Radio World

IBC2019 is almost here. Between now and then Radio World will conduct several short Q&As with manufacturers about their plans and offerings, to help you get the most out of the big annual trade show. Rich Redmond is president and managing director, International, GatesAir, and Carlo Bombelli is executive technologist, GatesAir Srl.

Rich Redmond

Radio World: How has business been for the company since last year’s IBC Show?

Rich Redmond: The global business for GatesAir remains strong. We had exceptionally strong performance in the United States with the spectrum repack, where we captured the lion’s share of that business. We have also experienced tremendous international growth, which was driven by a renewed strategic focus worldwide. We made investments in people and infrastructure in every region around the globe. The acquisition of ONEtastic establishes our European headquarters with sales, service, manufacturing and development. All of this highlights the commitment we’ve made to the global transmission market.

Radio World: What are you hearing from your customers about their business outlook this year? In what areas should we expect growth or the most interesting projects?

Carlo Bombelli: When you talk to customers around the world, the implementation of new technology varies broadcaster by broadcaster, country by country. The reallocation of UHF spectrum, and 5G implementation from global carriers, are two interesting examples. Meanwhile, some countries are working on their first transition from analog to digital, while others are moving to advanced standards like DVB-T2 and ATSC 3.0. In radio, we continue to see new FM licensing in different countries, the migration to DAB for digital radio, and a stronger embrace of the IT infrastructure to support audio contribution and distribution.

We are seeing significant adoption of new technology that enables lower total cost of ownership in all of these examples. We’re helping our customer realize those savings as they transition to new systems, as broadcast transmitters are substantially more efficient today than 10–15 years ago. Broadcasters and network operators are also using these technological advances to streamline their own operations.

Radio World: Within the last year or so the two large station ownership groups have emerged from bankruptcy. Are you seeing any increase in equipment sales or interest? What is your feeling for the overall health of the radio industry?

Redmond: The market dynamics between the TV and radio businesses are generally different. Spectrum policy dictates much of what happens in television, from spectrum repack initiatives to mobile data services. These dynamics don’t really affect the radio business, and we see healthy global opportunity for radio. India continues to rollout new commercial FM licenses, we see expansion of digital radio in Europe and Australia, and general advancements of radio networks in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

Carlo Bombelli

Worldwide, we are also seeing broadcasters update their existing infrastructure with higher efficiency technologies. This was the case with one of our most recent project wins, Nova Entertainment in Australia, which cited operational efficiency improvements as a major drive in their purchase requirements. At minimum, investments such as these will keep the radio market steady, while accelerated adoption of DAB and HD Radio will keep the market moving forward.

Radio World: You’ve been active in the equipment manufacturing market for years. What’s the biggest problem or challenge facing manufacturers right now? Does the trade row between the United States and China greatly affect you? 

Redmond: I think many of the same challenges that our customers face certainly impact broadcasting manufacturers. We see fewer and fewer young people entering the RF broadcasting field, and those that do are being spread wider and further. Customers are increasingly looking to their suppliers as engineering resources as a result. We are addressing these dynamics through stronger training and education initiatives. We have developed some online training classes that specifically teach RF skills to young engineers that possess IT backgrounds.

There is no question that the recent round of tariffs in China affect the global electronics market. I wouldn’t say that GatesAir has been heavily impacted, but the tariffs ultimately ripple through just about everything that’s being made in electronics, including broadcast equipment.

RW: What new goodies will your company be showing? Why should attendees visit your stand?

Bombelli: We’re excited to be bringing our high-efficiency, software-defined TV and DAB radio transmitters for global broadcast standards to the GatesAir stand, 8.D60. We have some unique solutions for DAB, including a new high-efficiency liquid-cooled VHF solution, and a multicarrier transmitter that will broadcast up to three signals in a single transmitter, greatly simplifying multinetwork deployment.

We also have a very innovative pole-mounted transmitter that is ideal for areas that lack a transmitter shelter. The system mounts outdoors on the leg of a tower or a mast. It’s a high-efficiency, weatherproof system that revolutionizes the cost of deploying gap fillers and transposers, for example.

Redmond: On the Intraplex side, we have added video over IP transport to our Intraplex Ascent platform that was introduced at the NAB Show. The Ascent SRT Gateway is new for IBC and is ideal for broadcasters to securely transport high-bandwidth video from a centralized IT infrastructure to multiple transmission sites. All of these systems will be shown at Stand 8.D60.

Radio World: Going by the interest on our website, AoIP technology is on the top of the list for product acquisition and upgrades. Is that something you are seeing and if so, how are you addressing that? 

Redmond: Audio over IP has been a big part of our portfolio for many years. Our Intraplex networking business began innovating for this space more than a decade ago with NetXpress, and our next-generation IP Link codecs have evolved to support virtually any audio contribution and distribution need. This includes innovations for AES67, MPX FM composition and digital AES192 transport, and now with Ascent we can manage audio over IP transport from standard computing platforms in the broadcasters’ IT infrastructure.

We are helping our customers manage DAB networking through dual EDI inputs, which take the IP transport stream for digital radio and put it directly into the exciter, lowering the broadcaster’s cost of deployment. And when sending these streams over highly complex networks, our Intraplex Dynamic Stream Splicing application adds another layer of transport reliability by duplicating streams over common or disparate network paths.

Radio World: What do you anticipate will be the most significant technology trend at the 2019 IBC Show? 

Bombelli: Continuous improvements in operational efficiency. That includes energy efficiency in transmitters, but it all comes down to total cost of ownership. This is why we hear from so many customers that are interested in our outdoor pole-mounted transmitters, because these can really transform how TV and DAB radio services are deployed. And in general, they want modular, lightweight and resilient solutions that consume less space and energy.

Redmond: Using IP for content delivery, as well as remote control and monitoring, remains a significant focus at IBC. We continue to hear from more broadcasters that want the flexibility to control transmitters and manage data over the IP network. Our Intraplex IPConnect solution offers some interesting applications in that regard.

Radio World: Will you be attending any sessions or looking forward to any events?

Redmond: We do our best to participate in every facet of the show, but first and foremost IBC is a venue for us to meet with customers from around the world and help to solve their problems. We try to be very customer-focused, but we certainly try to take advantage of opportunities on the cutting-edge. IBC is second to none when it comes to offering new and innovative topics presented by some of the world’s market-leading technologists.

Radio World: You’re a show veteran, how has the show changed since your first visit?

Bombelli: The types of visitors have changed over time. We don’t see as many big groups from the same companies as we used to, and certainly consolidation in the market has contributed to that change. But we do see a nice mix of commercial and government public service broadcasters, as well as network operators. IBC remains the best place to meet our customers.

Redmond: This is also an excellent opportunity to meet with our channel partners who travel from many countries to attend IBC. I would add that the way technology has changed has also contributed to fewer visitors by the year. It’s undeniable that the last five years have seen a merging of standard computing and IT platforms with broadcast-specific applications. The days of broadcast products being relatively unique and hardware-based have transitioned to more software-based solutions.

Radio World: Finally, how has the ONEtastic post-acquisition process been going?

Redmond: It’s been going very well from the integration perspective. We just had our global sales team at the GatesAir Srl facility in Italy for training. We have been hiring new staff for that facility so that we have more resources on the ground in Europe. Our pipeline of opportunities has grown significantly. It’s a very exciting time.

