Aggregator

With AM improvement on the radars of broadcasters and the FCC, there has been renewed talk in recent years about the subject of AM “boosters,” the carrier frequency synchronization of multiple transmitters. The commission opened a comment period on AM boosters in 2017.

A graphic in the April 1931 issue of Popular Science explained the concept.

It wasn’t the first time the FCC has explored this topic and failed to act on it. In fact, AM boosters have been proposed and tested dozens of times since the early days of radio. But even though the technology has repeatedly been proven effective, the commission consistently has declined to allow the operation of AM boosters on anything more than an experimental basis, for a variety of reasons.

Let’s take a moment to look back at the history of this beleaguered technology.

BOSTON REPEATER

In 1930, crystal control of transmitter frequencies was still an emerging technology, and the allowable frequency tolerance of a broadcast transmitter was +/- 500 Hz. Two stations operating on the same channel, even if widely geographically separated, could generate a heterodyne beat note of up to 1 kHz, a disconcerting annoyance to listeners.

Consequently, only a few stations were allowed to operate nationwide evenings on any one channel at the same time. Further, there were 40 clear-channel stations, each one having exclusive nationwide use of its frequency.  As most of these clear-channel stations were network affiliates, many channels were wastefully duplicating the same programs.

In 1929, the respected radio engineer Frederick Terman proposed that, if all stations of the two networks (NBC and CBS) could synchronize their carrier frequencies within +/- 0.1 Hz to eliminate the heterodyne beat notes, they could all coexist on a single channel per network, freeing up dozens of channels for new stations.

Synchronization was first proved successful by the Westinghouse station WBZ in Springfield, Mass. Broadcasting from the roof of the Westinghouse factory, WBZ failed to cover Boston, so WBZA was opened as a Boston repeater. The two stations were synchronized on the same frequency beginning in 1926, using a tuning fork as a frequency reference.

WBZ in Boston synchronized its frequency with booster station WBZA in Springfield, Mass., beginning in 1926. The dual station operation — first on 900 kHz, then 990 and finally on 1030 — lasted until 1962, when Westinghouse was forced to shut down WBZA in order to purchase WINS in New York.

Synchronization improved coverage in some areas, but also created interference zones with distortion and fading wherever the two signals were roughly equal in strength. After a year of experimentation, a successful technology was found: a master crystal oscillator in Springfield set the frequency for both transmitters. Its output was divided down to the audio range and sent by phone line to Boston, where it was multiplied back upward to drive the WBZ transmitter.

Meanwhile, pressure was building on the networks to test synchronization, and in October, 1930, the Federal Radio Commission administered an overnight test on a single clear-channel frequency, 660 kHz. Three NBC 50 kW stations, WEAF, KDKA and WGY, broadcast the same program on the channel. It worked remarkably well. Long-distance skywave reception was greatly improved; fading was virtually eliminated. Whenever one station’s signal faded, the others continued to provide clear reception.

Although NBC couldn’t deny that the technology had worked well, it resisted. Its true reasons were not technical, but economic. It had become common practice to feed different network programs to different parts of the country to serve advertisers who only wanted regional coverage. With synchronization, such “split network” operation would no longer be possible. Also, NBC feared that giving up its clear channels would lead to the creation of competitive networks using the same system.

Nonetheless, NBC encouraged synchronization in the cases of several affiliate stations that shared time on clear-channel frequencies, thus allowing them to operate full time.

In 1931, NBC synchronized its New York flagship station WEAF with WTIC in Hartford. However, the stations were too close together, causing objectionable interference. Attempts at synchronizing WJZ in New York with WBAL in Baltimore had better results, and that operation continued until 1937.

Another successful synchronization experiment involved WHO in Des Moines and WOC in Davenport, Iowa, starting in 1930. B. J. Palmer owned both stations and operated them on 1000 kHz under the dual call sign WHO-WOC. Synchronization was accomplished using a new Bell Labs technology: An operator at a monitoring station halfway between the two transmitters monitored the beat note between the stations and remotely adjusted WOC’s crystal oscillator every 10 minutes.

Although the system was successful, the operation ended in 1933 when WHO raised its power to 50 kW.

A similar technology developed by Western Electric synchronized WBBM in Chicago with KFAB in Lincoln, Neb. The two CBS stations had been time-sharing their 770 kHz frequency since 1928. In January 1934, they synchronized their carriers, broadcasting separate programs during the daytime and the same CBS program at night.  A highly-accurate 4 kHz signal was delivered to both stations by phone line, multiplied up to the carrier frequency and compared with the transmitter, where a motor-driven variable capacitor adjusted its crystal oscillator. A unique part of this system was an audio delay line that retarded WBBM’s programs by 20 milliseconds to compensate for the phone line delay between Chicago and Lincoln.

