Please show me where the NRSC-5 interference mask is in the FCC rules, CFR Title 47 (any part). If it is not there, then by law, it is not an FCC standard, and is proof of nothing, just an excuse to create interference.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
NRSC-5 mask in the FCC rules?-NOT!
- Thread starter SuperSound
- Start date
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Wrong.
> Please show me where the NRSC-5 interference mask is in the
> FCC rules, CFR Title 47 (any part). If it is not there, then
> by law, it is not an FCC standard, and is proof of nothing,
> just an excuse to create interference.
>
First off, please stop with the "Sky is Falling" rhetoric. We agreed not to shout from the street corner, correct?
The standard does not have to be in Title 47 to be applicable.
I quote from the FCC:
-----
We believe that it is necessary and appropriate to rely to some degree on the expertise of the private sector for DAB system evaluations and, ultimately, recommendations for a transmission standard. Each of the testing models discussed above would help facilitate broad participation in this process. However, we conclude that it is premature to commit ourselves to any particular approach. This decision is based on both the limited information we have on the
performance capabilities of the competing systems and the fact that system proponents appear to be actively working toward a consensus on comparative testing issues. Nevertheless, we note that the NRSC brings substantial experience, expertise, and credibility to the testing process. Their current initiatives may provide the best opportunity for the rapid introduction of DAB. Moreover, the Commission would give great weight to any industry compromise the NRSC may achieve.
-----
Read: We're not going to decide on the system ourselves, we're going to trust the NRSC (which they've done several times before) to advise us on the technical aspects, which we hold with great weight.
It is soon to be an FCC standard. The time to comment on the NPRM to adopt NRSC-5 is up, and barring anything major, is set to go. In fact, the FCC is authorizing HD based on NRSC-5 compliance. So essentially, yes, the FCC is using NRSC-5 as their rule, until it is added to the books.
Again, please refrain from making accusations that you can't back up.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Please show me where the NRSC-5 interference mask is in the
> FCC rules, CFR Title 47 (any part). If it is not there, then
> by law, it is not an FCC standard, and is proof of nothing,
> just an excuse to create interference.
>
First off, please stop with the "Sky is Falling" rhetoric. We agreed not to shout from the street corner, correct?
The standard does not have to be in Title 47 to be applicable.
I quote from the FCC:
-----
We believe that it is necessary and appropriate to rely to some degree on the expertise of the private sector for DAB system evaluations and, ultimately, recommendations for a transmission standard. Each of the testing models discussed above would help facilitate broad participation in this process. However, we conclude that it is premature to commit ourselves to any particular approach. This decision is based on both the limited information we have on the
performance capabilities of the competing systems and the fact that system proponents appear to be actively working toward a consensus on comparative testing issues. Nevertheless, we note that the NRSC brings substantial experience, expertise, and credibility to the testing process. Their current initiatives may provide the best opportunity for the rapid introduction of DAB. Moreover, the Commission would give great weight to any industry compromise the NRSC may achieve.
-----
Read: We're not going to decide on the system ourselves, we're going to trust the NRSC (which they've done several times before) to advise us on the technical aspects, which we hold with great weight.
It is soon to be an FCC standard. The time to comment on the NPRM to adopt NRSC-5 is up, and barring anything major, is set to go. In fact, the FCC is authorizing HD based on NRSC-5 compliance. So essentially, yes, the FCC is using NRSC-5 as their rule, until it is added to the books.
Again, please refrain from making accusations that you can't back up.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Wrong.
> > Please show me where the NRSC-5 interference mask is in
> the
> > FCC rules, CFR Title 47 (any part). If it is not there,
> then
> > by law, it is not an FCC standard, and is proof of
> nothing,
> > just an excuse to create interference.
> >
>
> First off, please stop with the "Sky is Falling" rhetoric.
> We agreed not to shout from the street corner, correct?
>
> The standard does not have to be in Title 47 to be
> applicable.
>
> I quote from the FCC:
>
> -----
> We believe that it is necessary and appropriate to rely to
> some degree on the expertise of the private sector for DAB
> system evaluations and, ultimately, recommendations for a
> transmission standard. Each of the testing models discussed
> above would help facilitate broad participation in this
> process. However, we conclude that it is premature to commit
> ourselves to any particular approach. This decision is based
> on both the limited information we have on the
> performance capabilities of the competing systems and the
> fact that system proponents appear to be actively working
> toward a consensus on comparative testing issues.
> Nevertheless, we note that the NRSC brings substantial
> experience, expertise, and credibility to the testing
> process. Their current initiatives may provide the best
> opportunity for the rapid introduction of DAB. Moreover, the
> Commission would give great weight to any industry
> compromise the NRSC may achieve.
>
> -----
>
> Read: We're not going to decide on the system ourselves,
> we're going to trust the NRSC (which they've done several
> times before) to advise us on the technical aspects, which
> we hold with great weight.
>
> It is soon to be an FCC standard. The time to comment on
> the NPRM to adopt NRSC-5 is up, and barring anything major,
> is set to go. In fact, the FCC is authorizing HD based on
> NRSC-5 compliance. So essentially, yes, the FCC is using
> NRSC-5 as their rule, until it is added to the books.
>
> Again, please refrain from making accusations that you can't
> back up.
>
After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is correct. By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs already.
It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the opinions of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the FCC dictated how things were going to be, and we all cowered before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm not sure that is good!
Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean guys who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket protectors? Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game rules are going to be?
> > Please show me where the NRSC-5 interference mask is in
> the
> > FCC rules, CFR Title 47 (any part). If it is not there,
> then
> > by law, it is not an FCC standard, and is proof of
> nothing,
> > just an excuse to create interference.
> >
>
> First off, please stop with the "Sky is Falling" rhetoric.
> We agreed not to shout from the street corner, correct?
>
> The standard does not have to be in Title 47 to be
> applicable.
>
> I quote from the FCC:
>
> -----
> We believe that it is necessary and appropriate to rely to
> some degree on the expertise of the private sector for DAB
> system evaluations and, ultimately, recommendations for a
> transmission standard. Each of the testing models discussed
> above would help facilitate broad participation in this
> process. However, we conclude that it is premature to commit
> ourselves to any particular approach. This decision is based
> on both the limited information we have on the
> performance capabilities of the competing systems and the
> fact that system proponents appear to be actively working
> toward a consensus on comparative testing issues.
> Nevertheless, we note that the NRSC brings substantial
> experience, expertise, and credibility to the testing
> process. Their current initiatives may provide the best
> opportunity for the rapid introduction of DAB. Moreover, the
> Commission would give great weight to any industry
> compromise the NRSC may achieve.
