|
In last
week's article I mentioned that a big change is on the
horizon. Soon, the National
Association of Broadcasters (NAB) will begin the shift
towards digital radio. Like satellite digital radio broadcasts,
the terrestrial (ground-based) digital broadcasts are supposed
to change the way we listen to radio. FM will sound like a CD and
AM will sound like today's FM. Just about everywhere you look,
on the web or in print, that's what you'll read. But there's also
a counter-point, a challenge to this notion of digital radio that
isn't getting much attention. Many radio fans and experts who've
been following the development of digital radio in the US are concerned
that NAB has followed the wrong course, and chose a digital system
inferior to that used in the rest of the world. Instead of going with the Eureka 147 system,
which the BBC has
been using since 1995, NAB opted for something called the
In-Band/On Channel (IBOC)
system, developed by USA Digital Radio (now partnered with Lucent in Ibiquity).
There are several ideas as to why NAB opted to go with IBOC instead of Eureka
147, and, at the risk of making controversy, I'll mention a couple
views here. Initially, NAB intended to go with the Eureka 147 system,
based largely on tests done both in Canada and
in the US
(by NASA) that concluded Eureka 147 was more reliable than
IBOC. However, under pressure of the US military, which uses the L-Band
required by Eureka 147 for aircraft tests, NAB shifted its support
to the IBOC system. Though many radio technology experts think the
military should give up the L-Band to the people and use UHF signals
instead, it doesn't seem likely to happen. Besides, the fact that IBOC
lets broadcasters keep their existing call channels was seen as a major
plus.
The other theory about why NAB went with the IBOC system is quite a bit
more controversial, and, though I'll mention it here, I won't claim
a position on this theory. According to this second theory, NAB opted
for IBOC because of the push in the late 90s for increased use of Lower
Power Radio Service (LPRS). This theory claims that NAB, under the
pressure of big broadcasters, wanted to eliminate the threat of numerous
lower power radio stations starting up around the country and challenging
their reach. I'll let you decided if this is a convincing argument
- more on this perspective is available
here.
The NAB position on low powered FM is here.
Whatever the reason for NAB's decision to go with IBOC, the outcome will be
the same: instead of getting a true digital signal, your digital radio
receiver will pick up and decode a digital signal that's sandwiched
between existing FM signals. Some of the expected consequences of this
signal sandwich, will be the following:
- About a 20% power reduction of analog signal on AM/FM stations that switch to IBOC.
- For the first ten to fifteen years, sandwiching digital and analog signals together will not produce FM-quality AM reception.
- You may not hear your favorite AM station any more especially if you've been listening to a sky wave skip signal.
- Weak signals will vanish, not just fade as they do now on AM/FM radios.
- About a 5 second wait for the signal to buffer when changing stations.
Once radio shifts completely to digital, and phases out analog altogether, you can also expect:
- Less diversity in radio
- Loss of some local stations - like college and independent stations that
can't afford the digital technology.
- You'll have to buy a new radio.
In addition to letting radio stations keep their current FM and AM call
channels, the IBOC system, which uses compact digital signals, will
also enable broadcasters to put more than one station on their existing
band. That means, on just one band you could be able to pick up two
very different radio stations, say one of country the other of rock
music. Also, the digital technology may eventually include the ability
to get lots of additional information on your radio display - such
as news, weather, song titles, and global positioning. But, as with
most things in life, listeners may have to make a lot of compromises
along the way. Will it be worth it?
To answer that question, you might want to consider the impact of radio
on your everyday life. Radio is kind of like a bicycle. Though the
first "walking
machine" was invented in 1817, the common two-wheeled bicycle
that we're familiar with has been around since roughly 1895. Since
that time it's changed a lot, and taken on springs and shocks and gears,
but it has never disappeared. Despite the popularity of the car, and
even the quickness of your average motorcycle, the bike has remained
an integral part of growing up in America. You get a bike, and soon
you're seeing new parts of your neighborhood, meeting people you didn't
know before, and interacting even more often with friends. Radio, especially
AM talk-radio, offers people the same kinds of connections.
Radio is like the glue that holds this country together. While the computer
can also let you interact with people in other parts of the country
(and the world), only the radio can do it so cheaply. Once you get
a radio and turn it on, you're connected. You become part of the fabric
of thoughts, ideas, and hopes that spread from the quartz beaches of
Florida to the hills and mountains of Northern California. If you hear
something that interests you or challenges your opinion, you can pick
up the phone and call in to a radio show and share your thoughts. Even
if you don't call, you can tell a friend what you heard on the radio,
and just like that, a thought that might have started in the deserts
of Nevada has made its way to the suburbs of New Jersey. When you break
it down and think about it, the power of radio is almost the stuff
of science fiction, like something you'd only see in Star Trek reruns.
It's possible that the direction we're heading with digital radio might
threaten the magic of radio.
If you're concerned about the impact of digital radio on our society,
you may want to contact the FCC Chairman and let him know that you
want the FCC to look out for your interests. Don’t assume, however,
that just because Eureka 147 performed better in early tests, that
it's the ideal solution either. It hasn't really taken off in either
Canada or Europe, and folk in those parts of the world are still waiting
for the arrival of affordable receivers. As for the US, rest assured
that C. Crane will do its part to look out for your interests. C. Crane
will monitor the progress of IBOC and work with Sangean to make sure
people can still hear what they want to hear.
Oh yeah, one last thing, even though it's only marginally related. C.
Crane wanted you to know that, when buying batteries, if you see some
that advertise themselves as "digital ready," ignore it.
It doesn't mean a thing. It's the same battery as before, just with
a new label
to make it sound spiced up for the digital
age. If you were thinking of buying a digital camera we suggest looking
into a NiMH and NiCad batteries.
Click the following link to view our What's
in the News Archives.
Do you have comments, questions or article suggestions? E-mail them to
me: J. Carlos Perez
|