WBBM in Chicago and KFAB in Lincoln, Neb. (later Omaha) synchronized operations on the 770 kHz clear channel frequency from 1934 to 1941. This map showed their respective groundwave coverage areas. At nighttime, both stations broadcast the same CBS network programs, generating what was essentially a single received skywave signal.

The combined nighttime coverage of these two stations was excellent, with almost no fading, and it continued in operation until KFAB changed frequencies in 1944.

Synchronization experiments were not limited to high-powered stations. In 1936, WLLH in Lowell, Mass., received permission to operate a booster nine miles away in the city of Lawrence. This was the first time synchronization was authorized on a local channel, using 250 watts in Lowell and 100 watts in Lawrence. WLLH’s special temporary authority became permanent when a license was issued for the booster in 1941, and it continues in operation today.

EVOLVING ATTITUDES

The FCC’s attitude towards boosters began to change in 1939, apparently for political rather than technical reasons.

That year, during an FCC oversight hearing, Rep. William Connery of Massachusetts declared his opposition to booster stations. He felt they represented new stations in new communities, and claimed they diverted advertising from local newspapers while providing no local employment. He named several boosters operating in his own district.

After that, the FCC began opposing boosters that added coverage in a new community instead of filling holes in a station’s existing coverage. About a dozen applications were denied for this reason.

In 1941, necessity created an exception to this policy for WBT in Charlotte, N.C. When the NARBA Treaty frequency shifts caused KFAB to move onto its frequency, WBT was forced to operate with a nighttime directional antenna to protect KFAB. To mitigate its loss of coverage, the commission allowed WBT to build a 1,000-watt nighttime booster in Shelby, N.C.

The cover of a 1940s promotional booklet for WLLH in Lowell, Mass. The station began operating a synchronous booster in neighboring Lawrence in 1937. The booster received a license from the FCC in 1941, the only known case of a booster receiving anything more than experimental authorization. WLLH continues to operate with two 1 kW transmitters on 1400 kHz today.
Author’s collection

During and after World War II, the FCC’s attitude towards boosters was inconsistent. Powel Crosley’s WSAI in Cincinnati was allowed to feed a 100-watt downtown booster from 1942 to 1945, but only during daytime hours. In 1944, a new booster was authorized to WRBL in Columbus, Ga., to cover Fort Benning. Then in 1944, the FCC approved two boosters in its own city of Washington. WWDC was allowed to install a 50-watt booster in Silver Spring, Md., and WINX was granted a 250-watt booster in Arlington, Va.

However, many other booster applications were rejected during this same time period.

By the 1950s, the FCC seemed to have set an internal goal of eliminating AM boosters, and it consistently pursued policies that resulted in the elimination of existing installations. This, plus the changing economics of AM radio in the face of competition from television, caused the shutdown of most of the boosters still in existence.

In 1954, the FCC ruled that Class IV (local) stations could not use boosters to extend their coverage areas because it was against the purpose of a local station license. WWDC’s booster renewal was set for hearing in 1954 and subsequently abandoned by the station. And when WINX proposed to move its booster to a new site, the application was denied “since commission rules do not provide for such operation.”

Yet another factor in the elimination of boosters was the FCC’s “7-7-7” rule, adopted in 1953. It prohibited any station group from owning more than seven AM, FM or TV stations in the country, and the commission was counting booster transmitters as one of the seven stations.

Thus, in 1953, CBS was forced to shut down its booster at WBT Charlotte to comply with the FCC’s ownership limits. And in 1962, when Westinghouse wanted to purchase WINS in New York, it was forced to close WBZA in Springfield, even though it had operated successfully for nearly 40 years.

REVITALIZATION BOOST?

The FCC’s Jekyll-and-Hyde attitude towards boosters hasn’t changed in more recent times.

In 1987, the FCC showed renewed interest in the technology, accepting comments under Docket 87-6. Several stations built and operated successful boosters at that time.

One of these was KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., whose new 50 kW nighttime array placed a major null squarely over the state capitol in Santa Fe. As KKOB was the primary emergency station serving the capitol, the FCC allowed construction of a 230 watt nighttime-only booster in Santa Fe, which continues to operate to this day. Another was KLSQ in Laughlin, Nev., who operated a Las Vegas booster from 1986 to 1995.

This is a view of the WLLH two-transmitter operation in the 1940s. At left was the station’s main antenna in Lowell. At right was the 150-foot tubular steel tower on the roof of the Cregg Building in Lawrence.

