Aggregator

.

.

.

Dismissal of OTARD Petition

.

KXSU(LP) at Seattle University is heard on 102.1 MHz.
Photo
: KXSU Seattle University

The FCC in April modified the technical rules covering low-power FM stations. It expanded the permissible use of directional antennas; permitted waivers of protections of television Channel 6 by a specific group of reserved channel stations; expanded the definition of minor change applications for LPFM stations; and allowed LPFM stations to own boosters. Read more about the changes here.

Michelle Bradley, founder of REC Networks, is an engineer and longtime LPFM advocate.

Radio World: What’s your overall assessment of the outcome and the scope of its impact in the LPFM community?

Michelle Bradley: While the FCC did not address three major issues that are impacting LPFM stations right now —the ability to address building penetration issues, the ability to reach “local” listeners in rural areas and the disparity in how LPFM stations protect FM translators vs. how translators protect LPFMs — the changes will benefit current LPFM stations by giving them more flexibility in moving locations, reduce the need for waivers and improve LPFM service in the southern border region. It will also open some additional opportunities for new LPFM stations in the next filing window.

RW: A concern was raised during the process that LPFMs might be required to conduct a proof of performance in order to use directional antennas, which would would be too costly for most of these stations. What was the outcome?

Bradley: The proof of performance issues came up as a result of concerns that LPFM stations would not properly install directional antennas correctly. The need for this language was a carryover from our proposals that involved the use of contour protection to protect other stations (which in most cases were rejected in the commission’s decisions to not allow for 250 watt LPFM stations or the use of contours to protect translators).

Michelle Bradley, founder of REC Networks

As we were getting very close to the adoption of the Report and Order, I did work very closely with the commission to address the issue of the proofs and verification, especially since the commission had previously allowed directional antennas for state highway public safety departments (there are currently no stations using directional antennas) and second-adjacent-channel waivers.

In those specific cases, staff stated that because the public safety stations still had to meet minimum distance separations and second-adjacent channel short-spacings had a remediation policy, those concerns were already addressed, such as the rule language around second adjacent channel interference remediation.

I had stated that in the case of stations near Mexico, recourse was already available through international notification process and that directional antennas installed for that purpose were not to protect specific stations. The FCC staff agreed. This is what resulted in the three exceptions to the proof rule for public safety, second adjacent and international agreement.

I do note though that for the previous concepts of LP-250 and proposed rules to allow LPFMs to use contours towards translators, I asked for a similar remediation rule to the one that FM translators use right now for LPFMs that decide to use contours. That was never addressed in the Report and Order.

RW: How many LPFMs do you think are likely to take advantage of the directional antenna option?

Bradley: Very few LPFM stations would benefit from directional antennas. This includes a subset of LPFM stations near the Mexican border and those where the directional characteristic of the antenna would benefit in a second adjacent waiver. New or modified LPFM stations proposing operation in the “reserved band” (88.1–91.9 MHz) could use a directional antenna to protect a full-service or low-power TV station on Channel 6. Despite that, the FCC is now allowing LPFM stations to obtain consent from the affected Channel 6 TV station, consistent with the current rules for FM translators.

Directional antennas could also be engaged in very rare cases of mutual interference between two properly spaced stations and could serve as a method for LPFM stations planning to use solar in order to reduce their transmitter power output (power consumption).

The use of directional antennas overall should be few and far between.

RW: What is the benefit of permitting waivers of protections for Channel 6?

Bradley: The waiver for Channel 6 puts LPFM on a more level playing field with FM translators. I originally proposed that LPFMs use the translator rules for Channel 6. The FCC’s original proposal to eliminate all Channel 6 protections was a complete surprise. The rejection of the total elimination of Channel 6 protection was spearheaded by ABC (WPVI) in ex parte after the comment period closed. I also note that the issues of FM to Channel 6 protections (and vice versa) are also being discussed in a separate proceeding for “Franken FM” stations. The waiver process is consistent with what I originally asked for. ABC also asked that any LPFM station seeking a waiver send a notification letter to the affected Channel 6 station. This was supported by NAB. After consideration of the issue and the number of potential waiver requests, I agreed it was a reasonable request. FM to Channel 6 will likely be revisited at a later date.

RW: The mention of boosters stands out; is that something you see a lot of demand for? 

Bradley: Boosters in LPFM only impact an extremely small subset of stations that have large lobes in their protected service contours due to what I call “foothill effect,” but because of terrain are unable to put service into those areas.

Currently, there are only four stations, all in Southern California, that have been authorized boosters, all of which I was involved with. One of those boosters is already on the air.

