, when channel 48 had their pay service, nobody in Silicon
> Valley hacked it. ;-)

That encoding was analog, if I'm not mistaken.

[sms88]

On 2/8/2012 10:21 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:

> The difference being there are people listening to the analog part of
> the business. Analog repairs are required.
>
> I haven't heard a Clear Channel promo for HD in months. They are
> plugging iheartradio. I suspect it is way easier to create a money
> stream with that service than HD.

The two are very different and not mutually exclusive. iHeart is a
response to the growing popularity of Pandora, and is distributed
on-line. Digital terrestrial radio is OTA.

If unlimited wireless bandwidth were available, and carriers introduced
low cost unlimited data plans, and if 3G/4G coverage were ubiquitous,
then it would be bad news not only for terrestrial radio (analog and
digital both), but for satellite radio as well. Fortunately for
broadcasters, none of this is likely to happen very soon.

The radio broadcasters that have embraced HD, and systems like iHeart,
understand that the long term viability of radio requires that it move
to digital and not remain the only analog technology for distribution of
news and entertainment. If there's a future for terrestrial radio then
it is digital.

[sms88]

On 2/8/2012 8:42 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:

> Ah yes, when channel 48 had their pay service, nobody in Silicon
> Valley hacked it. ;-)

That was SSAVI (suppressed sync, audio video Inversion) and was rather
easy to decode.

I also vaguely recall an "over-the-air-cable" setup on the peninsula
where people were building receiving antennas in coffee cans.

Digital encoding is much more difficult to break. Someone managed to do
it with Dish network back when they were doing MPEG2, but Dish kept
disabling the smart cards and the hackers had to keep doing upgrades. I
don't think there is a hack for MPEG4.

If an HD station decides to make a sub-channel a paid channel it will
likely adopt a pricing structure that does not drive customers away,
i.e. less than a paid Pandora subscription for access to multiple paid
digital stations. The only digital radio still on the air in Singapore
after they largely abandoned DAB+ is a paid DAB+ collection of stations.

However don't try to extrapolate much form the Singapore situation and
DAB+. The reason that HD Radio has done well, while DAB+ has foundered,
is because for HD you have a company whose mission it is to expand HD
deployment and convince receiver manufacturers, auto-makers, and radio
stations, that they should adopt the system. The large number of
receivers now being sold is the key to the success of HD Radio because
now the stations are willing to put better content on HD, and hence
consumers are willing to pay a bit extra for HD capable receivers.

The next big thing for HD is the impending decision by the FCC to allow
asymmetrical sidebands. This will allow a lot of FM stations that have
been anxious to deploy HD to actually do so in a way that makes sense.

[SMS]

On 2/7/2012 3:06 PM, phalanx wrote:

> Podcasting used to be free, too, and now more and more, we have to
> pay.

It was not "free," it was "paid for." The business model of ad-supported
streaming while paying royalties to artists is not working all that
well. Charging a fee for unlimited, commercial-free, higher bit-rate,
streaming, whether it's Pandora, or maybe paid HD Radio, is not
unreasonable, but it's not clear if enough listeners will agree to pay.

The failure of satellite radio to attract many subscribers indicates
that the cost is too high for most people, but XM-Sirius made the
conscious decision to not try to sell the service at a price where most
people would convert the free trial subscription into a paid
subscription. No doubt they did market research studies and ran the
numbers, taking into account the increased royalties as well as the
increased revenue, and decided that it was better to have fewer
subscribers, but ones that would pay 3-4x what the majority of people
would pay for the service.

A big part of the ad-supported versus listener-pays issue is taking into
account what people are used to. It's difficult to get people to pay for
things that used to be free unless the provider can show a real value in
paying. Cable and satellite TV managed to do this. Satellite radio has not.

Another issue is the available alternatives. Rather than pay for
satellite radio, or for the cost of streaming massive amounts of Pandora
data (plus the cost of a Pandora subscription), most people would rather
have locally stored content on their phone, iPod, or on newer vehicles,
in the vehicle itself. They are used to paying for that type of content
already. Part of the genius of Apple was getting people used to buying
content on the iTunes store, then coming out with the iPhone and having
people already in the habit of paying for content. Android developers
struggle to make money on Android apps because so many Android users
expect apps to be free and ad-supported, while iOS users are not opposed
to paying for apps.

The long-term survival of terrestrial radio depends on it going digital,
whether it's with HD Radio™ or some other digital radio system in the
future. The reason HD Radio™ was chosen, and why it's been more
successful than systems like DAB/DAB+ is because it allows for a planned
transition from analog to hybrid to all-digital.

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/8/2012 8:50 PM, SMS wrote:

> Meanwhile more car-makers are adding HD-Radio (Mazda just announced) and
> more stations are adding HD.
>

Yeah - we're up to about 2% of the number of cars that had AM stereo.
In twice the time. That system didn't cause interference tho.

Dave B.

[John Higdon]

In article <jh0hd2$rr4$1...@dont-email.me>,

sms88 <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The two are very different and not mutually exclusive. iHeart is a
> response to the growing popularity of Pandora, and is distributed
> on-line. Digital terrestrial radio is OTA.

And "HD Radio" is a response to what?

[SMS]

I don't recall 23 different automakers offering AM stereo. In any case
it's a completely different animal. AM Stereo did not offer additional
content choices, nor did it solve the multipath problems on FM.

AM stereo was an effort by AM station owners to have AM compete with FM.
HD Radio™ is an effort by mainly FM station owners to compete with
Internet streaming, satellite radio, and locally stored content.

Understand that if HD Radio™ fails that it's essentially the end of
terrestrial radio. The decline in content choices and quality will not
be reversed with analog radio. The iPod and the AUX jack in cars (and
later Bluetooth audio) changed everything.

"Can I connect my iPod?" has passed "are we there yet?" as the question
kids ask their parents on long trips. That reminds me that I need to
pick up some over the ear headphones for my kids so they don't keep
asking me to "turn it down" when I'm listening to the music I like and
they're trying to listen to their music.

[Kim]

HD Radio will fail. Terrestrial will not. Period.

On 09/02/2012 11:05, SMS wrote:
>
> Understand that if HD Radio™ fails that it's essentially the end of
> terrestrial radio. The decline in content choices and quality will not
> be reversed with analog radio. The iPod and the AUX jack in cars (and
> later Bluetooth audio) changed everything.
>

--
Kim

[HDRadioFarce]

"Is In-band Digital Killing Radio?"

http://www.radioinsights.com/2011/04/is-in-band-digital-killing-radio.html

HD Radio is killing its host, terrestrial radio. Struble's plan is to
kill analog, at any expense.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

>
> The long-term survival of terrestrial radio depends on it going digital,
> whether it's with HD Radio™ or some other digital radio system in the
> future. The reason HD Radio™ was chosen, and why it's been more
> successful than systems like DAB/DAB+ is because it allows for a planned
> transition from analog to hybrid to all-digital.

If HD radio is the answer, it must be a very funny question. I suppose
the question was "What can we do to screw up what already works." Or
maybe "FM sounds too good, we need some ugly artifacts."

BTW, I'll be enjoying that live Springsteen concert on XM on March 9th
while you are listening to informercials on terrestrial radio.

[SMS]

I'm sure that you're well aware of the actual questions that were
considered:

How can we transition to digital radio on the current band since no
additional spectrum is available for a digital band?

How can we use the existing spectrum more efficiently to add more content?

How can we improve the audio quality of terrestrial radio?

It's quite amusing to see you touting satellite radio, since everyone
that has compared the audio quality of the various audio sources
(satellite, Internet streaming, terrestrial digital radio) agrees that
satellite radio has the worst audio quality by far. XM-Sirius has traded
quality for quantity.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 10, 6:23 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:

Some channels on XM sound good, and some are terrible. They spread the
bits as need be.

Get this, and get it right: content beats quality every time.

IBOC takes terrestrial radio, which can't program one channel, and
gives them a second channel that they can't program either.

[SMS]

On 2/12/2012 8:22 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:

> Get this, and get it right: content beats quality every time.

Content is why digital radio is so critical to the success of
terrestrial radio. If you've ever listened to any of the content on the
HD sub-channels in the Bay Area you'd realize that it was the ability to
broadcast content, often niche content, that drove the decision of the
station owner to add digital service. There will never be as much
content as is available on satellite but get this, and get it right:
free beats paid for most people.

> IBOC takes terrestrial radio, which can't program one channel, and
> gives them a second channel that they can't program either.

Obviously you've never listened to any of the excellent content that is
broadcast on the HD sub-channels.

