"FCC Admits Ignorance on Digital Radio"
October 2002 - "The Commissioners seemed completely unconcerned about the documented evidence illustrating potentially disastrous interference problems with IBOC technology. But the whopper came from the mouth of Michael Copps, who admitted with incredible candor he had no idea what the hell he was unleashing... Everybody involved pretty much admitted from the outset that the digital radio initiative is all about giving the broadcast industry more avenues to make money rather than actually improving radio from the perspective of the listener... You can watch and listen to the deed being done at our special report on the IBOC vote."
"FCC: Market to Decide Fate of HD Radio"
"Said Commissioner Copps: By adopting a blanket authorization for digital radio, this decision confers a free pass on others to take their spectrum, bypass local communities and run more of the canned and nationalized programming that is all too common on our consolidated analog system today and which is, truth be told, responsible for many of broadcast radio’s current problems."
OMG! No wonder the CRAPOMETER is off the scale.. This is such a good example of False Advertising and Misrepresentation of Facts. Virtually all of the claims are blatant lies and completely absurd. If an HD FM station is broadcasting a single digital channel, it's a 96kbps stream. If they add an HD2 channel, generally that 96kbps is split into two 48kbps streams. If they add an HD3 channel, generally that 96kbps is divided into three 32kbps streams. Let's face it, MP3 files sound pretty bad. And those are most always 128kbps. Do the math with your ears. ANALOG IS BETTER! We're surprised the Federal Trade Commission and/or State Attorneys General haven't pursued this.
Funny... This reminds us of the claim that all of the manufacturers of moist wipes for your ass make - that they will "break up after flushing". Ask any plumber. It's NOT true.
Broadcasters and consumers, take heed.
Before investing in HD Radio, remember these words of the great P.T. Barnum...
THE END OF AM?
Broadcasters and the NAB think perhaps it may be time to end analog AM broadcasting and go full digital. "Sundown" time, much like what was done with analog TV. Great. Except let us remember that consumers had little or no investment to make in the switch to digital TV. If you had cable or satellite, it was essentially a transparent change that required no out of pocket expense. For those receiving TV over the air with an antenna, a converter box was required. Government coupons and the inexpensive retail cost of the boxes made it an insignificant event for consumers. Especially considering not only did you suddenly get a fabulous picture on your favorite station, you got a number of additional channels as well. You didn't NEED to buy a new television. Not so with digital AM. You'll get the same single channel as before. And if you didn't listen to AM previously, it's highly unlikely you'd invest in an HD radio to hear what you DIDN'T listen to before in digital and in stereo. Especially considering most AM stations are talk, much of which is syndicated programming and originates in mono anyway. Remembering back, C-Quam AM stereo was far superior in audio quality (frequency response and stereo separation) than AM HD Radio. And you didn't NEED to buy a new AM radio, because the mono signal was still there just as always. Many radio manufacturers threw in AM stereo for nothing. Almost every auto radio came with AM stereo at no extra charge. And if you did decide to buy an AM stereo tuner, they were VERY inexpensive and did sound quite nice indeed. But as we know, AM stereo just wasn't embraced by listeners. Most certainly neither will AM HD radio. So, go ahead AM broadcasters, shut off that analog signal and go only digital. It will result in the "sundown" of AM radio completely. Anyone with common sense will see this.
CUMULUS/CITADEL KINDA BACKING (PERHAPS RUNNING) AWAY FROM HD RADIO? NAW. SAY IT AINT SO!
3/15/12 - Cumulus Acknowledges HD MalaiseAn interesting disclosure in Cumulus Media's yearly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:
On December 21, 2004, we entered into an agreement with iBiquity pursuant to which we committed to implement HD Radio systems on 240 of our stations by June 2012. In exchange for reduced license fees and other consideration, we, along with other broadcasters, purchased perpetual licenses to utilize iBiquity’s HD Radio technology.
That was then...this is now:
On March 5, 2009, we entered into an amendment to our agreement to reduce the number of planned conversions, extend the build-out schedule, and increase the license fees to be paid for each converted station. At this juncture, we cannot predict how successful our implementation of HD Radio technology within our platform will be, or how that implementation will affect our competitive position.