Boosters are very complex, especially in areas where terrain is not has “hard” as Southern California, where synchronization would need to be used. In addition, most of the country has much smaller service contour lobes and it would be impractical to squeeze a second signal inside the LPFM service contour. My request for codification was to assure the stability of the existing Southern California LPFM boosters and to have a process in place and in those rare cases where a booster would help fill in coverage for a terrain challenged LPFM, the option is available without waiver.

RW: What else should we know?

Bradley: I do remain concerned that the FCC does not want to pull the “training wheels” off of LPFM and let those who with the resources to have access to the more flexible methods allowed to other secondary users of the broadcast spectrum while still remaining in compliance with the statutory requirements of the Local Community Radio Act.

“The LPFM service has evolved and matured, and it is not the same service that former Chairman William Kennard pictured back in 1999 when LPFM was first proposed.” — Michelle Bradley

At one time, getting a contour study done normally involved a high-dollar engineering firm. In this day and age, with the use of various resources including those provided by the FCC, the ability to do contour studies has become more accessible, with less dependence on topo maps, slide rules and five-figure software packages.

While I understand that they want to keep LPFM simple, it’s important to realize that more than half of the LPFM applications filed in the 2013 window were assisted with “hired help.” This tells me that the resources to do contour studies are out there and within reach of LPFM applicants.

The use of consultants and/or engineers became necessary in 2012 when in implementing the Local Community Radio Act, the FCC allowed LPFM stations to use the Living Way method of waiving second adjacent channel protection rules. As I told the commissioners a while back, the LPFM service has evolved and matured, and it is not the same service that former Chairman William Kennard pictured back in 1999 when LPFM was first proposed. Yet, for some reason, the current FCC seems to want to hold it back.

The post FCC Tweaks LPFM Technical Rules appeared first on Radio World.

The author is a senior development engineer at Wheatstone. He worked at Audion Labs helping Charlie Brown co-develop VoxPro. Audion Labs was purchased by Wheatstone in 2015.

I suppose that for all of us there are inflexion points in our lives where you meet someone or experience some new thing that changes your life thereafter. Charlie Brown was such a turning point for me. He was also my introduction to radio.

At the time we met, Charlie had been retired from a successful 33-year career in broadcasting where he had worked at Seattle’s top stations as a morning man, holding court and ruling the airwaves in a top 40 format. His love of radio and wanting to bring the best content to his listeners drove him to create the VoxPro DAW in 1992, bringing it to market in 1994 (as a Mac application). Replacing reel-to-reel machines with computer software was at the time a hard-sell, but his own and other early adapters’ use of the product made it a reality.

Charlie and I were brought together through two degrees of mutual friends — he was looking for a programmer to complete the rollout of VoxPro to the Windows platform, and I was freshly unemployed from my third dot-com implosion in a year.

It was the summer of 2001. The venue, Audion “Laboratories,” was a 12-foot x 20-foot cabin on the back of Charlie and Kimberly’s property on an island in Puget Sound. A 40-minute ferry ride involved in getting there. I thought, “How amazing, perhaps even impudent, to think that you can develop a new product with a skeleton crew and no budget and bring it to market.” I had been burned at several venture capitalist-funded start-ups but I was willing to take a chance with Charlie.

So Charlie led me through that process, and he introduced me to the radio family. He wasn’t technical, but he had excellent instincts about technology. He was unfailingly kind, generous, optimistic, and infinitely forgiving of my many shortcomings and missteps. We had a wonderful journey together at Audion (“Audion-and-on-and-on …”) for 14 years, during which time I got to see his idea, VoxPro, become the preeminent audio editor in radio. He was a model of the well-lived life, an example of what persistent hard work and the willingness to take a risk can bring. I will miss him greatly.

Charlie is remembered by a city that loved him in this Seattle Times article published on Friday, May 15.

 

The post Remembering Charlie Brown appeared first on Radio World.

Though impassioned letters were sent pressing the Federal Communications Commission to outright waive regulatory fees for media companies in 2020, the proposed regulatory fee schedule for the fiscal year 2020 has duly been released — although the door has been left open (thanks due apparently to the FCC chairman) for those wanting to express their thoughts on the proposed regulatory fees for FY 2020.

Those proposed fees were released as part of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to collect $339 million in FCC regulatory fees for fiscal year 2020 — the exact same amount that the commission proposed to collect in FY 2019.

Each year the commission is required by Congress to assess fees to cover direct costs, indirect costs and support costs. These regulatory fees also cover costs for entities that are exempt from paying regulatory fees (like amateur radio operators and noncommercial radio) and entities whose regulatory fees are waived.