[Mark Elder]

"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4f35285d$0$12028$742e...@news.sonic.net...

> On 2/10/2012 1:55 AM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>>>
>
> How can we use the existing spectrum more efficiently to add more content?
>

How many BA stations are going to play the same song by Katy Perry or LMFAO
this hour?

How many of those stations have nearly identical playlists? Lets start
there.

Mark

[John Higdon]

In article <4f392d43$0$11961$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> There will never be as much
> content as is available on satellite but get this, and get it right:
> free beats paid for most people.

So stations do this out of the goodness of their hearts? Interesting
business model.

> > IBOC takes terrestrial radio, which can't program one channel, and
> > gives them a second channel that they can't program either.
>
> Obviously you've never listened to any of the excellent content that is
> broadcast on the HD sub-channels.

I have and I'm not impressed, either with the audio quality or the
selections. But even if I were, where's the business model? What do the
station's gain by having listeners (what few there are) tuning to the
HD2 channels? Furthermore, why would any station want to siphon off
listeners who are hearing their spots on the main channel.

This has been the issue for the past ten years. When did this get
resolved?

"HD Radio" has been losing its luster with broadcasters for a while now.
As I have frequently said, it is now just a matter of time as they drop
off one by one.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 13, 7:33 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:

You do realize the HD subchannel shit is streamed and has been so for
years. Trouble is, it is shit.

[sms88]

That's the problem with top 40 stations, or whatever they call them now.
The attraction of HD is that the sub-channels are used for more niche
content with smaller audiences. That's why you see format changes with
the old format being moved to HD. Those that really want to listen to
the old format have a way to do so by spending a small amount of money
in a one-time purchase and keep their favorite format in good quality
audio. Or they can spend $15-18/month for satellite radio and listen to
the content they want in what is usually low bit rate, poor quality.

[iBiquity Fraudsters]

On Feb 14, 10:43 am, sms88 <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/2012 8:43 AM, Mark Elder wrote:
>

> > "SMS"<scharf.ste...@geemail.com>  wrote in message
> >news:4f35285d$0$12028$742e...@news.sonic.net...

> >> On 2/10/2012 1:55 AM, leanstothel...@democrat.com wrote:
>
> >> How can we use the existing spectrum more efficiently to add more content?
>
> > How many BA stations are going to play  the same song by Katy Perry or LMFAO
> > this hour?
>
> > How many of those stations have nearly identical playlists?   Lets start
> > there.
>
> That's the problem with top 40 stations, or whatever they call them now.
> The attraction of HD is that the sub-channels are used for more niche
> content with smaller audiences. That's why you see format changes with
> the old format being moved to HD. Those that really want to listen to
> the old format have a way to do so by spending a small amount of money
> in a one-time purchase and keep their favorite format in good quality
> audio. Or they can spend $15-18/month for satellite radio and listen to
> the content they want in what is usually low bit rate, poor quality.

"Harvard Business Review: Should You Invest in the Long Tail?"

"Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, argues that the sudden
availability of niche offerings more closely tailored to their tastes
will lure consumers away from homogenized hits. The 'tail' of the
sales distribution curve, he says, will become longer, fatter, and
more profitable. Elberse, a professor at Harvard Business School, set
out to investigate whether Anderson's long-tail theory is actually
playing out in today's markets. She focused on the music and home-
video industries -- two markets that Anderson and others frequently
hold up as examples of the long tail in action -- reviewing sales data
from Nielsen SoundScan, Nielsen VideoScan, the online music service
Rhapsody, and the Australian DVD-by-mail service Quickflix. What she
found may surprise you: Blockbusters are capturing even more of the
market than they used to, and consumers in the tail don't really like
niche products much."

http://www.citeulike.org/user/mmkurth/article/2984768

Listeners don't like niche programming.

[Mark Elder]

"sms88" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:jhdvfo$a07$1...@dont-email.me...

>
>
> On 2/13/2012 8:43 AM, Mark Elder wrote:
>> "SMS"<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4f35285d$0$12028$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> On 2/10/2012 1:55 AM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>>>>>
> The attraction of HD is that the sub-channels are used for more niche
> content with smaller audiences.

Bay Area examples? Include Sacramento and Monterey if they are doing
anything interesting in those nearby markets. A music station here used to
have a liner about their HD, but I havn't heard that in quite a while. I
think KFBK used to run with HD, but now they have an FM so I don't know if
they still use it.

Mark

[sms88]

On 2/14/2012 4:14 PM, Mark Elder wrote:

> Bay Area examples?

Go to <http://www.981kissfm.com/cc-common/hdradio/> and you'll see the
HD Radio guide for the area on the right.

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/10/2012 6:23 AM, SMS wrote:
>
> It's quite amusing to see you touting satellite radio, since everyone
> that has compared the audio quality of the various audio sources
> (satellite, Internet streaming, terrestrial digital radio) agrees that
> satellite radio has the worst audio quality by far. XM-Sirius has traded
> quality for quantity.

The key is content. XM-Sirius has what some people want, and they are
willing to pay for it. My wife and I have eschewed terrestrial radio
for much of our listening because we can no longer receive the stations
we used to enjoy. The alternative is web radio, which doesn't sound as
good as regular FM but sounds better than HD. I have five HD radios,
but they get limited listening because, quite honestly, there's nothing
there that interests us.

As some of you know, KKUP had a large fund drive last weekend with all
sorts of live music. It so happened that neither KALW nor KCSM were
running HD at the time, and there were many new subscribers from areas
that normally receive interference from those stations. The marathon
was very successful despite the down economy. Of course, that was due
in part to the increased coverage area.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I would listen to music on
AM - or talk radio on tin cans and string - if it was interesting,
informative, or entertaining. HD Radio has none of that. It provides
us with a jukebox of repetitious songs while depriving us of the
interesting programming found on adjacent channels.

Dave B.

[John Higdon]

In article <4f3bd48d$0$12041$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Dave Barnett <dave.db...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> I've said this before and I'll say it again. I would listen to music on
> AM - or talk radio on tin cans and string - if it was interesting,
> informative, or entertaining. HD Radio has none of that. It provides
> us with a jukebox of repetitious songs while depriving us of the
> interesting programming found on adjacent channels.

If you saw how the stations treat those sub-channels, you would
understand why the material lacks any attraction. Frequently, something
breaks and can be a matter of days before it gets fixed.

[John Higdon]

In article <jhgja7$jbh$1...@dont-email.me>,

So...you won't answer Mark, either. Those "guides" (advertisements) are
out of date and are usually fluff. Why is it that as a promoter of "HD
Radio", you seem totally incapable of offering any suggests for which
you are willing to be responsible?

You seem to duck backing up anything you have to say with a vengeance.

[John Higdon]

In article <jhetcn$11a$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Mark Elder" <elde...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "sms88" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:jhdvfo$a07$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >
> > On 2/13/2012 8:43 AM, Mark Elder wrote:
> >> "SMS"<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4f35285d$0$12028$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >>> On 2/10/2012 1:55 AM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> > The attraction of HD is that the sub-channels are used for more niche
> > content with smaller audiences.
>
>
> Bay Area examples? Include Sacramento and Monterey if they are doing
> anything interesting in those nearby markets.

Stand by for a bunch of URLs...

I don't actually believe that SMS actually listens to anything he
promotes.

[Mark Elder]

"sms88" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:jhgja7$jbh$1...@dont-email.me...

CBS, Entercomm, Clear Channel, Cumulus.

I don't see anything unique there. Is there anything being broadcast on a
subchannel that isn't easy to find elsewhere?

Mark

[John Higdon]

In article <jhj4fo$dd7$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Mark Elder" <elde...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> CBS, Entercomm, Clear Channel, Cumulus.
>
> I don't see anything unique there. Is there anything being broadcast on a
> subchannel that isn't easy to find elsewhere?

Not that can be picked up in the south bay. And even if it could, what
would be the motivation for a station to go to the trouble to provide
commercial-free, no-cost programming to five or six people?

It doesn't take a rape of a family member to ask: what is the business
model? Why would providing revenue-free niche programming on a sub
channel be considered a sustaining business?

[Neil]

Going back 50 and 60 and 70 years, AM broadcasters absorbed losses on
their "new toy" FM stations to gain experience with the newer medium and
keep the transmitters warm (for various hours a day) with some kind of
low-cost programming, waiting for the day and the trigger event where
the critical mass of audience found them. At the same time,
entrepreneurs also got licenses and tried to make a go of a station on
the new band, and many went broke in the process, or lived a
hand-to-mouth existence awaiting that same moment.