To my knowledge, this is the first time that a backer of HD Radio has been so forthright in a financial document about the tenuous nature of radio's digital transition.
Considering that Cumulus is the second-largest broadcast conglomerate in the United States (having purchased Citadel Broadcasting last year), this disclosure reads like a vote of little-to-no-confidence in the technology. One can only assume that Cumulus' slowdown in HD conversions applies to the Citadel stations it has acquired.
Cumulus is not alone in viewing HD technology with a jaundiced eye. Radio World reported in 2009 that an informal survey of executives in charge of capital expenditures at broadcast conglomerates found many planned to delay their digital conversion campaigns.
Beasley Broadcast Group chief technology officer Mike Cooney confirmed that his company was backing down on "HD conversions in the small markets and...putting money more in things that have a quicker return on investment for the capital money."
Transmitter-manufacturers have also been holding their cards close for years now. In 2009, Crown Broadcast reported that inquiries about HD-compatible equipment were virtually nonexistent. According to Tim Bealor, vice president of sales for Broadcast Electronics, "Unless we can figure out a way for broadcasters to make back their investment, [HD adoption] may be a futile effort."
These sentiments were echoed by Mike Troje, sales manager for Continental Electronics: "It’s a task to come up with what the right responses are for the industry when we don’t know what the end game is."
The end game remains fuzzy today. Although Cumulus' deal with iBiquity has been revised to reduce the number of stations it plans to convert to HD, it sounds like iBiquity saw little to no reduced revenue from the change. However, if other broadcasters have similarly downsized their transition-commitments, it does not bode well for HD Radio's long-term prospects.
Coupled with declining listener interest in the technology and anemic uptake by auto and electronics manufacturers, the overall state of radio's digital transition ain't pretty. The FCC's already put this ball firmly in the court of industry: the big question now is just how long broadcasters will nominally support HD Radio before something happens to force full-scale uptake or abandonment.
PRESS RELEASE February 19, 2010
Bernie Wise, President of Energy-Onix reports that Energy-Onix ships approximately 250 broadcast transmitters per year. This number includes 205 FM and 50 AM transmitters. Bernie noted that none of these customers had an interest in HD Radio. The most common reasons given for no interest were as follows:
---FM Stations---a – Price – The equipment price for an HD Radio transmitter and antenna system is prohibitively expensive!! The average HD Radio package is a minimum of $100,000. and can be as high as $250,000.
b – Limited Coverage – The system has been promoted to have an acceptable signal as far as the 55db contour. We have found that the signal is useable in practice to the 75db contour.
c- No consumer incentive – Fifty percent of the digital spectrum is a repetition of the FM analog stereo channel. In a reasonably matched system the FM analog is comparable quality to the digital when the digital is within its limited range. There is no incentive for the consumer to use “HD Radio”.
d – Adjacent Channel Interference. We have reports from our customers that HD Radio has caused major interference with existing FM stations that operate on the adjacent channel to an HD Radio station. It is well known that their FM “IBOC stations” operate from 130KHz to 200KHz from their analog center frequency.
e – Annual Licensing Fee – IBiquity has a monopoly on the HD Radio system. This system cannot be used without paying an annual licensing fee which can be determined by the management of IBiquity. It is difficult to understand that the FCC would establish a standard which is controlled by a proprietary source.
---AM Stations---
a – HD Radio has an audio frequency response of only 5000Hz. A normal analog AM transmitter has a 10,000Hz response.
b – An HD Radio exciter and additional broadband matching may cost the AM broadcaster an additional $50.000.
c – HD Radio occupies the adjacent broadcast channels. Thus, in the evening, the high reflection of medium frequencies from the ionosphere cause severe interference to adjacent channels which essentially destroys their “night time” service.
d – HD Radio cannot modulate more than 95%. A conventional analog AM transmitter can modulate 125%. Thus, in many major markets where major stations may operate with HD Radio, they are the lowest sounding stations in the market. Medium and low power AM stations have much higher audio volumes since they modulate at 125%.