But in the end the FCC opted to continue its policy of authorizing boosters on a case-by-case experimental basis.

Beginning in about 2000, WISO in Ponce, Puerto Rico, was allowed to operate synchronized boosters in Aguaduilla and Mayaguez under experimental authority. But in 2011, the FCC denied WISO’s request for an additional booster station in Guayama, and in 2017 it abruptly cancelled all of WISO’s experimental permits, without a clearly-stated reason and despite letters of protest from government authorities in Puerto Rico.

In 2017 the FCC once again opened a rulemaking proceeding to consider permitting AM boosters, part of its AM Improvement initiative, under Docket RM 11779. As of this writing, the FCC again has failed to take further action.  Will this be the time that the commission finally takes positive action on AM boosters, or will Lucy once again pull the football away from Charlie Brown in the final seconds?

John Schneider is a lifetime radio historian; author of two books and dozens of articles on the subject; and a Fellow of the California Historical Radio Society.

REFERENCES:

For more on this topic, readers may be interested in sources used in preparation of this article:

• Broadcasting Magazine:

1-15-32, “Synchronization status considered at hearing”
5-1-36, “WLLH Granted Right to Test Booster Station”
5-1-37, “WLLH Operating Booster Station”
5-1-39, “Sentiment for FCC Legislation”
1-1-41, “More Boosters are Granted”
2-15-44, “New Grants under FCC”
10-1-45, “Boosters for All AM Stations Possible”
1-7-46, “Seven League Boosts”
3-3-47, “FCC to Study Booster Pleas”
7-28-47, “WBT Extends Coverage With Booster Station”
5-17-48, “WINX Operates Two Boosters”
8-6-51, “WINX Transmitter Move Granted”
7-12-54, “FCC Rules Against Booster Bids”
5-7-62, “Westinghouse Buys WINS”

• Wikipedia, WBZ History
• Federal Radio Commission Annual Report, 1930: “Synchronization of Broadcast Stations”
• “Popular Science Monthly,” April 1931, “Chain Broadcasts On One Wave”
• Proceedings, Institute of Radio Engineers, March 1936: “Present Practice in the Synchronous Operation of Broadcast Stations, as Exemplified by WBBM and KFAB,”
by L. McC. Young, Columbia Broadcasting System
• Radio World, 1-14-2017, “Rackley on Synchronous AM Boosters”
• “A Wavelength for Every Network” by Michael J. Socolow, University of Maine, 2007
• Federal Communications Commission, MM Docket 87-6, 3-3-87, “Amendment of Part 73 to Authorize the Use of Multiple Synchronous Transmitters by AM Broadcast Stations”
• “KOB and Decades of Conflict,” by Mark Durenberger, 2017

The post Synchronous AM’s Long and Tortuous History appeared first on Radio World.

Mark Fowler

If the FCC does allow AM stations in the United States to switch to all-digital transmission, former commission Chairman Mark Fowler says they should be allowed to consider a system other than HD Radio.

But it seems a true longshot that another system could be taken up at this juncture, given that Xperi’s technology has long been established as the U.S. system for digital radio, and that the platform has two decades behind it of station implementation and receiver penetration. Indeed in its most recent NPRM, the FCC explicitly stated in a footnote that it declined to reconsider the selection of HD Radio as the U.S. standard. 

However, Digital Radio Mondiale has raised its hand requesting just that, as RW recently reported. And there have been occasional other inquiries from U.S. broadcasters about whether DRM should be considered.

Fowler — who chaired the FCC in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan and is credited with leading repeal of the Fairness Doctrine — wrote to Radio World last week in response to that filing by DRM. Fowler has a history of activity in digital radio technology; he is former managing member of startup company DigitalPower Radio, working at the time with principal scientist Brana Vojcic. DPR had counted Beasley Broadcast as an investor and has its own history with HD Radio.

Fowler wrote this week:

“Putting aside the merits of a flash-cut switch to digital, it can’t be a bad development in public policy to provide a choice of digital systems to broadcasters. Xperi obtained the digital franchise by default, given that there was no other viable player the FCC could also authorize. The result was and has been a monopoly.

“Xperi has made some major strides in improving digital radio reception,” Fowler continued. “They have stuck with it for decades. But nothing concentrates the mind of an Xperi like competition. Whether DRM can make a go of it in the marketplace will be decided by Mr. Market. For sure, it might make the folks at Xperi more customer-friendly than their early history of customer treatment.

“It might also serve to speed up getting AM viable and back in the game. May the best electrons win.”