But FM was a superior medium to the then-dominant AM, and sooner or
later that moment was destined to come. (Though it took FCC regulation
to trigger it.) And it wasn't a closed-box system, the way Ibiquity is.

As currently designed and programmed, there is nothing -- other than
perhaps the word "digital" -- that is an improvement over any other
technology already in use. And the programming reflects that fact.
Whether it's a simulcast of the primary analog programming, or a
simulcast of a co-owned AM station, or on-the-cheap music via computer,
there is no there there.

[SMS]

On 2/16/2012 10:12 AM, Neil wrote:

> But FM was a superior medium to the then-dominant AM, and sooner or
> later that moment was destined to come. (Though it took FCC regulation
> to trigger it.) And it wasn't a closed-box system, the way Ibiquity is.

That's the key fact about HD Radio too. It's far superior to analog FM
both in audio quality and the ability to deliver more content. The big
increase in receivers is just beginning as it moves from the enthusiast
market to the mass market with most automakers offering the receivers
either as standard or as part of an upgraded audio package.

The big attraction is content. Niche content that has a smaller audience
than whatever dreck the station puts onto its main channel now is simply
not discarded, it's moved to a sub-channel. The listeners that really
want that content can make a one-time purchase to get it, with no
monthly fees like their are on satellite radio, and without using more
and more precious 3G/4G data to listen on Pandora or Spotify. The Bay
Area has several excellent HD sub-channels, though each individual's
definition of what they consider excellent content varies.

You make too much of the "closed system." The licensing fees are
miniscule in the context of a station's budget. Do you complain about
the licensing fees paid to Dolby for their intellectual property? If you
want to complain about something real, then there is the additional cost
of electricity for the transmitter and for the additional air-conditioning.

You also need to learn to take a long-term view and look at the big
picture. The big increase in receivers is just beginning now that most
automakers have signed on to offer them. This means a much bigger
audience for stations that broadcast in HD, and more reason for them to
increase the content choices (and alas it also means that all the
commercial-free HD sub-channels will begin to add commercials). You
already see HD sub-channels showing up in Arbitron ratings which is the
biggest testament to its increasing acceptance.

[Patty Winter]

In article <4f3d4a8f$0$11948$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 2/16/2012 10:12 AM, Neil wrote:
>
>> But FM was a superior medium to the then-dominant AM, and sooner or
>> later that moment was destined to come. (Though it took FCC regulation
>> to trigger it.) And it wasn't a closed-box system, the way Ibiquity is.
>
>That's the key fact about HD Radio too. It's far superior to analog FM
>both in audio quality and the ability to deliver more content.

Please give us some examples of HD FM stations that you believe have
audio quality superior to, say, any of John's analog stations.

If you truly believe that HD is "far superior" to analog FM, then
I'm sure you can come up with any number of such examples with only
a moment's thought.


Patty

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/16/2012 10:27 AM, SMS wrote:
> You make too much of the "closed system." The licensing fees are
> miniscule in the context of a station's budget. Do you complain about
> the licensing fees paid to Dolby for their intellectual property? If you
> want to complain about something real, then there is the additional cost
> of electricity for the transmitter and for the additional air-conditioning.
>

Well, there also is the fact that the Ibiquity system occupies 400 KHz
of bandwidth while analog FM occupies 200. That's the large elephant in
the room that nobody seems to be able to address. Dolby works within
established audio frequency ranges.

Dave B.

[SMS]

On 2/16/2012 11:57 AM, Dave Barnett wrote:

> Well, there also is the fact that the Ibiquity system occupies 400 KHz
> of bandwidth while analog FM occupies 200. That's the large elephant in
> the room that nobody seems to be able to address.

It has been addressed. You know the answer, you just don't like the
answer, and it's understandable why you don't like it. It's not a
perfect solution and there are some FM stations that won't be able to go
digital without moving things around. That was known going into this.
The alternative to moving to digital was to create a new band but the
drawbacks of that were even greater.

[HD Scammers]

Some HDs are showing up in Arbitron because they are retransmitted on
analog translators, fool.

[Patty Winter]

In article <4f3d4a8f$0$11948$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>

> You
>already see HD sub-channels showing up in Arbitron ratings which is the
>biggest testament to its increasing acceptance.

Please name some HD subchannels that are showing up in Arbitron
ratings that are NOT simulcast on analog translators. I.e., HD-only.


Patty

[HD Scammers]

On Feb 16, 4:02 pm, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> In article <4f3d4a8f$0$11948$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,

>
> SMS  <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > You
> >already see HD sub-channels showing up in Arbitron ratings which is the
> >biggest testament to its increasing acceptance.
>
> Please name some HD subchannels that are showing up in Arbitron
> ratings that are NOT simulcast on analog translators. I.e., HD-only.
>
> Patty

There are none.

[John Higdon]

In article <4f3d4a8f$0$11948$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> That's the key fact about HD Radio too. It's far superior to analog FM
> both in audio quality and the ability to deliver more content.

It is apparent that you have no taste in audio reproduction since you
don't hesitate to proclaim to the heavens what even the iBiquity
promotion machine soft-pedals: the "superior audio quality" of their
system. Music is barely tolerable; voice is particularly odious.

However, you should realize that your hearing deficiency is not shared
by a significant portion of the buying public.

> The big attraction is content. Niche content that has a smaller audience
> than whatever dreck the station puts onto its main channel now is simply
> not discarded, it's moved to a sub-channel.

That statement doesn't even make sense. Of all industries, radio must
respect the tastes of its listeners. Radio stations don't intentionally
put "dreck" on ANY of their channels...particularly the main channel,
which requires numbers of listeners to make a profit. If it's "dreck",
no one will listen, and the station goes under.

I don't quite understand the concept of tossing "niche programming" to
sub channels where no one listens as opposed to dropping the content
where no one listens.

> You make too much of the "closed system." The licensing fees are
> miniscule in the context of a station's budget. Do you complain about
> the licensing fees paid to Dolby for their intellectual property? If you
> want to complain about something real, then there is the additional cost
> of electricity for the transmitter and for the additional air-conditioning.

And those costs are substantial. There is also the matter of unreliable
and poorly-performing gear that cannot be modified to improve its
performance. iBiquity is so secretive that many of the equipment vendors
have no idea what's in the black boxes.

> You
> already see HD sub-channels showing up in Arbitron ratings which is the
> biggest testament to its increasing acceptance.

Actually, what's showing up are listeners to the analog translators run
by those stations. I have yet to see any documentation to the contrary.
I suspect you are not going to provide any.

[John Higdon]

In article <4f3d6d0a$0$12028$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> It has been addressed. You know the answer, you just don't like the
> answer, and it's understandable why you don't like it. It's not a
> perfect solution and there are some FM stations that won't be able to go
> digital without moving things around. That was known going into this.
> The alternative to moving to digital was to create a new band but the
> drawbacks of that were even greater.

More double-talk I have never seen in one paragraph. The whole existence
of IBOC depended on the assertion that it could be shoehorned onto the
existing broadcast bands with no ill effects. Now that experience has
demonstrated that undesirable side-effects are legion, iBiguity has
demanded increased incursions into the spectrum utilized by analog FM
*on other stations*!

I noticed that you did not specifically mentioned "asymmetrical IBOC". I
guess you must have read the reports that reveal the undesirable
tradeoffs there.

Actually, I'm surprised you read anything real.

[John Higdon]

In article <4f3d5c1d$0$12012$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:

> Please give us some examples of HD FM stations that you believe have
> audio quality superior to, say, any of John's analog stations.

As I have said many times: show me how "HD Radio" can make my stations
sound better, and I'll move heaven and earth to convert them to IBOC
operation. That's all I have ever asked: show me the benefit.

> If you truly believe that HD is "far superior" to analog FM, then
> I'm sure you can come up with any number of such examples with only
> a moment's thought.

Believe me, I would check them out SAME DAY and compare them to the
sound on my analog-only stations. As anyone who knows me can tell you,
my goal at any station under my charge is to make it the best sounding
station it can possibly be. I will do ANYTHING to accomplish that.

So far, no one has ever shown me a station that sounds better with "HD
Radio" than what comes out of my stations.

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/16/2012 12:54 PM, SMS wrote:
> It has been addressed. You know the answer, you just don't like the
> answer, and it's understandable why you don't like it. It's not a
> perfect solution and there are some FM stations that won't be able to go
> digital without moving things around. That was known going into this.
> The alternative to moving to digital was to create a new band but the
> drawbacks of that were even greater.
>

Sorry if I seem totally ignorant. But the answer you gave before was
something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Radio_Broadcasting_Agreement

I just don't see that happening today on FM.