But 2020 has been a year unlike any other.

Discussions about the FY2020 fee schedule have been in the headlines for months, with attorneys and state agencies pressing the commission to consider the impact of regulatory fees on media companies.

Radio stations can expect two key items when reviewing this year’s proposal. One is a familiar regulatory fee schedule where fees are broken down based on media classification and size of the population that the station serves. The other is that proposed fees for 2020 are either exactly the same or slightly higher than the fees collected in 2019, with some fee hikes only $25 higher year over year.

At one end of the spectrum are proposed fees for an AM Class C radio station that reaches less than 25,000 listeners. The proposed fee for that station type in 2020 is $620 — exactly the same amount as it was in fiscal year 2019.

At the higher end — specifically an FM station with certain Class B or Class C definitions that serves more than 6 million listeners — the proposed regulatory fees will be $21,375, which is $875 higher than the 2019 regulatory fee of $20,500.

(See the chart for the proposed fees for FY2020 for all classes of stations, which can also be found on page 42 of the NPRM).

[Read: Hayes Urges FCC Not to Collect Mass Media Regulatory Fees This Year]

Earlier this year, attorney Richard Hayes told Radio World that in his 37 years as a communications attorney he’d never witnessed anything like the “almost-total business shut-down occasioned by the coronavirus. This crisis is an existential one for many broadcasters.” Hayes pressed Congress to request that the FCC suspend the collection of the 2020 mass media regulatory fees outright to help stations struggling from complications related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Similar concerns were expressed by the New Jersey Broadcasters Association, which called on the commission to hold off on any regulatory fee increases. President and CEO Paul Rotella said that an increase in annual fees for broadcasters is not warranted. “[T]his is certainly not the appropriate time to put any further financial burdens on broadcasters,” he said in a letter to the commission.

[Read: “This Is Not the Time to Raise Fees”]

NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith was blunt about the struggles that broadcasters are facing — from taking out loans to make payroll to cutting staff — during the virtual opening of the 2020 National Association of Broadcasters Show on May 13.

In a subsequent online conversation with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, even the chairman himself said the commission has been exploring regulatory relief for media companies, including changes to fee structures.

When the NPRM was released, FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly issued a statement saying that he sympathized with those who have filed comments opposing increased fees. He also thanked Chairman Pai for including questions in the FY2020 fee proposal to allow commenters to offer suggestions for mitigating the burden of regulatory fees during the pandemic.

“Determining regulatory fees is a somewhat delicate matter, with the need to balance statutory requirements and constraints with the realities of the marketplace, where increasingly higher fees continue to squeeze licensees,” he said. “At the same time, we need to do our part to meet the requirements set in place by Congress, while being mindful of how federal spending affects our licensees and seeking ways to keep costs down within our own operations.”

Comments on the FCC’s proposed regulatory fees can be left in the FCC electronic comment database using Docket 20-105. The comment deadline is June 12.

 

The post FCC Proposes Regulatory Fees for 2020 Amid Uncertain Media Marketplace appeared first on Radio World.

Legal, unlicensed broadcasts under Part 15 are a buzz topic right now about radio engineers.

Here’s what Larry Wilkins, director of engineering services for the Alabama Broadcasters Association, writes in his e-newsletter this week:

Broadcast engineers have been approached lately by churches and other organizations about setting up a low-power transmitter for use during COVID-19. The question of legal operation is covered in FCC Part 15.

The quick answer allowed coverage area is approximately 200 feet for an FM transmitter. The full answer is much more complicated than that: 250 µV/meter @ 3 meters (also measured as 48 dBuV/m). The same is true on the AM broadcast band, where devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters).

[Read: Part 15 Broadcasting Is Not Without Problems]

Although an operator does not have to obtain a license to use a Part 15 transmitter, the transmitter itself is required to have an FCC authorization before it can be legally marketed in the United States.

Be careful with the type of antenna used with the unit. The standards in Part 15 are not based solely on output power but also take into account the antenna characteristics. Thus, a low-power transmitter that complies with the technical standards in Part 15 with a particular antenna attached can exceed the Part 15 standards if a different antenna is attached.

Wilkins added to make sure you are on a vacant frequency in your area and verify the audio level feeding the transmitter is correct (not too high or too low).

Below are recent related articles from Radio World:

Look for FCC Certification When Choosing a Part 15 Transmitter

Low-Power Radio in the Parking Lot: What You Need to Know

Check Out These Unexpected Uses for Low-Power Radio

 

The post Low-Power Transmitter Guidance From Larry Wilkins appeared first on Radio World.