Bombelli: We couldn’t be more excited and energized to become part of the GatesAir family, and our presence will certainly be felt on the IBC stand.

[Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

The post IBC Exhibitor Viewpoint: Rich Redmond, GatesAir and Carlo Bombelli, GatesAir Srl appeared first on Radio World.

Broadcasters who fail to pay delinquent regulatory fees to the Federal Communications Commission may find their licenses in danger of being revoked.

The FCC recently initiated proceedings against three broadcasters to revoke their licenses after the FCC said the broadcasters failed to pay certain regulatory fees, related interest, administrative costs and penalties that are owed to the commission.

On Aug. 27, the commission sent a letter to Heidelberg Broadcasting, which is licensee of WVOL(AM) in Berry Hill, Tenn. According to the commission, Heidelberg failed to pay regulatory dues for fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 2009 for a total of $10,902.35.

On the same day, the commission sent a similar letter to Christian Broadcasting, licensee for KDLA(AM) in De Ridder, La., for failure to pay delinquent regulatory fees and associated penalties. The commission said that Christian Broadcasting failed to pay regulatory fees for 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 for a total of $7,815.05.

The commission also reached out to The Sportzmax, too, licensee of WDSP(AM) in De Funiak Springs, Fla., for failure to pay delinquent regulatory fees in 2010, 2011 and 2012 for a total of $2,521.56.

Each licensee also owes the commission 25% in late payment penalties for each missed payment.

In addition to financial penalties, the FCC has the authority to revoke authorizations for failure to pay regulatory fees in a timely fashion. The commission has given the licensees 60 days to pay all outstanding regulatory fee debt or to show cause as to why the debt should be waived.

[Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

The post FCC Moves to Revoke Licenses of Broadcasters Who Missed Regulatory Payments appeared first on Radio World.

Earlier this month two of the nation’s largest radio broadcasting companies called on the Federal Communications Commission to reject one particular proposal that’s being suggested when it comes to usage of C-band spectrum.

Cumulus Media and Westwood One responded to an FCC request for comments on a proposal presented by ACA Connects Coalition. The ACA proposal suggests reallocating 370 MHz of C-band spectrum by moving broadcasters to terrestrial fiber delivery instead.

Cumulus and Westwood One expressed concerns about the ACA proposal both from a timing and reliability standpoint, saying the 18-month time frame proposed by ACA for installing a reliable fiber option is unrealistic. “Providing the facilities, data centers, and cable headends with the necessary equipment requires a considerable amount of effort, design, deployment of resources, and testing before any such facility can be put into service,” the two radio broadcasters said. “Agreements would also need to be negotiated and executed to ensure that the content and properties are appropriately protected. All of these matters would need to be in place before any fiber could begin to be deployed.”

[Read: NAB Calls ACA Connects’ C-Band Proposal “Ill-Conceived”]

The company’s second major concern involves reliability.

According to Cumulus and Westwood One, fiber cannot replicate the 99.99% reliability rating that C-band uplinks provide. “Fiber does not have the same combination of efficiency and reliability as the C-band for content delivery,” the companies said.

“The reach of fiber generally has been limited to a few hundred of the largest metropolitan areas and, thus, has not served as a substitute for the nationwide footprint of the C-band satellite infrastructure, at least to this point,” the companies said.

Westwood One said many of its affiliates are small-market broadcasters located in rural areas who do not have access to a terrestrial network such as fiber or high-speed internet. “[This] leaves C-band as the only alternative option,” the companies said.

“If existing earth stations were forced to use fiber as an alternative for the distribution of video content, the result would leave cable systems, and possibly broadcasters as well, in thousands of smaller cities, towns, and rural areas with no affordable means to access the programming they now provide to their respective communities, assuming they would be able to access that programming at all,” the two said.

The comments are part of a larger record of responses about ACA’s proposal to refarm some users of the C-band spectrum to a terrestrial fiber video delivery network. That proposal would clear 370 MHz of C-band spectrum and transition broadcasters and earth station users from C-band delivery to fiber.

While there has been support in some corners for the ACA proposal, a sizable number of organizations have called on the FCC to flatly reject any such proposal, including the National Association of Broadcasters and four U.S. broadcasting networks.

The comments are being submitted as part of Docket 18-122 known as “Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 GHz to 4.2 GHz Band” within the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

[Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

 

The post Cumulus/WWO Among Those Rejecting Fiber Suggestion as Replacement for C-Band appeared first on Radio World.

FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly believes society is standing on the brink of a revolutionary 5G wireless technology that will generate countless innovations and utterly change the way we work, play, communicate and interact.

Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, center, at a recent FCC meeting next to Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel.

The commissioner said so at the Brooklyn 5G Summit this year, and his raves about 5G didn’t surprise observers. Among many implications of 5G is a possible repurposing of the C-band in the United States. That’s the 500 MHz of spectrum (3.7 to 4.2 GHz) currently used by broadcasters who receive programming via satellite downlink earth stations. The FCC has proposed giving wireless companies some portion of the spectrum for 5G wireless development. It is expected to take action on the matter before the end of 2019.

O’Rielly, 48, was nominated for a Republican seat on the FCC by President Barack Obama in 2013. He has been active in a number of radio-related policy issues on the FCC’s action list including AM revitalization, the quadrennial review, FM Class C4 and pirate radio. Radio World checked in with him recently on these issues.

Radio World: What do you see as the ideal split of the 500 MHz of C-band spectrum? What do you support?
Michael O’Rielly: Industry stakeholders have discussed different options, including the market-based approach that could repurpose 200 megahertz of spectrum relatively quickly while ensuring the incumbents will be accommodated. I hope the satellite incumbents who are willing to surrender their spectrum rights will be able to find a way to increase the amount to be reallocated to 300 or more megahertz.

As for the spectrum split I say between 200 and 300 MHz, but closer to 300 for wireless right now. I’ve testified to that fact. I think we’ll end up eventually in the 300 range to repurpose. We need to tee up even more mid-bands for review. It’s critically important that we look closely at those prime bands for 5G.

RW: Are you supportive of the C-Band Alliance proposal, which calls for 200 MHz for wireless and 300 for satellite earth-stations?
O’Rielly: I haven’t endorsed it. I’ve said some nice things about it. There are some nice parts to it. We are still trying to work through some things, like how much spectrum we are talking about, what is the auction mechanism and the band plan. There are pieces of it that are still open for consideration and that’s why I haven’t endorsed it.

RW: The proposal contains money for the repacking of the spectrum and moving broadcasters during a migration. Will whatever the FCC decrees contain some money for broadcasters to cover expenses of moving?
O’Rielly: Oh yes, it’s going to have to. And I’ve said as much all along. We are going to have to make sure broadcasters are made whole in any kind of repack. Repack is a term we use in incentive auctions, but it kind of functions here, too. We are going to relocate and retune the earth stations. Therefore that expense should be addressed.

What I have told the broadcast community, and I’ve done this in a thoughtful way, is not to be greedy. This is not an opportunity to make money, but rather a process to be made whole. And to make sure your services are not interrupted and mindful of how important use of the C-band is to your technology package. A number of broadcasters have told us they use some fiber in their operations already, but they want the redundancy of using satellite. They want both.