>
> -----
>
> Read: We're not going to decide on the system ourselves,
> we're going to trust the NRSC (which they've done several
> times before) to advise us on the technical aspects, which
> we hold with great weight.
>
> It is soon to be an FCC standard. The time to comment on
> the NPRM to adopt NRSC-5 is up, and barring anything major,
> is set to go. In fact, the FCC is authorizing HD based on
> NRSC-5 compliance. So essentially, yes, the FCC is using
> NRSC-5 as their rule, until it is added to the books.
>
> Again, please refrain from making accusations that you can't
> back up.
>
After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is correct. By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs already.
It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the opinions of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the FCC dictated how things were going to be, and we all cowered before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm not sure that is good!
Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean guys who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket protectors? Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game rules are going to be?
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Wrong.
> After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is correct.
> By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
> I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs already.
> It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the opinions
> of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the FCC
> dictated how things were going to be, and we all cowered
> before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm not
> sure that is good!
> Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean guys
> who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket protectors?
> Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game rules
> are going to be?
>
My point is that although he is technically correct (it's not an FCC reg yet) the FCC requires you to show proof of complience with NRSC-5 when running HD in hybrid mode.
So while it's not yet in the books, it is treated as an FCC regulation.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is correct.
> By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
> I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs already.
> It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the opinions
> of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the FCC
> dictated how things were going to be, and we all cowered
> before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm not
> sure that is good!
> Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean guys
> who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket protectors?
> Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game rules
> are going to be?
>
My point is that although he is technically correct (it's not an FCC reg yet) the FCC requires you to show proof of complience with NRSC-5 when running HD in hybrid mode.
So while it's not yet in the books, it is treated as an FCC regulation.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
See.
A useful discussion!
The sky hasn't fallen, nor have I claimed that it was falling.
Perhaps some are oversensitive to legitimate criticism of HD radio. A bit touchy.
My opinion, (see) is that the HD radio is built on a whole series of false premises. There are rational solid reasons for this belief, and it seems to be shared by experiences and opinions of many, as shown by the responses on this discussion board, in engineering publications, and responses to the FCC inquiry about HD Radio, MM Docket No. 99-325.
The facts are, that the FCC AM and FM signal protection specifications were based on experiment and calculation of 2 or more analog signals, not mixed digital and analog signals. To use the same signal standards for mixed analog and additional digital signals on adjacent channels is inacurate. To use the NRSC-5 mask for adjacent channel digital signals without proof that it the digital signals have the same intensity and interference potential as analog signals, is an incomplete, flawed, misrepresentation.
As has been stated here, many times, by proponents as well as critics of HD Radio, the digital signal is 100 (or more?) times more powerful and pernicious then an analog signal of the same effective radiated power. That being the case, the digital signal creates more destructive interference. An occasional analog modulation spill over to an adjacent channels at approximately -40 dB, is not the same as a deliberate, continuous, high duty cycle digital signal on the same adjacent channels.
Using analog signal standards for mixed digital and analog signal propagation, may be inaccurate, incomplete, and inappropriate for the current station allocation system.
New mixed signal interference studies should be made, including more listening tests on more types of radios, and with more typical listeners.
Secondary coverage is very usefull in the suburbs, when traveling between cities, and in emergencies. It should not be allowed to be reduced or destroyed by HD Radio.
HD Radio's harm to the many far outweighs the benefits and profits of the few.
There should be no rush to adapt a possibly defective and destructive standard, since, in the case of FM, there is a more rational and interference free alternative. Here is one:
www.dreinc.com
Perhaps an alternative AM system under development that would allow night time service and does not need special authorization, should also be examined and evaluated.
There should be no rush to adopt a standard, or endorse and approve an exclusive, expensive, proprietary system, until all alternatives are carefully and fully evaluated. If the wrong system is adopted as the only system for digital broadcasting, we are likely to be stuck with the flawed system's defects for a long time to come. It may totally fail, based on it's inherent flaws.
Haste makes waste.
Also, the frequent claims that only HD Radio proponents have an exclusive patent on the "facts", while all others are ignorant of the "facts" are religious revelations which I choose not to subcribe.
> > After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is correct.
>
> > By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
> > I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs already.
> > It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the opinions
>
> > of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the FCC
>
> > dictated how things were going to be, and we all cowered
> > before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm not
> > sure that is good!
> > Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean guys
>
> > who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket
> protectors?
> > Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game rules
> > are going to be?
> >
>
> My point is that although he is technically correct (it's
> not an FCC reg yet) the FCC requires you to show proof of
> complience with NRSC-5 when running HD in hybrid mode.
>
> So while it's not yet in the books, it is treated as an FCC
> regulation.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SuperSound on 03/09/06 09:39 AM.</FONT></P>
See.
A useful discussion!
The sky hasn't fallen, nor have I claimed that it was falling.
Perhaps some are oversensitive to legitimate criticism of HD radio. A bit touchy.
My opinion, (see) is that the HD radio is built on a whole series of false premises. There are rational solid reasons for this belief, and it seems to be shared by experiences and opinions of many, as shown by the responses on this discussion board, in engineering publications, and responses to the FCC inquiry about HD Radio, MM Docket No. 99-325.
The facts are, that the FCC AM and FM signal protection specifications were based on experiment and calculation of 2 or more analog signals, not mixed digital and analog signals. To use the same signal standards for mixed analog and additional digital signals on adjacent channels is inacurate. To use the NRSC-5 mask for adjacent channel digital signals without proof that it the digital signals have the same intensity and interference potential as analog signals, is an incomplete, flawed, misrepresentation.
As has been stated here, many times, by proponents as well as critics of HD Radio, the digital signal is 100 (or more?) times more powerful and pernicious then an analog signal of the same effective radiated power. That being the case, the digital signal creates more destructive interference. An occasional analog modulation spill over to an adjacent channels at approximately -40 dB, is not the same as a deliberate, continuous, high duty cycle digital signal on the same adjacent channels.
Using analog signal standards for mixed digital and analog signal propagation, may be inaccurate, incomplete, and inappropriate for the current station allocation system.
New mixed signal interference studies should be made, including more listening tests on more types of radios, and with more typical listeners.
Secondary coverage is very usefull in the suburbs, when traveling between cities, and in emergencies. It should not be allowed to be reduced or destroyed by HD Radio.
HD Radio's harm to the many far outweighs the benefits and profits of the few.
There should be no rush to adapt a possibly defective and destructive standard, since, in the case of FM, there is a more rational and interference free alternative. Here is one:
www.dreinc.com
Perhaps an alternative AM system under development that would allow night time service and does not need special authorization, should also be examined and evaluated.
There should be no rush to adopt a standard, or endorse and approve an exclusive, expensive, proprietary system, until all alternatives are carefully and fully evaluated. If the wrong system is adopted as the only system for digital broadcasting, we are likely to be stuck with the flawed system's defects for a long time to come. It may totally fail, based on it's inherent flaws.
