• 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

Whole lotta angst goin on!

T

texasradio

I've been following this board for some time now. Some credible arguments have been made about AM and FM IBOC, some not so credible.

I am a group owner and an engineer.

My group does not own shares in iBiquity. I don't have an iBiquity exciter at any of my sites.

I am anti-IBOC for AM and in the "maybe" catogory for FM. If they can make HD-2 or surround sound work, more power to them.

What has suprised me about the posts on this board, is the number of people who attack the anti-IBOC guys asking for proof that the system doesn't work....

Hey, wake up!!! If IBOC works as it should, show the doubters proof that it does what iBiquity claims. Create a website...upload the pics from your specturm analyzer. Let us see a nice clean pic of the signal.

There are many large broadcast groups who have an equity interest in iBiquity.

Before you evaluate claims regarding IBOC success or failure, you need to know whether the claimant is telling the truth or just "pitching the party line."
 
> I've been following this board for some time now. Some
> credible arguments have been made about AM and FM IBOC, some
> not so credible.
>
> I am a group owner and an engineer.
>
> My group does not own shares in iBiquity. I don't have an
> iBiquity exciter at any of my sites.
>
> I am anti-IBOC for AM and in the "maybe" catogory for FM.
> If they can make HD-2 or surround sound work, more power to
> them.
>
> What has suprised me about the posts on this board, is the
> number of people who attack the anti-IBOC guys asking for
> proof that the system doesn't work....
>
> Hey, wake up!!! If IBOC works as it should, show the
> doubters proof that it does what iBiquity claims. Create a
> website...upload the pics from your specturm analyzer. Let
> us see a nice clean pic of the signal.
>
> There are many large broadcast groups who have an equity
> interest in iBiquity.
>
> Before you evaluate claims regarding IBOC success or
> failure, you need to know whether the claimant is telling
> the truth or just "pitching the party line."
>


Are you familiar with the FM Mask that all IBOC station need to stay within? There ya have it. I can post a pic of the spectrum analyzer but it would look just like that mask.

In regard to proof, the so called anti-IBOCers have been asked to show proof as well. All that comes up is a blog web site.

HD2 is working now. I have one running myself and hope to bring another on up soon. As a matter of fact there are a few HD3 stations out there now.

And because I work for one of those large companies, I have never been told to "Pitch the party line". And a couple of people here have supported me on that topic.
 
Re: Whole lotta angst goin on! MASK? WHAT MASK?

Everyone keeps making wild claims about the NRSC-5 interference mask as a solid gold, definitive, incontroverable, iron clad, "FCC standard" as an excuse to allow broadcasters to hiss all over neighboring stations.
If this is so, please show me where this is in the FCC rules CFR Title 47 part 73 (or any other part). If it's not in the FCC rules, it's not a fully accepted FCC standard, and this leaves HD stations wide open to all kinds of grief from injured parties, including termination of all HD Radio broadcasting.
This would leave all those who bought HD Radios out in the cold.
It also makes all those masked spectrum analyzer photos irrelevent.
Hiding behind a mask is just a way to ignore the problem. The HD radio interference is real, and is being ignored.

> > I've been following this board for some time now. Some
> > credible arguments have been made about AM and FM IBOC,
> some
> > not so credible.
> >
> > I am a group owner and an engineer.
> >
> > My group does not own shares in iBiquity. I don't have an
>
> > iBiquity exciter at any of my sites.
> >
> > I am anti-IBOC for AM and in the "maybe" catogory for FM.
>
> > If they can make HD-2 or surround sound work, more power
> to
> > them.
> >
> > What has suprised me about the posts on this board, is the
>
> > number of people who attack the anti-IBOC guys asking for
> > proof that the system doesn't work....
> >
> > Hey, wake up!!! If IBOC works as it should, show the
> > doubters proof that it does what iBiquity claims. Create
> a
> > website...upload the pics from your specturm analyzer.
> Let
> > us see a nice clean pic of the signal.
> >
> > There are many large broadcast groups who have an equity
> > interest in iBiquity.
> >
> > Before you evaluate claims regarding IBOC success or
> > failure, you need to know whether the claimant is telling
> > the truth or just "pitching the party line."
> >
>
>
> Are you familiar with the FM Mask that all IBOC station need
> to stay within? There ya have it. I can post a pic of the
> spectrum analyzer but it would look just like that mask.
>
> In regard to proof, the so called anti-IBOCers have been
> asked to show proof as well. All that comes up is a blog
> web site.
>
> HD2 is working now. I have one running myself and hope to
> bring another on up soon. As a matter of fact there are a
> few HD3 stations out there now.
>
> And because I work for one of those large companies, I have
> never been told to "Pitch the party line". And a couple of
> people here have supported me on that topic.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SuperSound on 03/08/06 12:19 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Doc you wanna handle this one or shall I? <EOM>

