Engineering Radio

I was speaking with a friend of mine recently about some interference issues he was having at an FM transmitter site.  There were several cellular and PCS tenants at this site and something from the FM transmitter was interfering with the GPS receivers.  This one very small glitch was causing multiple carriers to go off line, basically shutting down the entire wireless infrastructure at this particular site.

GPS signals are used for syncing carrier frequencies and modulation timing for CDMA and TDMA that all cellular, PSC and 3G, 4G (or whatever G) wireless systems use to seamlessly hand off users from one site to another.  Without it, the entire system will shut down.

What would happen to communications in this country if all GPS were interrupted?  When I was in the military, we spoke often about high altitude nuclear detonations and the possible effects it would have on our communications circuits.  In fact, we drilled for such things.  Often.  What, if anything, are wireless carriers doing to keep their sites on line if, heaven forbid, somebody does something to disrupt GPS?  If terrestrial radio and television broadcasting is going to be replaced by 3G and 4G wireless networks, how redundant are they?  I know, for example, many cell sites do not have long term backup power.  They have battery banks, which in a power outage, may last 6-10 hours, but after that, the site is down.

Further, how about vulnerabilities getting the data to and from these sites?  Most cell sites rely on some type of TELCO circuit, usually a T-1 (DS-1) or multiple T-1’s to interface with the wired network.  This includes voice, text and data services.  If those circuits are down, then anything connected to them will be off line.

What about redundant transmitters, antennas, receivers, etc.  How much of the current wireless infrastructure is backed up with spares?  It causes me worry to think that someday traditional broadcasters will be going out of business due to poor financial planning, leaving us all to subscription based data services that may or may not be there in an emergency.  At least with many radio and TV stations, there are generators, backup transmitters, microwave systems and so forth.  Most good broadcasters have emergency plans for restoration of service during a disaster.  EAS may not be the greatest thing ever, but right now, it is the only emergency communications plan we have. Radio is still the best and most robust way to communicate vital information during emergencies.  Cell sites go off line along with whatever G wireless service, cable TV systems go off line due to power outages or damaged distribution networks, land line phones can be taken out due to power interruptions at the company office or damaged networks.

Why do I care? Why should you care?  Because, as I have eluded in previous posts, with the demise of local newspapers, the demise of local radio, the erosion of local TV news coverage and the general trivialization of our political apparatus on the local and national level, we are loosing our voice.  We will loose our democracy.  Right now, the US is on the verge of becoming an oligarchy or a corporatocracy.

What road are we traveling down when unrestricted free access to information is gone?  The internet is a great resource, but it is not free.  What will happen to the price of internet access when competing information and entertainment technologies such as radio, TV, and newspapers disappear?  Look to our transportation sector for an example.  Gone are the vast majority of passenger rail roads that criss crossed the country for nearly 100 years.  In many places, public transportation is laughable.  How do you get to work?  How do you get to the store?  How much will $5.00 per gallon gas effect your life?  More importantly, what can you do about it when the cost of fuel gets expensive? Nothing.  Most people are stuck in there suburban homes with not even a convenience store within walking distance.

What will happen when terrestrial radio goes away?  I shutter to think.

It is clear to me that radio is changing, in some ways it is changing for the better, in many ways it is changing for the worse.  In spite of many bad business decisions made by over priced MBAs, large consolidated radio groups seem to be hanging on, if only by their finger nails.  It is very likely that the investment banks, who have the most to loose, are not interested in seeing their loans written off in a bankruptcy proceeding.  As we all know, the consolidators that paid multiples of 15 to 16 times cash flow for stations, way over extended themselves.  There is no hope that values will ever return to those levels, so the banks are now in the radio business.

Sure, the banks are not the owners of record, and the FCC never would consent to transfer all those licenses to so many investment banks. However, they are calling the shots, making “suggestions” on how best to run things.  Offering perhaps a 1/4 percent reduction in an interest rate if the expenses can be reduced below a certain level.  Unfortunately, for the communities like Ellenville, NY, their local radio station means nothing to the banker living in Manhattan.  It is a number, and more than likely, a negative number on a spreadsheet.  It means nothing to the group owner in San Antonio, other than some miscellaneous real estate assets.  Same can be said for all the radio stations in the Hudson Valley if not the entire country.