[Related: “WLOH Would Have a Compelling Reason to Promote Its Signal Again”]

Fowler has commented before about other AM regulations, including a 2017 opinion piece in RW about Class A protections; read that here.

Others have expressed interest in DRM. Last year station owner Larry Tighe in New Jersey petitioned the commission to allow AM band stations to use the DRM+ standard on another part of the spectrum if they wanted.

But the FCC has shown no inclination to pick up on the idea, and its footnote declining to reconsider the selection of HD Radio as the standard was issued after Tighe’s petition was filed.

Industry observers have told Radio World that it seems very unlikely the FCC would countenance a switch at this juncture.

The above article is part of RW’s ongoing coverage of debate over the use of all-digital on the AM band. You can watch a free webcast about this topic in February; register here.

The post Fowler: Let “Mr. Market” Decide Best AM Digital System appeared first on Radio World.

Catching and prosecuting illegal radio operators may become easier now that the PIRATE Act is law.

Having finally passed both houses of Congress, the bill was forwarded to President Trump in mid-January; he signed it Friday, thereby giving the Federal Communications Commission broader authority to deter and fight pirate operations.

Broadcasters have long wanted the federal government to take more muscular action against such operators, and FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly has been an ardent supporter of stronger enforcement in recent years.

Reps. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) reintroduced the bill early in 2019 after it failed to be voted on in a previous legislative session.

The teeth of the PIRATE Act is in the details. The act gives the commission the authority to levy fines of up to $100,000 per violation and $2 million in total. The act also streamlines the enforcement process; requires the FCC to conduct mandatory pirate radio enforcement sweeps in cities with the highest concentration of pirate radio use; and seeks to ensure more coordination among federal, state and local law enforcement.

[Background: “O’Rielly Tells MBA ‘We Are Playing a Long Game’ Against Pirates]

Other provisions include creation of a yearly report by the FCC summarizing the implementation of the legislation and related enforcement activities; and giving the FCC the authority to skip the step known as a Notice of Unlicensed Operation and go straight to issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability.

The legislation also will lead to creation of a publicly accessible online database that lists all U.S. stations as well as all entities that have received notice that they are operating a broadcast radio station without authority.

“[This act] has been an NAB legislative priority for many years,” said Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of communications for the National Association of Broadcasters, when news broke about the signing of the act into law. “Pirate operators interfere with licensed, legal radio stations. On a number of occasions, the FCC has found that pirate radio operators interfered with communications between airline pilots and air traffic controllers, creating a public safety hazard.”

Details are still forthcoming on when various aspects of the law will be implemented.

[From March 2019: “Justice Department Steps in to Stop Alleged Pirate Operation”]

In late 2019, Commissioner O’Rielly told a state broadcast association audience that the PIRATE Acts fines are meant not only to punish offenders, but to make sure these cases get on the radar of the Department of Justice. He also said the pending list of licensed radio operators could be used by citizens and advertisers to distinguish between legitimate stations and savvy pirates.

The post It’s Official: PIRATE Act Signed Into Law 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.

You say you want to run a radio station? Do you think you know what it takes to make incredible programming and community service? Your chance to prove it may be here.

This week, the Federal Communications Commission released its tutorial for a forthcoming auction for new full- and low-power FM channels, which will start in April. It represents an exciting moment for community media, a rare window for new full-and low-power community radio to flower in new places around the United States.

Community Broadcaster: Community Radio Relevant as Ever

In December, the FCC issued a memorandum outlining the bidding process for the upcoming auction, as well as the deadlines for pre-auction filings needed, should you wish to participate in the auction. There are a number of records you will need to have in place, and systems you must be entered into to join in.

The auction makes 130 FM channels available. You can see the full list of cities where signals will be auctioned, and auction starting prices, here.

For some of you, landing your very own radio station sounds like a dream come true. I’ve personally lost count of the number of community radio folks I have met over the years who think, if only they had a license, they could run a station better than others could. It is never clear how many people are actually committed to acquiring a community radio station, however.

Here are a few issues to consider, if you’re serious about the auction and wish to make a play for one of the available signals.

As you might guess, running a station in a community will require you to be in that community of broadcast. This means you cannot just scoop up a station in a small town in Alaska for $750 and just run it from the comfort of your contiguous 48 states or Hawaii home. You guessed it. If you win an auction, you will need to pack your bags and get ready for the adventure of a lifetime.

In addition, running a radio station is not an inexpensive enterprise. There is equipment, a big list of tools and studio space you will need to pay for. Then, there are myriad licensing and insurance requirements your new station will have to cover on a monthly or annual basis. These are the costs of doing business.