> Everyone keeps making wild claims about the NRSC-5
> interference mask as a solid gold, definitive,
> incontroverable, iron clad, "FCC standard" as an excuse to
> allow broadcasters to hiss all over neighboring stations.
> If this is so, please show me where this is in the FCC rules
> CFR Title 47 part 73 (or any other part). If it's not in the
> FCC rules, it's not a fully accepted FCC standard, and this
> leaves HD stations wide open to all kinds of grief from
> injured parties, including termination of all HD Radio
> broadcasting.
> This would leave all those who bought HD Radios out in the
> cold.
> It also makes all those masked spectrum analyzer photos
> irrelevent.
> Hiding behind a mask is just a way to ignore the problem.
> The HD radio interference is real, and is being ignored.
>
> > > I've been following this board for some time now. Some
> > > credible arguments have been made about AM and FM IBOC,
> > some
> > > not so credible.
> > >
> > > I am a group owner and an engineer.
> > >
> > > My group does not own shares in iBiquity. I don't have
> an
> >
> > > iBiquity exciter at any of my sites.
> > >
> > > I am anti-IBOC for AM and in the "maybe" catogory for
> FM.
> >
> > > If they can make HD-2 or surround sound work, more power
>
> > to
> > > them.
> > >
> > > What has suprised me about the posts on this board, is
> the
> >
> > > number of people who attack the anti-IBOC guys asking
> for
> > > proof that the system doesn't work....
> > >
> > > Hey, wake up!!! If IBOC works as it should, show the
> > > doubters proof that it does what iBiquity claims.
> Create
> > a
> > > website...upload the pics from your specturm analyzer.
> > Let
> > > us see a nice clean pic of the signal.
> > >
> > > There are many large broadcast groups who have an equity
>
> > > interest in iBiquity.
> > >
> > > Before you evaluate claims regarding IBOC success or
> > > failure, you need to know whether the claimant is
> telling
> > > the truth or just "pitching the party line."
> > >
> >
> >
> > Are you familiar with the FM Mask that all IBOC station
> need
> > to stay within? There ya have it. I can post a pic of the
>
> > spectrum analyzer but it would look just like that mask.
> >
> > In regard to proof, the so called anti-IBOCers have been
> > asked to show proof as well. All that comes up is a blog
> > web site.
> >
> > HD2 is working now. I have one running myself and hope to
>
> > bring another on up soon. As a matter of fact there are a
>
> > few HD3 stations out there now.
> >
> > And because I work for one of those large companies, I
> have
> > never been told to "Pitch the party line". And a couple
> of
> > people here have supported me on that topic.
> >
>
 
Re: Doc you wanna handle this one or shall I? <EOM>

Citing the NRSC mask as proof that the IBOC signal is as legal as a regular analog signal is pure BS. The difference is that it is small transients that dont cause massive interference, and it takes a period of time to fill the mask with signal. IBOC, on the other hand fills the mask instantaneously thus blocking out the adjacent channel signal. You are not comparing apples and oranges.
 