The author is chief engineer for KOZY(AM), KMFY(FM) and KBAJ(FM).

As has been addressed in previous articles in Radio World, many churches and other groups are starting to broadcast “drive-in church” services and other events.

As a local contract broadcast engineer I have received several inquiries about how to do this. As Radio World has pointed out in your recent articles, the only option is under the FCC Part 15 rules, which allow for low-power signals in the AM or FM band. After explaining rules and limitations, those I’ve talked to have instead opted for live streaming services.

[Read: Look for FCC Certification When Choosing a Part 15 FM Transmitter]

Clearly, most, however, don’t seek out advice of local radio professionals, and instead seem to simply be searching the internet for “Drive-in Church” etc. This is where the trouble lies, as this search brings up thousands of churches that are doing this, countless articles published in church and religious magazines and websites telling how easy it is, along with a raft of YouTube videos of pastors, ministers, church assistants, youth ministers and others showing how easy it is. Basically they tell you to order an FM transmitter from eBay, or Amazon, and plug it into the church’s audio board and you’re on!

One problem with this approach is the FCC’s lack of ability or desire to stop the sale of illegal FM transmitters in the USA via these sellers because so many of the transmitters being sold are illegal in the USA. Many use misleading advertising “Long Range FM Transmitters,” “No License Required,” “FCC Compliant,” “Perfect for Churches,” so forth and so on.

An FM Part 15 transmitter sold in the USA must be certified by the FCC. Most sold are not.

Over the years I have done testing on many of these transmitters and found that not only are they substantially over the legal limit (sometimes by a hundred times and more) but they also generate spurs and harmonics. This, of course, causes interference to other, licensed stations on the FM band, as well as into public service frequencies and most often into the aviation band causing interference with aircraft communications and navigation. In fact interference in the aviation band is one of the common ways these illegal transmissions are discovered and tagged by the FCC. Airport tower operators contact the FCC to complain!

I suggest that local engineers keep their eyes and ears open for churches and other organizations advertising drive-in broadcasts. We have a local arts center starting live broadcasts of concerts with no live audience in the theatre to an audience in cars in the parking lot.

If there are any, do a bit of legwork with a field intensity meter and spectrum analyzer and see if those broadcasts are legal. The Part 15 limit is 250 uV/m at 3 meters from the transmitting antenna. Basically if you can hear them more than 250–300 feet from the site they’re not legal.

Then look for harmonics, spurs and overmodulation. Usually these transmitters either have no modulation indicator, or it amounts to a blinking LED, and are horribly inaccurate. Operators with no experience tend to overmodulate substantially causing splatter to adjacent frequencies. Usually if they’re illegal it’s blatantly obvious. Then reach out politely and let them know they are violating FCC rules. If it’s in your ability and desire offer to help them make their broadcast legal.

Based on my observation there may be thousands of brand new illegal FM transmissions on the air over the past few weeks.

 

The post Part 15 Broadcasting Is Not Without Problems appeared first on Radio World.

I wrote a list of cyber best practices that appeared in a Radio World ebook in November, “Cybersecurity and Studio Disaster Recovery,” before the current global crisis. RW asked me to revisit and update it given that broadcasters have rushed to find new ways of doing business centered around remote operations and heavy use of the internet.

There are thousands of announcers, account managers, inventory and scheduling staff, programming and music directors, operations directors, engineering managers and other station personnel operating from their homes. How are we handling the IT security and defenses of our operations?

Many of us had to scramble to facilitate multiple work-at-home solutions. Safe practices may have been ignored because the priority was saving businesses or informing our communities.

[Read: Is Your EAS Equipment Secure?]

So now is a good time to assess and reassess. Remember, holes may exist now where they didn’t before, because of emergency actions you took to allow for outside access to systems in your building or transmitter site.

As I wrote in the original version of this article, cybersecurity is a top priority for businesses of all sizes; a lack of readiness and defenses can lead to serious financial and operational consequences. Cyber extortion (ransomware) is big business and is not going away anytime soon. The following questions and thoughts are a place to start in hardening your broadcast organization’s infrastructure and preparing for the worst case.

#1. 

Do you have a security-aware culture in your facility? In your organization? Be honest. Knowing that your IT staff or outside contractor installed a new firewall or virus program last year doesn’t mean you are fully prepared. It does not necessarily mean you have a constant security-aware culture that involves regular routines such as:

Backing up crucial data to both a local machine and the cloud and ensuring at least one of the backups is *not* connected to the network source it is backing up.

