Radio stations have  paid  royalties to composers for playing music on the air, but not to the performers.  This is because radio has traditionally been a great way for performers to promote their music.  That logic is no longer so firm, now that websites, streaming services and music appliances compete with radio for the music listener’s ears.

The NAB initially responded to the calls for radio to pay performance royalties by labeling the royalties as a “tax”.  This didn’t get much traction with Congress who saw through the disingenuous claim.  It might have been that the record labels had a better lobby than the NAB.

A number of big broadcasters finally came to the conclusion that stonewalling the royalty tsunami was not going to work, so they sat down to get the best deal they could.

The crux of the draft is that broadcasters will pay royalties a lower rate than webcasters and other distributors, and to sweeten the deal, they tossed in an additional wrinkle:  Require FM radios in every cellphone.

This kind of protectionist ploy never works out in the end.  There are a raft of reasons why this is a BAD IDEA.

• First and Foremost – AM Radio gets no cellphone radio – AM music stations pay the royalties, but get no sweetener.
• The deal is for FM Analog radios – Not Digital radios – effectively crippling deployment of  HD Radio
• The cellphone buyer has to pay for an FM radio raising the cost of the cellphone
• The cellphone has to have an FM radio even if the phone has only a tiny speaker or no headphone jack
• Tiny FM radios without a headphone connected have terrible sensitivity, giving the listener a bad experience with FM Radio
• Cellphones will have the cheapest FM radio possible giving the listener an even worse FM Radio experience.

The first two factors are critically detrimental to broadcasting.  The balance of the problems set up radio for a bad user experience, driving listeners to more reliable and satisfying choices.

All AM broadcasters and broadcasters who have invested in HD Radio need to let the NAB know that they think that this is a BAD BARGAIN for radio, and let your Congressmen know that this kind of protectionist scheme is not in radio’s long term interest.

This means that the DRM simulcast signal will occupy LESS bandwidth than a normal AM 10 kHz analog signal.  Good-bye first adjacent channel hash!  The DRM signal described in US Patent 7170950.

The technique starts by bandlimiting the analog signal to 5 kHz and forming it into a modulation that has the structure of Leonard Kahn’s “compatible single sideband” from the early sixties.  The big difference is that today we can use a Digital Signal Processor (DSP) to perform the job that Leonard’s analog gear could never quite get right and stay in alignment.  The DSP can also learn the transmitter distortions and compensate for them.  The DRM signal is a high level OFDM spectrum of the same magnitude as the average analog modulation (not some little trashy signal on your neighbor’s front porch) that is placed in the unoccupied sideband.

The ODFM signal will interfere with the analog sideband, you say!  Here comes the elegant part – A mirror image of the digital signal is placed under the analog sideband.  This signal, when received by an envelope detector, will cancel out the ODFM signal in the other sideband!

Apparently, the tests in India went well, with the analog signal receiving no apparent self-interference, and the digital signal having somewhat more range than the analog signal.  On the face of it, the analog signal should perform similarly to a well adjusted Powerside ® facility.  Remember, compatible single sideband does not intrinsically decrease modulation power, as the total amount of power is doubled in the one sideband.  Regular transmitters will not be able to produce the same analog power in a combined modulation scheme because the ODFM sideband power must be included in the peak power that the transmitter develops.

Important considerations of this system:

• Intrinsically single channel – digital sidebands stay within assigned channel
• No adjacent channel interference
• Digital signal range exceeds analog range for single digital program
• ODFM carrier strength is high, providing lots of data capacity in a narrow bandwidth
• Analog reception works fine with a conventional envelope detector
• Decoding the digital signal is very simple in a non-fading environment.
• A Zero-IF receiver with a sound card class Analog to Digital converter and slow DSP will be able to decode simulcast DRM.
• Cheap digital receiver with potentially only two chips and no ceramic filters.
• Low power battery powered radios are practical
• Probably will work with 8 – 10 kHz analog audio in the US
• Current class of DSP digital transmitters may be reprogrammed to transmit this signal.
• Should work will in Single Frequency Networks.

I am surprised that this development has not been publicized here, as this promises to be the first truly workable analog-digital broadcasting system for the AM band.  AM broadcasters have been left out in the cold, with no battery powered medium wave digital radios.  This technology might just be the solution.

I find this news heartening, seeing the slow to non-existence of growth in AM HD.  Perhaps a little competition on the technical field will help AM broadcasters to have a stake in the future.

More when we know!

Consultants and Station Owners have been asking for twenty years for relief on burdensome rules to prove the performance of directional antennas for AM stations.

Last week the shoe finally dropped, and the Commission approved as a notice of proposed rulemaking, the analysis of directional antennas using Method-Of-Moments and rigorous monitoring standards to verify that AM antennas actually perform as they should.  The new rules only apply to series fed, non-toploaded, non sectionalized towers.

For stations meeting the specifications, it means a substantial decrease in cost to commission or rebuild an AM directional array.  The labor intensive and sometimes dangerous and always problematic field measurements may be dispensed with.

For those who choose, the old way remains available.  Several safeguards have been added – regular calibration of the entire sample system, and external measurement reference points.  The good thing about this is that it all encourages regular rational maintenance of antenna systems, instead of inhibiting repairs to ailing systems.

Stations with series fed simple radiators and solid sampling systems may want to consider going through the effort of changing over to the new regulatory scheme, especially if the system needs a good cleanup.

The complete Report and Order is available at the FCC website. This is now at the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stage, with a comment and reply comment period, and publication period before the final rules are in place. There could still be a hitch if someone files comments that cause serious reconsideration.

Class B stations, with real full-time service are hit with a $500 annual fee in the smallest markets, but daytimers (which have equivalent daytime facilities to class B stations, but only operate during sunlight hours) have to pay an extra $25 for the privilege of shutting off at night. Stations in these little markets are public services, and the FCC ought to pay them to operate.

In markets of 75,000 – 150,000 people, where an AM station might be able to make a nickel or two, the FCC in its great wisdom also charges daytimers an extra $25 to go off at night.

By my reconning, a daytime radio station should be charged between 3/4 and 1/2 of the equivalent class B station, simply because it is a limited authorization.   I wonder whether the FCC fee setters use the Oujii  or dart board method of setting fees.  Oh!, the splendor of FCC logic ….

XEEZ 970 Radio Palacios is broadcasting an AM HD Radio signal from the U.S./Mexico border town of Caborca, Sonora, using a Broadcast Electronics transmission system.

XHTY-FM 94.5 in Tijuana on the FM Side has installed a Nautel V10 HD Radio transmitter. The station is operated by Uniradio.

The petition proposes that stations may maintain their present PSRA and PSSA operations, but if no interference is caused, to potentially operate with much higher power during the transition hours. Everyone knows that skywave signals don’t just suddenly reach out the great distances that they do in the middle of the night. This petition looks at the actuality, and seeks to optimize the use of the available spectrum. The main points of the petition are:

• PSRA and PSSA power need not be limited to 500 Watts if no interference would be caused.
• Secondary (skywave) service areas of class A stations expand and contract from east to west with the transit of the sun. There is no need to protect a service area that either does not exist yet on the western edge of the area, or has ceased to exist because the sun is rising on the eastern edge of the area.
• Stations should be able to use their day, night, auxiliary or one tower of the array – whatever works best for PSRA and PSSA.

• Class B, and D stations should be able to operate with any power, up to the maximum of day or night station power during PSRA and PSSA so long as no interference is caused.

All station owners who have stations with anemic night signals should comment on this petition, as it could significantly increase your coverage during the critical hours when folks are getting out to work and coming home.

To make a comment is pretty easy – Read over the petition posted here. Note the proceeding number RM-11384 and go to the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System and make your thoughts known. Simply enter RM-11384 in the Proceeding box, then fill out your name, affiliation, address, etc. You can either type in your comments directly, or you can upload an MS Word, Wordperfect, or Adobe PDF file that is prepared offline. Comments are due by August 20th. (The FCC informs me that the ECFS system has a problem right now. If you want to read other folks’ comments, for the time being, you need to download the file and rename it so that it has a .pdf extension and you should be able to read it. Otherwise it should work fine 8/03/07)

If you think that this petition would benefit your stations, isn’t too complicated and protects the night coverage of other stations adequately, then you should make your thoughts known.