RW: Speaking of fiber, some of the wireless companies have told the commission they believe broadcasters could use fiber to replace the C-band for distribution of programming. Do you think that is in the public interest?
O’Rielly: No I don’t believe we will go down that path. I don’t believe forcing anyone to using just one technology is good. Broadcasters have highlighted the fact that having different redundant technology is crucial. Some wireless companies have even suggested using redundant fiber networks, but broadcasters have made it clear that they have seen nothing to make them want to go to just fiber. I’m respectful of that.

RW: There have been lots of other proposals floated for C-band repurposing. Have any of these stood out in your mind?
O’Rielly: There have been a lot of ideas put forward. And I think that signals that we are close to a decision point and a commonality. Different views are coalescing around different pieces. And now we see groups are fighting over specifics instead of generalities. There’s been less yelling at each other. That’s progress I think. But we still have work to do.

RW: Ideally, would the FCC like to see the stakeholders involved come to a consensus and get behind one of the compromises? And would that simplify the proceeding?
O’Rielly: That would be great if it worked out that way. I suspect it may not given the strong views involved. But as regulators, part of our job is to find the right outcome. In general, the outcome would be better if you had all sides on board, but here it seems unlikely. So we will find the right landing spot.

RW: What are your thoughts on congressional involvement on the C-band matter at this point? Would that complicate or simplify matters for the FCC?
O’Rielly: I always welcome congressional involvement, whether it is informal or legislation. Certainly I appreciate anytime Congress passes a statute and the president signs it. If it happens here if something is enacted, I would follow it to the letter. In the meantime, there are a lot of different views from Congress, just as there is from all the different parties, so we have to take all of them, digest them and rule on an outcome.

RW: Were you satisfied with the compromise solution expediting FM translator interference claims? What are your expectations?
O’Rielly: Generally yes. I think we are open to fine-tune it going forward. I think it addresses both sides of the issue. Some of the issues were unintended consequences of having all these new FM translators available and the growth of that service. So we want to make sure we don’t cause disruption and we want the process to be more simplistic and easy to use. We’ll see if in operation it works as we think it will.

RW: You’ve been instrumental, along with Chairman Ajit Pai, in making pirate radio take-downs a priority. Some broadcasters sense a slowdown in the FCC’s pursuit of pirates. What is your response to those assertions?
O’Rielly: Well, I would say to those claims that if any broadcaster is feeling that way, don’t worry. I’m still pushing as hard as I can. We do have some actions coming. At the same time there is legislation moving through Congress to provide the commission more tools that will be incredibly valuable.

I was just in New York working on the issue of pirate radio, specifically in the Bronx, and figuring out how to remove the enticement for groups to do pirate radio.

RW: Do you believe the recent joint action by the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts and the FCC signals increased interest by the DOJ to act? [In March the FCC Enforcement Bureau praised a civil action brought by the Justice Department, intended to prevent an unlicensed station from operating in Worcester.]
O’Rielly: I hope so. I wasn’t involved in that issue. I hope it will stir further compliance. Every little step matters.

RW: The Class C4 Notice of Inquiry hasn’t moved to NPRM stage yet. Do you expect that to happen soon and do you support that move?
O’Rielly: I would defer to the chairman to the timing of the item. I’ve been raising issues regarding the C4 proposal. What I have said publicly is that it is hard to move an item such as this that causes such consternation within an industry. And there are strong takes in favor and against. A number of broadcasters are strongly opposed. That is a harder thing to move in those instances, given the technical issues involved. So I don’t know the timing but I am suspect in terms of where we might go with it.

RW: The comment periods have been closed for some time on proposed changes to the Class A AM interference protection rules. Do you expect an order soon and what could it mean for AM going forward?
O’Rielly: Again, I’m not sure about the timing. The comments have been collected. I just don’t have a good insight on when the item moves forward. A lot of those pieces are still up in the air.

RW: Comments in the 2018 Quadrennial review were filed in March and April. What is the likely timeframe for an FCC decision in this proceeding? Will the timing be affected by litigation over previous quadrennial reviews still pending in a U.S. court of appeals? [Editor’s note: The FCC has defended its most recent rule changes against a challenge by Prometheus Radio Project.]
O’Rielly: I’d hope it’s not dependent on the Third Circuit because they haven’t had the mindset of the current marketplace for some time. They’ve been stuck in a previous time that we have all moved past. I hope we are not stuck waiting for their decision.

I think we can take some steps to move forward. Hopefully this year still, but that will be up to the chairman. But in the next six months I’m hoping we can move our quadrennial review ahead. We should have already done that considering our statutory requirement.

RW: The question of market definition is key to the FCC’s broadcast ownership rules and to the Department of Justice’s review of broadcast mergers. Should the DOJ define the relevant market for reviewing radio and TV station mergers in the same way as the FCC (or vice versa)?
O’Rielly: I don’t know about the same, but they need to update their current review, which I have criticized extensively. I have a deep concern. They are living in the past and have blocked a number of mergers that make sense.

I hope the workshop the DOJ put together on how digital advertising should affect its broadcast merger review will lead to the decision to change their definition of a marketplace.

RW: What changes would you like to see the FCC make to its broadcast ownership rules in the 2018 quadrennial?
O’Rielly: On the radio side of things, I think the subcaps are ripe for review and ripe for change. Ownership limits on the AM side are anarchistic. Allowing more consolidation of AM stations may be a key way to preserve this function.

And on the FM side we just need to find the sweet landing spot. There are larger ownership groups that are critical of NAB on their landing spot, but I think we will be able to find a number to make most entities happy, including the community at large.

We need to bring our rules up to date to reflect the current marketplace. Everyone is competing for audience. It’s not just radio versus radio, or versus TV. It includes all of the high-tech companies battling for the eyes and ears of the American public.

RW: Does your schedule slow down at all in summer?
O’Rielly: I wouldn’t call it a slowdown. We move our meeting in August up a bit and slide the September meeting back to create some space for vacation and family time. There’s nothing official about it. I do hope to take some time off and spend it with my daughters and family.

The post O’Rielly in Middle of C-Band Debate appeared first on Radio World.

The author is a freelance radio broadcast specialist.

Working on the sports coverage at the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro and the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. was incredibly exciting as it threw up many challenges along the way. These large events require an ability to deal with multiple stakeholders, such as broadcast personnel, equipment manufacturers and telcos to ensure smooth sailing.

ABC Radio Sport IBC Studios Gold Coast

At the 2018 Commonwealth Games, I used Tieline’s ViA codec to broadcast live audio over IP from several venues, including high-profile sports such as events from the main stadium, as well as swimming, cycling, hockey and more in other locations.

Although ISDN was available, it was not offered at all venues by the telco, so instead of using a combination of transmission methods, I decided to stick with IP. In general, I prefer to transport audio over IP rather than ISDN, as it’s more versatile and is just as reliable with the right implementation.

Alister Nicholson (ABC Radio Sport Melbourne) at the Anna Meares Velodrome.

The ABC Radio Sport Operations department has a large complement of ViA, Merlin and Merlin PLUS codecs for remote outside broadcasts. This is significantly extended in ABC MCRs with complements of Merlin PLUS codecs. My own broadcast company, BNBC, has also purchased several ViA, Merlin and Merlin PLUS codecs, which are primarily used for sports broadcasting. These complements are constantly growing as the industry transitions to IP technology.

At the Commonwealth Games, I installed four Tieline ViA codecs at key venues and had one floating codec, which was used at other venues and pop-up events around the city. Most venues had a simple setup for two commentators and an effects mic. IP network security was high, with all venues isolated from one another on private LANs. In the lead-up to the opening, we worked hard to negotiate secure pathways in and out from each venue that were rock-solid back to Merlin and Merlin PLUS codecs in the ABC’s Central Broadcast Site at the IBC Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre.

