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.ardlink: 07:06 PM
Public radio executives are closely monitoring events in Detroit, where the arrival of a new public schools superintendent has fueled speculation about the future of WDTR, the school board's neglected noncommercial station with a much-coveted FM license.
Kenneth Burnley, the new school system c.e.o., took charge last month and began a sweeping management assessment of the school district. In the next three months, an outside consultant will evaluate every department under Burnley's watch, including WDTR. Burnley will then decide on the station's future, possibly keeping it, selling it or contracting another broadcaster to run it.
If Detroit Public Schools sold the station, it would be following a recent pattern of educational institutions bailing out of the broadcasting business. WFBE in Flint, Mich., and WDCU in Washington, D.C., changed hands under similar circumstances.
Leading the queue of broadcasters interested in WDTR is Don Crawford of Crawford Broadcasting, who offered Detroit Public Schools $13.5 million for the station. Most of the Blue Bell, Pa., company's stations are religious.
Disgruntled classical music fans still mourning the recent demise of Detroit's commercial classical station are also eyeing WDTR as a last-ditch hope for fine arts programming. And WDET, the Detroit NPR affiliate licensed to Wayne State University, has offered to buy or manage the station. (see story link for more)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal regulators approved Clear Channel Communications Inc.'s $15.5 billion acquisition of AMFM Inc. creating the nation's No. 1 owner of radio stations.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission said it approved the purchase after the two agreed to sell 23 more stations in 10 markets to either third-party buyers or to an insulated trust in order to satisfy FCC rules on local radio ownership and radio-television cross-ownership.
The U.S. Justice Department, which reviewed potential competition and antitrust concerns, had approved the combination July 20 on the condition that the two companies divest 99 stations in 27 markets.
In total, 122 stations will be sold in 37 markets.
Clear Channel operates 830 radio and 19 television stations in the United States and has equity interests in over 240 radio stations internationally. Its subsidiary, Eller Media, operates more than 550,000 outdoor advertising displays.
Dallas-based AMFM owns 465 stations in the United States, and is also a distributor of radio programming and media software.
"I don't think anything can stop microbroadcasting," said Captain Fred of Berkeley's pirate radio station 104.1 FM. "It's like stepping on a mushroom. If you step on it, what you're going to get is more mushrooms."
The mainstream broadcasting industry's attempt to step on a Federal Communications Commission plan to issue hundreds of noncommercial low-power FM radio licenses has produced precisely that effect: more microbroadcasters seeking to fill blank spaces on the dial with grass-roots programming.
The National Association of Broadcasters may feel the full impact of the movement it has stirred up when 7,000 station owners and executives arrive in San Francisco for its national radio convention Sept. 20-23, at which Gen. Colin Powell will be the keynote speaker.
Air pirates and low-power FM license applicants and their supporters will link up in what figures to be the climax of "Micropower Summer" to protest what they regard as the corporatization of the nation's airwaves.
The theme, according to a flyer distributed on the Internet, is "media democracy now." ....
The protest at NAB's San Francisco radio convention is being organized by a coalition that includes the Direct Action Media Network, Global Exchange, and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.
Low Power Radio Act of 2000 (Introduced in the Senate)
S. 2989
To provide for the technical integrity of the FM radio band, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 27, 2000
Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. KERREY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A BILL
To provide for the technical integrity of the FM radio band, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Low Power Radio Act of 2000'.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to ensure the technical integrity of the FM radio band, while permitting the introduction of low power FM transmitters into such band without causing harmful interference.
SEC. 3. HARMFUL INTERFERENCE PROHIBITED.
(a) IN GENERAL- Any low-power FM radio licensee determined by the Federal Communications Commission to be transmitting a signal causing harmful interference to one or more licensed radio services shall, if so ordered by the Commission, cease the transmission of the interfering signal, and may not recommence transmitting such signal unit it has taken whatever action the Commission may prescribe in order to assure that the radio licensee that has sustained the interference remains able to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity as required by the Commission's rules.
(b) COMPLAINT- Any radio service licensee may file a complaint with the Commission against any low-power FM radio licensee for transmitting a signal that is alleged to cause harmful interference.
(c) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION- In any complaint filed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b), the Commission shall render a final decision no later than 150 calendar days after the date on which the complaint was filed.
(d) REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS- In any final decision rendered pursuant to this section, the Commission is authorized to order the losing party to reimburse the reasonable direct costs incurred in the complaint proceeding by the winning party.
(e) PUNITIVE DAMAGES- In any final decision rendered pursuant to this section, the Commission is authorized to impose punitive damages not to exceed 5 times the low-power FM station's costs if the Commission finds that the complaint was frivolous and without any merit or purpose other than to impede the provision of non-interfering low-power FM service.
(f) Section 316(a)(3) OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT- Section 316(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 316(a)(3)) shall not apply to a complaint filed pursuant to this section.
(g) RULES- The Commission shall adopt rules implementing the provisions of this section within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(h) HARMFUL INTERFERENCE DEFINED- For purposes of this section, the term `harmful interference' means interference which endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or that seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radio service operating in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.
SEC. 4. DIGITAL RADIO TRANSITION.
The Federal Communications Commission shall complete all rulemakings necessary to implement the transition to digital radio no later than June 1, 2001.
After five years on the air, "Native America Calling" bills itself as the nation's longest-running talk show that focuses on American Indian issues. Some 125,000 listeners tune in every week on 36 radio stations and Web simulcasts, according to the show's distributor, American Indian Radio on Satellite.
The show's goal is to expand the ancient Indian tradition of communicating as equals known as the talking circle....
"We come from a very strong oral tradition. We need to keep with that strength," said Bernadette Chato, who produces a weekly health show for Native America Calling from Anchorage, Alaska. "So many Indian traditions have been pushed aside with the tribal governments."
The Monday-through-Friday talk show has created a forum for Indians to speak out on issues that are not addressed on or off the reservations, Chato said.
"With the show, we get our concerns out and the people on the outside know what's going on," said listener JoAnn Tall, a member of the Oglala Lakota nation from Porcupine, S.D....
John GrofsVenor, a Cherokee who connects to the show almost every day from his home computer in Nespelem, Wash., said Native America Calling takes a balanced approach as it digs into issues that affect the lives of Indians.
"They talk about issues like tribal sovereignty and things that the main media does not address," the 62-year-old listener said. The mainstream media "either ignore Indian problems or else they don't want to address them."