Final Comments:
Recently, the FCC advised those FM broadcasters who have already invested substantial sums in implementing IBOC, that some of them could increase the level of their digital subcarriers by as much as 10db (10:1). This expansion was based on new technical data submitted by iBiquity and the engineering department of NPR. How can we believe the projected performance when this same group recommended a 100 to one ration ten years ago and guaranteed acceptable performance!! At present, the only stations that are operating with HD are the 1400 Clear Channel stations, the large group stations and the NPR stations. Very few small or medium-sized stations are utilizing IBOC. The present economic situation will reduce the implementation of IBOC and there will be very few adjacent channels with HD operations. Thus, we may not be able to verify the acceptability of adjacent channel interference between two IBOC stations. I do know that many sophisticated countries have evaluated HD radio and they have declined to utilize “HD Radio”. Our USA broadcasters are taking a substantial risk by investing in “HD Radio”. I strongly recommend that my broadcast friends take a “wait-and-see” attitude for several years before they invest in IBOC.
To HD Radio
We've heard people are trying to reinvigorate the charge for HD Radio, attempting to start a new branding campaign promoting this world-changing technology and service in yet another effort to generate any kind of substantial consumer interest in it. However, despite the pro-HD Radio people's attitude that a sunny day is coming soon, there's a faction who would disagree with them... which would be pretty much everyone else, including some big publications like PC World. In an article posted July 2011 on their website titled "12 Tech Revolutions That Fizzled," PC World details a bunch of innovations and products originally touted by their manufacturers as being as life-altering as grilled cheese sandwiches -- but never quite made it that far. The list contains such gems as virtual reality, the Segway, public WiFi and Google Wave, and our fair industry scored an entry with -- you guessed it -- HD Radio. "It's not clear how many people actually thought that HD Radio would spark a music revolution, but the HD Radio Alliance had no qualms making that assertion in 2006," the article says, linking to a five-year-old press release announcing the launch of HDRadio.com and declaring that the "digital revolution will not be televised -- it's on your radio." And yet, everyone's still waiting....
Many people wrongly believe that HD Radio is High Definition Radio. Some stations even promote their HD product as 'High Definition' Radio.
HD ... Hybrid Digital ... is an attempt to add digital service to the existing analog service. In many cases, the addition of the HD sidebands creates interference to the analog channel. With AM stations, the HD sidebands are clearly audible on the analog service. They also create interference to their first-adjacent neighbors.
How did this happen?
Why did the FCC permit this intentional interference?
For some reason (and probably for the first time in the history of broadcasting in the United States) the FCC approved a single company to provide formats and broadcasting standards for both AM and FM stations. This company, Ibiquity, collects licensing fees from the transmitting and receiving equipment manufacturers as well as the initial and annual licensing fees from each station which broadcasts in HD.
In the past, the FCC approved a single standard for monochrome television.
In the early 50s, the FCC approved a single standard for color television.
In the early 60s, the FCC approved a single standard for FM stereo.
In the 80s, the FCC first approved a single standard for AM stereo and then backed-down to their famous 'marketplace decision.' As a result, Leonard Kahn and Motorola battled and AM stereo died.
Why did the FCC permit Ibiquity to gain a stranglehold on HD Radio?
It's my understanding that one or two of the 'big' owners of radio stations in the United States have a significant financial interest in Ibiquity. Because of the collective size of these companies, they were able to encourage the FCC to approve Ibiquity as the sole provider of formats for HD Radio.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH HD RADIO?
1. The HD sidebands interfere with the traditional analog service.
2. The HD sidebands interfere with the first adjacent channels on both sides of the 'licensed' HD station.
3. HD audio quality is poor. It's a highly compressed 'red-headed step-sister' of the mp3 format.
4. The coverage of HD is far, far inferior to the coverage of the analog signal from the same station.
5. HD Radio is expensive. It costs the broadcast station a lot of money. It costs the consumer a lot of money.
I predict that HD radio will fail.