Why is this important?  I mean, who really cares?  The apparent answer is no one seems to care.  Local news, or what used to be local news such as town board meetings, high school sports scores, police blotter, and all of the many other small town things do not get the hearing they used to.  Town boards; well if no one shows up for the meeting to pass the new zoning laws, so be it.  School boards; sure, raise the taxes, most home owners will just pay the new higher amount and not say anything.  It is for the children, after all.  Seems that the local constabulary is spending more time at the Dunkin Donuts than out walking around checking doors?  Thats the way it goes.  With the demise of local newspapers, detailed in a previous post, who is keeping an eye on things? Who lets the community know when something doesn’t pass the smell test?

Receiver tuned to local AM station playing good sounding music

A small AM radio station can be made profitable, just not at the margins expected by the big boys.  There is a niche for perhaps 1 KW or 5 KW non-directional station with it’s own real estate that is not in too bad shape can be turned into a community radio station.  Those type stations are fairly low maintenance, most have some type of PSRA and PSSA to keep them on at least during drive times if they are daytimers.  Others have minimal amounts of night time power.  Almost all of them cover their city of license, even with small night time powers.

I have been looking into good quality AM radio receivers and there are a few out there which are not too expensive.  Most GM car radios and older Chrysler radios have good AM radios.  A group formed to promote AM radio, ensure that auto makers install radios that are at least as good as their older versions, work with manufactures to make better small table top receivers and such would go a long way to improving the unjustly bad reputation that AM broadcasting has received.  Further, working with the ARRL (amateur radio) to reduce and keep noise levels from things like BPL and other noise making technologies that do not comply with current FCC regulations would also help.  It is true that our environment has become electrically noisier, one might not be able to listen to the 50 KW clear channel station 500 miles away, but the local station should come in well enough to enjoy, especially if the programming is good.

FM radio is becoming over crowed with translators, adjacent channel HD radio interference, LPFMs and whatever else can be shoe horned into the band.  The quality of FM is set to decline precipitiously in the next few years.  It seems that with the right combination of good local programming, good receivers and radio station owners/operators that are not looking to get listed on the NASDAQ, small AM stations could survive, if not thrive on the business that the big stations turn away.

There are a number, a small number, of stations already doing this.  As long as there is free local news and free quality programming, people will listen, no matter what band it is being broadcast on.  Free trumps paid any time, any day.

When I was a young lad, still impressionable I might add, I would listen to the big AM powerhouses at night with my little transistor radio.  I have eluded to this in previous posts.  I have also written an article for Radio World in which I suggest turning AM transmitter off on overnight hours to save money, with certain caveats.  I still listen to AM radio quite often.  I have a Kenwood R-2000 MF/HF receiver which, while not the best technical receiver, is the best sounding AM receiver I have ever heard.  It’s wide AM IF bandwidth is 6.5 kHz, which seems to work very well with the high end pre-emphasis curves most good AM processors employ.  Music, especially oldies, which were recorded in AM’s hay day sound spectacular.  There is no other AM radio that sounds as good as this unit.   Right now, the sun has just set and I am listening to WFED 1500 KHz in Washington DC.    They are airing a VOA program called “Issues in the News.”  It’s real red meat radio.  We are 250 air miles from the transmitter site.

I think there is a place for AM stations, not just merely being satellite repeaters, but making a meaningful contribution to their communities of license.  Unfortunately, I am one of the few that thinks so.  For as long as I have been in radio, AM has been declining.  It is a matter of economics, most GM’s would tell me.  That being said, the two three letter calls signs that I worked at were consistently in the top four in the rating book.  Clearly, live local programming was the key to this success.

The notion that they sound bad may or may not be true.  An AM station that has a properly tuned and matched antenna can sound very good.  Using a good receiver, one that has good fidelity, good selection and sensitivity can also increase listening pleasure.  Unfortunately, most  all AM radios being sold today have an IF bandwidth that is only slightly better than a telephone around 2-3 kHz.  This is because… I don’t know.  Originally receiver manufactures began limiting bandwidth to reduce interference.  NRSC-2 was supposed to limit interference by reducing out of bandwidth splatter.  Apparently the manufactures didn’t get the word.

Who knows, as the FM band gets filled with shit (interference from adjacent channel IBOC, translators shoe horned in, LPFM’s on third adjacent channels) AM radio might be viable again.