Dave B.

[sms88]

On 2/16/2012 3:11 PM, Dave Barnett wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Radio_Broadcasting_Agreement

Wikipedia?! I know you can do better than citing Wikipedia!

[Patty Winter]

In article <jhk5sa$nbj$1...@dont-email.me>,

Dave was referring to an answer that YOU previously gave, which
either came from Wikipedia or some other website.

His initial statement stands:

----

Well, there also is the fact that the Ibiquity system occupies 400 KHz
of bandwidth while analog FM occupies 200. That's the large elephant in
the room that nobody seems to be able to address.

---

You responded by saying, "It has been addressed." Where? Is this
another one of your many "I've answered that before" prevarications?


Patty

[HD Scammers]

On Feb 16, 7:27 pm, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> In article <jhk5sa$nb...@dont-email.me>,

Do you think that SMS could be a bored Bob Struble?

[Dave Barnett]

It's the 1st thing that came up when I googled NARBA - the North
American Radio Broadcasting Agreement that changed the layout of the AM
radio band in 1941. Something like that would be necessary to shoehorn
in the Ibiquity system in that oh-so-elusive ultimate all-digital world.

Dave B.

[Mark Roberts]

Dave Barnett <dave.db...@SPAMgmail.com> had written:

|
| It's the 1st thing that came up when I googled NARBA - the North
| American Radio Broadcasting Agreement that changed the layout of the AM
| radio band in 1941.

Also lost to history is the fact that, in order to make room for
what became the expanded AM band (as of 1941), a "high fidelity"
service with amplitude-modulated stations allowed to occupy double
the bandwidth of a standard broadcast station was removed from
the frequency range of 1520 to 1600 kHz, on which four experimental
stations broadcast. FM was to be the replacement for that service.

The 20 kHz bandwidth certainly improved fidelity with the
appropriate receiver, but couldn't do anything about the static.

| Something like that would be necessary to shoehorn
| in the Ibiquity system in that oh-so-elusive ultimate all-digital world.

Ah, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave! Don't you know? The "HD Radio"
system is perfected. No further improvement is possible!

HD radio is probably staying afloat at this point more through standard
large-corporation interia than anything else. It's certainly hard to
justify economically based on revenue obtained from the additional
services.

--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.

[John Higdon]

In article <9q63un...@mid.individual.net>,

Mark Roberts <markrob...@gmail.com> wrote:

> HD radio is probably staying afloat at this point more through standard
> large-corporation interia than anything else. It's certainly hard to
> justify economically based on revenue obtained from the additional
> services.

That's why the death of "HD Radio" will be very slow. The testing phase
went far longer than the promoters had anticipated for the simple reason
that it was not performing in those tests the way the creators had
promised. A more arrogant bunch could not be found. When I was asked to
participate in the testing, I literally got the same evasiveness that I
get here in this newsgroup. No one wanted to answer any questions or
provide any documentation.

At one point, the fellow I was working with in New York got so annoyed
with my inquisitiveness that he called the GM at the station involved
and told him to admonish me not to be "such a pain". The GM had a good
laugh over that and so did I. What I got was a pat on the head for
keeping the interests of the station paramount.

After unimpressive trials and tests, iBiquity suddenly launched and
decided that the best way to proceed was to get as many signals on the
air in major markets as fast as they could. The "Alliance" was formed
something like the top twenty (in size) broadcast owners, who paying in
had a stake in iBiquity and gave them a leg up over the smaller
broadcasters who would have to pay more for everything.

Engineers who objected with complaints about the system's shortcomings
were essentially told to shut and not discuss the matter with anyone if
they wanted to keep their jobs. I have probably met two dozen people who
were told this and have assured me that they would never go on record
with their opinions.

The fact that the whole scheme is a marketing ploy becomes apparent when
you listen to the likes of Lew Dickey, who is not only a technical zero,
but he is not even really a broadcaster. He knows zip about
broadcasting: what it takes to produce quality content and who would not
recognize quality content if he heard it.

The suits at the heads of these "Alliance" member groups are not just
about to ever admit that they were schnookered into a really stupid
albeit long-running scam. The engineers at the "Alliance" stations
continue to do what they're told. The whole thing kind of lumbers along,
and probably will for quite some time.

The smaller groups (even some that joined the "Alliance") have been
quietly turning it off, even on FM. I personally know of one
medium-market group that after getting very poor support from the
manufacturer, who was unable to correct chronic problems with the IBOC
gear, finally just pulled it off all of its stations...and has no plans
to put it back.

Unlike its blitzkrieg birth back in '02, when stations turned IBOC on
almost all at once over a year's time, it will disappear one station at
a time for many years. Yes, your comment about "large-corporation
inertia" is pretty much right on the money.

[sms88]

On 2/16/2012 8:38 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

> HD radio is probably staying afloat at this point more through standard
> large-corporation interia than anything else. It's certainly hard to
> justify economically based on revenue obtained from the additional
> services.

Except that the cost of providing those additional services is lost in
the noise of a typical urban radio station's budget.

The stations that converted to HD, which are most large urban stations,
knew that it would be years before the installed base of receivers gave
their HD channels enough of an audience to be able to monetize HD.
Meanwhile they've gained the experience of running the digital side of
things and they've given homes to content that would otherwise no longer
be on the air. Now there's enough HD receivers out there for HD stations
to begin showing up in Arbitron ratings. If they feel that the cost of
electricity and power are too high then they can always temporarily shut
down the HD section, but almost no stations have done that.

The late adopters really haven't lost much though. Equipment prices have
come down, and most new transmitters are at least "digital ready" so
when they decide to add digital service they'll be able to do so. They
probably have also taken the power and ventilation requirements into
account when doing any replacements of existing equipment so they can
move to digital with a minimum of disruption and expense.

[HDRadioFarce]

They are showing up because of analog translators. You are such a
fucking liar! LOL!

[Patty Winter]

In article <jhlsmm$s9j$1...@dont-email.me>,

sms88 <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Now there's enough HD receivers out there for HD stations
>to begin showing up in Arbitron ratings.

You really have no intention of backing up that statement with
facts, do you? That is, citatations of *HD-only* stations that
are showing up in the ratings. Analog translators don't count!
Just like all your other claims (such as that HD stations have
better audio quality than analog FM), you're just going to keep
saying it over and over and over in the hopes that someone will
believe you, right?


Patty

[HDRadioFarce]

On Feb 17, 11:46 am, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> In article <jhlsmm$s9...@dont-email.me>,

SMS is obviously a very sick individual. If iBiquity thinks SMS is
going to convince anyone, they are sadly misinformed.

[John Higdon]

In article <jhlsmm$s9j$1...@dont-email.me>,
sms88 <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The stations that converted to HD, which are most large urban stations,
> knew that it would be years before the installed base of receivers gave
> their HD channels enough of an audience to be able to monetize HD.

That isn't what the radio stations were told. From the very beginning,
the rosy pictures of a huge choice of receivers and listeners yanking
them off the shelves were standard fare. Much of what you claim year
after year was promised to broadcasters in 2002.

> Meanwhile they've gained the experience of running the digital side of
> things and they've given homes to content that would otherwise no longer
> be on the air. Now there's enough HD receivers out there for HD stations
> to begin showing up in Arbitron ratings.

Document that please. Exclude those who have analog translators. We're
still waiting.

> If they feel that the cost of
> electricity and power are too high then they can always temporarily shut
> down the HD section, but almost no stations have done that.

Simple because it isn't technically feasible. But have no fear, they are
beginning to shut it down permanently.

> The late adopters really haven't lost much though. Equipment prices have
> come down, and most new transmitters are at least "digital ready" so
> when they decide to add digital service they'll be able to do so. They
> probably have also taken the power and ventilation requirements into
> account when doing any replacements of existing equipment so they can
> move to digital with a minimum of disruption and expense.

Wrong on all counts.

[Lynn Kelly]

On 2/15/12, 7:51 am, Dave Barnett wrote:

>KKUP had a large fund drive last weekend with all sorts of
>live music. It so happened that neither KALW nor KCSM
>were running HD at the time, and there were many new
>subscribers from areas that normally receive interference
>from those stations.

I see KCSM's HD exciter is still at the manufacturer awaiting
repairs. Maybe an anonymous benefactor made a $10,000 donation to
KCSM contingent on the exciter being "lost" in transit. One can only
dream.