Re: Doc you wanna handle this one or shall I? <EOM>

> Citing the NRSC mask as proof that the IBOC signal is as
> legal as a regular analog signal is pure BS. The difference
> is that it is small transients that dont cause massive
> interference, and it takes a period of time to fill the mask
> with signal. IBOC, on the other hand fills the mask
> instantaneously thus blocking out the adjacent channel
> signal. You are not comparing apples and oranges.
>


Oh really now. I suggest that you take a look at DOCs post above. He sites the FCC comments on NRSC-5.
 
Re: Doc you wanna handle this one or shall I? <EOM>

I agree with you that the FCC is probably going to let the fox guard the henhouse, but they are still wrestling with nite AM and Superpower FM's. My bet is that superpower FM's will cause all kinds of lawsuits. No matter how they choose, somebody wont be happy. My feeling is that if you have a grandfathered signal and a new service comes in, the digital has to be at the level of class of license you hold, not the grandfathered super analog power. Also as more stations lite up the digital, you will see some rimshots take a hit. There will also be some unhappy campers there.


> > Citing the NRSC mask as proof that the IBOC signal is as
> > legal as a regular analog signal is pure BS. The
> difference
> > is that it is small transients that dont cause massive
> > interference, and it takes a period of time to fill the
> mask
> > with signal. IBOC, on the other hand fills the mask
> > instantaneously thus blocking out the adjacent channel
> > signal. You are not comparing apples and oranges.
> >
>
>
> Oh really now. I suggest that you take a look at DOCs post
> above. He sites the FCC comments on NRSC-5.
>
 
Re: Doc you wanna handle this one or shall I? <EOM>

I have listened to WBCT, the "grandfather-est" of all grandfathers at 320kW. They are running HD and have had no issues.

If rim shots take a hit, so be it. That was the hcane they took when they bailed from the cioty they were in.


> I agree with you that the FCC is probably going to let the
> fox guard the henhouse, but they are still wrestling with
> nite AM and Superpower FM's. My bet is that superpower FM's
> will cause all kinds of lawsuits. No matter how they choose,
> somebody wont be happy. My feeling is that if you have a
> grandfathered signal and a new service comes in, the digital
> has to be at the level of class of license you hold, not the
> grandfathered super analog power. Also as more stations
> lite up the digital, you will see some rimshots take a hit.
> There will also be some unhappy campers there.
>
>
> > > Citing the NRSC mask as proof that the IBOC signal is as
>
> > > legal as a regular analog signal is pure BS. The
> > difference
> > > is that it is small transients that dont cause massive
> > > interference, and it takes a period of time to fill the
> > mask
> > > with signal. IBOC, on the other hand fills the mask
> > > instantaneously thus blocking out the adjacent channel
> > > signal. You are not comparing apples and oranges.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oh really now. I suggest that you take a look at DOCs
> post
> > above. He sites the FCC comments on NRSC-5.
> >
>
 
Handle this one.

SBE makes a valid point. The "mask" presently codified was created to deal with the bandwidth of analog signals. Take a look at your most recent NRSC analog pictures. The further you move from the center frequency, the less energy appears on the monitor. The mask was intended to deal with analog conditions. It was never contemplated that the mask would be filled with always on/off digital carriers. It IS an apples and oranges situation. If this were a tax matter, the IRS would have congress rushing to close the loophole.

Unfortunately, lawsuits are a likely outcome from digital development under these circumstances. Unless you own a stake in iBiquity and want to drive the market toward the iBiquity system, there is not much incentive to invest in digital conversion when a competitor could cry "interference" and limit your use of the system. This is particularly true of AM HD radio operation in areas of grandfathered overlap.