At some point, station owners will realize that HD is simply not compatible with their existing analog service. The only way that Digital Radio can succeed is for the FCC to develop a new class of radio. Digital-only. These digital stations would have to operate on a different frequency band ... perhaps on the low-band VHF TV frequencies. Most importantly ..... There should not be a single company which dictates the digital transmission standard. That is the job of the FCC and they should do their job.
Frank L. Berry, PhD, EE
leaving the FM channel here, both above and below. What's happening kids??
Did we mention that all of the largest radio broadcasters, in particular Clear Channel, are HUGE investors in iBiquity and HD Radio? Did we mention that Clear Channel has "first right of refusal" to get the technology and patents should iBiquity go under? Well, now we have.
Understand what this would mean. When a broadcaster or consumer decides to jump on the HD Radio choo choo train, they'll be paying Clear Channel for their ticket. Much like when a broadcaster purchases a NexGen computer play-out system or any RCS product, you're "feeding the beast". Putting money in the pocket of likely your biggest competitor - CLEAR CHANNEL - who owns RCS. Duh! Having said that, i would be remiss in mentioning that RCS products are, for the most part, dandy.
(From a longer rant)
"HD Radio is one of the biggest frauds ever pushed upon people with ears, a sad stretch by a fading medium to con customers into buying something they don't need. Words have meanings. High definition may be vague, but it does mean something: an increased level of resolution conducive to an appreciable jump in sensory input. Or something along those lines. But it has some technical basis, when used in the video realm. Companies will try to sell things, because that's what they do. But bandying around the HD label insults and confuses the people who might buy them. Go ahead and use dumb buzzwords—but don't taint words that actually signify something. We need those."
These are primarily being used for the purpose of rebroadcasting the HD2 and/or HD3 channels of their FM stations.
There can be ONLY 4 reasons why they are doing this:#1- They realize consumers are not and will not buy HD radio receivers, and they must therefore have an analog FM signal to reach them if they want the programming on these HD side channels to be heard.
#2- They realize that HD radio is inferior, and reception of these side channels is difficult at best. Especially since they have no "analog fall back" like the main channel does.
#3- They're gobbling up all available translators and frequencies to prevent the new LPFM broadcasters from getting on the air and competing for listeners.
#4- Reasons #1, #2 and #3.But wait, there's more. Broadcasters are also leasing out their HD2 and/or HD3 channels to other entities who own and operate FM translators. Since the FCC requires that translators rebroadcast either an FM, AM or HD2 or HD3 program feed, these HD side channels make a nifty means of feeding a translator and essentially creating new analog FM signals in a market. In other words, they're being used as nothing more than an STL (Studio-Transmitter Link).
However, we have discovered in FAR too many instances that these translators are NOT actually "rebroadcasting" or being fed by the off-air signals of these HD2 and/or HD3 channels. They're receiving a program feed from a better quality and more reliable means, such as an STL, phone lines, etc. Proving that even broadcasters know that the audio quality of the HD2/HD3 channels isn't even good enough to feed an analog translator.
The abuse of FM translators continues unabated, and may be more insidious than anyone realizes - including (and especially) the FCC.
First there was Clark Parrish, the mastermind who swamped the FCC's license-application system during a 2003 filing window for new translators. He applied for thousands of stations under the guise of two shell corporations - Radio Assist Ministry and Edgewater Broadcasting - with the intent of selling them off to other broadcasters so that he could build his own full-power religious radio empire with the proceeds.
The FCC, in response to outcry over such blatant sentimentalizing, froze a goodly portion of his translator applications in 2005. The entire mess remains unresolved today, though the FCC must untangle it before moving forward with an expansion of the LPFM radio service.
Since then, commercial and public broadcasters have also gotten creative with the use of translators. In 2009, AM broadcasters successfully lobbied for a rule change that allows them to rebroadcast their programming on up to five FM translators per AM station - all couched as a "tool" to provide "relief" from the increasingly RF-dirty AM band.