Once the money men got a hold of the broadcasting industry, everything was geared toward making money.  Not that making money is wrong, it is certainly good to make a profit, however, with the margins on the FM stations, usually between 25-50%, AM stations were relegated to second place because their margins were much less than that.   Even so, many AM stations were initially profitable during the consolidation and still had some ratings.  Not so any more.  AM stations also require more maintenance, because of directional antennas and all that is associated with those systems.  What a banker or an accountant sees when he looks at an AM radio station is a money pit.  And, if the station has been run into the ground, it is a money pit.

Still, a small AM at a fire sale price might be fun to rehab.  Launch some type of community radio format, put AM radio back were it was 30 years ago, solidly in the community.  It might be fun.

The house passed the “LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO ACT OF 2009 ” (aka HR 1147) last night in one of the last legislative acts of 2009.  This is the companion bill to S. 592, which is still in committee.

The need for LPFM stations is justified thusly:

• In part due to consolidation of media ownership, there have been strong financial incentives for some companies to reduce local programming and rely instead on syndicated programming produced for hundreds of stations, though noncommercial educational radio stations, including FM translator stations, currently provide important local service, as do many commercial radio stations. A renewal of commitment to localism–local operations, local research, local management, locally originated programming, local artists, and local news and events–would bolster radio’s service to the public.
• Local communities have sought to launch radio stations to meet their local needs. However, due in part to the scarce amount of spectrum available and the high cost of buying and running a large station, many local communities are unable to establish a radio station.
• In 2003, the average cost to acquire a commercial radio station was more than $2,500,000.
• In January 2000, the Federal Communications Commission authorized a new, affordable community radio service called `low-power FM’, or `LPFM’, to `enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting’.
• Through the creation of LPFM, the Federal Communications Commission sought to `create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local groups, including schools, churches, and other community-based organizations, to provide programming responsive to local community needs and interests’.
• The Federal Communications Commission made clear that the creation of LPFM would not compromise the integrity of the FM radio band by stating, `We are committed to creating a low-power FM radio service only if it does not cause unacceptable interference to existing radio service.’.
• Currently, FM translator stations can operate on the second- and third-adjacent channels to full-power radio stations, up to an effective radiated power of 250 watts, pursuant to part 74 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, using the very same transmitters that LPFM stations will use. The Federal Communications Commission based its LPFM rules on the actual performance of these translators, which already operate without undue interference to FM stations.
• Small rural broadcasters were particularly concerned about a lengthy and costly LPFM interference complaint process. Therefore, in September 2000, the Federal Communications Commission created a process to address interference complaints regarding LPFM stations on an expedited basis.
• In December 2000, Congress delayed the full implementation of LPFM until the Federal Communications Commission commissioned and reviewed an independent engineering study. This action was due to some broadcasters’ concerns that LPFM service would cause interference in the FM radio band.
• The Federal Communications Commission granted licenses to over 800 LPFM stations despite the congressional action. These stations are currently on the air and are run by local government agencies, groups promoting arts and education to immigrant and indigenous populations, artists, schools, religious organizations, environmental groups, organizations promoting literacy, and many other civically oriented organizations.
• After 2 years and the expenditure of $2,193,343 in taxpayer dollars, the independent engineering study commissioned by the Federal Communications Commission concluded that concerns about interference on third-adjacent channels were unwarranted.
• The Federal Communications Commission issued a report to Congress on February 19, 2004, which stated that `Congress should readdress this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the third-adjacent channel distance separation requirement for LPFM stations.’
• On November 27, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission again unanimously affirmed LPFM, stating in a news release about the adoption of the Low-Power FM Third Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the Federal Communications Commission recommends `to Congress that it remove the requirement that LPFM stations protect full-power stations operating on third-adjacent channels’. Until the date of enactment of this Act, Congress had not acted upon that recommendation.
• Minorities represent almost a third of the population of the United States. However, according to the Federal Communications Commission’s most recent Form 323 data on the race and gender of full-power, commercial broadcast licensees, minorities own only 7 percent of all local television and radio stations. Women represent more than half of the population but own only 6 percent of all local television and radio stations. LPFM stations, while not a solution to the overall inequalities in minority and female broadcast ownership, provide an additional opportunity for underrepresented communities to operate a station and offer local communities a greater diversity of viewpoints and culture.
• LPFM stations have proven to be a vital source of information during local or national emergencies. Out of the few stations that were able to stay on the air during Hurricane Katrina, several were LPFM stations. In Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, low-power FM station WQRZ remained on the air during Hurricane Katrina and served as the Emergency Operations Center for Hancock County. After Hurricane Katrina, when thousands of evacuees temporarily housed at the Houston Astrodome were unable to hear over the loudspeakers information about the availability of food and ice, the location of Federal Emergency Management Agency representatives, and the whereabouts of missing loved ones, volunteers handed out thousands of transistor radios and established an LPFM station outside of the Astrodome to broadcast such information.