The purpose of this infrastructure was to connect all venues directly to the International Broadcast Centre, which would then get mixed into larger broadcasts and sent back to Sydney. Two different radio networks would often be programmed from the IBC site with different content through the same infrastructure. This IBC hub was also great for providing atmosphere and camaraderie with all contributing producers, commentators and experts in close proximity.

EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED

As we found in Rio, the best-laid plans can often turn to you-know-what, no matter how much planning you put in. On the Gold Coast that turned out to be another layer of security added to the IP network. An Intruder Protection System was installed because of a possible threat received only 30 hours before the opening ceremony.

Borobi, the mascot for Gold Coast

This added latency. Because we were concerned about it being 100% OK for the opening ceremony, we decided to go live with the addition of Telstra LANES cellular service, which uses dedicated LTE spectrum. To facilitate this, we connected Netgear M1 Nighthawk routers to the venue ViA and the IBC Merlins’ second LAN ports and setup Tieline’s SmartStream feature on all our codecs.

Combined with Tieline’s SmartStream PLUS redundant streaming, we streamed successfully from all venues for two-and-a-half days — until we were absolutely certain that the private LAN with additional security would stream reliably. The performance was great, and it allowed us to troubleshoot the private LAN issues without impacting the product.

SmartStream PLUS used via two different networks is the best option, in my opinion, and gets you a lower than one in 1,000 failure rate in my experience. Normally, I try to combine an LTE cellular modem and a wired LAN service for redundancy.

I met some colleagues from BBC Sports Northern Ireland during the games who were interested in trying out the SmartStream method of IP broadcasting, and I helped them to configure their ViA codecs for broadcast, as well as talking about our IP issues.

Joshua Craig covers an event at the swimming pool.

One of the main reasons I like using ViA is the remote control it delivers. At the venues on the Gold Coast, we didn’t have any technicians on site during competition, as we could remote into each codec and adjust any settings from the studio using the HTML5 Toolbox web GUI while managing larger broadcast operations at the IBC. The Matrix editor and router are a nice addition to ViA and allow simple routing adjustments on the fly.

Generally, the return path is used for IFB and talkback communications; however the fact that ViA supports a separate mono bidirectional feed for communications is something I am looking into for radio sports coverage. ViA’s IP latency is low and well-suited to communicating bidirectionally with the studio. Depending on the circuit available, I generally run a fixed jitter setting on international circuits and automatic jitter buffering on local and national links as international circuits tend to be vary more dynamically over the period of a connection.

I have connected in mono, stereo, and both stereo and mono simultaneously using ViA — depending on the application. Normally, I use Music PLUS encoding in stereo at 96 kbps, and this sounds excellent.

I generally avoid using Wi-Fi at major sports events, as stadiums often use lots of Wi-Fi channels and there can be too much interference for reliable connections. However, I have used the built-in Wi-Fi capability in ViA in areas less affected by Wi-Fi and RF, like local football matches at smaller venues with fewer broadcasters. It’s easy to setup and works great.

I have had the opportunity to use both the XLR and digital outputs to feed things like PA, but by far the most useful use for the additional audio IO is to daisy-chain two ViAs together. This is great for OBs where space is an issue.

 BATTERY BACKUP SAVES THE DAY

I recall on one occasion that ABC Radio Sport was broadcasting a Women’s AFL match from Drummoyne in Sydney during the 2018 season. Storms were predicted, and we were outside under a small gazebo (as were all the other broadcasters). We were using the ViA as an external codec and simply taking feeds in and out from a larger mixing console.

Midway through the game, it bucketed down, cats and dogs, sideways rain. Insanity. All the gear got soaked, and lightning began striking nearby structures and sailing boats. I had anticipated such an issue and disconnected the ViA and Netgear M1 modem from the larger system, swapped the commentators over to headsets plugged directly into the ViA and moved them inside, away from the storm. Although other broadcasters had gone off air due to wet equipment, we were able to continue to broadcast.

Patrick “Vibes” Johnson, left, and Quentin Hull, ABC Radio Sport Brisbane, at Carrara Stadium on the Gold Coast.

This was great for our listeners because we didn’t drop the coverage, and it provided an exciting listening experience throughout the storm with the reactions of the commentators as they spoke through the ordeal. After play resumed, we continued to broadcast using the ViA. In addition, I swapped out our sideline wireless mic and used a phone/mic/headphone combo with Report-IT directly back to the studio.

 SUMMARY

Without question, Tieline’s Merlin codecs in Rio, and the ViA, Merlin and Merlin PLUS codecs on the Gold Coast, delivered the goods for high-profile, mission-critical, sports coverage.

In general, the ViA codec sounds great, and from a configuration perspective, it’s very intuitive. Announcers like the ViA as they are super easy to use and connect once an address book for program dialing has been configured. The headphone routing controls are also super-flexible and settings for individual announcers can be saved and recalled.

[Read: IBC Exhibitor Viewpoint: Charlie Gawley, Tieline]

Unlike ISDN, broadcasting over IP can be dicey, as you are relying on other factors outside of a single telco. IP requires good network structures all the way through the chain and can often mean crossing three computer networks (organizational, internet, telco). This is why Tieline’s SmartStream PLUS is such an important feature, really providing what ISDN used to, with the added flexibility of computer networks.

Joshua Craig works as an audio engineer for clients including the national broadcaster ABC TV and Radio, Triple J Radio, the Sydney Opera House and many others. The work he does is varied and includes live sports coverage and live music programs.

The post ViA Helps Cover Live Commonwealth Games appeared first on Radio World.

OSNABRÜCK, Germany — Show hosts and talent at Radio Osnabrück are telecommuting into work these days.

The regional station has one main studio, a network of transmitters, and now, several on-air personalities telecommuting from various locations throughout Germany.

Covering the Osnabrück land region in Lower Saxony, Germany, Radio Osnabrück has one main studio, a network of transmitters, and now, several on-air personalities telecommuting from various locations throughout Germany.

SYSTEM SETUP

Talent run their shows from a custom user interface on their PCs that connects over the public internet with a VPN connection into the station’s WheatNet-IP audio networked studio in the city of Osnabrück.

IP-12 control surfaces in Studio 2 and 3.

Onscreen buttons enable remote talent to access sources, take listener call-ins, and do all the things they would otherwise do if they were physically in the studio. That includes talkbacks to other talent at various locations and triggering a local traffic announcement on the RDS encoder.

The UI was created with ScreenBuilder UI development application by Danny Teunissen of MRZ Broadcast in The Netherlands, who was the systems integrator for Radio Osnabrück’s new studios completed last year.

The system includes a Wheatstone split-frame LXE console in the main studio and IP-12 control surfaces in Studio 2 and Studio 3 with Tieline codec units, Proppfrexx automation and VoxPro recorder/editors all integrated into the WheatNet-IP audio network.

[Read: IBC Sneak Peek: Wheatstone Introduces Strata 32]

The Wheatstone ACI protocol ties codecs and automation to SLIOs (software logic I/O) in the WheatNet-IP network for triggering events and elements.

A split-frame Wheatstone LXE console in the main studio

Through the Proppfrexx automation, talent have access to utility mixers in each of the I/O BLADEs that make up the WheatNet-IP audio network for routing and segueing between program feeds during broadcasts.