Outgoing folks will love the fundraising part, because it entails talking to people and persuading them to donate to get the station going. However, in very small communities, the number of people available to financially support a station may not be equivalent to your annual operating budget. Clever and innovative development programs beyond individual giving will thus be the order of the day.

If you are open to a new city and have the resources to make a run this auction, times like this do not come around often. Few media experiences are as rewarding as launching a community radio station. Empowering local residents to be part of our media and democracy can be the signature of a career and a life. Best of luck, ambitious community media friends. All of community radio is rooting for you.

 

The post Community Broadcaster: Plant a Seed appeared first on Radio World.

About one quarter of the U.S. population — 60 million adults 18 and older — now own a smart speaker. That’s according to the winter 2019 edition of The Smart Audio Report from NPR and Edison Research, released this month.

Consumers also appear to be doubling down on the technology, quite literally: as of December 2019, there are more than 157 million smart speakers in the U.S., representing a 135% increase from last year’s accounting and more than double the number found just two years prior. U.S. households now average more than two of these devices. 

As the devices proliferate, smart speakers are more entrenched in daily life. Smart speaker owners 13 years old and up now say they choose smart speakers for a lot of their listening. Mobile devices remain the most popular (31%), followed by traditional radio receivers (19%), with smart speakers closely on their heels (17%). Smart speaker owners also tend to be power users, deploying it multiple times daily. 

Voice commands are also becoming a common activity. More than half of U.S. adults have told their devices to do something (how many have succeeded may be another matter), and 24% say they use voice commands on a daily basis.  

CONTENT SOURCES AND CHOICES

And when consumers choose smart speakers for their audio, streaming audio dominates nearly half of listening time. It’s worth noting that Amazon accounts for 15% of the audio sourcing — likely due to its association with the Alexa smart device. On the other hand, Google’s own audio offerings don’t track with the popularity of its Google Home. 

However, AM/FM radio is also actually the most popular audio source for smart speakers at 24%. It’s chosen at more than twice the rate consumers play Pandora, Spotify or owned music. That’s also up significantly from the prior year, when AM/FM only clocked in 18% of listening on smart speakers.

Podcasts remain a minority in this space, but spoken word content generally is on the upswing for smart speaker listeners. It’s up 20% since 2014, while music listening has dropped by 5% during the same period. (It’s unclear whether the report separated podcasts played via Spotify, a popular platform for that content, or if it double-counted it.)

The post Smart Speakers Continue Home Invasion appeared first on Radio World.

The authors are production directors at Broadcasting Experts.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Broadcasting Experts is a production house. We work with financial advisors, lawyers and other professionals who are interested in sharing their knowledge over the radio. We produce their programming and guide them through the process of recording and creating their shows. Most of our clients are not professional broadcasters, so it’s up to us to help them understand the equipment and the steps to making great-sounding radio.

Our programming is “flash frozen,” as we like to say. Our clients connect with us from wherever they’re located and we record live; then we edit after the fact. We had been using Comrex BRIC-Link units for this, because they’re ubiquitous at radio stations, and many of our clients could go to those locations to do their shows. We had also developed a BRIC-Link kit that we sent out to clients; they would set it up at their location and broadcast from there. But we’re working with folks who are often on Wi-Fi, or who are in conference rooms in hotels, so it can get fairly complicated.

Then we learned about Opal. It is an IP audio gateway that enables guests to connect to the studio by simply clicking a link. It provides HD-quality audio from consumer-grade equipment, like a cellphone or a computer with a microphone. It’s effectively a phone interface that uses an Opus codec through a web browser, as opposed to a traditional phone line.

We switched to Opal for ease of use. It’s amazing that now, when we work with guys who aren’t tech-savvy, they can just plug a USB headset into their computer, go to a website and click connect. It’s much easier than teaching them how to check the gain on their mixing board, or check mix minuses, etc. It makes that side much simpler.

We usually record a dozen shows per week, and we use Opal for 10 of them. In the past, we sometimes had to patch interviews into our system over the phone, but Opal has eliminated that. That terrible phone quality is a thing we no longer have to deal with. If our client is using a good microphone and the room is set up correctly, it really can sound like you’re sitting next to them.

Opal also helps our clients feel more comfortable. Because they’re not radio professionals, if there’s a minor technical glitch or if there’s some complication that needs to be ironed out, it can fluster them, and affect the ultimate product. Now, when we actually go to record the program, they’re not thinking about the technical elements — they can just focus on recording. They’re much more secure going into the show, and they perform better as a result.

