The Next FCC Giveaway: Digital Radio
by Pete Tridish and Amy Hammersmith

When radio was first invented, its promoters predicted a future where ships would be able to avoid icebergs, the masses would learn to love great opera, and citizens would participate more effectively in government. The more starry-eyed even opined that wars would cease as short wave operators across the world learned each other's languages and came to understand each other's essential human decency. Little did they suspect that within a few decades, the airwaves would be filled with teenybopper ear candy and the voices of self-important blowhards. Or that in the media revolution of the late 20th century, radio would be reduced to a backwater medium where overcapitalized dot.coms dumped their excess advertising budget.

Today, with the advent of digital technology, radio art (as it was once so elegantly referred to) stands at the threshold of a new frontier. Digital technology has the capacity to dramatically increase the amount of information transmitted over our airwaves, improve signal clarity, and make more efficient use of the AM and FM bandwidths than ever before. Theoretically, the move to digital could expand opportunities for new stations to broadcast content rarely heard on commercial stations. In practice, however, the wish for a democratic use of the airwaves is more likely to languish unfulfilled as incumbent stations snatch up the unused space for profit-driven gimmickry. All the current proposals for implementation of digital technology are structured so as to hand existing radio stations a windfall of potentially profitable bandwidths.

The transition from analog to digital technology could be made in any number of ways--the possible architectures for a new band plan are as infinite as the engineering imagination. The most popular transition model in use around the world today is the Eureka 147. In this model, an existing radio station receives a new swath of spectrum from which to broadcast its digital signal. Over time, the station's analog signal is terminated and new stations are allowed to use the vacated bandwidth. This model has been proven effective in efficiently allocating new and existing audio space.

The U.S. implementation model before the Federal Communications Commission, however, is quite different. Called the In-Band-On-Channel plan, it allows existing stations to use the space on and around their current analog channel to broadcast the digital signal. For example, a station broadcasting at 97.9 would use the space between it and the stations next to it on the dial for its digital broadcasting. When its analog signal is eventually terminated, the entire swath of bandwidth would belong to that station.

The most immediate problem with this plan is that the IBOC technology has not been proven to work. In almost every test conducted in the past ten years, the IBOC system failed to perform as well as expected. The latest tests have given up on trying to make IBOC perform up to the original performance goals--testers retreated to the task of demonstrating that digital would be "measurably better than analog." Observers that have listened to IBOC test stations have heard sound effects on adjacent channels that they have likened to "a buzz saw." While recent results have looked somewhat more positive, it is far from clear at this point that IBOC will not result in increased interference between channels--one of the improvements that digital technology should provide. But there is a deeper concern.

Digital technology could open up the whole playing field of radio. No longer does the old argument of "limited bandwidth" hold much weight, for there is the possibility of a dramatically expanded number of channels. However, because the transition to digital technology is being directed by a group of large stations and some of the biggest corporations involved in broadcasting, it is likely to result in only
more of the same. For large stations, the digital transition offers one more chance to block competition on the airwaves and gain a huge windfall in profit making.

In a certain sense, the IBOC design is a natural extension of incumbent broadcasters' opposition to Low Power FM proposals. When pirate radio stations occupied spaces on the radio dial for community use, existing broadcasters moaned about signal interference. As all advocates of Low Power FM well know, the battle cry of big stations has been "no more space for you." In a scenario that would be laughable if it weren't so cruel, the large stations are still opposing Low Power FM, still claiming "limited bandwidth" as a justification for their particular advantages in the game of radio space allocation. In the digital age, this is akin to elephants blaming mice for crowding them off the savanna. In fact, the IBOC model would pack more digital signals in closer proximity than any Low Power FM legalization proposal. The potential for interference actually increases with the IBOC system, proving that interference is not the primary concern of the large, incumbent radio stations.

What large stations are really concerned about is preserving the oligopoly in radio. According to comments made before the FCC by USA Digital Radio Corporation,* they are "preserving the current business model of radio." Unfortunately, the momentum of past regulatory structures and the current IBOC proposal together only ensure that all of the benefits of digital technology accrue to existing commercial stations without their having to make any concessions to a more democratic use of the airwaves for the public good. This vast imbalance is the legacy of an outmoded licensing structure and the FCC's susceptibility to pressure from media interests.

Traditionally, the FCC has assigned licenses in such a way that a buffer exists between all stations within a certain range. The practice stemmed from a need to create a safety zone so that less sophisticated (and sometimes unpredictable) transmissions on adjacent channels do not interfere with each other. Advances in transmission technology, however, have resulted in a good deal of wasted space between channels, which the existing stations have de facto claimed as their own. It is not uncommon these days for commercial stations to use the space surrounding their licensed channel for such ventures as pager services or date lines. Stations do not pay for this space and it requires no additional licensing.

Clearly, existing stations have an incentive to preserve this "squatter's right." The potential income from such proposed ancillary services as digital display of the artist and song names on digital-ready radios, downloadable music, weather reports, email, and Internet access is immense. There is also talk of developing a "buy button" so listeners can instantly buy a song they are listening to or purchase an advertised product. If you still have doubts about the digital lure, consider the words of Jack Lambiotte, Chief FM Engineer for the 'Denver team' of Clear Channel Communications. "Unlike 95% of the radio station facilities in this country, this building is built for the future needs of broadcasting, including webcasting and satellite broadcasting." Lambiotte told Radio World magazine, "We can produce new streams of revenue that haven't been available, and aren't going to be available, to 95% of the other radio stations in this country."

Big name radio stations, however, are not alone in this. Some of the major players among audio equipment manufacturers are also lining up to make their bundle from the conversion to digital. Companies like USA Digital Radio, Lucent, Texas Instruments, Kenwood, Sanyo Electric, and others are partnering to position themselves for the "next wave" in radio history. So, it's not surprising that their combined political might has made the IBOC proposal a virtual fait accompli.

Sadly, it's the listeners who lose the most in this short sighted, profit-driven implementation of the analog to digital transition. What could have been a forum for lively political debate is now more likely to end up as a clutter of CD promos, streaming sports scores, and other trivia. The rush to fill the airspace with for-profit noise dashes the potential for more useful, locally produced shows. And unless more voices are added to the debate and the incumbent radio stations are pressured to loosen their stranglehold on the digitization design, there is no question that digital technology in radio will fall far short of its promise.

Contact the FCC Commissioners.

William Kennard, wkennard@fcc.gov, (202) 418-1000
Susan Ness, sness@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2100
Harold Furchgott-Roth, hfurchtg@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2000
Michael Powell, mpowell@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2200
Gloria Tristani, gtristan@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2300

Federal Communications Commission
445 12 Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

"Write the FCC and tell them that you want to hear more local new voices coming from the digitization of radio, not more of the same old corporate chatter." -- Pete Tridish

*Editor's note: USA Digital Radio and Lucent Digital are the major U.S. companies that manufacture digital radio broadcasting equipment. They're also the companies that responded to the FCC's request for technical solutions for digital radio conversion.

On July 12 USA Digital Radio and Lucent Digital merged and became the iBiquity Digital Corporation. This new corporation has thrown its weight behind the IBOC technical proposal for digital radio. iBiquity Digital's investor group, which will also support the IBOC proposal, reads like a who's who of radio broadcasting corporations: Clear Channel Communications and AMFM (in August the FCC approved their merger which will result in a radio chain of 800 stations nationwide), ABC, Bonneville International, and Citadel Communications.

Pete Tridish and Amy Hammersmith are organizers for the Prometheus Radio Project, a media activist group which promotes community radio and media democracy.

posted on August 30, 2000 07:06 PM