Similar to S. 592, the bill aims to:

1. Increase the number of LPFM station by doing away with the 3rd adjacent protections.
2. Mitigate interference by creating a 1 year period during which a new LPFM station must broadcast “periodic announcements that alert listeners that interference that they may be experiencing could be the result of the operation of the new low-power FM station on a third-adjacent channel and shall instruct affected listeners to contact the low-power FM station to report any interference.”  LPFM licensees are then tasked with solving interference complaints with in a licensed full power FM station’s protected contour.
3. Protect translator input signals.
4. Protect reading for the blind services.

I am not finding fault with any of the justifications, they are all true and make a good point about the decline of Radio in general as I have discussed in previous posts.

The potential increase of LPFM stations is in the thousands.

The proposed interference mitigation is a pipe dream.  The FCC enforcement bureau is overworked as it is.  We have had a pirate on one of our frequencies for years, every once in a while they drive out and bust the guy, only to have him return a week or two later.   Somehow this group of overworked people will be able to process hundreds or thousands of interference complaints?

Unless there is increased funding for the FCC enforcement bureau, I am skeptical.  There is no specific discussion on funding, only specifying that the cost should be below $139 million.

We live in interesting times.

Internet Neutrality has become a big topic among some groups.  The fear is that some ISPs will filter internet users content, arbitrarily excluding whatever items they want without explanation or disclosure.   The temptation is too great for some ISPs (Verizon, Comcast, ATT, et. al.) not to block certain IP addresses, say for example, that of a competitor.

This amounts to corporate censorship.  If I have a Verizon account and I want to research other telephone companies, will I get accurate results?  What about some potential regulation change that the company didn’t want to have congress pass?  How about adverse rulings about Verizon from the state public service commission?

In light of the NBC/Universal – Comcast deal announced last week, those concerns appear to carry even more weight.  If the internet is going to replace radio, TV, and newspapers as some suggest, access must be unfettered.  Any member of the public should be able to search through any ISPs infrastructure and find all relevant data.

There have been FCC hearings on the matter, there is a NPRM,  a web site has been set up, there is a wikipedia entry.  Recently, senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have come out against the idea of Net Neutrality, although I cannot imagine why.

I decided to do a little experiment myself.  At my official job, we have to ISPs, each on a separate T-1 line.  The first ISP is a local company, Best Web.  The other ISP is Verizon.  On the Best Web circuit, I did a Google search for some innocuous term, with safe search turned off.  I then used the same search terms on the Verizon circuit.  I was surprised to see different results for each search.  I did specific searches for items based on a geographical location, e.g. “widgets, Washington DC.”  In each case, the Verizon search results were missing some of the pages that the Best Web search results had.  This is going through Google.  I have Verizon at home also, and noted the same differences there.

By this relatively brief research, it would seem that Verizon is filtering out some pages they don’t like.  It is difficult to say why, and if I didn’t go through the trouble of changing ISPs and repeating the search, I would have never known about it.  Clearly most people don’t understand:

This is already happening!

This is one of the key problems with the “internet” future.  Access to data can be very easily controlled by programming fire walls and gateways at the IPS’s data center.  Users searching for items will never know what they are missing.  Having a diverse broadcasting industry has fostered freedom of the press and advanced our democracy.  Loosing that will put us on a slipper road to Corporatocracy, if we are not already there.

This is getting ridiculous. Now the Congressional Black Caucus wants a bailout for radio. minority owned radio stations. Inner City Radio, Inc.  It seems that the group owner of 17 radio stations finds themselves $230 million dollars in dept.  Is that all?

Never mind the fact that helping only minority owned radio stations and Inner City Radio, Inc.,  in particular seems, I don’t know, what would be the appropriate word for it… racist, or at least discriminatory.  Never mind the fact that in this day and age, $230 million in dept is a mere drop in the bucket, especially for a group that owns stations in major market like New York (WBLS, WLIB) and San Fransisco (KBLX), not to mention several other stations in smaller markets.