Opal has resulted in several customers referring colleagues to us. We’ve picked up several new clients who choose our production house because it’s so easy for them to connect.

For information, contact Chris Crump at Comrex in Massachusetts at 1-978-784-1776 or visit www.comrex.com.

The post User Report: Broadcasting Experts Connect to Clients With Opal appeared first on Radio World.

.

.

.

.

.

Where might 5G lead for radio? Radio World shared this week’s feature story with Michael LeClair, chief engineer of Boston’s WBUR and former tech editor of Radio World Engineering Extra, who has watched 5G’s development with interest, from a distance, and invited him to comment.

Getty Images/Alexsl

There are so many questions raised by 5G that it’s almost impossible to know where this will lead. We don’t yet have a clear direction defined for what 5G is and isn’t.

From what I’m reading, there are multiple implementations of 5G. What was initially promoted was the concept of using SHF band licensed channels (3 to 30 GHz) where they could fit them in. Those of us using licensed microwave links in broadcasting are familiar with 6, 11 or 23 GHz. These are allocated in bands of 10 to 20 MHz (you can combine adjacent bands for more bandwidth if you need it), which are like communication channel building blocks. Based on the distance you need and what can be done without interfering with other licensed users, you can build out links capable of doing 100 Mbps or greater. At the higher speeds, dynamic QAM is used to achieve very high modulation rates; but the tradeoff is the number of errors that will occur due to signal strength, weather conditions and the size of dishes.

But the promise was 1 Gbps for 5G. Bidirectional. And mobile.

The simplest way to increase the data rate is to increase the channel size. For example, to get 1 Gbps data with a very robust QPSK modulation scheme similar to what we already use in 4G, you would need channels 500 MHz wide. This one channel would utilize more spectrum than the entire radio and TV broadcast bands combined (plus the unlicensed 2.4 GHz band to boot!). It’s more than all the spectrum currently licensed for all wireless carriers combined.

The only place where this kind of spectrum is still available is in spectrum above 30 GHz, or EHF. Lots of spectrum for sale up there. There has been discussion of displacing satellite communications operating in the 4-6 GHz range with mobile data services. If they absorb those frequencies there would be four channels of 500 MHz bandwidth in every city of the U.S., enough to handle the largest cell carriers today (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T and Sprint).

But that spectrum is already largely in use. That is causing Ph.D.s and engineers to look at what can be done with transmissions at EHF (30-300 GHz). EHF attenuates in atmosphere very rapidly. The usable transmission distance might be 100 feet or so. To build cell service across one square mile would require 2,500 transmitters per square mile. Even a smaller city would require tens of thousands of transmitters, each with a dark fiber connection to some kind of central (or networked) router. Initial trials of this kind of 5G have taken place in Boston and have been found to only work on street corners at the moment. Once you move inside a building or any physical structure they fail.

Imagine how this would affect a product like the Comrex Access. I’ll stick with 4G.

ANOTHER APPROACH

There is a second approach to building 5G with lower frequency channels that are not as susceptible to attenuation in atmosphere. Cell carriers settled on channels in the 600–900 MHz range as being the optimal tradeoff between available bandwidth and data rates for 4G. To do so they have basically “taken” spectrum that was being used by UHF TV, essentially by eminent domain at the federal level. Auctions were used to determine the value of the spectrum.

At lower frequencies, by combining several more “blocks” of bandwidth together it becomes possible to get both a robust transmission system and higher data rates. For example, if I can put together enough blocks of 20 MHz (say five), I can get 800 Mbps using 256 QAM, which is somewhat robust for fixed location connections. Not quite 1 Gbps but still pretty impressive. Data compression would allow the capacity to go well over 1 Gbps but at the cost of overhead processing that may partially nullify the speed boost. This is the second form of 5G. I believe T-Mobile/Sprint is working on this method.

Again, the four major carriers, if they simply consolidate their spectrum efficiently could each acquire 100 MHz in every major city of the country (there is substantial spectrum around 1 GHz owned by various companies already).

If these services can be made reliable, I see home or small business Internet access as being much easier to build out wirelessly. Remote studios and broadcasts would no longer need to contract for wired data connections, especially in urban areas.

Remote transmitter sites would be able to use STLs based on wireless data services. Some technology would have to be added to these to protect them from congestion and interference reducing reliability.

What I don’t see with the SHF/EHF 5G is much disruption to radio beyond the cache streaming services already out there. The reception distance is too short for even someone walking down a city street.