>I've said this before and I'll say it again. I would listen to
>music on AM - or talk radio on tin cans and string - if it was
>interesting, informative, or entertaining. HD Radio has none
>of that. It provides us with a jukebox of repetitious songs while
>depriving us of the interesting programming found on adjacent
>channels.

Many years ago I used to set my clock radio to KABL AM for a 5:30
morning wakeup and sometimes heard Bill Moen yawning and telling his
audience it was too early for him to talk so he played another set. I
agreed and went back to bed. ;-)

Lynn "Begin the Beguine" Kelly

[leansto...@democrat.com]

How does IBOC appear as an analog translator? Certainly the HD2
channel has it's own feed signal for the people meter.

[Mark Howell]

wrote in message
news:ac8b261c-a710-4e94...@qs5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>How does IBOC appear as an analog translator? Certainly the HD2
>channel has it's own feed signal for the people meter.

It's very simple. The HD-2 signal feeds the translator, which rebroadcasts
it as an analog FM signal.

Mark Howell

[Neil]

Considering it's an agency that was able to find a regulation to fine a
network (Sea-BS) for a fleeting "wardrobe malfunction" so short that it
required freeze-framing with a TiVo to actually see, how did the FCC
miss having a reg on the books restricting what a translator carries to
the primary analog programming channel of the parent FM station? This
situation should never have been allowed to occur.

To take it one step further, what is in the regs to prevent (for
example) Cumulus from simulcasting KGO on KFOG's HD3, and then feeding
said HD3 into a translator and getting KGO on FM for cheap? Until very
recently, (and I've only read about this rule change within the last few
weeks,) you weren't allowed to retransmit an AM signal through an FM
translator. If I'm remembering (and analyzing) this correctly, this is a
loophole big enough to drive a 50 thousand watt flamethrower through.

[John Higdon]

In article <4f3ffe87$0$11952$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Neil <weis...@sonic.net> wrote:

> Considering it's an agency that was able to find a regulation to fine a
> network (Sea-BS) for a fleeting "wardrobe malfunction" so short that it
> required freeze-framing with a TiVo to actually see, how did the FCC
> miss having a reg on the books restricting what a translator carries to
> the primary analog programming channel of the parent FM station? This
> situation should never have been allowed to occur.

The commission has made very clear in both policy statement and behavior
regarding the entire issue that it is blindly in favor of "digital
radio" and specifically the iBiquity system. Why else would the FCC do
its best to turn a blind eye to interference to other stations involving
blatant disregard of its own rules?

> To take it one step further, what is in the regs to prevent (for
> example) Cumulus from simulcasting KGO on KFOG's HD3, and then feeding
> said HD3 into a translator and getting KGO on FM for cheap? Until very
> recently, (and I've only read about this rule change within the last few
> weeks,) you weren't allowed to retransmit an AM signal through an FM
> translator. If I'm remembering (and analyzing) this correctly, this is a
> loophole big enough to drive a 50 thousand watt flamethrower through.

Indeed so. But it is what it is nevertheless. Were you the one who asked
why I have the attitude that I do (with a mildly offensive metaphor)?
You appear to observe the same signposts that I do, yet you seem
unwilling to come to the obvious conclusions.

Granted, I may see things you don't, such as the FCC coming up with
every excuse in the book to avoid taking interference complaints
seriously. We got into this mess with Kevin Martin (a non-engineering
political climber if there ever was one) at the helm.

Until and unless the engineers regain control of the commish,
broadcasters (as well as others) will bury themselves in a sea of
garbage. But at least it will be "digital".

[Phil Kane]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:21:38 -0800 (PST), Lynn Kelly
<lyn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Many years ago I used to set my clock radio to KABL AM for a 5:30
>morning wakeup and sometimes heard Bill Moen yawning and telling his
>audience it was too early for him to talk so he played another set. I
>agreed and went back to bed. ;-)

Was this after the McLendon years when the announcers weren't allowed
to make decisions or identify themselves? I was and still am a
classical music nut, my then-wife (now deceased) was a pop-rock music
nut, and KABL was the "compromise". One of too many in that
relationship.
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 18, 7:27 am, "Mark Howell" <howellina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:ac8b261c-a710-4e94...@qs5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Well yeah, that was simple. But for a translator, why wouldn't you
just take the analog signal to translate rather than the IBOC signal.
That is how they used to do it, or in fact still do it in the
boonies.

[Patty Winter]

In article <208925fb-cda2-40bd...@kh11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

leansto...@democrat.com <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 7:27 am, "Mark Howell" <howellina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's very simple.  The HD-2 signal feeds the translator, which rebroadcasts
>> it as an analog FM signal.
>

>Well yeah, that was simple. But for a translator, why wouldn't you
>just take the analog signal to translate rather than the IBOC signal.

There is no analog version of HD-2 programming. HD-2 and 3 are digital-only
channels. Only HD-1 has an analog equivalent.


Patty

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/18/2012 8:32 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>
> Well yeah, that was simple. But for a translator, why wouldn't you
> just take the analog signal to translate rather than the IBOC signal.
> That is how they used to do it, or in fact still do it in the
> boonies.

The full text of the rules is posted here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/47cfr74.1231.htm

The upshot is that unless it is an emergency the only allowed difference
in programming between the originating station and translator are 30
second announcements related to fundraising.

Dave B.

[Neil]

On 2/18/12 12:07 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> ... Were you the one who asked

> why I have the attitude that I do (with a mildly offensive metaphor)?
> You appear to observe the same signposts that I do, yet you seem
> unwilling to come to the obvious conclusions.
>
>

I do recall questioning something you wrote that seemed inconsistent
with other, earlier writings, but I don't recall being intentionally
snarky, much less "mildly offensive". Please quote the offending statement.

I'm originally a Bronx boy. I majored in sarcasm (with a minor in
Computer Engineering). "Mildly offensive" isn't my preferred style.

[Lynn Kelly]

On Feb 18, 7:13 pm, Phil Kane wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, 22:21, Lynn Kelly wrote:
>
>>Many years ago I used to set my clock radio to KABL AM for
>>a 5:30 morning wakeup and sometimes heard Bill Moen
>>yawning and telling his audience it was too early for him to talk
>>so he played another set.
>

>Was this after the McLendon years when the announcers
>weren't allowed to make decisions or identify themselves?

Gordon McLendon probably sold KABL already because IIRC, I usually
heard the cable car bell jingle, the station ID, and Bill Moen's name
at around 6:00 am during the 1980's.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 19, 9:03 am, Dave Barnett <dave.dbarnet...@SPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

Basically the translator has to be a direct rebroadcast. That I get.
[Some except for non-commercial, which can use satellite.] What I
don't get is why they can't rebroadcast the analog signal of the main
channel. Or is the point that some stations, where the main site has
analog, HD-1 and HD-2, are using a translator for the main signal in
analog form AND an analog "version" on another frequency whose source
is from HD-2. Or are they creating an analog version of HD-1 (which
is identical to the main analog signal except for people meter
encoding) and on another frequency an analog version of HD-2.

[Neil]

On 2/19/12 11:15 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>
> Basically the translator has to be a direct rebroadcast. That I get.
> [Some except for non-commercial, which can use satellite.] What I
> don't get is why they can't rebroadcast the analog signal of the main
> channel. Or is the point that some stations, where the main site has
> analog, HD-1 and HD-2, are using a translator for the main signal in
> analog form AND an analog "version" on another frequency whose source
> is from HD-2. Or are they creating an analog version of HD-1 (which
> is identical to the main analog signal except for people meter
> encoding) and on another frequency an analog version of HD-2.
>

Skip the whole part about the translator for *either* the analog program
*or* the HD1 copy of it. The whole goal is to take the separate
programming from the HD2 and feed that through the translator, thus
getting an additional bite of the apple on the cheap. What you (the
station/group owner) end up with is, effectively, an additional,
low-power station running the HD2 program on an analog FM signal, so
that programming has a shot of garnering some ratings and getting a
piece of the market's ad pie.

If you're shrewd, the way the small group owner in Hartford apparently
is, you run a niche format on the HD2, and the translator then puts a
decent, localized signal into an area of the market that format would
appeal to. In the case of Hartford, they focus on the Hispanic community
near the inner city with music (salsa or something similar) that appeals
to that ethnicity, and thus they've begun getting respectable ratings
that can be sold. Lower potential profit than a full-market signal, but
also much lower operating costs than a full-market signal.

Hope that makes it clearer.