1. Updates and patches are run regularly on all devices such as firewalls, switches, PCs, IOT, etc. We say this all the time but so many facilities do not do it.
2. An ongoing awareness and training program for all existing and new employees across all departments. Many attacks arrive via a simple email. Educate everyone about what to look for.
3. Antivirus and antimalware software installed on every machine — sounds like Security 101, right? I find machines all the time that are not running both and/or not updated recently with the latest security databases.
4. Implemented security restrictions and locked all outside access except where needed. Don’t laugh. I find VPN and Remote Desktop active on machines often, and no one remembers who they were for or what the original purpose was.
5. Block all known malicious IP addresses and keep that list constantly updated.
6. Keep track of every employee or contractor to whom you gave outside access. Make sure you have a list of their names, systems given access to, and method (VPN, TeamViewer, VNC, public IP, etc.)

This is just a sample listing of key things a security-aware organization should be doing. There are many more. IT trained professionals in cybersecurity know what to do. There are also many excellent sites online with guidelines that dig deeper than we can here.

[Read: IP Security Considerations for Radio Broadcasters]

#2.

Along with #1 above, when was the last time you had a serious sit-down with your IT team, administrator or outside contractor to discuss cybersecurity? How often do you meet? In that meeting, did you know what specific questions to ask? If not, it is time to put together a list of questions. This article can help you get started.

Given the current COVID-19 situation and the fact that you’ve made changes internally to allow for remote access, now is the time for a video conference with the team to inform and discuss any weaknesses. As a team, you can decide what loopholes should be closed now — prioritize any risks should they exist.

#3.

Have you considered hiring a third-party outside security consultant to help with assessing your internal and external systems for their penetrability? Have you asked a trusted security expert to attempt to penetrate your network and systems to ensure you are defended properly?

I know several broadcast-related companies that send phishing emails with fake viruses and ransomware to employees to test their cyber training; see 1(C) above. If the employee clicks on the suspicious attachment, they are provided further training on how to spot these things. The email gateway still ranks as one of the top arrival vectors for attack, so it is critical that everyone have some training on how to spot that one email which can cause you untold hardships.

#4. 

Is your network segregated to minimize the damage if something should get through? I often find that networks within the station are combined, on purpose or by mistake. I’ve been in several facilities where they claim their networks are segregated, yet we find that’s not the case.

For example, a PC with a double-NIC (two network cards for separate networks) can be compromised and certain viruses can jump from one network to the other. So the machine that handles traffic but must connect to the automation system — and it is using two network cards — might not be as safe as you thought. Or that one PC that has Remote Desktop on it so someone can get into the network but only though that one “external” machine … well, it may not be the “firewall” you think it is.

There are ways to handle remote access properly and securely. Your trained IT staff or outside security contractor can help you with this.

During the COVID-19 crisis many stations have found themselves needing remote access to their automation playout systems. Normally, as a cyber best practice, these machines are locked down and disconnected from the public internet. If remote capability existed, it was usually through very secure login and VPN methods. I’ve seen many stations in the past month or so that did not have remote access set up allowing their client and server playout machines to be connected to the outside internet. This was done in a hurry and under emergency conditions; some buildings were cleared out almost overnight. If you are one of these facilities, follow #2 above. Make sure management is aware of these temporary weaknesses and address a plan to close the gaps looking forward. You may need this capability in the future, but now you’ll have time to prepare better with more secure access procedures.

#5.

Backup, backup, backup. I mentioned this, but it is so important to preventing disaster that it deserves its own reference. It is imperative that you regularly backup all critical files, and do so to locations that cannot be reached by the virus. There are several cases where ransomware found its way to a network backup and encrypted the very files that were supposed to protect the operation!

Do you backup every 24 hours? Do you maintain backups offsite? (That’s not only a good idea for protection against the virus but also for events such as fire, hurricanes, other things that could keep you from accessing the studio or transmitter location). With backups you can reinstall critical software and data and potentially alleviate the need to pay a ransom. Or it may simply be less costly in time and resources to restore a machine using a recent backup then using a decryption tool. Therefore, very regular backups are crucial.

If for example, you need to restore your music and spot commercial database and audio files quickly, you’ll want that backup to be very recent. Otherwise, you may lose the past several days or weeks of new material — and this could cost the station financially.

I often come across TOCs that supposedly are making backups but are not. The backup tape machine hasn’t worked in who knows how long, the NAS drive is full, the software that runs the backups hasn’t been running for weeks or months, or perhaps the directories selected for backup are not correct.

The takeaway here is that you should ask yourself or your IT administrator for proof that backups are being run, and run often, on a regular recurring basis.

#6.