It’s possible to trigger Tieline codecs remotely and status indicators are visible from the Proppfrexx automation as well.

Radio Osnabrück telecommuters are able to bring more local programming into the station and expand listenership as a result.

[Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

The post Radio Osnabrück Facilitates Telecommuter Tasks appeared first on Radio World.

The author is chief technician for Far East Broadcasting Company in the Philippines.

Noel Ubod pictured with FEBC’s most recent acquisition, a Nautel GV10 transmitter.

MANILA  — Far East Broadcasting Company has a long history with Nautel. Almost all our transmitters are Nautel (except for some shortwave systems).

Starting with the ND Series in the early 1990s we’ve since purchased XL Series, XR Series, NV Series, VS Series, NVLT Series and GV Series.

We choose Nautel transmitters because of their track record of reliability and high efficiency.

Our most recent acquisition, a GV10 transmitter, was commissioned in March 2019. The installation was both simple and easy. Currently we are in the process of acquiring an NX50 transmitter to replace an XL50. 

Documentation, Resources

Prior to working with Nautel transmitters I had maintained an analog vacuum tube transmitter, so the thought of working with a Nautel solid-state transmitter was exciting. But it was a combination of excitement and fear as I was concerned whether I could adjust to this new technology I wasn’t used to. I had maintained the analog transmitter for more than 20 years, so I had to study how such state-of-the-art transmitters operate.

I am very impressed with the Nautel transmitter manuals. There is everything I need. They are very extensive from pre-installation to installation then operation and lastly troubleshooting manuals. I have never seen such an extensive set of manuals before.

Other points that have caught my attention are Nautel’s helpful webinars, videos and tutorials on their website and the Tips and Tricks from Jeff Welton (thanks Jeff!) All these resources are very practical and helpful for us maintenance crew.

[Read: Nautel Names Schmid at CTO]

Another thing which I recently experienced is Nautel’s great customer service. They provide very good support to customers. Several times I’ve asked for assistance and Nautel Tech Support was there to help me every time. Very impressive. Although the information is there in the manuals, asking for help from Nautel customer service is faster than re-reading the manuals — my apologies for that! My sincere thanks to Scott MacLeod who is always patient enough to assist me.

I cannot water down the importance of good customer service. If I’m evaluating equipment to buy, my highest criteria is customer support. Does the equipment company have good customer support? Nautel has that.

Built-In Features

In the Philippines one of our dilemmas is there are very few technicians available to maintain broadcast equipment. Because of this there were times when we had to cut our on-air broadcasting hours because of lack of personnel to man the (vacuum tube) transmitter.

With Nautel transmitters lack of personnel is no longer a problem. We started operating our new GV10 transmitter automatically using the built-in features; it will turn on/off at the specified time without human intervention. Again, thanks to Scott who helped with this set up.

The transmitter AUI metering is also very extensive. Everything an engineer needs for evaluating the operation of the transmitter is available on the touch screen. Currently I am working with the AUI’s web-based remote monitoring and control (using port forwarding on the router) as we are contemplating 24-hour operation.

[Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

Our potential for 24-hour operation is only possible given the transmitter’s high efficiency. This gives us a lower electric bill compared with our previous vacuum tube transmitter which had very low efficiency. This lower electric cost enables us to consider expanding our hours of on-air broadcasting. Thank you Nautel!

Nautel transmitters are reliable, highly efficient and versatile. There are many features to accommodate your broadcasting needs. Thanks to the engineers at Nautel who are behind this great design, you did an excellent job. Kudos to all of you.

Congratulations Nautel for 50 years of service!

The post Nautel Simplifies FEBC Operations appeared first on Radio World.

The Federal Communications Commission is moving toward issuing a $10,000 Notice of Apparent Liability against an individual accused of allegedly operating an unlicensed radio station in Arkansas.

In August 2018, according to an FCC summary of the case, the commission received a complaint from a consumer that an unauthorized station was operating in Alma, Ark., a town of 5,419 near the Ozark Mountains. An agent from the commission’s New Orleans field office investigated in October and observed what appeared to be a broadcast station operating on 103.1 MHz.

[Read: Justice Department Steps in to Stop Alleged Pirate Operation]

Using direction-finding techniques, agents attempted to inspect a site on Fayetteville Ave., but, according to the FCC, they were rebuffed by Gerald Sutton, who refused the agent’s request to conduct an inspection. Soon after the agent’s arrival, the transmitter was turned off, though the agent reported it was turned back on after the agent departed the site.

In November, Sutton was sent a Notice of Unlicensed Operation and informed that the alleged operation must be discontinued immediately as it was in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act. But Sutton responded via a letter saying that the act did not apply to him.

The FCC now states in a notice of apparent liability that that Sutton willfully violated the act and proposed a monetary forfeiture of $10,000. Sutton has 30 days to pay or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation.

[Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

The post FCC Plans $10,000 Penalty Against Alleged Radio Pirate appeared first on Radio World.

“Best of Show Up Close” is a series about participants in Radio World’s annual Best of Show at NAB Awards program.

Davicom nominated the Cortex 320 remote control. The Cortex is the second member of the Cortex line, introduced last year. It is smaller than the established Cortex 360 and is aimed at facilities with simpler needs and lower budgets.

We asked Davicom President John Ahearn for more information.

 Radio World: The Cortex 320 was a feature of your booth at NAB. For those who couldn’t attend, what is the product and what are its targeted uses?

John Ahearn: The Cortex 320 is Davicom’s new baby in the Cortex intelligent remote-control family. Although it is built on the same platform as the Cortex 360, the 320 has been optimized for small-budget requirements. So small market and noncommercial stations can take advantage of the core benefits provided by larger, and more costly, remote controls.

RW: The system is described as “versatile and intelligent.” What sets the 320 apart from similar offerings in this product class.

Ahearn: One example would be the unit’s 12 versatile inputs that can be used as either metering or status inputs. Coupled with the 320’s four dedicated status inputs, it can be configured for just the right mix of GPIO.

Another example is the unit’s 128 virtual logic gates that can be used to program smart actions, depending on input conditions. Davicom units have always included advanced broadcast-related functions such as an automatic sunrise-sunset flag, direct VSWR indications, hysteresis to reduce false alarms, and advanced math for logarithm and decibel calculations.

One design aspect that sets us apart is our use of standard protocols and interfaces such as MODBUS and SNMP. Users can buy their own, low-cost/less intelligent devices and use the 320 to make everything work together smartly. They can also interface directly with gensets and transmitters without needing to buy extra hardware.

Another aspect of the Cortex that sets it apart is its design for electromagnetic compatibility. I think that we may be the only manufacturer that operates its own EMC lab with a full-sized TEM cell and 3 m emissions test range. All our products meet and even surpass the requirements of FCC and CE emissions and immunity standards.

And finally, even though the 320 is totally at home in an IP and networking environment, it can still operate on dial-up lines and even over narrow-band serial communications links down to 2400 baud. This ensures the Cortex can be used and accessed at those many sites where IP is not available or reliable.

RW: What does it cost? Is it available now?

Ahearn: MSRP for the basic 12 VDC unit with IP connectivity is $2,436. Note that you can consult your favorite dealer to enquire about alternative pricing. Production quantities will be available in September.