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/19/2012 11:15 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:

> Basically the translator has to be a direct rebroadcast. That I get.
> [Some except for non-commercial, which can use satellite.] What I
> don't get is why they can't rebroadcast the analog signal of the main
> channel. Or is the point that some stations, where the main site has
> analog, HD-1 and HD-2, are using a translator for the main signal in
> analog form AND an analog "version" on another frequency whose source
> is from HD-2. Or are they creating an analog version of HD-1 (which
> is identical to the main analog signal except for people meter
> encoding) and on another frequency an analog version of HD-2.
>

Yeah. The HD-2's are showing up in the ratings because the HD-2
programming is being rebroadcast on an analog translator. The ones in
question are typically 250-watt jobs on a tall building in a big city.
That gives them coverage compatible with a class-A station (I.E. -
KRTY's coverage in San Jose).

In every case I know of, these translators are owned by a group owner
that has reached their limit on the number of signals they can have in
the market. However, by co-locating the translator with their main
transmitter, the translator is guaranteed not to exceed the coverage are
of the main (one rule for a commercial translator). It is essentially a
loophole that allows large groups to skirt the rules of FCC ownership
limits.

They're also programmed with some attention, because they actually have
an audience. However, the rule about direct rebroadcast remains intact.
So that means the people-meter-encoding stream on the HD-2 must be
identical to that on the analog signal. The translator signal doesn't
actually pick up the HD-2 off air and rebroadcast it in analog, because
endoding/decoding process causes unacceptable degradation in audio. But
the program feed is identical.

Dave B.

[Patty Winter]

In article <4f4224a0$0$12026$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Neil <weis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 2/19/12 11:15 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>>
>> What I
>> don't get is why they can't rebroadcast the analog signal of the main
>> channel.
>>

>Skip the whole part about the translator for *either* the analog program
>*or* the HD1 copy of it.

I think the anonymous coward "leans" still doesn't understand that
there's no *need* for a translator for the main channel within the
primary coverage area because the main channel, by definition,
already *has* an analog signal. That signal gets put on the HD-1
channel for digital radio fans.

Therefore, it's only the HD-2 and HD-3 channels that need to be
weaseled onto analog by putting them on translators.

Of course, some stations do have translators for their main channels,
but that's because they're trying to fill in gaps in their coverage
area, which is a different discussion from the translators we're
talking about here.


Patty

[John Higdon]

In article <4f416faf$0$11997$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Neil <weis...@sonic.net> wrote:

> I do recall questioning something you wrote that seemed inconsistent
> with other, earlier writings, but I don't recall being intentionally
> snarky, much less "mildly offensive". Please quote the offending statement.

"Did iBiquity rape your sister or something?" It might not have been you
who made the remark, but something such as "Did iBiquity rape the
broadcast bands?", would have been spot on. I firmly believe that that
is exactly what they have done.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 20, 8:35 am, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> In article <4f4224a0$0$12026$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
>
> Neil  <weiser...@sonic.net> wrote:

> >On 2/19/12 11:15 PM, leanstothel...@democrat.com wrote:
>
> >>  What I
> >> don't get is why they can't rebroadcast the analog signal of the main
> >> channel.
>
> >Skip the whole part about the translator for *either* the analog program
> >*or* the HD1 copy of it.
>
> I think the anonymous coward "leans" still doesn't understand that
> there's no *need* for a translator for the main channel within the
> primary coverage area because the main channel, by definition,
> already *has* an analog signal. That signal gets put on the HD-1
> channel for digital radio fans.
>
> Therefore, it's only the HD-2 and HD-3 channels that need to be
> weaseled onto analog by putting them on translators.
>
> Of course, some stations do have translators for their main channels,
> but that's because they're trying to fill in gaps in their coverage
> area, which is a different discussion from the translators we're
> talking about here.
>
> Patty

SIUYFC.

Nobody mentioned the translator was in the same market. I am familiar
with translators serving remote markets. If it was mentioned the
translator was local, then this makes sense.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 20, 7:04 am, Dave Barnett <dave.dbarnet...@SPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

So let me get this straight. The station steals (OK, is allowed to
use) spectrum to broadcast HD. Then on top of that, in the same
location, they put up "translator" on yet more spectrum for an analog
equivalent to the alternate stream, which technically is just another
analog broadcast since it is a direct feed, albeit with different
content and people meter coding. If so, this is not your grandfather's
FCC.

If this is the case, then the bad news is IBOC will be here to stay.
Nobody is going to give up analog spectrum.

[Travis James]

On 2/20/2012 8:21 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>
> SIUYFC.

Keepin' it classy.

[Neil]

Nope, wasn't me.

[Neil]

On 2/20/12 8:35 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>
> So let me get this straight. The station steals (OK, is allowed to
> use) spectrum to broadcast HD. Then on top of that, in the same
> location, they put up "translator" on yet more spectrum for an analog
> equivalent to the alternate stream, which technically is just another
> analog broadcast since it is a direct feed, albeit with different
> content and people meter coding. If so, this is not your grandfather's
> FCC.
>
> If this is the case, then the bad news is IBOC will be here to stay.
> Nobody is going to give up analog spectrum.
>
>

You almost have it. However, the content is 100% the same (as the HD2 or
HD3), and the PPM encoding is identical. The actual audio which feeds
the translator does not necessarily come from decoding the actual IBOC
HD2/3 from off the air. Instead it can be fed via an analog circuit, or
a digital circuit, or something like ISDN, or microwave, or a string and
a couple of tin cans. The key being it's a feed from ahead of the HD
encoder, so it's a cleaner, higher-fidelity signal. Sorta like FM (which
it now is).

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 20, 9:12 pm, Travis James <travis.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/20/2012 8:21 PM, leanstothel...@democrat.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > SIUYFC.
>
> Keepin' it classy.

It ain't easy when I get such trash talk. You can see my confusion
when it isn't explained that it isn't your your traditional translator
setup to bring FM to rural areas. [I recall KNYE out of Pahrump bought
a translator to bring the signal to Vegas, which is the only
translator I saw used in the "reverse" direction.] I've been to quite
a few mountain tops and seen the traditional translator setups.
Generally a yagi pointing to the source and then the circularly
polarized antenna for rebroadcast.

These HD setups shouldn't even be called translators.


Is there an actual example of one of these HD2 over translator setups
in the Bay Area.

[SMS]

On 2/19/2012 11:15 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:

> Basically the translator has to be a direct rebroadcast. That I get.
> [Some except for non-commercial, which can use satellite.] What I
> don't get is why they can't rebroadcast the analog signal of the main
> channel.

I think what they are saying is that the content is the same as an HD
sub-channel, not from the main analog/HD1 channel. They could get the
content from whatever's feeding the sub-channel before it is digitized,
but since the output of the HD encoder is a very clean, digital, high
quality signal there's no downside by getting it after the encoder.

The key thing is content. It's rather ironic that the HD sub-channel
content is so highly desirable that you have it being re-broadcast like
that, but to anyone that's actually listened to some of the HD2 content
it's no surprise. Nearly all of the whining about HD is from people that
have never actually listened to it, they just don't like the whole
concept of digital radio.

[Mark Howell]

wrote in message
news:505ff9e6-5825-4d11...@n8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>this is not your grandfather's
>FCC.

Those of us who have worked in the industry any time in the past 20 years or
so are already well aware of that.

Mark Howell

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/20/2012 8:35 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>
> So let me get this straight. The station steals (OK, is allowed to
> use) spectrum to broadcast HD. Then on top of that, in the same
> location, they put up "translator" on yet more spectrum for an analog
> equivalent to the alternate stream, which technically is just another
> analog broadcast since it is a direct feed, albeit with different
> content and people meter coding. If so, this is not your grandfather's
> FCC.

Yup. The "translator" is indeed another analog broadcast. It has to be
the exact same feed as the HD-2 digital signal, ncluding the same
content and people meter coding. But it is a totally separate format.
Hence, the people meter encoding signal says "KXXX-HD2". It just
happens to be rebroadcast on a translator, which is technically the
secondary signal, even though it has all of the listeners.

Dave B.

[SMS]

There have been both pros and cons. If we still had "your grandfather's
FCC" we would likely still have analog TV and no path to all digital
radio, both bad things. However had the FCC enforced their policy on
wireless carriers being required to provide digital coverage prior to
turning off analog coverage, that would have been a good thing.

Things have improved a bit with the current FCC director.

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/20/2012 11:06 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:
>
> Is there an actual example of one of these HD2 over translator setups
> in the Bay Area.