However with lower frequency blocks, audio program providers could build a somewhat better real-time mousetrap than they currently have. With some consolidation of older services and multiple carrier entities, it might be possible to allocate enough spectrum in all the major markets that could come close to replicating the near-instant tuning of radio over distances that would be limited only by tower buildouts (highways would likely be good candidates for full service in rural areas, extending that mobile coverage in ways that radio can’t).

FUTURE OF CODECS

Any of these services at such high speeds begin to raise the question of whether super high efficiency audio codecs are really needed any longer.

Right now the most popular live streaming speed is 48 kbps mono. Millions of listeners use this on a daily basis for their “radio” feeds. The main reason is cost. As the number of streams multiplies, the amount of data at current rates becomes very expensive to support. It’s also robust enough for mobile services in real time. Cache services like Spotify or YouTube use cached file transfers instead of streaming to cut their costs (it allows demand to be managed more effectively than building streams in real time and the use of TCP to minimize errors). If the cost of data goes down due to the greater capacity of 5G, it might support standard higher streaming rates like 128 kbps and make the need for cache services less important (hard to believe YouTube won’t still need to cache files given the much higher data rate required for video).

To be competitive, businesses and IS’s will likely move their benchmark best delivery rates up to 10 Gbps or 100 Gbps over optical paths. Can copper lines still be competitive at those data rates? Office wiring systems are now deploying with 10 Gbps capacities over copper and 100 Gbps backbones over optical are a reality already.

MARKETING ADVANTAGE?

In brief: The limitations I’ve described, which have been confirmed in initial Boston testing, are so significant it’s hard to see how the wireless carriers could be marketing this service unless they’ve got some serious cards up their sleeves.

There may exist some new concepts for this technology that haven’t been shared yet, such as a localized burst mode with the highest speeds that trims down to “enhanced 4G” for everyone else. Unfortunately, most of the blue-sky thinking has been based on the deployment of nothing less than perfection. It’s why I have my doubts about how it will all work out.

In fairness, “I don’t know what I don’t know.” It’s possible there are other ideas floating around that work better than trying to build something in the 20 GHz range of experimental spectrum.

At the same time, I remember the days when live streaming was supposed to completely displace radio “any day now” (this was in the late 1990s). Those who proselytized this technology takeover have been proven wrong time and again.

Someone back then who bothered to calculated the approximate data resources for point-to-point streaming to replicate even one major-market radio station in the top 10 found that streaming in that era couldn’t possibly hope to displace radio broadcasting; it had only a tiny fraction of the capacity necessary to replace one broadcast station. Similarly, bitcoin, if mined at the rate it is today, would in 2025 or so consume 120% of all the electricity on the planet in server farms; it can’t possibly work as a transactional technology for a global financial system. These are ridiculous claims that either entirely ignore, or intentionally distort, the laws of physics for a marketing advantage.

Count me skeptical on 5G for similar reasons.

What do you think about 5G and its possible impact on radio? We invite your opinion. Email radioworld@futurenet.com with “Letter to the Editor” in the subject line.

The post 5G? So Many Questions, But Count Me Skeptical appeared first on Radio World.

STRONSAY, Orkney Islands, Scotland — BBC Research & Development extensively tested live radio broadcasts over a purpose-designed 5G network to assess the capability of the technology to successfully reach people living in rural areas.

The landscape of Stronsay, Orkney Islands. All photos courtesy of BBC R&D.

These areas often suffer from inadequate radio coverage as well as low and unstable bandwidth on both fixed and mobile data connections.

IP FUTURE

The trial took place in Stronsay, a remote island in Orkney, Scotland, off the northern coast of mainland United Kingdom. Before the trial, islanders complained that it could take up to 10 minutes to download an email.

Andrew Murphy, BBD R&D lead engineer, during his speech at the IBC2019 session on digital radio.

“We chose Stronsay because of its very limited existing coverage overall,” said Andrew Murphy, lead engineer for BBC R&D. “There is almost no mobile phone coverage, no DAB coverage and even the FM is not strong. It was definitely a good place to run a test.”

BBC R&D worked closely with the local council and authority. The test in the far reaches of Scotland is part of the “5G RuralFirst” (www.5gruralfirst.org), a government-funded initiative deployed at multiple locations across the U.K. to experiment with new approaches to connectivity in rural areas.

“We were interested in radio,” Murphy explained. “We wanted to assess whether people living in remote areas (where there is a lack of traditional AM/FM or digital radio reception) could access the medium through 4G and 5G and were able to listen to BBC radio programming live.”

Screenshots from the radio app the BBC developed for the 5G broadcast radio trial.