Since 2008, FM broadcasters have shredded the notion that FM translators provide a secondary broadcast service by employing them as outlets for FM-HD program streams. In this case, translators are effectively marketed as "new" stand-alone radio stations, since hardly anybody bothers to listen to an actual HD Radio signal.
Recently, a key tactic which enables such practices has come to light. It's called translator-hopping, and it works like this: a broadcast entrepreneur acquires a permit for an FM translator in some dinky radio market. He then files a series of minor modifications to its license with the FCC to move the translator closer/into a larger, more lucrative market.
The FCC classifies modifications to a broadcaster's license as major or minor. As a general rule, it is much more difficult to get the FCC to approve a major licensing change than it is a minor one. Thus, translator-hoppers file a series of minor changes to effect what is really a major change. This is a long-standing loophole - but with the massive proliferation of translators over the last ten years it, too, is getting stretched.
Location hops like these are incremental and transitory. In some cases, the FM translator isn't even properly constructed, just set up temporarily and on the air long enough to satisfy the deadline the FCC gives for stations to implement such license modifications. Another hop is then applied for (and granted), and before long the translator's reached its target destination, where it can serve market incumbents (like AM or FM-HD broadcasters) or as a "rimshot" station providing fractional (but fiscally attractive) coverage of the market for a new entrant.
Last month, the FCC opened up an investigation into Radio Power, Inc. directly related to the practice of translator-hopping. The case takes place in my own backyard, as the translator was initially established to "serve" my hometown of Beloit, Wisconsin. However, over a two-year period, applications were filed with the FCC to move the station six times (a distance of 69 miles, and nearly ten channels down the FM dial) into Milwaukee, the state's largest city.
The FCC's inquiry suggests that Radio Power may have never actually set up the translator at the sites it applied to operate from; at the very least, it suspects that the translator never operated for a meaningful amount of time at any of them until it got closer to its intended destination.
This particular instance of translator-hopping wouldn't have even tripped the FCC's trigger were it not for an interference complaint involving a Chicago-area station and some follow-up sleuthing by concerned constituencies in the Milwaukee radio market.
Radio Power, Inc., is owned by Tim Martz, the president of Martz Communications. Martz Communications owns full-power stations in New York and Pennsylvania. Radio Power, however, appears to have "satellite offices" scattered throughout the United States - FCC correspondence in this particular case is addressed to a dilapidated suite in Reno, Nevada.
Radio Power's primary business seems to be acquiring and moving FM translator stations for use as FM-HD program rebroadcasters, leasing access to its translators as analog outlets for digital programming. This is not the first time Radio Power has come to the FCC's attention regarding such dealings, either. Just last October, Martz et. al. were ordered to shut down an FM translator in a Detroit suburb for causing interference to a full-power station.
In both cases, Martz acquired his translators from none other than Clark Parrish. The Detroit-area station was sold to Martz by Radio Assist Ministry in 2009 for a cool $40,000, while the Wisconsin translator, first licensed to Edgewater Broadcasting in 2004, became a Radio Power property in 2010 in a deal worth $42,000. (In the same deal, Radio Power bought another translator from Edgewater, located in Mendota, Illinois for $36,000.)
Of the Beloit translator's six hops to Milwaukee which the FCC is now investigating, the first two were engineered by Edgewater. But the FCC's only exploring the tip of the iceberg.
A cursory search of the agency's databases turns up 10 FM translators licensed to Radio Power in eight states (Illinois; Michigan (2); Minnesota (2); Mississippi; Missouri; Pennsylvania; Texas; and Wisconsin).
Nine of these translators were purchased by Tim Martz (Radio Power) from Clark Parrish (Radio Assist Ministry/Edgewater Broadcasting) in deals cumulatively worth more than $225,000. Radio Power's tenth translator was acquired from Horizon Christian Fellowship, another notable trafficker, for $7,500 - with options to purchase another four stations.
Interestingly, four of Radio Power's 10 translators are listed as "silent," or not currently on the air. Martz may just be waiting for prospective users to come along; meanwhile, Radio Power will maneuver hops for them toward a profitable market where they are more likely to be leased.