Why should my tax money go to another corporation that was poorly run?  Why should I reward somebody else bad behavor?  I said it before:

No bailouts for radio.  No bailouts for big corporate radio, no bailouts for minority radio, no bailouts.  Let the markets and the financiers sort it out, the only way it can get better is if it gets worse.

Go!

The Senate seems to have it in their mind to release the LPFM genie from the bottle:

The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill (Local Community Radio Act (S. 592)) today that would loosen regulations limiting low-power FM stations. It would abolish the third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirement except for stations that provide a radio reading service, as well as give FM translators and LPFMs equal access to spectrum. The House Commerce Committee has also cleared the bill.

The Local Community Radio Act (S. 592) official bill summary is:

3/12/2009–Introduced.Local Community Radio Act of 2009 – Repeals provisions in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 that required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to:
(1) modify rules authorizing the operation of low-power FM radio stations to prescribe minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels;
(2) prohibit applicants who have engaged in the unlicensed operation of any station from obtaining a low-power FM license; and
(3) conduct a program to test whether low-power FM radio stations will result in harmful interference to existing FM radio stations if minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels are not required. Requires the FCC to modify its rules to eliminate third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements between specified stations. Requires the FCC to retain rules that provide third-adjacent channel protection for full-power noncommercial FM stations that broadcast radio reading services via a subcarrier frequency from potential low-power FM station interference. Requires the FCC, when licensing FM translator stations, to ensure that:
(1) licenses are available to both FM translator stations and low-power FM stations; and
(2) such decisions are made based on the needs of the local community.

I would add to that list; Must be on the air at least 50% of the time and no more than 50% of that time is automated. Why not? If this is supposed to spur local (community radio) what would be the point of a whole bunch of low power automated stations? Just more clutter in the FM band.

I read with interest the MMTC’s (Minority Media Telecommunication Council) ideas for rescuing radio.  In the summary, they make the statement:

By granting this Radio Rescue Plan quickly, the FCC can provide lenders and investors with assurance that the federal government stands behind the survival and sustainability of this industry that is so vital to public service, public safety, minority entrepreneurship and democracy

Red flag.  Anytime some groups want to rush something through because of some perceived crisis, it should be closely examined for potential conflicts of interest.

It is fine to look into the rules and make changes as technology evolves, rushing some change through because the economy has gone south is not the best plan.  If radio is in such bad shape that it needs a rules relaxation to survive, that indicates there is something seriously wrong with the underlying structure.  No amount of rules changing is going to help that.

Anyway, they lay out some ideas, most of which have been batted about before and have had little of the intended affects.

1. Re-purpose TV channel 5 and 6 to the FM broadcast band.  Allow AM station to migrate there with a priority given to relieve interference issues on the AM band.
2. Night time AM signal contour rules, relax requirement to cover 80 percent of city of license at night.
3. Modify or eliminate principle community coverage rules
4. Replace minimum efficiency standards for AM antenna systems with “minimum radiation standards”
5. Allow FM applicants to specify Class C, C0, C1, (etc) in zone I and IA.
6. Delete non-viable FM allotments from the table of allotments.

1.  The first idea is to re-purpose TV channel 5 and 6 to the FM band.  This would allow more FM stations to exist and presumably many AM station to migrate to the FM band.  Sort of like the expanded AM band project in the 1990s where AM stations moved to the 1600-1700 khz range and then turned in their old licenses in the 540-1600 khz range to reduce interference.  Worked out well except for the last part, almost no AM station that moved into the expanded band has ever turned in it’s original license.  I doubt that they would in an AM to FM band migration.

Perhaps using this expanded FM band to move all of the NCE stations from the commercial channels and allow for LPFM’s to proliferate would be a good idea.

Then there is the problem of what to do with the various LPTV-6 stations that are still around.

I doubt the FCC will go for this because they can make too much money auctioning off the spectrum in one whole chunk to the highest bidder.

2.  Night time AM coverage rules.  The proposal is to allow a relaxing of the night time AM coverage rules over the city of license.   Currently required to cover 80 percent of the area or population except in the expanded band, where the requirement is 50 percent.  Making it all one uniform standard (50%) would make the most sense.  Not that it would make a lot of difference listener wise, still, it might ease the burden on some AM station that would otherwise be solvent.