Looking toward an IP future for media, BBC is aware that consumers are increasingly using smartphones to access content over mobile networks. The broadcaster is also active in EBU and 3GPP standardization committees.

“BBC needs to be able to test and understand the forthcoming technologies so that we can work on them and see how we can improve them where appropriate,” Murphy added.

BROADCAST MODE

BBC had some concerns about the capacity and coverage (BBC needs universal availability) mobile networks can effectively ensure. It questioned whether 4G and 5G technologies could potentially help broadcasters overcome these challenges.

Murphy said they decided to assess the delivery of radio through 4G and 5G broadcast technology because radio is a naturally mobile medium, and people enjoy listening to the radio on the move. At the same time, smartphones are increasingly not fitted with broadcast receivers.

Since no commercial 5G system was available, BBC decided to design and build its own base station, which Murphy’s team deployed in the center of the island at Stronsay Junior High School.

The base station (4G technology but designed to emulate 5G) was designed to give BBC engineers total control over transmission parameters, such as modulation and coding settings, and to alter them to assess performance in different situations. The trial used 2×10 MHz bandwidth in the 700 MHz band.

A crowd-sourced coverage map built on data coming from the BBC app installed on trial receivers.

The trial featured the broadcast-mode delivery of radio over 4G (eMBMS with MPEG-DASH), enriched by mobile broadband to give listeners access to live (broadcast) and catch-up (unicast) content, as well as internet access, using a mixed mode in 3GPP Rel-12, providing both broadcast and unicast.

DETAILED TELEMETRY

The broadcast mode can reduce the amount of bandwidth needed to air the involved content since in this approach the base station is only sending one transmission rather than multiple versions (one to each different user).

This means that when many users request the same live program at the same time, broadcasting it over 5G helps reduce congestion on the rest of the network.

“We incorporated 13 live radio services, including BBC Radio Orkney.” Murphy explained “We recruited 20 people to use broadcast-capable handsets featuring 4G technology but designed to emulate some features we hope to see in the forthcoming 5G standards.”

The specifically designed handsets allowed the tests to achieve greater results than currently possible with equipment commercially available today. The handsets included Rel-16, LTE-based 5G terrestrial broadcast, SIM-free reception as well as transport-only mode with AAC+ audio over RTP/UDP/IP.

Shona Croy is strategic advisor for Renewables and Connectivity at the Orkney Council.

A dedicated app, built on standard BBC app components, powered the receiving device and comprised detailed telemetry data of reception quality as people listened to the radio services.

“This enabled us to build-up an anonymized, crowd-sourced coverage map across the whole island and to assess the performance of different transmission parameters on the quality of service,” said Murphy.

ALMOST SATISFIED

The BBC R&D is working on 5G technology to provide broadcasters with better connectivity options.

The distributed availability of the monitoring probes built into the receiving devices allowed BBC engineers to run an analysis over a much longer time period and over a wider area than drive testing alone would allow.

In addition, since the data came from real-life handsets, a more accurate picture of how the technology works in practice was depicted.

Across the 16 active handsets over the first five weeks of the trial, average broadcast listening measured at just over two hours per day, which would be the equivalent of around 1.5 GB of data over a month in the conventional unicast scenario.

“This a very significant proportion of the average monthly mobile data per active connection in the U.K. of around 1.9 GB per month and would leave little allowance for other uses,” he added.

The trial demonstrated that people liked the convenience of having radio readily available on a smartphone, and almost all (9 in 10) were satisfied with trial internet service. They often used the handsets as mobile hotspots, giving them access to faster download speeds for films and music.

BETTER OPTIONS

Anecdotal evidence from teachers at the island’s junior high school — backed up by data from the devices — suggests that teenagers in Stronsay have become big fans of the music played on the BBC’s Asian Network, one of the 13 BBC stations they could access as part of the trial.

In a BBC video illustrating its 5G project, Shona Croy, strategic advisor for Renewables and Connectivity at the Orkney Council said: “We were really keen to do something that overcomes this barrier of rural areas being last to get a service, or not getting it at all. But the economic case for coming here is poor, so are there other ways we can look at delivering services?”

5G as a technology is still being developed and deployed, and it has a completely different level of maturity with respect to, for example, DAB digital radio.

“The BBC will continue working in this space together with the European Broadcasting Union to try to influence current and future standards that provide broadcasters with better options for these purposes,” Murphy concluded.

The post BBC Assesses 5G’s Broadcast Capability appeared first on Radio World.

.

FCC denies application for review of the dismissal of a petition for reconsideration of decisions relating to the grant of an application for assignment of KAXT-CD and the grant of license renewal of KAXT-CD