[Read: Best of Show Up Close: Wheatstone AirAura X5]

RW: More generally, what do you see as the most important trends or changes happening these days in how broadcasters design and build their remote control and monitoring infrastructure?

Ahearn: We’ve been seeing this trend since 2007, when we first introduced an integrated SNMP manager into our Davicom units, but site management by IP is finally here. Even if a remote site doesn’t have outside network access, an on-site LAN can greatly facilitate system setup and operation. Monitoring and control wiring are reduced by orders of magnitude and reconfigurability is greatly increased.

This new paradigm does come with its lot of new challenges however. System monitoring and troubleshooting have changed and now require different tools and methods. Broadcasters aren’t only measuring voltages, RF powers and contacts anymore, they now need to do things like ping transmitters, read IP addresses, automatically restart flaky routers and monitor digital audio data streams.

RW: What else should we know about this product or your company’s offerings these days?

Ahearn: These days we are putting lots of effort into adding new, customer-requested functions into the Cortex products. We’re also making sure everything works correctly with the different versions of MODBUS and SNMP used by various manufacturers.

Davicom’s products have evolved from the simple RF monitoring, alarm and control systems they were in the 1990’s to the intelligent site management systems they are today. With advanced networking capabilities, such as the built-in SNMP manager, while still retaining GPIO and RF functionalities, Davicom’s products keep striving to make the broadcaster’s job easier in this rapidly changing world.

The Future Best of Show Awards program honors and helps promote outstanding new products exhibited at industry conventions like the spring NAB Show. Exhibitors pay a fee to enter; not all entries win. Watch for more coverage of participating products soon. To learn about all of the nominees and winners, read the 2019 Best of Show Program Guide.

 

The post Best of Show Up Close: Davicom Cortex 320 appeared first on Radio World.

Relatively few Americans are aware of it, but the United States is home to many commercial/religious international broadcasters that transmit programming worldwide using analog shortwave radio transmitters. They are supported by an industry group called the National Association of Shortwave Broadcasters.

Unfortunately, analog shortwave radio transmissions are notorious for interference and signal dropouts. For listeners in other countries, the sound coming out of their shortwave radios lacks the superior audio range of domestic U.S. AM (yes, we said AM) and is often wracked with static and signal fading.

Members of the National Association of Shortwave Broadcasters are shown at their annual meeting in North Carolina, hosted by Trans World Radio.

For years, NASB members have wanted to replace (or at least augment) the poor audio quality of analog SW with the crystal-clear sound of digital SW radio, specifically the Digital Radio Mondiale standard developed in Europe that is now being used in China and India.

“DRM sounds very much like FM, with a wide audio range and no static,” said Charles Caudill, president emeritus of World Christian Broadcasting, owner/operator of U.S. SW station KNLS. “It is also consistent: Either the DRM signal is received on your SW radio in full, or it isn’t. There’s no in-between.”

There are some DRM radios in use now, which is why some NASB members are offering limited DRM broadcasts alongside their regular analog SW transmissions.

“But the current generation of DRM SW receivers cost about $100 each, whereas you can buy a cheap analog SW radio for as little as $10,” said Dr. Jerry Plummer, a professor at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tenn., and frequency coordinator for U.S. SW station WWCR. “Given that the audiences being targeted by NASB members are largely in the third world, the lack of inexpensive DRM receivers keeps them listening to analog shortwave.”

Mindful that other digital audio sources are gaining ground even in less-developed countries, the NASB has decided to take action. At its recent annual meeting in North Carolina, at the facilities of U.S. SW broadcaster Trans World Radio, the NASB formed a DRM Receiver Working Group. Headed up by TWR engineer George Ross, this group has been “tasked to evaluate what it will take to get affordable, distributable DRM receivers,” Ross told Radio World. “What is holding DRM up is the lack of affordable receivers.”

CHICKEN-AND-EGG

DRM radio prototype from StarWaves.

Given the NASB’s interest in low-cost DRM receivers, it was no coincidence that Johannes Von Weyssenhoff was invited to speak at the annual meeting. Von Weyssenhoff said his StarWaves manufacturing firm (www.starwaves.de) has the technology, capability and existing prototypes to build DRM radios for $29 each, but only if the sale order is large enough to deliver economies of scale. (He also estimated $18 DRM modules could be built for installation in other radio models.)

“Twenty-nine dollars is doable at volumes staring at 30,000 receivers,” Von Weyssenhoff told Radio World. “Even smaller quantities would be possible at this price for very simple radios — for example, without graphics displays — but these would be special projects that had to be discussed individually. But even more advanced radios with Bluetooth or premium designs will be possible to offer at a reasonable price,” he said — as long as the sales orders was in the tens of thousands or more.

Given that India and China have committed to the DRM standard, there appears to be a mass-market for these receivers. But the problem for StarWaves is finding the money to build enough of them to drive per-unit costs down.

“In recent years I have tried to convince quite a number of potential investors but either I have not yet found the correct audience, or I was not yet able to communicate this great opportunity convincingly,” said Von Weyssenhoff. “You just have to imagine that alone in India, according to All India Radio, there is a demand of up to 150 million receivers within the next few years. This market could have been served with tons of receivers by now and big profits could have been made, but instead I had to grow the development in very small steps.”

Plug-in DRM module.

The money StarWaves needs is not huge: “An amount of $150,000 or even $100,000 would certainly do wonders and enable us to start production within a few within a few weeks,” he said. “A commercial order of 10,000 receivers or more would have a similar effect.”

NASB’s members don’t have this kind of money available. Saddled with huge antenna farms and multiple power-devouring 50 kW to 500 kW transmitters, the commercial/religious shortwave broadcasting sector is tight for cash.

“Broadcasting DRM requires either a new transmitter or the modification of an existing transmitter,” said Kim Andrew Elliott, a retired Voice of America broadcaster and host of “Communications World” who has organized many demonstrations of DRM reception at the annual Winter Shortwave Listeners Fest going back to 2003.

“These days, many shortwave broadcasters are thinking about whether they should keep their existing shortwave transmitters on the air, rather than thinking about buying or modifying a transmitter.”

Their situation isn’t helped by the lack of audience measurements detailing SW’s far-flung listener base. Not only does a lack of SW ratings make it difficult to sell spots to advertisers, “but the squeaky, staticky sound of shortwave makes it hard for us to talk to the people at Coca-Cola, who fear that listeners will associate their product with inferior quality,” said Caudill.

The resulting conundrum is a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma. StarWaves and other DRM radio manufacturers don’t have the money to produce DRM radios in volumes that would make them cheap to buy.

“To determine when we can consider broadcasting in DRM, there needs to be a ‘completed broadcast network,’ i.e. broadcasts and receivers,” said Ross. “Without receivers, broadcasts are futile. So broadcasters are still waiting for manufacturing of receivers.”

Jeff White, general manager of U.S. SW broadcaster Radio Miami International (WRMI), said, “We know it’s a chicken-and-egg situation, but no one is willing to invest a lot of time and money into transmitting DRM programs unless they know that there are at least some listeners out there who are able to hear the programs. The other factor is that there are probably billions of analog shortwave receivers out there, and more being manufactured every day in China. So there will still be a large audience out there listening to analog shortwave for a long time to come.”

INEVITABLE?

Despite the hurdles being encountered by StarWaves and the NASB, there seems to be momentum growing for DRM. India’s move to DRM will create a mass-market for low-cost DRM receivers as soon as they become available. Meanwhile, China’s recent DRM deployments has made it “the world’s largest DRM shortwave broadcaster,” wrote Hans Johnson in Radio World earlier this year. “China operates the most DRM transmitters in this band and has the most extensive schedule.”