Haste makes waste.
Also, the frequent claims that only HD Radio proponents have an exclusive patent on the "facts", while all others are ignorant of the "facts" are religious revelations which I choose not to subcribe.
> > After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is correct.
>
> > By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
> > I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs already.
> > It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the opinions
>
> > of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the FCC
>
> > dictated how things were going to be, and we all cowered
> > before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm not
> > sure that is good!
> > Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean guys
>
> > who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket
> protectors?
> > Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game rules
> > are going to be?
> >
>
> My point is that although he is technically correct (it's
> not an FCC reg yet) the FCC requires you to show proof of
> complience with NRSC-5 when running HD in hybrid mode.
>
> So while it's not yet in the books, it is treated as an FCC
> regulation.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SuperSound on 03/09/06 09:39 AM.</FONT></P>
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
> See.
> A useful discussion!
> The sky hasn't fallen, nor have I claimed that it was
> falling.
> Perhaps some are oversensitive to legitimate criticism of HD
> radio. A bit touchy.
> My opinion, (see) is that the HD radio is built on a whole
> series of false premises. There are rational solid reasons
> for this belief, and it seems to be shared by experiences
> and opinions of many, as shown by the responses on this
> discussion board, in engineering publications, and responses
> to the FCC inquiry about HD Radio, MM Docket No. 99-325.
> The facts are, that the FCC AM and FM signal protection
> specifications were based on experiment and calculation of 2
> or more analog signals, not mixed digital and analog
> signals. To use the same signal standards for mixed analog
> and additional digital signals on adjacent channels is
> inacurate. To use the NRSC-5 mask for adjacent channel
> digital signals without proof that it the digital signals
> have the same intensity and interference potential as analog
> signals, is an incomplete, flawed, misrepresentation.
> As has been stated here, many times, by proponents as well
> as critics of HD Radio, the digital signal is 100 (or more?)
> times more powerful and pernicious then an analog signal of
> the same effective radiated power. That being the case, the
> digital signal creates more destructive interference. An
> occasional analog modulation spill over to an adjacent
> channels at approximately -40 dB, is not the same as a
> deliberate, continuous, high duty cycle digital signal on
> the same adjacent channels.
> Using analog signal standards for mixed digital and analog
> signal propagation, may be inaccurate, incomplete, and
> inappropriate for the current station allocation system.
> New mixed signal interference studies should be made,
> including more listening tests on more types of radios, and
> with more typical listeners.
> Secondary coverage is very usefull in the suburbs, when
> traveling between cities, and in emergencies. It should not
> be allowed to be reduced or destroyed by HD Radio.
> HD Radio's harm to the many far outweighs the benefits and
> profits of the few.
> There should be no rush to adapt a possibly defective and
> destructive standard, since, in the case of FM, there is a
> more rational and interference free alternative. Here is
> one:
> www.dreinc.com
> Perhaps an alternative AM system under development that
> would allow night time service and does not need special
> authorization, should also be examined and evaluated.
> There should be no rush to adopt a standard, or endorse and
> approve an exclusive, expensive, proprietary system, until
> all alternatives are carefully and fully evaluated. If the
> wrong system is adopted as the only system for digital
> broadcasting, we are likely to be stuck with the flawed
> system's defects for a long time to come. It may totally
> fail, based on it's inherent flaws.
> Haste makes waste.
> Also, the frequent claims that only HD Radio proponents have
> an exclusive patent on the "facts", while all others are
> ignorant of the "facts" are religious revelations which I
> choose not to subcribe.
>
> > > After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is
> correct.
> >
> > > By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
> > > I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs already.
>
> > > It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the
> opinions
> >
> > > of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the
> FCC
> >
> > > dictated how things were going to be, and we all cowered
>
> > > before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm
> not
> > > sure that is good!
> > > Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean
> guys
> >
> > > who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket
> > protectors?
> > > Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game
> rules
> > > are going to be?
> > >
> >
> > My point is that although he is technically correct (it's
> > not an FCC reg yet) the FCC requires you to show proof of
> > complience with NRSC-5 when running HD in hybrid mode.
> >
> > So while it's not yet in the books, it is treated as an
> FCC
> > regulation.
> >
>
And so let's discuss the issues.....
Yes, within the 100 dbu circle, commonly refered to as the blanketing contour, the FM IBOC out of band spectra *MAY* cause interference to adjacent channels. And furthermore, some FM multi-station sites are smack dab in the middle of dense, urban enviroments with high population densities.
The question becomes, then.....where do you draw the line for interference protection? Are the old FCC rules regarding protection from interference adequate or should they be revamped?
When the rules were written, some fifty years ago, we were still using vacuum tubes and LC circuits for FM tuners....hand wired,too!! Signals in the single microvolt range just were not usable. So there were no "rimshots!" Fringe area reception was considered to be 30 miles distance from a 100,000 watt station! And you had to have an outdoor antenna to even do that!! That was back in the days of horizontal only polarization....car reception, if you had a "add on" tuner, was already 20 db down because the car antenna was vertical. So, the notion of serving an area outside your 60 dbu circle, was crazy.
Today, with IC FM front ends, reception IS possible down into the single digit microvolts. FM antenna propagation modeling has enabled stations, out of market,to optimize their signals to serve previously "un-servable" areas.In Atlanta, we have several major players who are rimshots....there are only 6 or 7 full C's operating from "downtown." Half the Atlanta radio dial would go away if the rimshots go.
So....again, the question. Should the FM rules be revamped to protect rimshots from IBOC artifacts? I would especially like to hear from any engineers who were actually working FM back in the old days.
We actually have some issues here with the intown stations wiping out the adjacent channel rimshots in some areas.(Those areas are around the multi-station tower sites.)And these are stations with ratings, some as high as the intown stations. People ARE listening to these stations, by the thousands. These towers are located in areas where densities are in the hundreds, if not thousands per square mile. Do these people deserve access to the rimshot signals? Or not? The rules say no.....should we change the rules?
> See.
> A useful discussion!
> The sky hasn't fallen, nor have I claimed that it was
> falling.
> Perhaps some are oversensitive to legitimate criticism of HD
> radio. A bit touchy.
> My opinion, (see) is that the HD radio is built on a whole
> series of false premises. There are rational solid reasons
> for this belief, and it seems to be shared by experiences
> and opinions of many, as shown by the responses on this
> discussion board, in engineering publications, and responses
> to the FCC inquiry about HD Radio, MM Docket No. 99-325.