None here. The ones I know of are back east, and one I think in Kansas
City or St. Louis or somewhere like that. If you want to know where
they are, just look at one of the threads where "HD-2's are showing up
in the ratings" either in this NG or on radio-info.com. Those are the ones.

Dave B.

[Dave Barnett]

On 2/21/2012 7:10 PM, SMS wrote:
> If we still had "your grandfather's
> FCC" we would likely still have analog TV and no path to all digital
> radio, both bad things.

The analog-to-digital transition has the distinct advantage of spectrum
efficiency. More (or better quality - take your pick) video in the same
6 MHz channel. Digital radio takes more spectrum than its analog
counterpart.

> However had the FCC enforced their policy on
> wireless carriers being required to provide digital coverage prior to
> turning off analog coverage, that would have been a good thing.

If they had forced the Ibiquity system to comply with 73.317 that would
have been a good thing too.

Dave B.

[John Higdon]

In article <4f43472a$0$12026$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> I think what they are saying is that the content is the same as an HD
> sub-channel, not from the main analog/HD1 channel. They could get the
> content from whatever's feeding the sub-channel before it is digitized,
> but since the output of the HD encoder is a very clean, digital, high
> quality signal there's no downside by getting it after the encoder.

Can you name a single station on the planet that uses an
iBiquity-encoded signal to feed another station? Also, you might want to
investigate the term "layering" the next time you think all things
digital are the epitome of transparency.

> The key thing is content. It's rather ironic that the HD sub-channel
> content is so highly desirable that you have it being re-broadcast like
> that, but to anyone that's actually listened to some of the HD2 content
> it's no surprise. Nearly all of the whining about HD is from people that
> have never actually listened to it, they just don't like the whole
> concept of digital radio.

I can guarantee you without hesitation that the translator sounds
significantly better than the HD2 program it is ostensibly carrying.

[Phil Kane]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:10:52 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Things have improved a bit with the current FCC director.

A - If you are referring to the present (acting) District Director of
the San Francisco Office, I should hope so, because he is my protege
and I trained him well.

B - If you are referring to the present Chairman and/or Commissioners,
your head is elsewhere. Chairman Julius is welded to "broadband to
the people" and neither he nor his henchfolk know much about or give a
rat's a** about conventional services such as Maritime, Land Mobile or
even Broadcast, leaving standard-setting and evaluation to the
Scholars and Wonders of the money side of the industries involved. If
it wasn't for the very few "old timers" of my generation and the folks
whom we trained, there wouldn't be any compliance enforcement either
these days - their overlords couldn't care less. No, it's not your
grandfather's FCC any more.

I've said my piece.

[Neil]

There's the one I mentioned above in Hartford, Connecticut. There's
another -- in fact two of them -- in Atlanta, run by Cumulus; one
translates the HD2 and the other the HD3 of one of their rock stations.
So they get three bites of the same apple in that market from a single
full-signal FM and two low power translators, and it doesn't affect
their ownership caps, so they continue to operate a number of other full
market FM's.

Then there's the non-comm in West Palm Beach, Florida. They bought a
translator, put all their NPR news and information programming on HD2,
and run that through the translator at 101.9. In the meantime, the
primary analog on 90.7 runs a 24 hour classical music format.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:04:59 -0800, Phil Kane
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:

>If
>it wasn't for the very few "old timers" of my generation and the folks
>whom we trained, there wouldn't be any compliance enforcement either
>these days - their overlords couldn't care less.

Yep, that's also my observation in the land mobile biz. That may
change in Jan 2013, when land mobile is suppose to go all narrow band,
and the FCC is certain to embark on a revenue enhancement rampage of
dispensing violations and notices of apparent liability.

Is FCC broadcast enforcement also under Homeland Security? Public
safety and land mobile enforcement are certainly under the DHS, as the
FCC EB won't make a move without prior DHS approval. The FCC also
can't collect fines without getting the Justice Dept involved. The
problem with the JD is that they don't want to chase small fines, when
it costs big money to go through the process. How is it done in
broadcast?



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Phil Kane]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:52:00 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Yep, that's also my observation in the land mobile biz. That may
>change in Jan 2013, when land mobile is suppose to go all narrow band,
>and the FCC is certain to embark on a revenue enhancement rampage of
>dispensing violations and notices of apparent liability.

Let's get something straight. The big-bucks FCC "revenue" comes from
spectrum auctions. In reality the FCC doesn't keep a dime of it over
and above the cost of running the auction, ditto for any monetary
penalties (forfeitures) that they can collect. The "big amounts" are
the analog of getting a mule to move - first you have to get his
attention by hitting him on the head with a 2X4.

I was involved hands-on with developing the field forfeiture issuance,
evaluation, and collection program from the start - I have no idea
where this "urban legend" that forfeiture collection is a "fund
raiser" for the FCC came from but I reiterate, it is inaccurate.

>Is FCC broadcast enforcement also under Homeland Security?

None of the FCC enforcement programs are under the Department of
Homeland Security. You may be confused with the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC, but that is an FCC in-house
license-issuance, policy, and rulemaking function. Enforcement
(however shallow it is) is under the FCC Enforcement Bureau. Emphasis
on the "FCC".

>Public
>safety and land mobile enforcement are certainly under the DHS, as the
>FCC EB won't make a move without prior DHS approval.

Where are you getting this nonsense from? I and my firm are in almost
daily contact with both the Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC and they
do not go to DHS for their operations. Another incorrect "urban
legend".

>The FCC also
>can't collect fines without getting the Justice Dept involved.

Actually the FCC does not "collect fines". Fines are levied by a
court, not an administrative or executive-branch agency. The FCC does
in fact collect monetary penalties (forfeitures) under Section 501 of
the Communications Act without intercession of the Justice Department
unless the person involved refuses to pay, at which time the law
requires the US Attorney to bring a civil suit for collection in US
District Court on complaint of the FCC. These are few and far between
but they do happen.

>The
>problem with the JD is that they don't want to chase small fines, when
>it costs big money to go through the process.

This varies from US Attorney District to District. Granted, it's been
many years, but SF was reluctant to move while Utah and Florida were
gung-ho. All depends on the US Attorney of that District, not the FCC
office.

>How is it done in broadcast?

No different than any other service except that the high-profile stuff
is handled by FCC HQ (Washington) rather than a District Office.

[SMS]

On 2/16/2012 8:38 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

> HD radio is probably staying afloat at this point more through standard
> large-corporation interia than anything else. It's certainly hard to
> justify economically based on revenue obtained from the additional
> services.

In fact, it's the digital services that are keeping radio revenue
growing, both streaming and digital terrestrial.

<http://www.radioworld.com/article/radio-revenue-holds-its-own/211906?>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:15:18 -0800, Phil Kane
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:

>>Public
>>safety and land mobile enforcement are certainly under the DHS, as the
>>FCC EB won't make a move without prior DHS approval.
>
>Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Personal experience. I've ranted on the topic in the past:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/42ec7b6bff63b373>
See paragraph starting with "Nope". Bottom line was that the FCC
didn't move until DHS was involved. I don't know if DHS was
contacted, or if the FCC EB did it on their own. The info came second
hand, but originally via cell phone from whomever was driving the FCC
van. I also know of an enforcement action that reeked of local
political pressure.

You're correct that the FCC doesn't get to keep the revenue from the
spectrum auctions and from fines, notices of apparent liability,
license fees, and other collections. However, I doubt that the
chairman and commissioners will keep their appointments if they fail
to deliver the expected revenue to the general fund.

More later. Working late tonite...


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[John Higdon]

In article <4f45b869$0$11984$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 2/16/2012 8:38 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> > HD radio is probably staying afloat at this point more through standard
> > large-corporation interia than anything else. It's certainly hard to
> > justify economically based on revenue obtained from the additional
> > services.
>
> In fact, it's the digital services that are keeping radio revenue
> growing, both streaming and digital terrestrial.

Examples with documentation (preferably real world, not Radio World),
please.

[Patty Winter]

In article <higgy-E4A2CD....@news.announcetech.com>,

Even in the Radio World article, they make it clear that "digital
means websites, online streaming and HD Radio." So how much of the
"digital" revenue came from each of those three sources? Is it just
coincidence that RW mentioned HD Radio last in that sentence?


Patty

[John Higdon]

In article <4f466e1f$0$12005$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:

> Even in the Radio World article, they make it clear that "digital
> means websites, online streaming and HD Radio." So how much of the
> "digital" revenue came from each of those three sources? Is it just
> coincidence that RW mentioned HD Radio last in that sentence?