Adding insult to injury, Radio Power had the gall to file comments in 2009 against the expansion of the LPFM service, claiming that such a move would "prevent the licensing of new FM translator stations in or the relocation of existing translator stations to urbanized areas, resulting in the denial of improved service to the public." Translation: expanding LPFM would interfere with Radio Power's business model, which involves abusing the FCC's translator rules for profit.
The decade-long growth in demand for FM translators has greatly inflated their value, creating a vibrant marketplace for such stations that has directly led to the sort of corruption-of-process that's so prevalent today. The transactional cycle is clear: a religious broadcaster speculating in FM translators sells them to a commercial broadcaster hoping to build a fleet of small rent-a-stations to serve beleaguered HD broadcasters. This most definitely warps the original intent of the FM translator service beyond recognition.
All of this is but one example of the FM translator market in action. It comes as no surprise that those who plumb FCC regulations for a living at the behest of the broadcast industry find nothing wrong with this state of affairs. Although the agency is poised to address some aspects of this abuse in its upcoming rulemaking on LPFM, it's unlikely to make changes substantive enough to put an end to it.
iBiquity Giving Away Cash And Receivers to Radio Salespeople.
iBiquity Digital is offering cash incentives to reward radio industry Account Executives and Sales Managers that use the HD2/HD3 multicast channels made possible by HD Radio Technology in their clients' on-air advertising campaigns. Some examples of possible entries include NTR events, campaigns exclusively on the HD Radio channel, or campaigns that combines all digital assets of on-air, website, and HD2/HD3 channels. The prizes are: $5,000 to Campaign Judged Most Effective, $1,000 2nd Place Award, HD Radio Receivers Awarded to 3rd Place Finishers.
(Good choice for 3rd place prize. Although you should have made the HD radios the 1st and 2nd prizes, since we're sure most account execs and sales managers don't have an HD radio. And i doubt they'll waste their cash winnings on purchasing one. Personally, i'd rather get a coupon for a free dozen at Dunkin Donuts. When i lived in Los Angeles, i bought a Day Sequerra M4 tuner. Rather expensive toy. On AM it had the sensitivity of a door knob. FM wasn't much better. And it was my first exposure to HD radio, and the first thing i noticed was that it sounded like crap. (It did have pretty blue lights, though!) I sold the tuner for $500 less than i paid for it, and bought a nice 47" LCD HDTV.)
As is often the case when the Law of Unintended Consequences is factored in, the proposal, if adopted, could have significant effects which weren't on the proponents' agenda — including effects on the radio side of the universe.
The proposal appeared in the form of an application filed by ION Media Networks and a new company, Urban Television LLC, controlled by billionaire and BET founder Robert Johnson.
Ion owns a boatload of television stations (here, "boatload" means 42). It is proposing the "assignment," or sale, of 42 television licenses to Urban. But ION would not be letting go of its stations in any conventional sense. Rather, ION is proposing to sell, and Urban to buy, "licenses" to operate on a second digital stream of each of ION's stations.
In other words, ION and Johnson are asking the Federal Communications Commission to treat non-primary digital streams as separate, and separately licensable, authorizations. The proposal contemplates that Urban would hold a separate license for its operations in each of the 42 markets, while ION would continue to hold its own licenses in those same markets.
What a deal for ION: You got it, you sell it, you still got it!Should radio care?
Of course, the notion that digital streams might be treated as separately licensable "stations" is novel, to say the least.
But don't try to tell that to ION/Urban. To read their application, this is just a straightforward arrangement that falls comfortably under the commission's "share time" rule. (That rule may be found in Section 73.1715 of the FCC's rules — good luck finding any reference in that rule to digital streams, though.)
What does this have to do with radio? Maybe nothing, but maybe a lot.
If the commission embraces the notion that secondary digital streams really do constitute separate licenses that can be separately assigned, one could easily argue that radio stations that have opted to transmit digital streams (i.e., "HD Radio") should also be permitted to sell those streams as separately licensed stations.