> The facts are, that the FCC AM and FM signal protection
> specifications were based on experiment and calculation of 2
> or more analog signals, not mixed digital and analog
> signals. To use the same signal standards for mixed analog
> and additional digital signals on adjacent channels is
> inacurate. To use the NRSC-5 mask for adjacent channel
> digital signals without proof that it the digital signals
> have the same intensity and interference potential as analog
> signals, is an incomplete, flawed, misrepresentation.
> As has been stated here, many times, by proponents as well
> as critics of HD Radio, the digital signal is 100 (or more?)
> times more powerful and pernicious then an analog signal of
> the same effective radiated power. That being the case, the
> digital signal creates more destructive interference. An
> occasional analog modulation spill over to an adjacent
> channels at approximately -40 dB, is not the same as a
> deliberate, continuous, high duty cycle digital signal on
> the same adjacent channels.
> Using analog signal standards for mixed digital and analog
> signal propagation, may be inaccurate, incomplete, and
> inappropriate for the current station allocation system.
> New mixed signal interference studies should be made,
> including more listening tests on more types of radios, and
> with more typical listeners.
> Secondary coverage is very usefull in the suburbs, when
> traveling between cities, and in emergencies. It should not
> be allowed to be reduced or destroyed by HD Radio.
> HD Radio's harm to the many far outweighs the benefits and
> profits of the few.
> There should be no rush to adapt a possibly defective and
> destructive standard, since, in the case of FM, there is a
> more rational and interference free alternative. Here is
> one:
> www.dreinc.com
> Perhaps an alternative AM system under development that
> would allow night time service and does not need special
> authorization, should also be examined and evaluated.
> There should be no rush to adopt a standard, or endorse and
> approve an exclusive, expensive, proprietary system, until
> all alternatives are carefully and fully evaluated. If the
> wrong system is adopted as the only system for digital
> broadcasting, we are likely to be stuck with the flawed
> system's defects for a long time to come. It may totally
> fail, based on it's inherent flaws.
> Haste makes waste.
> Also, the frequent claims that only HD Radio proponents have
> an exclusive patent on the "facts", while all others are
> ignorant of the "facts" are religious revelations which I
> choose not to subcribe.
>
> > > After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is
> correct.
> >
> > > By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
> > > I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs already.
>
> > > It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the
> opinions
> >
> > > of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the
> FCC
> >
> > > dictated how things were going to be, and we all cowered
>
> > > before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm
> not
> > > sure that is good!
> > > Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean
> guys
> >
> > > who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket
> > protectors?
> > > Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game
> rules
> > > are going to be?
> > >
> >
> > My point is that although he is technically correct (it's
> > not an FCC reg yet) the FCC requires you to show proof of
> > complience with NRSC-5 when running HD in hybrid mode.
> >
> > So while it's not yet in the books, it is treated as an
> FCC
> > regulation.
> >
>
And so let's discuss the issues.....
Yes, within the 100 dbu circle, commonly refered to as the blanketing contour, the FM IBOC out of band spectra *MAY* cause interference to adjacent channels. And furthermore, some FM multi-station sites are smack dab in the middle of dense, urban enviroments with high population densities.
The question becomes, then.....where do you draw the line for interference protection? Are the old FCC rules regarding protection from interference adequate or should they be revamped?
When the rules were written, some fifty years ago, we were still using vacuum tubes and LC circuits for FM tuners....hand wired,too!! Signals in the single microvolt range just were not usable. So there were no "rimshots!" Fringe area reception was considered to be 30 miles distance from a 100,000 watt station! And you had to have an outdoor antenna to even do that!! That was back in the days of horizontal only polarization....car reception, if you had a "add on" tuner, was already 20 db down because the car antenna was vertical. So, the notion of serving an area outside your 60 dbu circle, was crazy.
Today, with IC FM front ends, reception IS possible down into the single digit microvolts. FM antenna propagation modeling has enabled stations, out of market,to optimize their signals to serve previously "un-servable" areas.In Atlanta, we have several major players who are rimshots....there are only 6 or 7 full C's operating from "downtown." Half the Atlanta radio dial would go away if the rimshots go.
So....again, the question. Should the FM rules be revamped to protect rimshots from IBOC artifacts? I would especially like to hear from any engineers who were actually working FM back in the old days.
We actually have some issues here with the intown stations wiping out the adjacent channel rimshots in some areas.(Those areas are around the multi-station tower sites.)And these are stations with ratings, some as high as the intown stations. People ARE listening to these stations, by the thousands. These towers are located in areas where densities are in the hundreds, if not thousands per square mile. Do these people deserve access to the rimshot signals? Or not? The rules say no.....should we change the rules?
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
> > See.
> > A useful discussion!
> > The sky hasn't fallen, nor have I claimed that it was
> > falling.
> > Perhaps some are oversensitive to legitimate criticism of
> HD
> > radio. A bit touchy.
> > My opinion, (see) is that the HD radio is built on a whole
>
> > series of false premises. There are rational solid reasons
>
> > for this belief, and it seems to be shared by experiences
> > and opinions of many, as shown by the responses on this
> > discussion board, in engineering publications, and
> responses
> > to the FCC inquiry about HD Radio, MM Docket No. 99-325.
> > The facts are, that the FCC AM and FM signal protection
> > specifications were based on experiment and calculation of
> 2
> > or more analog signals, not mixed digital and analog
> > signals. To use the same signal standards for mixed analog
>
> > and additional digital signals on adjacent channels is
> > inacurate. To use the NRSC-5 mask for adjacent channel
> > digital signals without proof that it the digital signals
> > have the same intensity and interference potential as
> analog
> > signals, is an incomplete, flawed, misrepresentation.
> > As has been stated here, many times, by proponents as well
>
> > as critics of HD Radio, the digital signal is 100 (or
> more?)
> > times more powerful and pernicious then an analog signal
> of
> > the same effective radiated power. That being the case,
> the
> > digital signal creates more destructive interference. An
> > occasional analog modulation spill over to an adjacent
> > channels at approximately -40 dB, is not the same as a
> > deliberate, continuous, high duty cycle digital signal on
> > the same adjacent channels.
> > Using analog signal standards for mixed digital and analog
>
> > signal propagation, may be inaccurate, incomplete, and
> > inappropriate for the current station allocation system.
> > New mixed signal interference studies should be made,
> > including more listening tests on more types of radios,
> and
> > with more typical listeners.
> > Secondary coverage is very usefull in the suburbs, when
> > traveling between cities, and in emergencies. It should
> not
> > be allowed to be reduced or destroyed by HD Radio.
> > HD Radio's harm to the many far outweighs the benefits and
>
> > profits of the few.
> > There should be no rush to adapt a possibly defective and
> > destructive standard, since, in the case of FM, there is a
>
> > more rational and interference free alternative. Here is
> > one:
> > www.dreinc.com
> > Perhaps an alternative AM system under development that
> > would allow night time service and does not need special
> > authorization, should also be examined and evaluated.