Indeed. What I was looking for was a breakout and some specificity
regarding how revenue is being generated by "HD Radio". Stations I deal
with are putting significant effort into streaming, over and above the
norm, but I don't know of any stations that are actually looking to
derive any revenue from "HD Radio"

I was also looking for that information from some source other than
Radio World, which is the industry's rag of rags, that has the look and
feel of iBiquity promotional literature. I actually let my *free*
subscription lapse!

[HD Scammers]

On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
> In article <4f466e1f$0$12005$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,

A while back, I let my subscription lapse, too. They think I am a
radio programmer, not a software engineer. I still keep getting the
publication in the mail, though. RW is a real shill for Bob Struble,
just like Radio Ink. I have actually caught Rhoads in a few lies with
his articles. He is still hauking Struble's Might Red II, although
artist experiance is not even implemented by broadcasters. What a
fraud.

[Phil Kane]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:03:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

wrote:

>>>Public
>>>safety and land mobile enforcement are certainly under the DHS, as the
>>>FCC EB won't make a move without prior DHS approval.
>>
>>Where are you getting this nonsense from?
>
>Personal experience. I've ranted on the topic in the past:
><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/42ec7b6bff63b373>
>See paragraph starting with "Nope". Bottom line was that the FCC
>didn't move until DHS was involved. I don't know if DHS was
>contacted, or if the FCC EB did it on their own.

You are correct that you are ranting, again from a position of little
or no knowledge of how the FCC operates. You confuse the DHS, a
cabinet department, with the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau (note the correct spelling).

There are established enforcement priorities that have existed long
before "terrorism" was a knee-jerk hot-button thing in the law
enforcement and political communities. Top of the heap is
interference to White House Communications. Interference to amateur
radio is very much down at the bottom of the pile. As a licensed
amateur operator of 60 years' experience I could wish that it was
otherwise but it is not.

The FCC routinely coordinates enforcement actions with other Federal,
state, and local agencies and very often acts on cases brought to them
by those agencies. This is not "being run by" them.

As far as the "fisherman" problems go, the last time that the FCC had
an enforcement boat was in the 1980s, manned by several agents whose
hobby was sailing. Not my thing.... <G> With the capability ending
at the dock, it's up to the US Coast Guard to carry the ball, and
resolving amateur radio interference problems is not on their plate.

>I also know of an enforcement action that reeked of local
>political pressure.

Welcome to the real world of dealing with governments.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:26:45 -0800, Phil Kane
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:03:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>Public
>>>>safety and land mobile enforcement are certainly under the DHS, as the
>>>>FCC EB won't make a move without prior DHS approval.
>>>
>>>Where are you getting this nonsense from?
>>
>>Personal experience. I've ranted on the topic in the past:
>><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/42ec7b6bff63b373>
>>See paragraph starting with "Nope". Bottom line was that the FCC
>>didn't move until DHS was involved. I don't know if DHS was
>>contacted, or if the FCC EB did it on their own.
>
>You are correct that you are ranting, again from a position of little
>or no knowledge of how the FCC operates. You confuse the DHS, a
>cabinet department, with the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security
>Bureau (note the correct spelling).

That's possible. The information I received was that the driver of
the monitoring van mentioned that authorization was required from
"Homeland Security" was required before he could engage in any
enforcement actions. He either didn't specify whether it was the FCC
or the Federal bureau, or something got lost in the translation. The
person passing the info to me definitely thought it was the DHS. I
can ask those more closely involved in case I misunderstood.

>There are established enforcement priorities that have existed long
>before "terrorism" was a knee-jerk hot-button thing in the law
>enforcement and political communities. Top of the heap is
>interference to White House Communications. Interference to amateur
>radio is very much down at the bottom of the pile. As a licensed
>amateur operator of 60 years' experience I could wish that it was
>otherwise but it is not.

Yep. However, you might want to read my rant again. The interference
was on the local sheriff's repeater input. Ham radio only became
involved because the local county comm shop somehow decided it must be
caused by hams because it was only one week before Field Day.
Basically, we were asked to help, with an implied (not expressed)
threat that our use of county and state land and facilities might be
jeopardized. My part was figuring out the interference mechanism.
Once that was determined, we arranged to have the frequency monitored
and recorded. Translating the voice inversion scrambled traffic, we
determined that it was fishermen using ham radio equipment on marine
channels. Some direction finding was attempted, with limited results.
Eventually, we found, photographed, and even briefly spoke to the
fishermen in question. All this was passed to the FCC which did
nothing. It was only when we played the terrorist card, did we get
anyone's attention. Of course, little was passed on to the driver of
the monitoring van, who showed up in the afternoon, not knowing that
fishing is usually done in the early morning hours. He heard nothing
and drove back to wherever. The conversation with him, where homeland
security was mentioned, was on his way back.

Let's just say that the general impression and reputation of the FCC
was not exactly enhanced by this incident.

Incidentally, the county comm shop never really understood what was
happening and why. One person continued to blame hams for the
interference, but ceased when the fishermen either stopped using the
offending channel, or sailed away to another location. I may have
helped when I identified the marine radio store that probably had
programmed the radios and explained the him the situation.

>The FCC routinely coordinates enforcement actions with other Federal,
>state, and local agencies and very often acts on cases brought to them
>by those agencies. This is not "being run by" them.

Ok. However, I have only knowledge of this one incident, which did
not require the participation of other agencies.

>As far as the "fisherman" problems go, the last time that the FCC had
>an enforcement boat was in the 1980s, manned by several agents whose
>hobby was sailing. Not my thing.... <G> With the capability ending
>at the dock, it's up to the US Coast Guard to carry the ball, and
>resolving amateur radio interference problems is not on their plate.

The USCG was contacted at one point by someone, who reported back that
they did not have the staff and equipment to deal with small vessel
maritime radios causing interference, and referred us back to the FCC.
They did indicate that if there was to be a vessel boarding by the
FCC, it would desirable, but not necessary for the UCSG to be present.
The FCC web pile isn't very helpful:
<http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#Ship%20Inspections>

>>I also know of an enforcement action that reeked of local
>>political pressure.
>
>Welcome to the real world of dealing with governments.

Make that about 3 such FCC actions. I'm not sure how it works, but if
the right person pulls the right strings, the FCC EB arrives on
someone's doorstep bearing citations.

Thanks for the info clarifying the FCC EB operation and broadcast
enforcement.

[Phil Kane]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:04:03 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Let's just say that the general impression and reputation of the FCC
>was not exactly enhanced by this incident.

If it happened between 1996 and December 2011, let's just say that
"there's a new sheriff in town". I won't say any more.

[leansto...@democrat.com]

On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:26:45 -0800, Phil Kane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:03:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>>>Public
> >>>>safety and land mobile enforcement are certainly under the DHS, as the
> >>>>FCC EB won't make a move without prior DHS approval.
>
> >>>Where are you getting this nonsense from?
>
> >>Personal experience.  I've ranted on the topic in the past:

> >><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/42ec7b6bff63...>

> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_sta...>

>
> >>I also know of an enforcement action that reeked of local
> >>political pressure.
>
> >Welcome to the real world of dealing with governments.
>
> Make that about 3 such FCC actions.  I'm not sure how it works, but if
> the right person pulls the right strings, the FCC EB arrives on
> someone's doorstep bearing citations.
>
> Thanks for the info clarifying the FCC EB operation and broadcast
> enforcement.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann     je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com

> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Funny you should mention the FCC "web pile." One of the things the
Obama administration did regarding the internet is to relaunch the old
websites better interfaces, often with Joomla or other OSS in the
background. In addition, there is the personalized FCC website.
http://my.fcc.gov/

I just click on the old FCC clusterfuck of a website since I know how
to use it.

[Jeff Liebermann]

It started on June 20, 2005 according to my ancient email archives.

I'll believe that there will be an improvement in envforcement when I
see some changes in chronic illegal practices, and not an orgy of
revenue enhancing fines. I've heard promises before, but nothing
seems to happen.

Hmmm....
<http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Headlines.html>
2009 was a good year for $1000 to $6000 NAL's for failing to shuffle
paper (customer privacy reports) properly. Better service through
paperwork and bureaucracy?

Kinda remends me of the FCC arriving on a Smog Angeles mountain top,
when they knew several building owners were going to do some work, and
issue about 2,000 violations for failure to properly post licenses.
That's one violation per shared repeater user, not per repeater owner.
I didn't see anything change at the FCC on Jan 1, 2012. There was a
new head of the EB but that was Sept 2009. I'm not sure what to
expect, except that it will all change after the next election.