If you are attacked, do you have the tools in place to quickly detect and determine its origination point within your facility? Do you have the tools (and instructions to staff) in place to isolate the virus or ransomware quickly? Do you use a security event manager? What is your “first 15 minutes” plan?

As mentioned, network segregation is critical in situations where you become infected. If the business network is infected, for example, do you have a way to prevent this attack from spreading to other business networks in your building or within the company (for larger networks or group operators)? Do you have different offices tied together using a WAN/MPLS or other means that might allow the virus to hop over and then start spreading again in an entirely different location?

If you believe a virus is crawling through your network, do you have a plan in place to stop it immediately from moving further along to the next server or PC? Do you know how to kill your network shares immediately? Do you have a plan to yank users and machines from the network in seconds?

What if an attack happens at 3 a.m. on Sunday morning? Do you have the technology or people in place to alert the proper team leaders? And do you have a response go-team on call including holidays?

This is not make-believe or a far-out fantasy. These attacks are happening regularly to small and large operators, and of course, in all industries.

#7.

If your data becomes encrypted, do you have a plan of action filed away so you know what to do? Have you thought about whether you would pay a ransom if presented with such a demand?

There are different schools of thought on whether to pay. Many have paid, and many have not. It is reported by Symantec that only 47% of those who pay the ransom to the bad guys get their data back. It is also claimed by several reputable security firms that if you do pay this time there is a chance you will be hit again because the data kidnappers know you will give in. (Of course, we all know you will be fully protected after the first successful ransom, right?).

Let’s say you don’t pay; better have your recent backups ready to go. Do you have a backup system that provides for restoral easily and quickly? Do you have a go-team put together who will be ready to restore systems and a chain of command to direct team members on what to do and when? (See #6).

If you decide to pay, most ransoms are paid with bitcoin; do you know how to purchase bitcoin? Do you know from where? It can take a few days to obtain bitcoin, depending on how you buy it. Major cities have bitcoin-capable ATMs that can speed this up. The average ransom ranges from a few thousand to much higher. Do you have a source for that kind of money in a hurry should you need it?

Now is the time to think about these things and have a plan written down. If you don’t, you may be scrambling at the last minute while your critical systems are down. That kind of delay can cost you money because your operations are down. If you work with an outside security expert or have such staff internally, and you are not sure what your plans are should you get attacked, ask for one. Do not be unprepared.

On a positive note: Did you know that some ransomware attacks use a software variant that has a free cure? There are free decryption tools out there that might work in your case. Something to check first.

#8.

Some ransomware attacks are widespread. We’ve all heard about them. You’ll see them on TV and on most credible news and IT websites quickly. In some cases, these large-scale attacks are shut down and decrypted within 24 to 48 hours by law enforcement or white hat hackers. If you are affected by one of these large-scale attacks, check with your security provider, consultant, vendor or IT staff to see if there is a fix before paying any ransom.

#9.

If you are in the United States, contact the nearest field office of the FBI or Secret Service and report your ransomware event and request assistance. They may be able to help you. If you are in Europe, go to the Europol website and it will direct you to the local agency in your country. If in Australia, report your event to the Australian Cyber Security Centre. Most countries have a governmental agency that wants to hear from you.

#10.

Ask for help. I say this often. Do not be afraid to ask for help. Whether you are a managing director or engineer and IT director, it is OK to ask for resources to assist you with cybersecurity. You have friends who know things. You have vendors who know things and who have internal resources to assist you with this. There are local IT firms with experts. Consultants. Lots of free advice on the internet. The United States and many other governments provide free information on ransomware, viruses and other forms of malware.

Now, more than ever, we are all coming together to help one another. I’ve seen hundreds of posts online (on the various broadcast-related social platforms) from broadcast engineers, offering advice and asking questions on every imaginable topic related to COVID-19. If you need help with setting up a SIP connection to a mobile phone, there are plenty of people who will help you. Do you need help with remote access to a specific playout system? Just reach out to your vendor or another engineer. Some vendors are offering free versions/use of their remote packages. Every manufacturer and engineer are working together to help one another. I’ve said this before: This is what we do every day; we help stations stay on the air. Even from home!

I walk into too many facilities that are not prepared defensively and that starts at the top. Go back to #1 above. Make sure you have a security-aware culture. Many stations have had to make tough decisions recently on what rules to relax and where the cost/benefit/risk balance lies. This is a decision that is unique to every facility. We are all having to do things differently now than before. Make sure you’ve kept track of what you’ve done so you can go back and close the loopholes. Prepare a list of necessary hardware/software that you can present for approval for things you may need to do this again but with additional security (if needed).