> > There should be no rush to adopt a standard, or endorse
> and
> > approve an exclusive, expensive, proprietary system, until
>
> > all alternatives are carefully and fully evaluated. If the
>
> > wrong system is adopted as the only system for digital
> > broadcasting, we are likely to be stuck with the flawed
> > system's defects for a long time to come. It may totally
> > fail, based on it's inherent flaws.
> > Haste makes waste.
> > Also, the frequent claims that only HD Radio proponents
> have
> > an exclusive patent on the "facts", while all others are
> > ignorant of the "facts" are religious revelations which I
> > choose not to subcribe.
> >
> > > > After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is
> > correct.
> > >
> > > > By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
> > > > I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs
> already.
> >
> > > > It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the
> > opinions
> > >
> > > > of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the
>
> > FCC
> > >
> > > > dictated how things were going to be, and we all
> cowered
> >
> > > > before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm
> > not
> > > > sure that is good!
> > > > Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean
> > guys
> > >
> > > > who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket
> > > protectors?
> > > > Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game
> > rules
> > > > are going to be?
> > > >
> > >
> > > My point is that although he is technically correct
> (it's
> > > not an FCC reg yet) the FCC requires you to show proof
> of
> > > complience with NRSC-5 when running HD in hybrid mode.
> > >
> > > So while it's not yet in the books, it is treated as an
> > FCC
> > > regulation.
> > >
> >
> And so let's discuss the issues.....
> Yes, within the 100 dbu circle, commonly refered to as the
> blanketing contour, the FM IBOC out of band spectra *MAY*
> cause interference to adjacent channels. And furthermore,
> some FM multi-station sites are smack dab in the middle of
> dense, urban enviroments with high population densities.
> The question becomes, then.....where do you draw the line
> for interference protection? Are the old FCC rules regarding
> protection from interference adequate or should they be
> revamped?
> When the rules were written, some fifty years ago, we were
> still using vacuum tubes and LC circuits for FM
> tuners....hand wired,too!! Signals in the single microvolt
> range just were not usable. So there were no "rimshots!"
> Fringe area reception was considered to be 30 miles distance
> from a 100,000 watt station! And you had to have an outdoor
> antenna to even do that!! That was back in the days of
> horizontal only polarization....car reception, if you had a
> "add on" tuner, was already 20 db down because the car
> antenna was vertical. So, the notion of serving an area
> outside your 60 dbu circle, was crazy.
> Today, with IC FM front ends, reception IS possible down
> into the single digit microvolts. FM antenna propagation
> modeling has enabled stations, out of market,to optimize
> their signals to serve previously "un-servable" areas.In
> Atlanta, we have several major players who are
> rimshots....there are only 6 or 7 full C's operating from
> "downtown." Half the Atlanta radio dial would go away if the
> rimshots go.
> So....again, the question. Should the FM rules be revamped
> to protect rimshots from IBOC artifacts? I would especially
> like to hear from any engineers who were actually working FM
> back in the old days.
> We actually have some issues here with the intown stations
> wiping out the adjacent channel rimshots in some
> areas.(Those areas are around the multi-station tower
> sites.)And these are stations with ratings, some as high as
> the intown stations. People ARE listening to these stations,
> by the thousands. These towers are located in areas where
> densities are in the hundreds, if not thousands per square
> mile. Do these people deserve access to the rimshot signals?
> Or not? The rules say no.....should we change the rules?
The rules were not written in contemplation of digital service on the FM or AM bands. Operators who have developed their properties under the then existing rules should be protected.
>
> > See.
> > A useful discussion!
> > The sky hasn't fallen, nor have I claimed that it was
> > falling.
> > Perhaps some are oversensitive to legitimate criticism of
> HD
> > radio. A bit touchy.
> > My opinion, (see) is that the HD radio is built on a whole
>
> > series of false premises. There are rational solid reasons
>
> > for this belief, and it seems to be shared by experiences
> > and opinions of many, as shown by the responses on this
> > discussion board, in engineering publications, and
> responses
> > to the FCC inquiry about HD Radio, MM Docket No. 99-325.
> > The facts are, that the FCC AM and FM signal protection
> > specifications were based on experiment and calculation of
> 2
> > or more analog signals, not mixed digital and analog
> > signals. To use the same signal standards for mixed analog
>
> > and additional digital signals on adjacent channels is
> > inacurate. To use the NRSC-5 mask for adjacent channel
> > digital signals without proof that it the digital signals
> > have the same intensity and interference potential as
> analog
> > signals, is an incomplete, flawed, misrepresentation.
> > As has been stated here, many times, by proponents as well
>
> > as critics of HD Radio, the digital signal is 100 (or
> more?)
> > times more powerful and pernicious then an analog signal
> of
> > the same effective radiated power. That being the case,
> the
> > digital signal creates more destructive interference. An
> > occasional analog modulation spill over to an adjacent
> > channels at approximately -40 dB, is not the same as a
> > deliberate, continuous, high duty cycle digital signal on
> > the same adjacent channels.
> > Using analog signal standards for mixed digital and analog
>
> > signal propagation, may be inaccurate, incomplete, and
> > inappropriate for the current station allocation system.
> > New mixed signal interference studies should be made,
> > including more listening tests on more types of radios,
> and
> > with more typical listeners.
> > Secondary coverage is very usefull in the suburbs, when
> > traveling between cities, and in emergencies. It should
> not
> > be allowed to be reduced or destroyed by HD Radio.
> > HD Radio's harm to the many far outweighs the benefits and
>
> > profits of the few.
> > There should be no rush to adapt a possibly defective and
> > destructive standard, since, in the case of FM, there is a
>
> > more rational and interference free alternative. Here is
> > one:
> > www.dreinc.com
> > Perhaps an alternative AM system under development that
> > would allow night time service and does not need special
> > authorization, should also be examined and evaluated.
> > There should be no rush to adopt a standard, or endorse
> and
> > approve an exclusive, expensive, proprietary system, until
>
> > all alternatives are carefully and fully evaluated. If the
>
> > wrong system is adopted as the only system for digital
> > broadcasting, we are likely to be stuck with the flawed
> > system's defects for a long time to come. It may totally
> > fail, based on it's inherent flaws.
> > Haste makes waste.
> > Also, the frequent claims that only HD Radio proponents
> have
> > an exclusive patent on the "facts", while all others are
> > ignorant of the "facts" are religious revelations which I
> > choose not to subcribe.
> >
> > > > After some reaserch......well, technically, SS is
> > correct.
> > >
> > > > By your own admission, it has not been adopted yet.