It is this context that U.S. SW broadcasters are making their DRM push.

“From my knowledge of the situation, many of these broadcasters have been interested in DRM since its inception,” said Christopher Rumbaugh, administrator for the blog DRMNA.info that covers DRM developments in North America. “The reason they are pulling together now is that the time is right for affordable receivers.”

His site posted a recap of NASB 2019 including Von Weyssenhoff’s NASB StarWaves presentation, at drmnainfo.blogspot.com/2019/05/nasb-2019-after-action-report.html.

WRNJ: AM Stations Should Consider DRM+
U.S. international radio broadcasters aren’t the only ones interested in the DRM digital radio transmission standard. WRNJ Radio co-owner Larry Tighe would like stations on the AM band in the United States to have the option of broadcasting using the DRM+ standard if they choose. Licensed to Hackettstown, N.J., “Oldies 1510 WRNJ” broadcasts on 1510 kHz and simulcasts on FM frequencies 92.7 and 104.7 MHz.

Mindful that the current AM band doesn’t have space to add DRM+ stations, he has filed a petition for rulemaking with the FCC, asking that the 45 to 50 MHz section of the VHF spectrum be reallocated for this purpose.

“The 45–50 MHz band was allocated to two-way radio users in business and government, who have since migrated to higher bandwidths where they can use handsets with smaller antennas,” said Tighe. “As a result, this spectrum is extremely quiet right now. WRNJ monitored this bandwidth for an extended period of time, and heard very few distant signals.”

According to Tighe, allowing AM broadcasters to broadcast in DRM+ on 45–50 MHz would vastly reduce their operating costs due to the  more efficient broadcast coverage of DRM+, with 1 kW effective radiated power over DRM+ being equal in coverage to 5 kW ERP with AM. His FCC petition argues that allowing AM broadcasters to use DRM on 45–50 MHz would also free the FM band from the thousands of AM-operated FM translators now in use, thus reducing congestion for actual FM broadcasters.

Tighe’s FCC petition acknowledges that DRM+ radio receivers are not widely available to consumers but says that “just like any new spectrum usage, receiver manufacturers will respond to the demand for new receivers.”

It remains to be seen what the FCC’s response to Tighe’s petition will be. Meanwhile, this New Jersey broadcaster also has his eye on the lower half of the once-busy VHF band for AM stations on DRM+.

“There were 660 TV stations between Channels 2 and 7 before the transition to UHF for HDTV,” said Tighe. “There are now only approximately 60 TV stations in the USA on those old VHF channels. There is plenty of spectrum to share with a new service, i.e., DRM+ or any modulation, if the FCC really wanted to move AMs.”

The post U.S.-Based Shortwave Broadcasters Eye Digital appeared first on Radio World.

According to codec maker Comrex, the new Access NX Rack, which is now shipping, features completely new hardware, allowing for AES67, AES3 or analog audio I/O. It can connect to Wi-Fi and 4G modems, and supports a wide range of connection protocols and audio encoders.

For remote control there’s a new HTML5-based web user interface. Access NX Rack is compatible with all Comrex IP audio codecs as well as the Comrex FieldTap smartphone app.

Access NX Rack also includes Comrex CrossLock technology, a proprietary suite of tools for redundant connections over IP networks. By sending two identical streams through two separate networks, CrossLock provides a fail-safe in the event that the primary network falters, the company says.

Access NX Rack also includes HotSwap, a new function included with the latest version of Access firmware. Comrex says that HotSwap allows users to designate one network as a backup that will only engage when the primary network has failed. Fall-over to backup happens in a matter of seconds, and fallback is seamless.

IBC Stand: F.P45

Info: www.comrex.com

[Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

The post IBC Sneak Peek: Comrex Puts NX into Rack appeared first on Radio World.

Designed to be installed in MFN or SFN networks, WorldCast Systems’ Audemat DAB Probe performs advanced signal analysis, on-site and of the broadcast coverage area.

The company says the device is feature-packed with a user-friendly web interface, alarm notification by email or SNMP traps, and is equipped with telemetry board (via ScriptEasy) and audio output connectors.

The recently enhanced Audemat DAB Probe includes deep signal and content analysis with impulse response representation; TII, audio, or video recording; QoE elements: visual slideshows, DLS; decoding of FIG tables; display of real audio and PAD bit rates; optional card for ETI output; and management of telemetry inputs/outputs.

IBC Stand 8.C58.

Info: www.worldcastsystems.com

[Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

The post IBC Sneak Peek: WorldCast Audemat Enhances DAB Probe appeared first on Radio World.

At IBC2019 Calrec is showing its Type R modular, expandable, IP-based radio system.

Type R makes use of standard networking technology and combines it with configurable soft panels that can be tailored to operator needs. Type R’s physical control system consists of three slimline panels: a fader panel, a large soft panel and a small soft panel. Each is compatible with COTS hardware and powered over Ethernet to keep cabling to a minimum.

At the heart of Type R is a simple 2U core with integrated I/O resources to get customers up and running immediately. A single core can power up to three independent mixing environments, with no sharing of DSP resources.

“Whether used as independent studio consoles, microphone processors or utility mixing, the ability to use multiple mixing engines combined with the versatility of an AES67 compatible network, allows users to keep pace with radio’s changing requirements,” explains the company.

IBC Stand: 8.C61

Info: www.calrec.com

[Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

The post IBC Sneak Peek: Calrec Spotlights Type R appeared first on Radio World.

The author is membership program director of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters. NFCB commentaries are featured regularly at www.radioworld.com.

Commercial and noncommercial stations alike recently celebrated National Radio Day. Where we in radio sometimes get sectioned off into our own little silos — community radio, commercial radio, sports radio, college radio, religious broadcasting and music stations, among them — National Radio Day is our annual day to unite, and to tell a great story.

This year, National Radio Day was Tuesday, Aug. 20. The annual recognition is not really a holiday in the Labor Day or Fourth of July tradition. Rather, National Radio Day is among those days that gives us all a chance to pause and appreciate the art form of radio and its impact on our communities.

[Read: Community Broadcaster: Joining Forces]

Just as people played the funeral dirge for broadcast television when VHS came along, so have naysayers been predicting radio’s passing for decades. Nevertheless, radio still enjoys massive listenership, and trust from audiences. Radio today sees tremendous reach, with some 200 million Americans listening anytime any given week. Its penetration into U.S homes is why it is the go-to for emergency preparedness and a host of other services. As the Federal Emergency Management Administration tweeted, “Radios are a great resource during disasters. When cell towers and internet are down, radios will continue to receive emergency alerts and weather alerts.”

Beyond the urgent moments, National Radio Day is a yearly chance to highlight our medium’s other value propositions. For instance, there are the journalistic, musical and cultural services that radio provides. For some, radio is the first place where they discovered any number of musical genres or heard music in another language. For other Americans, radio informs them on their commutes about the matters of the day. For still other people, radio provides a little bit of home, no matter where that home may be anywhere around the planet. These explorations provide our intellects and imaginations fertile grounds upon which to grow ideas and engagement. Because the voices we hear allow us to conjure up our own visuals, radio taps into a mental space no other medium can.

Radio has been a launchpad for many famous names. A few of them took a moment to appreciate the influence of the medium, in cities and towns everywhere as well as in their own lives. Sportscaster and media personality Joy Taylor tweeted, “Radio was my first love in media, I always wanted to host a radio show, ‘theater of the mind.’” Television host Janice Dean added, “I started out in radio, and so … I look back fondly on the place where my broadcasting career began. I never thought I would end up in television, but I wouldn’t be where I am today without the experience I had behind just a microphone.” British radio host Sean Goldsmith called radio “a wonderful medium that’s given me 27 years of doing something I never thought I’d actually do. I used to sit there in a factory in Leicester putting stickers on beer trays listening to the radio wanting to be [U.K. radio legend] Simon Mayo.”

Radio has also been a message-based medium, giving people with ideas a place to share them with many people. Franklin Graham tweeted, “My father, Billy Graham, used radio as a way to share the Gospel w/millions worldwide.”

If your station did not take advantage of National Radio Day this year to talk up all your station brings to your city or town, check out the National Radio Day hashtag across social media for ideas to use next year. Or, better yet, make National Radio Day every day and testify to your local voices and community service right now.

[Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

 

The post Community Broadcaster: Turning It Up appeared first on Radio World.

An FCC order that took effect in August provides for non-adjacent channel changes for FM translators that are experiencing interference issues caused or received.

Charles M. Anderson

This will be very helpful in smaller markets to resolve interference complaints and where excessive incoming interference seriously limits coverage. Unfortunately, there are no available frequencies in most medium and large markets.

On the other hand, the final rules provide protection from translator interference to existing facilities out to their 45 dBµ contour, an increase beyond their defined maximum class protected contours from 17.6 miles to 35.2 miles for a Class A, 40.4 miles to 53.6 miles for a Class B and 57.1 to 83.5 miles for a Class C.

When combined with the procedures whereby complaints may not be challenged, as few as six determined complainants at the edge of those contours (and only three for an LPFM) can cripple or kill a translator — a powerful weapon in the hands of overzealous stations seeking to protect the “owner’s contour” or eliminate competition.

BIG RADIO SPOKE UP

In its original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the commission presented a very well reasoned and balanced proposal to limit interference complaints to the 54 dBµ contour, which appeared to recognize the changed role of FM translators in the modern broadcast radio landscape, where some 8,000 FM translators are operating or authorized, many serving to sustain local service of AM stations.

The commission stated in that proposal that its goal was to “provide translator licensees [with] additional investment clarity.” The commission asserted that it was (emphasis added):

[c]larifying the process and balancing the interests of the various services involved … we must not only balance the needs of translator, low-power FM and full-service licensees, but also [the technical integrity of the FM band]. We believe that the measures adopted herein strike a balance between managing FM band spectrum, providing greater certainty for translator operators, and preserving existing protections for full-service stations … .

However, like the cattle barons of the Old West defending grazing rights to the open range and opposing homesteads, Big Radio once again came forward in full turf protection mode, opposing the commission’s proposal (just as they have opposed and stalled the FCC’s very reasonable and rational proposed modification of AM daytime allocations, which were supported by some of the industry’s most respected engineers).

“Big Radio once again came forward in full turf protection mode,” the author writes, “opposing the commission’s proposal.”

They advocated an incredible 39 dBµ contour limit, citing interference concerns for audiences well beyond their protected contours with purported radio listening data. It is noteworthy that their audience data was based on “cume” (five minutes listening per week) and ZIP code centroids for “panelists home addresses” (see Beasley Media Corp., et al, comments at footnote 13).

Such data is at best exaggerated and misleading given the size of ZIP code areas, many extending across a 6 dB contour span, and the presumption that the home address represented the location of a significant portion of their listening. Since these data are from the larger PPM markets, it seems reasonable to expect that much of the five-minute “cume” listening is spent in transit to those markets at contours far greater than 45 dBµ.

The commission relied heavily on this data, and in doing so failed to achieve its stated goal of balancing the interests of translator audiences.

GAMING THE SYSTEM

To actually effectuate the balancing that the NPRM proclaimed was taking place between the interests of FM translator listeners and other station listeners, it would have been necessary for the commission to do a comprehensive engineering study of all authorized FM translators determining the impact of limiting their interference contours (25 dBµ co-channel and 39 dBµ first-adjacent channel) to the new 45 dBµ protected contours for FM stations.

That data could have informed a fair and balanced evaluation of the alternatives weighing the relative impacts on translators and FM stations, something the current FCC decision failed to do.

I studied the potential impact of the new rules on the Louisville, Ky., market. The 45 dBµ limit would put into jeopardy the continued, viable service from nine of the 10 currently authorized Louisville market FM translator stations.

If interference complaints were pursued under the FCC’s strict, no-recourse procedures, six would be ordered to discontinue operations. Three would be forced to power levels ranging from 5 to 21 watts ERP. Only one would not be in jeopardy from a full-service station interference complaint (see my ex parte comments in docket 18-119). I have since evaluated a number of small- and medium-market translators with similar results.

Under the combined effects of the extreme 45 dBµ contour limit and the new non-recourse complaint procedures, some full-service stations will “game” the system to obtain complaints that once established are not subject to challenge.

Now, a full-service station or existing translator or LPFM wishing to eliminate an FM translator for any reason will be able to work backwards by first identifying the area in which there will be, as an engineering matter, predicted interference. Then the full-service station simply identifies listeners who, at least twice a month, drive or travel through that predicted interference area, and obtains from such listeners the required signed form.

If, after signing the form the listeners are instructed to say nothing more and accept no interference remediation, then under the FCC’s new strict procedures, the only interference remediation possible where alternate frequencies are not available is a substantial facility impairment or cessation in operations for the besieged FM translator.

Allocated service areas have been clearly differentiated in the longstanding processes developing the FM allocations system. The dramatic extension of those service areas out to 45 dBµ is clearly inconsistent with the dictates of §307(b) of the Communications Act, which requires that the FCC “provide a fair, efficient and equitable distribution of radio service” to each of the states and communities. It could be argued that translators also represent an efficient use of the spectrum for communities using the unallocated, open grazing areas of the FM band.

The 45 dBµ contour is neither fair nor balanced. After all, authorized LPFMs only have to protect stations’ 70 dBµ or in some cases the 60 dBµ contour, and are effectively immune from interference complaints. LPFMs may defend their 45 dBµ contour from translator interference but are themselves de jure exempt from the reverse.

The 45 dBµ limit is also at odds with the Local Community Radio Act, which requires equal treatment of translators and LPFMs. Since translators are clearly not intended to be “secondary” to LPFMs, it does not seem defensible to extend 45 dBµ protection to them or currently operating translators for that matter.

It all comes down to what is best overall for today’s radio listeners. The FCC only considered a discrete, small number of radio listeners well outside the allocated coverage contours of existing stations in its decision. It wholly ignored FM translator radio listeners. Perhaps there was a compromise contour that was fair and balanced; 45 dBµ is neither, nor supportable as such as the commission lacked the data with which to make a reasoned decision. As shown with the Louisville example above, the new interference rules have the potential for dramatic and unintended consequences.

Charles M. “Chuck” Anderson is a broadcast engineering consultant with more than 35 years experience. He owns FM stations and FM translators.

Comment on this or any story. Email radioworld@futurenet.com with “Letter to the Editor” in the subject field.

The post The FCC Failed on Translator Interference appeared first on Radio World.