[opendtv] Re: FCC on revitalizing the AM band

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:07:10 -0400

On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:14 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


I *never* even saw them on store shelves, Craig. It's small wonder they
didn't move off! Even the tiny Insignia HD Radio tuner I bought wasn't on
display. I saw somewhere that Best Buy had these, but they weren't on
display. The guy in the blue shirt had to rummage back in the warehouse to
find it. Any wonder why they don't sell?

Well, I never looked, so I can't provide any meaningful commentary about
commercial availability. The article that started this thread suggested that HD
radios were on the shelves when first introduced, but did not sell.

I don't know whether the chicken or the egg comes first. What I do know is
that way back when, FM tuners became ubiquitous in radios, and ONLY THEN did
FM take off. Not before. And why did FM become ubiquitous in cars? Because
the FCC said so. People were not screaming for FM radios, ever. Ditto UHF TV.
It's always the same story. You claim "the market doesn't support," but I say
that the market is never given a chance. HD Radio is super cheap. Just put
the blasted tuner chip in all radios, and they will get used.

I don't buy this argument. It is true that building the FM band was mangled a
bit by the FCC and very strong lobbying by RCA, which resulted in shifting the
band and making existing stations and receivers obsolete. But the band shift
opened up more spectrum for the future of FM. The success of FM largely tracked
the evolution in audio quality in a wide range of devices. As radios improved
the shift to FM took off, and when "stereo" became a big deal for music the
migration to FM from AM was fairly rapid. I do not remember the FCC issuing any
mandates for FM radio receivers.

As for UHF TV, the chicken and egg question is quite valid. Before the FCC
mandate UHF stations did have problems, as TVs were quite expensive in those
days and had long replacement cycles. The UHF tuner mandate may well have
played a critical role in development of the band, however, we will never know
whether the marketplace would have added these tuners, as they did with cable
ready analog tuners. The demand for new TV stations would have forced the issue
anyway, as it was not possible to squeeze in more VHF stations - Cliff and I
worked for a station that went dark on UHF and suffered for years because they
chose a sub-optimal VHF channel with poor coverage over their market. The
explosive growth in the number of stations in the '80s would not have been
possible without UHF; but this growth was fueled by more affordable equipment
to build a station, not the tuner mandate. And many of these stations were
built to take advantage of "must carry" to get on cable systems.

For example, GM has a stake in satellite radio. So naturally, GM saw to it
that satellite radio tuners became STANDARD, in their cars, many many years
ago. Certainly by 2007 (although you're not forced to subscribe). Somehow,
the fact that the satellite tuner cost those couple of extra bucks didn't
dissuade GM at all. And yet, very few of their cars have HD Radios, even now,
13 years after it was introduced. Explanation? Simple: greed. I don't buy the
nonsense about "saving every penny."

Not greed Bert. Lack of consumer demand. satellite radio provided a service
that 25 million subscribers want. And you may call it greed, but auto
manufacturers make money when a car owner subscribes after the initial free
trial period; they get nothing from radio broadcasters.

And it makes a huge difference if there is actual consumer demand.

I agree that FM is good enough;

You mean, like VHF TV before UHF came along? Or fuzzy/grainy/ghosty/washed
out NTSC TV was "good enough"?

No. Like you don't need 4K TV resolution for a 50 inch screen viewed from 7-10
feet.

People do not expect an audiophile experience from broadcast radio, especially
in vehicles, where the base noise level is relatively high. FM was clearly
better than AM in terms of fidelity, and stereo did make a difference, even in
cars.

By the time HD radio came along consumers had been using audio CDs for nearly
two decades, and MP3 players and iPods were starting to transform the way we
listen to music. Too little too late...

The average joe also thought that low-fi record players were "good enough."
Now they would never go back. If you keep these innovations squirreled away
from the average joe, unless this average joe is passionate about the
technology, they'll be content with the old stuff. I'm sure plenty of people
thought that 3 TV stations were more than enough. But our economy has not
depended on spontaneous consumer demand for a long time. You have to
encourage that demand.

Everything must be viewed in context. Radio played an important role in getting
us where we are today. It still plays an important role as a source of
information, especially in times of emergency. But we have a multitude of ways
to access audio services today, many of which are far more personalized than is
possible with a broadcast service.

The same is true for TV, which you clearly understand and evangelize. It seems
like your position on HD radio is grounded primarily in "what else can we do
with this mostly useless spectrum."

Because the digital signal becomes a whole lot better, if you liberate it
from the analog signal. And in the FM band at least, the broadcaster can also
add more subchannels, making his station more desirable. Chicken/egg.
Sometimes the FCC has had to be the catalyst.

Sub channels generally do not help you sell more ads; they may dilute the
audience for your primary service. There is no lack of choice in terms of audio
services today:

You can easily "build your own" library and playlists - this brings back
memories of the eight track and cassette recorders I owned so I could make
custom tapes to play in the car.

You can listen to FOTI streaming services that allow you to curate what you
want to listen to, or listen to streams curated by others. Or you can pay a bit
more to eliminate the ads.

You can listen to audio books and podcasts on demand.

Not really. It simple tells us that the incumbents are taking that spectrum,
even while they complain bitterly about LPFM. The spectrum could be put to
better use. The AM band could be put to better use. Using FM translators
because analog AM is so pathetic makes me wonder why keep up that AM pretense
at all?

They are not taking anything. They are licensing spectrum that is available to
anyone who wants to make the investment to use it. But more important, they are
using it in a manner that enhances spectral reuse, making those frequencies
available in other nearby markets as well.

I've got no problem turning the AM band into unlicensed spectrum. With digital
technology it is possible to do this at very low cost with very good quality.
But I doubt many entrepreneurs would license HD radio technology.

In a way, yes, and you can argue that Internet radio will trump all of these
broadcast methods in the long run. But my bottom line is not what you claim.
Mine is that in the AM and FM bands, *one-way broadcast* is "good enough."
There isn't enough spectrum there to make effective use of it any other way.

Fair enough.

Interesting. Do you ever connect your smartphone to access music
libraries or Internet streams?

No, not interested enough. My wife doesn't even want the radio on. I tend to
listen to NPR, although it would be nice to have shows on demand.

Take a look at all the shows you can access as podcasts.

Regards
Craig


----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2015