> > > > I thought the NRSC mask was FCC rules and regs
> already.
> >
> > > > It is also of interest that the FCC is taking the
> > opinions
> > >
> > > > of the broadcasters into account. In the old days, the
>
> > FCC
> > >
> > > > dictated how things were going to be, and we all
> cowered
> >
> > > > before them. Now, they are listening to us....and I'm
> > not
> > > > sure that is good!
> > > > Does the FCC have any engineering staff left - I mean
> > guys
> > >
> > > > who can really use a slide rule and wear pocket
> > > protectors?
> > > > Shouldn't it be those guys who decide what the game
> > rules
> > > > are going to be?
> > > >
> > >
> > > My point is that although he is technically correct
> (it's
> > > not an FCC reg yet) the FCC requires you to show proof
> of
> > > complience with NRSC-5 when running HD in hybrid mode.
> > >
> > > So while it's not yet in the books, it is treated as an
> > FCC
> > > regulation.
> > >
> >
> And so let's discuss the issues.....
> Yes, within the 100 dbu circle, commonly refered to as the
> blanketing contour, the FM IBOC out of band spectra *MAY*
> cause interference to adjacent channels. And furthermore,
> some FM multi-station sites are smack dab in the middle of
> dense, urban enviroments with high population densities.
> The question becomes, then.....where do you draw the line
> for interference protection? Are the old FCC rules regarding
> protection from interference adequate or should they be
> revamped?
> When the rules were written, some fifty years ago, we were
> still using vacuum tubes and LC circuits for FM
> tuners....hand wired,too!! Signals in the single microvolt
> range just were not usable. So there were no "rimshots!"
> Fringe area reception was considered to be 30 miles distance
> from a 100,000 watt station! And you had to have an outdoor
> antenna to even do that!! That was back in the days of
> horizontal only polarization....car reception, if you had a
> "add on" tuner, was already 20 db down because the car
> antenna was vertical. So, the notion of serving an area
> outside your 60 dbu circle, was crazy.
> Today, with IC FM front ends, reception IS possible down
> into the single digit microvolts. FM antenna propagation
> modeling has enabled stations, out of market,to optimize
> their signals to serve previously "un-servable" areas.In
> Atlanta, we have several major players who are
> rimshots....there are only 6 or 7 full C's operating from
> "downtown." Half the Atlanta radio dial would go away if the
> rimshots go.
> So....again, the question. Should the FM rules be revamped
> to protect rimshots from IBOC artifacts? I would especially
> like to hear from any engineers who were actually working FM
> back in the old days.
> We actually have some issues here with the intown stations
> wiping out the adjacent channel rimshots in some
> areas.(Those areas are around the multi-station tower
> sites.)And these are stations with ratings, some as high as
> the intown stations. People ARE listening to these stations,
> by the thousands. These towers are located in areas where
> densities are in the hundreds, if not thousands per square
> mile. Do these people deserve access to the rimshot signals?
> Or not? The rules say no.....should we change the rules?
The rules were not written in contemplation of digital service on the FM or AM bands. Operators who have developed their properties under the then existing rules should be protected.
>
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
> The rules were not written in contemplation of digital
> service on the FM or AM bands. Operators who have developed
> their properties under the then existing rules should be
> protected.
> >
>
There is a fine line there as far as the FCC is concerned, however. Just recently we dealt with that in my neck of the woods...
There was a station NW of Milwaukee on 104.9, but built less than full class. They enjoyed pretty good coverage, and good listenership, in Milwaukee.
There was a co-channel south of Milwaukee on 104.7 that thanks to the short-spacing afforded to them by the underclassing of 104.9, was able to move into the south suburbs, effectively covering a good chunk of the city and wiping out 104.9's coverage. The owners of the 104.9 filed a complaint with the FCC.
The FCC's opinion? If you have unprotected coverage that you are basing trade off of, you do so at your own risk. That coverage could go away at any time...
So there is an anology in the real "analog" world that may apply to HD.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> The rules were not written in contemplation of digital
> service on the FM or AM bands. Operators who have developed
> their properties under the then existing rules should be
> protected.
> >
>
There is a fine line there as far as the FCC is concerned, however. Just recently we dealt with that in my neck of the woods...
There was a station NW of Milwaukee on 104.9, but built less than full class. They enjoyed pretty good coverage, and good listenership, in Milwaukee.
There was a co-channel south of Milwaukee on 104.7 that thanks to the short-spacing afforded to them by the underclassing of 104.9, was able to move into the south suburbs, effectively covering a good chunk of the city and wiping out 104.9's coverage. The owners of the 104.9 filed a complaint with the FCC.
The FCC's opinion? If you have unprotected coverage that you are basing trade off of, you do so at your own risk. That coverage could go away at any time...
So there is an anology in the real "analog" world that may apply to HD.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
I follow your reasoning, to a point. I argue that stations that have developed their facilities under the then existing rules should be protected.
An "underbuilt" station is always at risk of losing service, or worse yet, being "declassified" by the Commission. (For example, old class c stations being downgraded due to failure to increase tower height).
What we have at play (in certain situations) is a "de facto" downgrading of a station's service area.
At least underbuilt stations were given warning and an option to remedy their situation. The same can't be said for instances of IBOC interference.
All that aside, look at the number of class A stations around the US that have good numbers from areas far beyond their protected contours. Start encroaching on them...well, wait for the squaking to stop!
> > The rules were not written in contemplation of digital
> > service on the FM or AM bands. Operators who have
> developed
> > their properties under the then existing rules should be
> > protected.
> > >
> >
>
> There is a fine line there as far as the FCC is concerned,
> however. Just recently we dealt with that in my neck of the
> woods...
>
> There was a station NW of Milwaukee on 104.9, but built less
> than full class. They enjoyed pretty good coverage, and
> good listenership, in Milwaukee.
>
> There was a co-channel south of Milwaukee on 104.7 that
> thanks to the short-spacing afforded to them by the
> underclassing of 104.9, was able to move into the south
> suburbs, effectively covering a good chunk of the city and
> wiping out 104.9's coverage. The owners of the 104.9 filed
> a complaint with the FCC.
>
> The FCC's opinion? If you have unprotected coverage that
> you are basing trade off of, you do so at your own risk.
> That coverage could go away at any time...
>
> So there is an anology in the real "analog" world that may
> apply to HD.
>
I follow your reasoning, to a point. I argue that stations that have developed their facilities under the then existing rules should be protected.
An "underbuilt" station is always at risk of losing service, or worse yet, being "declassified" by the Commission. (For example, old class c stations being downgraded due to failure to increase tower height).
What we have at play (in certain situations) is a "de facto" downgrading of a station's service area.
At least underbuilt stations were given warning and an option to remedy their situation. The same can't be said for instances of IBOC interference.