Gary Kline is a broadcast consultant who has held technical positions with several major broadcast organizations, most notably as senior VP of engineering at Cumulus Media. He has provided engineering support and consulting in the United States, Canada, China and several South American countries. He is a past recipient of the Radio World Excellence in Engineering Award.

 

The post 10 Cybersecurity Questions to Ask Yourself appeared first on Radio World.

GatesAir in cooperation with channel partner New-Tek, has signed a deal for the delivery and installation of Flexiva FAX transmitters to Bulgaria broadcast operator NURTS.

Part of the broadcaster’s continued FM modernization initiative, the upgrade consists of 11 transmission sites.

As per the accord, New-Tek will install Flexiva FAX air-cooled 5-kW and 10-kW FM radio transmitters in redundant 1+1 or 2+1 configurations, depending on the technical requirements of each site.

GatesAir says the Flexiva transmitters will deliver two national channels for Bulgarian National Radio, replacing tube transmitters in operation for more than 30 years.

New-Tek has already completed several site installations since the rollouts began in 2018, with installations continuing through 2020. The company specifies that all Flexiva transmitters in the network will share the same hot-swappable power supplies and amplifier modules.

GatesAir has been working with NEW-TEK and NURTS since 2003.

The post Bulgaria: NURTS Modernizes With GatesAir appeared first on Radio World.

Croatia has renewed its DAB+ trial for the third year.

Network operator OIV first launched the trial in November 2017 with public broadcaster HRT later joining the efforts.

Photo credit: United Nations Cartographic Section.

Confirmed at the end of 2019, the first phase of the expansion began in March with the launch of DAB+ transmitters on Mount Srd, near Dubrovnik and Psunj, in the east of the country.

A month later in April, the cooperation launched another transmitter on the island of Ugljan covering Zadar and the surrounding area.

There are currently 12 stations broadcasting in DAB+ as part of the trial, with outdoor coverage standing at 88% and indoor reception at 53%.

“OIV sees DAB+ as the main future platform for radio. Our goal is to build a quality future-proof network and to start commercial services as soon as possible,” said OIV CEO, Mate Botica.

“Future plans include expansions of the network and, depending on the interest of the broadcasters, we are considering the launch of a second multiplex.”

Radio continues to be an important medium in Croatia, with over 45% of people listening to the radio on a daily basis.

“The EECC Directive, which requires all new car radios in the EU to be capable of receiving digital terrestrial radio by the end of 2020, has encouraged DAB’s growth in Eastern,” said Bernie O’Neill, WorldDAB project director.

“In Czech Republic, population coverage stands at 85% and is set to reach 95% following the launch of several new DAB + transmitters later this year. Poland is also stepping up the expansion of its DAB+ network, with new multiplexes across a number of locations. DAB+ services have also recently launched in Slovenia, Serbia and Bulgaria.”

The post Croatia Expands DAB+ Network, Extends Trials appeared first on Radio World.

MONS, Belgium — RTBF officially opened new studios on Jan. 21 at its regional center in Mons.

RTBF’s in-house specialists designed, decorated and cabled Classic 21’s new studios. All photos courtesy of RTBF

With the existing radio studio infrastructure dating back from 2006, the broadcaster decided to construct and modernize its new broadcast studios with a view toward future visual radio operation.

“The project consists of four radio studios,” said Hélène Ronveaux, RTBF Radio project manager. “A first studio serves the VivaCité’s DAB+ channel Viva+. A second operates as production and interview studio for Classic 21. We finalized both studios in September last year. This allowed us to use the new Classic 21 studio as stand-in during the renovation of Classic 21’s main on-air landscape.”

Classic 21’s on-air studio has a strong brand identity.

In addition to the new Classic 21 on-air studio, the Mons site will also accommodate a brand new on-air studio for VivaCitéMons, expected to be operational this fall. 

THE CLASSIC 21 UNIVERSE

The first plans for Classic 21 were for a functional studio, but without the station’s identity. “So we started designing from scratch — we wanted a visitor to know that he or she enters the Classic 21 studio without seeing the logo or hearing the music,” said Etienne Dombret, editorial director of Classic 21.

“The input from our staff was essential, everybody had to feel well in the studio — some presenters have to work five consecutive hours in the same room. This studio was also the broadcaster’s first studio that was completely designed, assembled and cabled by RTBF’s design, integration and engineering specialists, both from radio and television.”

The hallway between the main “Laforge” studio and the production and interview studio is decorated with autographed pictures from artists who have visited Classic 21.

Classic 21’s radio team brought in record covers and instruments to decorate the studio walls, creating a cozy “bar” atmosphere, enhanced by a Chesterfield sofa.

“Our presenters and engineers also wanted to have windows looking out on the city of Mons from the main ‘Laforge’ (honoring the station’s morning drive presenter Eric Laforge who passed away Feb. 15) studio,” continued Dombret.

“In view of our visual radio plans, we installed sliding glass doors. Also, some walls were covered with brick strips over the existing acoustic elements like bass traps.”

The smaller production facility was equipped as an interview studio with room for a presenter and three guests.

“Both the studios and hallway between them breathe the same atmosphere — the hallway is decorated with photographs of artists that have visited us, like Joe Cocker or Aerosmith. Everything is part from the same universe,” Dombret said. “The whole is visually very attractive and, when COVID-19 is over, this studio landscape will offer us many more possibilities for visual radio content. Classic 21 has become very telegenic.”

IP CONNECTIVITY

The new radio infrastructure uses a DHD XC2 platform, a single backbone serving the four 52/MX consoles in the new studios with separate XC2 cores. An extra XC2 core is used for the functionalities in the master control room and the Dante connections with the production and editing cells.

Presenter Marie-Amélie Mastin is at work in the production studio.

“In 2016, with the renovation of the La Première radio studio, we issued a rulebook for technical installation,” explained Ronveaux.

“Based on these specifications, RTBF decided to invest in DHD radio systems. Today, we use the brand in various on-air studios and regional centers. The fact that we’ve implemented the same philosophy in all studios increases our technical staff’s mobility. They can work from different studios with an identical technical setup.” RTBF has continued to use the Netia AirDDO playout system.

Both the Viva+ and Classic 21 production facilities were designed as self-op studios, with 12-fader 52/MX desks, the (also self-op) Laforge studio has a 14 fader desk — every studio offers room for a presenter and three guests.

The Mons radio site is now directly connected over IP with the main RTBF broadcast center in Brussels using AES67/Ravenna technology.

Serge Van Haelewijn interviews singer Frédéric François on Viva+ in the new on-air DAB+ studio.

“This is really unique — in the past, we had four 2 Mbps links with Brussels, each for the equivalent of five mono sources or two stereo and one mono source. With AES67/Ravenna connectivity, and DHD’s XC2 AES67/Ravenna interface, we have drastically boosted our transmission capacity. Today we have 64 channels plus an extra 64 channels as backup,” said Ronveaux.

“Every console uses multiple channels. All signals from the four studio’s are routed to master control room in Brussels. It’s equipped with a Lawo AES67/MADI converter to connect  with our central Mandozzi IDEA audio router.” In the main matrix in Brussels, the Mons signal is mixed with advertising and time signal and aired on the RTBF transmitter park.

VISUAL RADIO OPTION

Serge Van Haelewijn presents from Viva+’s new DAB+ studio in Mons.

Bearing in mind the future visual radio option, RTBF paid a lot of attention to the imaging and decoration of its new on air studios.

“The studios were conceived as ‘visual ready,’ with video as part of the design. Pending the installation of fixed cabling and cameras, Classic 21 is using a handheld camera in the new studio landscape,” Ronveaux continued.

DHD distributor Amptec managed the installation and basic configuration of the DHD 52/MX system and the tailor-made studio furniture. “The challenge was, in close collaboration with the RTBF’s network and radio technology experts, to parameterize the DHD configuration for ease-of-use and stability, in a thorough and advanced IP-setup,” said Bart Lamberigts, Amptec project manager.

For the visual radio aspect, Amptec also supplied customized, visually attractive microphone arms and Yellowtec components. “Classic 21’s new studio is one of the most beautiful on-air facilities we’ve worked on,” Lamberigts continued. “RTBF is extremely strong in designing and building appealing studio environments with internal staff.”

Classic 21’s editorial director Etienne Dombret welcomed singer-songwriter Typh Barrow to the inauguration of Classic 21’s new studios.

Etienne Dombret is confident about the future. “Personally, I think consolidating our current market share is crucial. We have grown from 3.9% to an overwhelming 10.9% in 15 years — 2019 was a record year,” he said. “I’m happy to see that we have succeeded in winning over a new and younger audience. With an enthusiastic team in spacious, efficient and visually appealing studios and new technology, we are also devising new program concepts.”

At press time, the VivaCité on air studio was still under construction, and expected to be operational this fall.

During renovation, VivaCité is broadcasting from a provisional studio with a Studer setup.

The post RTBF Inaugurates New Studios in Mons appeared first on Radio World.

.

.

Media Bureau Dismisses without Prejudice the Montezuma, CO Market Modification Petition

.

.

.