> I have listened to WBCT, the "grandfather-est" of all
> grandfathers at 320kW. They are running HD and have had no
> issues.
>
> If rim shots take a hit, so be it. That was the hcane they
> took when they bailed from the cioty they were in.
>
>
> > I agree with you that the FCC is probably going to let the
>
> > fox guard the henhouse, but they are still wrestling with
> > nite AM and Superpower FM's. My bet is that superpower
> FM's
> > will cause all kinds of lawsuits. No matter how they
> choose,
> > somebody wont be happy. My feeling is that if you have a
> > grandfathered signal and a new service comes in, the
> digital
> > has to be at the level of class of license you hold, not
> the
> > grandfathered super analog power. Also as more stations
> > lite up the digital, you will see some rimshots take a
> hit.
> > There will also be some unhappy campers there.
> >
> >
> > > > Citing the NRSC mask as proof that the IBOC signal is
> as
> >
> > > > legal as a regular analog signal is pure BS. The
> > > difference
> > > > is that it is small transients that dont cause massive
>
> > > > interference, and it takes a period of time to fill
> the
> > > mask
> > > > with signal. IBOC, on the other hand fills the mask
> > > > instantaneously thus blocking out the adjacent channel
>
> > > > signal. You are not comparing apples and oranges.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh really now. I suggest that you take a look at DOCs
> > post
> > > above. He sites the FCC comments on NRSC-5.
> > >
> >
>
 
Re: Handle this one.

> SBE makes a valid point. The "mask" presently codified was
> created to deal with the bandwidth of analog signals. Take
> a look at your most recent NRSC analog pictures. The
> further you move from the center frequency, the less energy
> appears on the monitor. The mask was intended to deal with
> analog conditions. It was never contemplated that the mask
> would be filled with always on/off digital carriers. It IS
> an apples and oranges situation. If this were a tax matter,
> the IRS would have congress rushing to close the loophole.
>
> Unfortunately, lawsuits are a likely outcome from digital
> development under these circumstances. Unless you own a
> stake in iBiquity and want to drive the market toward the
> iBiquity system, there is not much incentive to invest in
> digital conversion when a competitor could cry
> "interference" and limit your use of the system. This is
> particularly true of AM HD radio operation in areas of
> grandfathered overlap.
>
>

While in the big picture you're correct, there is a lot of history and precedence in working new technolgy into old infrastructure.

Although the mask was meant for analog, it was designed to so that even if filled, it would be acceptable to the stations in-market neighbors. Did they imagine that it would be filled with digital carriers? No, but it's in the same boat as HD TV.

You mention that a competitor could cry "interference" and limit the use of the system. In the realm of FM, has that happened yet? Where would you see that happen? Certainly not in the same market, and not within the protected contour. The FCC is unlikely to have an issue with intereference outside the contour.

Now, all bets are off for AM IBOC...<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> I've been following this board for some time now. Some
> credible arguments have been made about AM and FM IBOC, some
> not so credible.
>
> I am a group owner and an engineer.
>
> My group does not own shares in iBiquity. I don't have an
> iBiquity exciter at any of my sites.
>
> I am anti-IBOC for AM and in the "maybe" catogory for FM.
> If they can make HD-2 or surround sound work, more power to
> them.
>
> What has suprised me about the posts on this board, is the
> number of people who attack the anti-IBOC guys asking for
> proof that the system doesn't work....
>
> Hey, wake up!!! If IBOC works as it should, show the
> doubters proof that it does what iBiquity claims. Create a
> website...upload the pics from your specturm analyzer. Let
> us see a nice clean pic of the signal.
>
> There are many large broadcast groups who have an equity
> interest in iBiquity.
>
> Before you evaluate claims regarding IBOC success or
> failure, you need to know whether the claimant is telling
> the truth or just "pitching the party line."
>

Nobody is trying to attack anti-IBOC people. The reason they are asked for proof is that they're the ones making claims, not me. If someone is going to come here and present things as fact, they better back them up. That's all I ask.

It's easy with the relative anonymity here to come and make wild claims about the downfalls of IBOC without providing any science. I feel it's been pretty well shown what IBOC does, and what it's capable of, and even what it's downfalls are.

If you want to say IBOC is evil, fine. If you want to say "IBOC IS ILLEGAL AND INTERFEREING AND EVERYONE WILL GET SUED BECAUSE IT'S BROKEN" than you better be able to back that up with some facts, because it seems to me that the only reason one would say that is to generate yet another flame war.