All that aside, look at the number of class A stations around the US that have good numbers from areas far beyond their protected contours. Start encroaching on them...well, wait for the squaking to stop!
> > The rules were not written in contemplation of digital
> > service on the FM or AM bands. Operators who have
> developed
> > their properties under the then existing rules should be
> > protected.
> > >
> >
>
> There is a fine line there as far as the FCC is concerned,
> however. Just recently we dealt with that in my neck of the
> woods...
>
> There was a station NW of Milwaukee on 104.9, but built less
> than full class. They enjoyed pretty good coverage, and
> good listenership, in Milwaukee.
>
> There was a co-channel south of Milwaukee on 104.7 that
> thanks to the short-spacing afforded to them by the
> underclassing of 104.9, was able to move into the south
> suburbs, effectively covering a good chunk of the city and
> wiping out 104.9's coverage. The owners of the 104.9 filed
> a complaint with the FCC.
>
> The FCC's opinion? If you have unprotected coverage that
> you are basing trade off of, you do so at your own risk.
> That coverage could go away at any time...
>
> So there is an anology in the real "analog" world that may
> apply to HD.
>
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
Let me reply to each section (even though I hate when people do that!)
> I follow your reasoning, to a point. I argue that stations
> that have developed their facilities under the then existing
> rules should be protected.
Under certain conditions, I agree. As a rule, though, I believe that you are only entitled to what you are entitled to. Under FCC rule, your protected contour is protected - and nothing more. Stretch the rubber band at your own risk.
> An "underbuilt" station is always at risk of losing service,
> or worse yet, being "declassified" by the Commission. (For
> example, old class c stations being downgraded due to
> failure to increase tower height).
> What we have at play (in certain situations) is a "de facto"
> downgrading of a station's service area.
If it results in a net loss of protected coverage, yes. Absolutely.
> At least underbuilt stations were given warning and an
> option to remedy their situation. The same can't be said
> for instances of IBOC interference.
Actually in the case I referred to, they weren't. A C to C0 s usually the only case in which you are given an opportunity to make the changes. Otherwise, no warning is given, other than the filing for the CP.
> All that aside, look at the number of class A stations
> around the US that have good numbers from areas far beyond
> their protected contours. Start encroaching on them...well,
> wait for the squaking to stop!
In my opinion, that is the risk they decided to take. While I don't support encroaching on anyone, they knew the rules of the game in terms of protected contours when they started. If they built a station in Smallville to rimshot into Metropolis, they took a risk. Now in the case of rural stations serving spread out areas, the stations are generally far enough out to be immune to adjacent-channel issues. I would think in the rare cases that it's not there would be some sort of mitigation process.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Let me reply to each section (even though I hate when people do that!)
> I follow your reasoning, to a point. I argue that stations
> that have developed their facilities under the then existing
> rules should be protected.
Under certain conditions, I agree. As a rule, though, I believe that you are only entitled to what you are entitled to. Under FCC rule, your protected contour is protected - and nothing more. Stretch the rubber band at your own risk.
> An "underbuilt" station is always at risk of losing service,
> or worse yet, being "declassified" by the Commission. (For
> example, old class c stations being downgraded due to
> failure to increase tower height).
> What we have at play (in certain situations) is a "de facto"
> downgrading of a station's service area.
If it results in a net loss of protected coverage, yes. Absolutely.
> At least underbuilt stations were given warning and an
> option to remedy their situation. The same can't be said
> for instances of IBOC interference.
Actually in the case I referred to, they weren't. A C to C0 s usually the only case in which you are given an opportunity to make the changes. Otherwise, no warning is given, other than the filing for the CP.
> All that aside, look at the number of class A stations
> around the US that have good numbers from areas far beyond
> their protected contours. Start encroaching on them...well,
> wait for the squaking to stop!
In my opinion, that is the risk they decided to take. While I don't support encroaching on anyone, they knew the rules of the game in terms of protected contours when they started. If they built a station in Smallville to rimshot into Metropolis, they took a risk. Now in the case of rural stations serving spread out areas, the stations are generally far enough out to be immune to adjacent-channel issues. I would think in the rare cases that it's not there would be some sort of mitigation process.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
We're on the same page here. Although maybe reading from different books.
Underbuilt stations were given warning that they could be re-classified. They may not have each recieved a postcard from the FCC, but the change was published in the Federal Register. (Don't we all subscribe to that? Ha.)
I agree that many FM stations have been enjoying coverage beyond their protected coverage for years.
That's where the squawking will begin. IBOC within the "mask" or existing coverage? Unfortunately, it will take the FCC to answer that...and failing that, the courts. I hope it doesn't come to that.
> Let me reply to each section (even though I hate when people
> do that!)
>
> > I follow your reasoning, to a point. I argue that
> stations
> > that have developed their facilities under the then
> existing
> > rules should be protected.
>
> Under certain conditions, I agree. As a rule, though, I
> believe that you are only entitled to what you are entitled
> to. Under FCC rule, your protected contour is protected -
> and nothing more. Stretch the rubber band at your own risk.
>
>
> > An "underbuilt" station is always at risk of losing
> service,
> > or worse yet, being "declassified" by the Commission.
> (For
> > example, old class c stations being downgraded due to
> > failure to increase tower height).
>
> > What we have at play (in certain situations) is a "de
> facto"
> > downgrading of a station's service area.
>
> If it results in a net loss of protected coverage, yes.
> Absolutely.
>
> > At least underbuilt stations were given warning and an
> > option to remedy their situation. The same can't be said
> > for instances of IBOC interference.
>
> Actually in the case I referred to, they weren't. A C to C0
> s usually the only case in which you are given an
> opportunity to make the changes. Otherwise, no warning is
> given, other than the filing for the CP.
>
> > All that aside, look at the number of class A stations
> > around the US that have good numbers from areas far beyond
>
> > their protected contours. Start encroaching on
> them...well,
> > wait for the squaking to stop!
>
> In my opinion, that is the risk they decided to take. While
> I don't support encroaching on anyone, they knew the rules
> of the game in terms of protected contours when they
> started. If they built a station in Smallville to rimshot
> into Metropolis, they took a risk. Now in the case of rural
> stations serving spread out areas, the stations are
> generally far enough out to be immune to adjacent-channel
> issues. I would think in the rare cases that it's not there
> would be some sort of mitigation process.
>
We're on the same page here. Although maybe reading from different books.
Underbuilt stations were given warning that they could be re-classified. They may not have each recieved a postcard from the FCC, but the change was published in the Federal Register. (Don't we all subscribe to that? Ha.)
I agree that many FM stations have been enjoying coverage beyond their protected coverage for years.