3.  Modify or eliminate principle community coverage contours.  This idea  just seems like a way to satisfy more big radio consolidators and have more stations move out of their communities of license, which they are supposed to be serving.  This is the money statement:

MTCC believes that modification fo these rules benefit small, women, minority, and all broadcasting licesnses by providing them with additional flexibility for site location

How?  I still cannot fathom how this will benefit those groups mentioned above, seems like a generic statement with no merit.

The rim shot signals which are at least providing some type of radio programming to rural areas would cease to exist as they would all pick up and move toward population centers.  This is a bad idea.  The owners who bought rim shots should have known they were buying rim shots in the first place and not be expecting too much in the way of moving things around to accommodate their idea of what the FM broadcast band should be.

4.  Replace minimum efficiency standards with a minimum radiation standard for AM antenna systems.   The proposal states that when those standards were adopted, land was plentiful and electricity was not.  I would comment that neither land nor electricity is plentiful today.  Reducing this standard would open up potential AM station buyers to risk of investing in a bigger money pit than what AM radio currently is today.

In other words, it is a bad idea which would only cause potential owners to be saddled with huge electric bills and hasten the end of AM radio.  As an engineer, I know that with the right amount of capacitance and inductance, I can load up an AM transmitter to a chain link fence.  That doesn’t mean it is a good idea.

5.  Allow FM applicants to specify class C, C0, C1, C2, C3, (etc) in zone I and IA.  I presume they mean to allow a class B to specify class C2 and a class B1 to specify a class C3.  This might make the application process a little more uniform, but I doubt it would make much difference in the FM band.

Also, they seem to use the term “spectrum warehousing” often.  What does that mean?  They make an elusion to the difference between a 54 dBu and a 60 dBu contour.  Is that 6 dBu a “spectrum warehouse?” It is really nonsensical, sort of like “precious bodily fluids” in Dr. Strangelove.

6.  Non-viable FM allotments.  Sure, delete them or re-align them so that they might be usable to someone.  Makes sense.

Community radio station WOVV signing on:

They are not there yet, according to their web site, anticipated sign on is not until spring of 2010.

Remember when all radio stations were community radio stations?  The CNN report now calls this “old-style radio.”  It is sort of funny how these little radio stations, built mostly by volunteers with donated money, get it. A radio station is supposed to be about community service. It is sad that broadcasters with both the means and methods to reach these isolated people have ignored them.  Because, you know, there is very little money in community service.

I have been reading with interest the whole debate about radio being dead or dying vs. radio being a vibrant thriving business.

Radio is not dead by any measure, however it is declining for a number of obvious reasons.  There are more competing entertainment and information options, that is true.  Ipods, netcasters, satellite radio have taken some of radio’s listeners away.  However, the main culprit in radio’s decline are the investment bankers that are squeezing every drop of blood nickle out of the industry before moving on to their next victim investment opportunity.

The net result of this has made much, not all, of radio predicable and boring.  No longer is radio the source for new music, news, information and entertainment as it used to be.  I don’t think that anyone will argue that point.  The money men have fired most of the creative and talented individuals who used to bring in the listeners and replaced them with computers.  They have also cut news staffs, support staffs and anything else that lives and breaths except sales people.  More sales people are always required.

HD Radio^TM radio is a joke at best.  Setting aside all of the technical problems with coverage and building penetration, the programming sucks too.  The same purveyors of crap on the main analog channels are now branching out on the HD2 and HD3 channels.  I can’t believe that the secondary channels will somehow be better than the main analog channels,  or even marginally good enough to buy an HD Radio radio.  Some groups are putting their AM programming on an FM HD2 channel, which is great if one cares to hear drug addled corpulent talk show hosts wheezing into the microphone in full fidelity.   At least on the AM analog broadcasts, everything above 4.5 KHz is cut off, wheezing included.

The good news is, there are still some radio stations that are programmed well.  Radio sets are almost universal, every car has one, every house has at least one or two, most offices, stores, etc. Radio reception is still free.  Radio is still popular among many people.  Radio owner’s could very easily become involved with their communities of license, make better programing decisions, hire staffs, and add valuable informative local programs again.  This decline would soon be forgotten.

The bad news is that is unlikely to happen.  Less than a snowball’s chance in hell unless someone wakes up and smells the coffee.

I am half an optimist.