I may be wrong here, but there is plenty of real world data on IBOC available. If you are going to dispute the findings, then do it with data. Quotes from people are not hard data. Show some dirty scans, post audio, file the lawsuits and call the stations and the FCC with the complaints. All I hear right now is rhetoric.

Disclaimer: I understand the problems with AM IBOC. We have covered them, and most here appear to agree that there is a problem. I am referencing FM IBOC, which is what we're currently discussing.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: Doc you wanna handle this one or shall I? <EOM>

No issues for WBCT? I dont think so.... read this link: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518313944

Watch for wrapping


> I have listened to WBCT, the "grandfather-est" of all
> grandfathers at 320kW. They are running HD and have had no
> issues.
>
> If rim shots take a hit, so be it. That was the hcane they
> took when they bailed from the cioty they were in.
>
>
> > I agree with you that the FCC is probably going to let the
>
> > fox guard the henhouse, but they are still wrestling with
> > nite AM and Superpower FM's. My bet is that superpower
> FM's
> > will cause all kinds of lawsuits. No matter how they
> choose,
> > somebody wont be happy. My feeling is that if you have a
> > grandfathered signal and a new service comes in, the
> digital
> > has to be at the level of class of license you hold, not
> the
> > grandfathered super analog power. Also as more stations
> > lite up the digital, you will see some rimshots take a
> hit.
> > There will also be some unhappy campers there.
>
 
Re: Handle this one.

Good response. I would bet that when the concept of the mask was reduced to paper, the "boxes" that it describes were used for ease of description, rather than with permissive intent. After all, typically the peaks decrease as you move away from the center frequency. As creative as the engineering world is, describing the what they were attempting to guard against would require a bunch more words than just outlining a "box."

Judging from the on-going comments in 99-325, there will probably be litigation involving some super power FMs. It looks like a bunch of consulting engineering money has been spent. I don't think they will walk away from that issue.

I agree with you as to AM. All bets are off.


> > SBE makes a valid point. The "mask" presently codified
> was
> > created to deal with the bandwidth of analog signals.
> Take
> > a look at your most recent NRSC analog pictures. The
> > further you move from the center frequency, the less
> energy
> > appears on the monitor. The mask was intended to deal
> with
> > analog conditions. It was never contemplated that the
> mask
> > would be filled with always on/off digital carriers. It
> IS
> > an apples and oranges situation. If this were a tax
> matter,
> > the IRS would have congress rushing to close the loophole.
>
> >
> > Unfortunately, lawsuits are a likely outcome from digital
> > development under these circumstances. Unless you own a
> > stake in iBiquity and want to drive the market toward the
> > iBiquity system, there is not much incentive to invest in
> > digital conversion when a competitor could cry
> > "interference" and limit your use of the system. This is
> > particularly true of AM HD radio operation in areas of
> > grandfathered overlap.
> >
> >
>
> While in the big picture you're correct, there is a lot of
> history and precedence in working new technolgy into old
> infrastructure.
>
> Although the mask was meant for analog, it was designed to
> so that even if filled, it would be acceptable to the
> stations in-market neighbors. Did they imagine that it
> would be filled with digital carriers? No, but it's in the
> same boat as HD TV.
>
> You mention that a competitor could cry "interference" and
> limit the use of the system. In the realm of FM, has that
> happened yet? Where would you see that happen? Certainly
> not in the same market, and not within the protected
> contour. The FCC is unlikely to have an issue with
> intereference outside the contour.
>
> Now, all bets are off for AM IBOC..
 
Re: Handle this one.

> Good response. I would bet that when the concept of the
> mask was reduced to paper, the "boxes" that it describes
> were used for ease of description, rather than with
> permissive intent. After all, typically the peaks decrease
> as you move away from the center frequency. As creative as
> the engineering world is, describing the what they were
> attempting to guard against would require a bunch more words
> than just outlining a "box."
>
> Judging from the on-going comments in 99-325, there will
> probably be litigation involving some super power FMs. It
> looks like a bunch of consulting engineering money has been
> spent. I don't think they will walk away from that issue.
>
> I agree with you as to AM. All bets are off.
>

Thanks! :)

I think you're right about the intent of the mask. I pretty sure that it was imagined that there was more that enough space to cover every eventuality in the analog world without disturbing adjacent channels. It is, to be certain, a grey area. "If the mask is an accepted standard, and the signal fits in the mask, than the signal must be legal" seems to be the current thinking.