Indeed, if the "share time" rubric is the applicable regulatory touchstone here, it would arguably make more sense to apply that on the radio side, where it has historically come into play, than on the TV side, where there is little if any tradition of "share time" operations.
So what happens if digital radio streams get mystically transmogrified into real, stand-alone stations?
For one, the number of radio stations could theoretically double or triple overnight. This might not have the cataclysmic effect of, say, the injection of nearly 700 new FM allotments through the notorious Docket No. 80-90 a quarter century ago, but you never know.
At a minimum, if the law of supply and demand were to hold true, the overnight doubling/tripling of stations would likely depress each station's value. And such a rapid increase in the number of stations would logically lead to a similarly rapid increase in competition for audiences and revenues. Are we all ready for that?
New entrant
On the regulatory side, it's not clear what the FCC might do. It might seek to adjust its multiple ownership limits to take into account the sudden ballooning of stations.
The ION/Urban deal is being pitched in part as an opportunity to increase "diversity" in the ranks of broadcasters, since Johnson, who controls Urban, happens to be African-American and happens also not to own any full-power TV stations.
Because of those factors, Urban is being cast as a "new entrant" in broadcasting, despite the facts that (a) Johnson is clearly an established media mogul of considerable long standing and (b) ION, which is not a minority entity, owns 49 percent of Urban.
So would the commission adopt rules designed to induce sales to similar "new entrants"? Who knows — but certainly if the FCC is willing to accept Urban as a "new entrant," it would not be setting the bar particularly high for later claimants to that title.
A staunchly Democratic administration might also see the potential for increasing the availability of certain types of programming which the FCC majority might deem desirable from some general "public interest" perspective.
In the ION applications, Urban is promising to launch a new programming format, including informational and issue-oriented programming targeted to serve the interests of African-American viewers and other "underserved" persons in the 42 markets. Details on exactly what that programming might consist of are sketchy as we write, and Urban's promise is somewhat porous. ("Urban will retain the flexibility to adapt its format to changing viewer needs and interests and other programming that is available in the marketplace.")
Look before you bite
Still, the notion of minority-targeted programming in 42 TV markets provides a potentially irresistible sizzle — despite the fact that any FCC decision based on proposed programming would be subject to huge practical problems.
(F'rinstance, how would the commission define "minority-targeted" programming, and how would it define "underserved" persons, and what would happen if the licensee elected to abandon that programming — would the FCC attempt to impose its own programming preferences?)
If the new commission were to focus its attention on regulation of program content, the availability of a huge number of "new" radio stations would provide fertile ground with which to work.
There are almost certainly many more possibilities floating around here, none of them particularly well-defined at this point. But that's what often happens when radical departures from well-established practices are proposed. And that's especially what happens when the context in which those departures are proposed is peculiarly narrow.
ION and Urban appear to be trying to force the commission to declare that Urban's stations — that is, the secondary streams that we would all be calling separately "licensable stations" — are all entitled to must-carry status on cable systems. The must-carry status of secondary DTV streams has been an open question for years, with the broadcast TV folks clamoring for carriage of all their transmitted streams and cable folks clamoring just as loudly to limit the carriage obligations to one cable channel per TV station.
The FCC has not seemed inclined to resolve that question directly in a rulemaking proceeding of general applicability, so ION and Urban have tried to force the issue in the narrow context of their application.
(Since the notion of expanded carriage requirements appealed to ex-Chairman Martin, sources indicate that he may have been instrumental in putting the ION/Urban application on a fast track that saw the release of a request for public comment on the proposal barely a week after the application was filed.)
As an innovative way of getting to their desired goal, there really is no harm in ION/Urban baiting up its hook and casting it into the regulatory waters. But before the FCC bites, the commission — and the industries likely to be affected if the proposal is adopted — should be careful to consider all the possible ramifications.
Visit The HD Radio Website
Visit The Ibiquity Website
Visit Another Person's "HD Radio® Farce" Blog
Send Us An E-Mail.
Text Us, Or Leave a Voice Message.