That's where the squawking will begin. IBOC within the "mask" or existing coverage? Unfortunately, it will take the FCC to answer that...and failing that, the courts. I hope it doesn't come to that.
> Let me reply to each section (even though I hate when people
> do that!)
>
> > I follow your reasoning, to a point. I argue that
> stations
> > that have developed their facilities under the then
> existing
> > rules should be protected.
>
> Under certain conditions, I agree. As a rule, though, I
> believe that you are only entitled to what you are entitled
> to. Under FCC rule, your protected contour is protected -
> and nothing more. Stretch the rubber band at your own risk.
>
>
> > An "underbuilt" station is always at risk of losing
> service,
> > or worse yet, being "declassified" by the Commission.
> (For
> > example, old class c stations being downgraded due to
> > failure to increase tower height).
>
> > What we have at play (in certain situations) is a "de
> facto"
> > downgrading of a station's service area.
>
> If it results in a net loss of protected coverage, yes.
> Absolutely.
>
> > At least underbuilt stations were given warning and an
> > option to remedy their situation. The same can't be said
> > for instances of IBOC interference.
>
> Actually in the case I referred to, they weren't. A C to C0
> s usually the only case in which you are given an
> opportunity to make the changes. Otherwise, no warning is
> given, other than the filing for the CP.
>
> > All that aside, look at the number of class A stations
> > around the US that have good numbers from areas far beyond
>
> > their protected contours. Start encroaching on
> them...well,
> > wait for the squaking to stop!
>
> In my opinion, that is the risk they decided to take. While
> I don't support encroaching on anyone, they knew the rules
> of the game in terms of protected contours when they
> started. If they built a station in Smallville to rimshot
> into Metropolis, they took a risk. Now in the case of rural
> stations serving spread out areas, the stations are
> generally far enough out to be immune to adjacent-channel
> issues. I would think in the rare cases that it's not there
> would be some sort of mitigation process.
>
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
> We're on the same page here. Although maybe reading from
> different books.
>
> Underbuilt stations were given warning that they could be
> re-classified. They may not have each recieved a postcard
> from the FCC, but the change was published in the Federal
> Register. (Don't we all subscribe to that? Ha.)
>
> I agree that many FM stations have been enjoying coverage
> beyond their protected coverage for years.
>
> That's where the squawking will begin. IBOC within the
> "mask" or existing coverage? Unfortunately, it will take
> the FCC to answer that...and failing that, the courts. I
> hope it doesn't come to that.
>
Gotcha, you're right...we are on the very same page here.
Off topic slightly...I get DataWorld Flag reports emailed to me every week. Any filing with the FCC that would even remotely affect any of my stations/markets gets flagged. Knowledge is power!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> We're on the same page here. Although maybe reading from
> different books.
>
> Underbuilt stations were given warning that they could be
> re-classified. They may not have each recieved a postcard
> from the FCC, but the change was published in the Federal
> Register. (Don't we all subscribe to that? Ha.)
>
> I agree that many FM stations have been enjoying coverage
> beyond their protected coverage for years.
>
> That's where the squawking will begin. IBOC within the
> "mask" or existing coverage? Unfortunately, it will take
> the FCC to answer that...and failing that, the courts. I
> hope it doesn't come to that.
>
Gotcha, you're right...we are on the very same page here.
Off topic slightly...I get DataWorld Flag reports emailed to me every week. Any filing with the FCC that would even remotely affect any of my stations/markets gets flagged. Knowledge is power!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: No one has addressed the question!!
> > We're on the same page here. Although maybe reading from
> > different books.
> >
> > Underbuilt stations were given warning that they could be
> > re-classified. They may not have each recieved a postcard
>
> > from the FCC, but the change was published in the Federal
> > Register. (Don't we all subscribe to that? Ha.)
> >
> > I agree that many FM stations have been enjoying coverage
> > beyond their protected coverage for years.
> >
> > That's where the squawking will begin. IBOC within the
> > "mask" or existing coverage? Unfortunately, it will take
> > the FCC to answer that...and failing that, the courts. I
> > hope it doesn't come to that.
> >
>
> Gotcha, you're right...we are on the very same page here.
>
> Off topic slightly...I get DataWorld Flag reports emailed to
> me every week. Any filing with the FCC that would even
> remotely affect any of my stations/markets gets flagged.
> Knowledge is power!
>
So....no one has answered my question!
Do we change the rules to reflect the improvements in tuner performance and recognize the reality of the "rimshot" or do we continue on with the rules and regs, as written?
Anyone care to opine?
> > We're on the same page here. Although maybe reading from
> > different books.
> >
> > Underbuilt stations were given warning that they could be
> > re-classified. They may not have each recieved a postcard
>
> > from the FCC, but the change was published in the Federal
> > Register. (Don't we all subscribe to that? Ha.)
> >
> > I agree that many FM stations have been enjoying coverage
> > beyond their protected coverage for years.
> >
> > That's where the squawking will begin. IBOC within the
> > "mask" or existing coverage? Unfortunately, it will take
> > the FCC to answer that...and failing that, the courts. I
> > hope it doesn't come to that.
> >
>
> Gotcha, you're right...we are on the very same page here.
>
> Off topic slightly...I get DataWorld Flag reports emailed to
> me every week. Any filing with the FCC that would even
> remotely affect any of my stations/markets gets flagged.
> Knowledge is power!
>
So....no one has answered my question!
Do we change the rules to reflect the improvements in tuner performance and recognize the reality of the "rimshot" or do we continue on with the rules and regs, as written?
Anyone care to opine?
Re: Wrong.-A useful discussion!
> The rules were not written in contemplation of digital
> service on the FM or AM bands. Operators who have developed
> their properties under the then existing rules should be
> protected.
The rimshots were all approved by the FCC. They should have the same rights as any other facility. Yes. They should be protected. They're perfectly legal.
Rich
> The rules were not written in contemplation of digital
> service on the FM or AM bands. Operators who have developed
> their properties under the then existing rules should be
> protected.
The rimshots were all approved by the FCC. They should have the same rights as any other facility. Yes. They should be protected. They're perfectly legal.
Rich
Re: No one has addressed the question!!
> So....no one has answered my question!
> Do we change the rules to reflect the improvements in tuner
> performance and recognize the reality of the "rimshot" or do
> we continue on with the rules and regs, as written?
> Anyone care to opine?
We update the rules to reflect the technology. Look at the wonderful improvements the updated Communications Act brought us.
Rich
> So....no one has answered my question!
> Do we change the rules to reflect the improvements in tuner
> performance and recognize the reality of the "rimshot" or do
> we continue on with the rules and regs, as written?
> Anyone care to opine?
We update the rules to reflect the technology. Look at the wonderful improvements the updated Communications Act brought us.
Rich
- Status