As far as FM is concerned, there may be some litigation, but I believe that in the end there will be settlements "encouraged" by the FCC, and we'll see FM IBOC move forward.

I think we'll see the FM adopted with minimal change, but AM will need a major re-working.

My $.02 on it. Though my crystal ball into the future has been known to be wrong!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: Handle this one.

> > Good response. I would bet that when the concept of the
> > mask was reduced to paper, the "boxes" that it describes
> > were used for ease of description, rather than with
> > permissive intent. After all, typically the peaks
> decrease
> > as you move away from the center frequency. As creative
> as
> > the engineering world is, describing the what they were
> > attempting to guard against would require a bunch more
> words
> > than just outlining a "box."
> >
> > Judging from the on-going comments in 99-325, there will
> > probably be litigation involving some super power FMs. It
>
> > looks like a bunch of consulting engineering money has
> been
> > spent. I don't think they will walk away from that issue.
>
> >
> > I agree with you as to AM. All bets are off.
> >
>
> Thanks! :)
>
> I think you're right about the intent of the mask. I pretty
> sure that it was imagined that there was more that enough
> space to cover every eventuality in the analog world without
> disturbing adjacent channels. It is, to be certain, a grey
> area. "If the mask is an accepted standard, and the signal
> fits in the mask, than the signal must be legal" seems to be
> the current thinking.
>
> As far as FM is concerned, there may be some litigation, but
> I believe that in the end there will be settlements
> "encouraged" by the FCC, and we'll see FM IBOC move forward.
>
>
> I think we'll see the FM adopted with minimal change, but AM
> will need a major re-working.
>
> My $.02 on it. Though my crystal ball into the future has
> been known to be wrong!
>

You're probably correct. I don't know about the Commission encouraging anything. They look pretty hapless in this whole deal and in reality they don't have much leverage.

I am concerned that the AM problems will inhibit receiver development.
 
Re: Handle this one.

> > > Good response. I would bet that when the concept of the
>
> > > mask was reduced to paper, the "boxes" that it describes
>
> > > were used for ease of description, rather than with
> > > permissive intent. After all, typically the peaks
> > decrease
> > > as you move away from the center frequency. As creative
>
> > as
> > > the engineering world is, describing the what they were
> > > attempting to guard against would require a bunch more
> > words
> > > than just outlining a "box."
> > >
> > > Judging from the on-going comments in 99-325, there will
>
> > > probably be litigation involving some super power FMs.
> It
> >
> > > looks like a bunch of consulting engineering money has
> > been
> > > spent. I don't think they will walk away from that
> issue.
> >
> > >
> > > I agree with you as to AM. All bets are off.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks! :)
> >
> > I think you're right about the intent of the mask. I
> pretty
> > sure that it was imagined that there was more that enough
> > space to cover every eventuality in the analog world
> without
> > disturbing adjacent channels. It is, to be certain, a
> grey
> > area. "If the mask is an accepted standard, and the
> signal
> > fits in the mask, than the signal must be legal" seems to
> be
> > the current thinking.
> >
> > As far as FM is concerned, there may be some litigation,
> but
> > I believe that in the end there will be settlements
> > "encouraged" by the FCC, and we'll see FM IBOC move
> forward.
> >
> >
> > I think we'll see the FM adopted with minimal change, but
> AM
> > will need a major re-working.
> >
> > My $.02 on it. Though my crystal ball into the future has
>
> > been known to be wrong!
> >
>
> You're probably correct. I don't know about the Commission
> encouraging anything. They look pretty hapless in this
> whole deal and in reality they don't have much leverage.
>
> I am concerned that the AM problems will inhibit receiver
> development.
>


Agreed, and agreed!

:)<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom