Out of the tech retreat at the Grassroots Radio Conference, it was decided to put forward an opinion paper for community stations struggling with the concept of the new technology called HD or "High Definition" Radio. This was the result of a breakout session dealing with this topic. There are a number of areas to consider.
There is no mandate from the FCC on this. No station currently has a timetable or a deadline to convert, unlike HD TV. What was adopted was a technology by a company named Ibiquity, which is associated with Clear Channel. They have a lock on the receiver technology for this format and of course stand to benefit directly by it success, as well as
to be in the drivers seat for control of this medium. Now community broadcasters are
being dangled the carrot of receiving funding to convert, based on the desire for the technology to succeed and for it to gain a toehold in the marketplace, by appealing to
affluence associated with some part of the public radio audience. It is hoped that the
individual stations will help promote the technology. Ibiquity itself has no marketing plan.
In a recent Radio World magazine article, an engineer for Entercom, a major market radio group owner and investor in Ibiquity said this about the rollout, "I think it will take
the better part of five years for receivers to be common in the marketplace and for broadcasters to open their arms to the technology. But we must be patient." Do tell.
This really depends on the receiver manufacturers. Right now Kenwood has a tuner box
for it's car radio line available at $399. But you have to buy one of their HD ready car radios for an additional $160(cheapest model) or the fully integrated HD tuner/radio for $999. Suppose you had a new technology that none of your listeners could afford to hear?
How could you justify the expense to them, unless you purchased receivers for each member? Right now listeners can pay $99 and get XM or Sirius, with more channels, no commercials.. and, they are free to play and say what they want, unedited. One more concern, although not a reality by a long shot yet, is the music industry's positioning to
include a buy button on future receivers to prevent recordings made in the digital realm off of a radio tuner. Of course, the transmission technology is not cd quality, so this posturing is silly but scary. Hollywood has succeeded in getting this done for HD TV
and the FCC is disappointingly going to start an inquiry into a broadcast "flag" for radio.
The digital revolution is supposed to be about liberation. Instead there are many things about HD radio related to consumerism and privilege. The prices need to come way down before any large purchases will start to be seen.
What about the technology and the costs of conversion? The sound of it, I believe, has helped AM radio and talk formats no doubt. However, there seems to be a disaster in the making in the current technology, related to AM transmission at night. HD Radio does not sound good on music, not by a long shot, because the audio is so compressed. I believe many of the discerning listeners of community radio will be very upset with what the digital signal will do to music programs they listen to (again not their experience with Sirius or XM). The biggest impact seems to be in the elimination of multi-path interference as you drive in "spotty" areas of your analog signal... This could be a real consideration for you, again keeping in mind the lack of affordable receivers.
Another concern with the technology is that the processing creates a seven second delay, which eliminates any real time on air monitoring of your signal, which makes thing much more difficult to say the least. As you also may be aware, NPR has put forward the idea of a second audio steam in the digital carrier. This will limit any improvement of the codec and audio quality of the main digital stream. There is a great deal of consternation on this very issue. In addition to that, the current codec is set in stone. If the second audio stream is approved by the FCC, then present receivers will not upgrade and require a second purchase. If down the road, they actually want to upgrade or change the codec, new firmware and hardware will be needed. This is hard to predict. There is talk about creating surround sound for HD radio in cars as a way of at last offering something you can't get with a satellite digital service. This is only now being introduced but is seriously beginning to be talked about in terms of a direction. It is thought to be a significant and clear message to motivate change, based on the lesson of DAB in Europe not being enough to cause listeners to buy new and more expensive radios... Is it really broadcasting for broadcasters and not for listeners? There is already enough reason for me to personally drive off the road.
The estimated range of cost is $30,000(exciter) to $200,000 with the largest factor being transmitter expense. If you use the AM conversion, the cost could be 33-210k, the low power fm combining method 58-287K, high power combining 73-263k, Dual Antenna 42-138k. This is from a chart in a book by Dan Lockett, The Road To Digital Radio in the United States. There can be unexpected costs related adjacent channel blanketing interference, requiring the installation of very expensive filters. There will also be more electrical consumption (which may be a budgetary concern) and conversion may require additional tower or building space. I believe the lack of inclusiveness for the general community radio listener and the lack of conclusive evidence related to the positive features of HD Radio does not justify its cost or the current funding possibilities. That same Entercom engineer quoted earlier says that "it will be tough to determine if it's all worth it, but I believe long range, it will be." I like to throw in a bit of optimism, even if I can't safely draw the same conclusion.
One of the test marketing positive responses related to HD radios was the inclusion of scrolling text, ala satellite services. That technology is already available, with minimal investment, without converting to HD and utilizing existing radios (75% of new cars sold already have this). This is available radio data system encoder or RDS. Song titles and artist information can be wrapped around with text. Other features include text being centered, customized and configured through an HTML web page and an internal scheduler displaying messages at user specified times of the day. Of course, you need to use this technology responsibly, but you really have this base almost covered right now.
In other words, HD doesn't make this happen.
Right now, community radio stations are being offered free licenses to use the technology, if they convert and use existing funding possibilities. The danger of a late fee,
hovers. Yet, it may cost you much more to convert now and convert again if there are changes. Your listeners will not understand you spending money on something that they can't afford to hear. If the prices come way down, and the technology improves, your listeners will fund your conversion and CPB should too.
Right now, the only ones to benefit will be broadcasters (some or few) and manufacturers. If it really is about the technology, it should not be about how much a few will profit by it. You should do your part to drive the price down, by pressuring the manufacturers with the danger of obsolescence of their technology, which they should not take advantage of.
Don't fall prey to a half baked marketing scheme, which is almost dependent on community radio leading the way. There is a certain amount of desperation here. Maybe more will follow when more people realize that listeners won't and shouldn't pay at the current level. Again, this is an opinion. Please weigh all the facts for your station before making up your mind. We have compiled a summary list of points for you to consider.
FM SYSTEM
1) It is costly
2) Audio is compressed and the result is less than CD quality
3) A 7 second analog delay is required to synchronize the digital audio to the analog, so real-time on-air monitoring is impossible
4) HD Radio signal solves multi-path problems (areas where the analog signal is poor due to self-interference and reflections)
5) HD Radio signal does not travel as far as analog signal
6) HD Radio signal does not appear to affect analog quality or range
7) May require either additional tower space (for an HD-only antenna) or more floor space for the additional HD transmitter and combiner/reject load.
8) It will require more electrical consumption
9) Late-adopters may have to pay license fee for use of the technology; early adopters' fees are waived.
AM SYSTEM
1) It is costly
2) Audio is compressed and the result is equal to Internet streaming quality
3) A 7 second analog delay is required to synchronize the digital audio to the analog, so real-time on-air monitoring is impossible
4) At the moment, HD radio is not allowed at night, due to sideband interference concerns
5) HD Radio signal does not travel as far as analog signal
6) HD Radio signal does affect analog quality, reducing bandwidth to 5 khz (down from 10khz)
7) May require either tower or tuning modifications to allow HD signal to operate
8) Likely a new HD radio compatible full-power transmitter will need to be purchased
9) It will require more electrical consumption
10) Late-adopters may have to pay license fee for use of the technology; early adopters' fees are waived.
Jim Bennett 7/11/04
National Tech Director
Pacifica Radio