"Thinking out loud since 1997"
Still a work in progress
Questions, comments, miscellany: phlegm@diymedia.net
|
"Thinking out loud since 1997" Still a work in progress Questions, comments, miscellany: phlegm@diymedia.net |
| Site
Highlights:
XML/RSS
Feed Site Search News Archives Latest Schnazz FCC Watch Media Collage A/V Library Features Index Links Directory Mbanna Kantako |
News of the Moment 2/6/10 - Unlicensed Broadcasting OK in Oklahoma? [link to this story] Not quite...but it's an interesting sidebar nonetheless. A bill called the "Communications Freedom Act" would restrict the FCC's authority in the Sooner State to license and/or otherwise regulate broadcast stations whose signals do not leave the state, effective November first of this year. The bill was introduced late last month and referred to the Oklahoma House's Economic Development and Financial Services Committee. According to the bill's sponsor, Republican State Rep. Charles Key, "The federal government is out of control. It’s violated it’s role in regards to the Constitution. The government has become a predator of sorts and it’s become a law until itself." And thus, low-power radio should be allowed to flourish where stations' signals do not cross state lines. There is just one problem with this: a 76-year old judicial precedent set in Oklahoma's southern neighbor, the state of Texas. The case, U.S. v. Gregg et. al. (5 F. Supp. 848 (S.D. Tex. 1934)), first went to court when the Federal Radio Commission moved to silence “The Voice of Labor,” a very small AM radio station broadcasting from a hotel in downtown Houston, Texas. The three men behind the operation admitted they had no license to broadcast but argued they didn’t need one because they were not engaged in interstate commerce: their signal was so weak that it could not be heard outside the state. Even though this may have been true, the court reasoned the station still had the potential to interfere with the reception of other licensed stations broadcasting into Texas from elsewhere, and thus fell under federal regulation. According to the ruling, the Voice of Labor’s potential effect on licensees engaged in interstate commerce empowered the FRC to shut it down: “That it is reasonable will be seen by reflecting that a sufficient number of unlicensed and unregulated intrastate radio broadcasting stations, such as is defendants’, broadcasting on different frequencies in each community, could and would not only interfere with, but destroy, all interstate broadcasting" (emphasis in original). If Oklahoma's
proposed bill becomes law (there is no companion legislation in the
state Senate yet), you
can bet that case will play
a central role in the FCC's appeal for its repeal. (Not that the idea
But how, you may ask, does this differ from anti-pirate state laws passed in Florida and New Jersey? Do not those abrogate the FCC's jurisdictional authority over broadcast licensing? Not in the least: both Florida and New Jersey's laws simply criminalize the act of unlicensed broadcasting under state statutes, and empower state law enforcement to hunt pirate radio stations. When Florida passed the first anti-pirate law in 2004, FCC enforcement authorities in the state were careful to tacitly acknowledge it; overworked and understaffed, the FCC actually welcomed state aid in two pirate radio hot spots. That these laws have produced no substantive reduction in unlicensed broadcasting in either state speaks to the priority FL and NJ cops actually put on pirate-hunting. But those laws supplement the FCC's enforcement authority, not restrict it. Oklahoma's proposed bill would do exactly the reverse; that will not make the agency happy. I can't help but be sentimentally supportive of those who think outside the box, but there's more effective ways to stymie the FCC's enforcement authority. Probably one of the most effective (at least in slowing the process down) is to simply get your local/county/state police on your side before the Federales show up. Many local cops do not like it when their jurisdiction is stepped on, especially without their consent. Such tactics are not guaranteed (see the case of San Francisco Liberation Radio), but they force the FCC to commit greater resources on a case-by-case level, where its enforcement authority is weakest and the relative success of resistance is greatest. 1/31/10 - Bring The Noise Redux: FCC Okays FM-HD Power Increase [link to this story] With little fanfare on Friday, the FCC approved a blanket four-fold increase in the power of FM-HD digital sidebands, and also established procedures for stations to apply for a power-hike of up to 10x. This outcome was no surprise. For the last two years the proprietors of HD Radio, iBiquity Digital Corporation, and National Public Radio have been wrangling over just how much of a digital FM power boost is needed to replicate existing FM stations' analog coverage. The problem is, even with all of the claims of HD's proponents (on the record, no less) that a fractional-powered FM digital signal can provide the equivalent coverage area of a full-power analog signal, reality has proven disturbingly different. Not only are FM-HD signals difficult to acquire and lock onto on a mobile platform for the long haul, but the signals fail miserably at penetrating buildings. The FCC and HD Radio's proprietors believe this is the primary reason why the adoption of FM-HD broadcasting "has dropped significantly over the last two years." The FCC's
The second was the optimistically-projected lack of expected interference from the move: "Based on our analysis of...data, as well as five years of interference-free FM hybrid digital operations by approximately 1500 stations," the FCC blesses the FM-HD power hike. The record does not reflect this conclusion. Not only has the FCC received several complaints from listeners in its ongoing digital radio proceeding about interference between digital FM sidebands and nearby analog signals, but the potential amount of interference between the "host" analog signal of an FM-HD station and its digital sidebands is likely to increase because of this Order. This was noted more than a year earlier - by one of the architects of NPR's preliminary power/interference studies, no less. The third whopper is the FCC's callousness toward what higher-power FM-HD sidebands will do to the reception of nearby LPFM stations. Public-interest lobbyists pressed the FCC just earlier this month to take an incremental approach to any FM-HD power increase, noting the FCC's promises to look into an expansion of LPFM service. The rub is that, under the FCC's latest decision, any full-power radio station may conduct FM-HD broadcasts at digital power levels well in excess of what any LPFM station is allowed to broadcast with in analog alone. In a nutshell, the increased power of FM digital sidebands constitute a clear and present danger of interference to the reception of LPFM stations. The FCC blew that off: "As a general matter, adoption of these recommendations would constitute a dramatic change in LPFM licensing rules and the relationship between LPFM and full-service stations. Analog LPFM and FM translator stations are secondary services, and, as such, are not currently entitled to protection from existing full-service analog FM stations." Thus, any potential material growth of LPFM is now directly dependent on just how much the interference noise-floor on the FM dial increases because of the proliferation of higher-power digital sidebands. The answer to this quandary will only become known with time. Finally, with regard to any increase in digital interference, the FCC's Order recommends that the conflicting stations first try to rectify the matter between themselves. If this is not possible, the FCC may be called upon to mediate interference concerns, but only if the aggrieved station applies for relief, and only if the complaint contains
If the interference-appeal meets this onerous criteria, the Media Bureau promises to act upon it within 90 days. Speaking of dramatic changes, this aspect of the digital radio rulemaking puts the burden of proof of harm on the station(s) receiving interference, not the station(s) causing it. FCC spectrum-management rules, with the exception of secondary services (like LPFM) are generally written in such a way that a new service will, by design, work to minimize its impact to nearby spectrum-neighbors. This new FM-HD interference rule not only flips that paradigm, but encourages interference by discouraging stations to report it. Still and all, this is not likely to jumpstart a second wave of FM-HD station implementations; it's questionable just how many stations will invest in a digital power increase anyway, given that it involves some rather substantial reinvestment in a station's transmission plant. The fault of FM-HD radio is not in a single technical tweak; it's in the design of HD Radio itself, which overpromises and underdelivers to the detriment of existing analog services. The fact that the FCC is so willing to sacrifice the integrity of analog radio for a crippled digital replacement is deeply disturbing. 1/24/10 - Whoa, Canada: DAB Effectively Dead? [link to this story] Grant Goddard notes the publication of a report by Industry Canada (our northern neighbors' version of the FCC) on the state of the country's digital audio broadcasting transition. Short answer: do-over time! In the report, the Canadian government basically admits that its DAB transition has stalled (at just 76 stations), and is now in reverse (digital stations are going dark). The report cites many reasons for its failure: large up-front capital investment; expensive receivers leading to little audience; and, most importantly, DAB was designed as a technical solution to a content problem. Most notably, the report observes that DAB now is, by policy, "no longer a replacement for analogue AM and FM services." Industry Canada is now investigating ways to repurpose the spectrum it originally allocated for its Eureka-147 model of DAB, and is actively exploring other protocols. Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that Industry Canada is apparently considering the implementation of HD Radio onto its AM and FM bands, noting its proximity and marketplace-thrall to the United States. Not the smartest idea: not only has the proliferation of domestic HD-enabled stations stalled, but any momentum this particular protocol has is iffy at best. This is quite a turn of events, given that more than two years ago the Canadian government complained to the FCC that the imposition of HD Radio might be a violation of international spectrum-allocation treaties. |
hasn't been floated around
inside the agency