Aggregator

.

.

.

.

Scott Gerenser is a senior software engineer at Wheatstone Corp. and Andy Calvanese is vice president of technology.

Scott Gerenser

One term popping up more and more in the cloud space is “containerization.” If you’re-paying attention to the trends in cloud computing, you’ve probably heard about it, or at least about the most popular container platform, Docker.

Containerization is becoming a popular alternative to virtualization for running many different applications on a single machine or cloud instance. It has many of the benefits of virtualization but without some of the downsides, which makes it useful for transitioning from a fixed-location studio to a virtual operation.

[Read: “Don’t Be Afraid of AoIP”]

Whereas virtualization involves emulating an entire machine, including the hardware and operating system, containerization involves encapsulating one or more applications and supporting files (so called “userspace” in Linux lingo) into containers that can then run on top of a single common operating system (usually Linux).

BENEFITS

For example, in a virtualization scenario, you might have a server running VMWare ESXi hypervisor software, upon which are four Ubuntu Linux virtual machines for Service X, two Red Hat Linux VMs for Service Y, and a couple of Windows 10 Server VMs to handle any Windows applications you have.

Using virtualization this way still provides big benefits over maintaining multiple physical machines. Administration is easier. Spinning up a new server or changing configurations of the individual VMs is much easier than tinkering with hardware. Communication between the VMs is very fast and efficient.

The downside, as compared to containerization, is the relatively large overhead associated with virtualization. This is because each VM is running a complete OS kernel, each with their own dedicated memory and each using up a percentage of your CPU to mostly do a lot of the same things.

Containerization, by comparison, also allows the running of a number of different isolated services on one machine, but within containers rather than full virtual machines.

Conceptually, a container can be thought of as a very lightweight, resource efficient VM. One container could host WheatNet-IP audio drivers and audio playback software, while another could host the station automation system, each totally isolated yet run off the same OS kernel.

Because each container operates independently of the others, you can avoid unintended interactions between software components and eliminate a single point of failure. Each application or container communicates with the others only through their defined APIs.

The container virtualization layer is extremely flexible and can scale up to meet rising demand for any of the services. Once you define what services are running in one or more containers, it’s possible to move those containerized services between on-premise machines and the public cloud. This allows you to more easily scale services locally at your regional studio or in a cloud provider such as AWS or Azure.

And unlike with virtualization, there is no extra supervisory overhead to contend for resources, and containerization platforms are even able to run on top of virtualization platforms.

This last point is critical for long-term planning, since Amazon, Microsoft and other public cloud providers are already running hypervisor software on their cloud instances. Attempting to add your own VM hypervisor on top of a cloud provider’s machine instance may work poorly, or not at all. Containers, by contrast, work well on just about all the cloud providers and instance types. Most providers even offer tools to make it easy to manage and coordinate your containers running in their cloud.

Fundamentally, containerization and virtualization are two different ways of doing the same thing. Having several containers running separate services pushed up to a cloud won’t solve issues such as communication latency over the internet, but it will offer some added security protection and flexibility, and let you allocate resources more efficiently, which is the point of the cloud, after all.

 

The post Containerization as an Alternative to Virtualization appeared first on Radio World.

Sixteen stations in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi are on notice that if they don’t file for license renewal by June 1, their licenses will expire.

The FCC released the list of stations that were supposed to have filed by early February. The list includes several LPFM stations and one translators.

[Read: FCC Deletes Call Signs of Two California FM Stations]

The stations and licensees are:
KZTD(AM), Cabot, Ark., Emanuel Carrera
KPWH(LP), Jonesboro, Ark., Powerhouse Ministries
KHEE(LP), Magee, Ark., Desha County Community Radio Inc.
KTPV(LP), Prairie Grove, Ark., Foundation for The Preservation of The Individual
KLSP(FM), Angola, La., Louisiana State Penitentiary
KVDP(FM), Dry Prong, La., Dry Prong Educational Broadcasting Foundation Inc.
KWRJ(LP), Elton, La., Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
KLIC(AM), Monroe, La., WOO2 Communications LLC
KCRJ(LP), Monroe, La., IBC Ministries Inc.
K219DB(FX), New Iberia, La., Bible Broadcasting Network Inc.
WORV(AM), Hattiesburg, Miss., Circuit Broadcasting Co.
WKRA(AM), Holly Springs, Miss., Billy R. Autry
WKRA(FM), Holly Springs, Miss., Billy R. Autry
KOUI(FM), Louisville, Miss. South Central Oklahoma Christian Broadcasting Inc.
WMOX(AM), Meridian, Miss. Magnolia State Broadcasting Inc.
WNNN(LP), Noxapater, Miss., Mt. Vernon Missionary Baptist Church

Download the notice here.

 

The post FCC Lists Stations at Risk of Losing Licenses appeared first on Radio World.

Satellite program distribution network operator Skyview Networks is highlighting ad campaign customization options inherent in its receivers as a way of approaching the varying levels of economic activity across the country.

[Read: Twins Pair Up With Skyview Networks]

According to the company these include: targeting individual messages to a particular region, market or states; target different messages in the company’s lineup of news, music and sports programs; air multiple advertisements to a specific market, state or region

A release explained, “advertisers can benefit from tailored campaigns that target customers not only in the reopened regions of the economy, but down to the individual market level.”

 

The post Skyview Networks Pushes Ad Tailored Campaigns appeared first on Radio World.

.

Public Notice Announcing Filing Dates for Comments and Reply Comments to NPRM Regarding the Rules Governing the Use by Broadcast Stations of Distributed Transmission System Technologies

.

.

.

.

The devil is in the details, so the saying goes. That adage seems apt as the federal government considers how to establish a “catalog” of relocation costs for users of C-Band spectrum, including radio and TV stations, who will have to migrate.

The National Association of Broadcasters has filed comments with the commission that give some idea of the complexity of the discussion. The commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau had asked for industry feedback on its preliminary schedule of costs associated with relocating services out of the 3.7 to 4.0 GHz band.

[Read: C-Band Repack Could Be Costly for Many Radio Stations]

It’s a detailed filing, but in general NAB is asking the bureau to take more input, revise the current estimates and not finalize anything until satellite operators submit their own ultimate plans — and also until rising costs from pandemic-related disruptions of supply chains are known.

NAB pointed to a number of places in the preliminary schedule where it thinks costs need to be adjusted or clarified. It asked for more flexibility in certain line item filings. And it asked the FCC to clarify that the catalog’s description of technology upgrades does not suggest that specific technology selections are solely at the discretion of satellite operators.

Download the NAB filing here.

An example from the filing: NAB points to a potentially large “cost error” in calculations for Integrated Receiver/Decoders. “For the downlink portion of costs associated with compression upgrades, the Catalog lists a range of $5,000 to $35,000 ‘per transponder.’ While that cost range is likely appropriate for each individual IRD, thousands of broadcast stations and cable headends across the country may receive content from a single transponder. As a result, in many cases there will be thousands of IRDs required for each transponder.” (NAB suspects the FCC’s “per transponder” description may be an error and that the intent was to address costs “per IRD.”)

Another example from the discussion of costs for earth stations: “In Table III-A-1, the Cost Catalog sets for passband filter installation costs of $300 to $1100 per earth station. At least one NAB member has already expended significant effort in estimating installation costs associated with filter installation, and has determined that actual costs will be $1350 per station. Accordingly, we urge the Bureau to revise the upper end of the range of costs for passband filter installation to at least $1350.”

The proceeding, for those who wish to dig into the comments, is “Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Preliminary Cost Category Schedule for 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Relocation Expenses,” Public Notice, GN Docket No. 18-122, DA 20-457.

 

The post NAB Says C-Band Cost Structure Should Await Satellite Transition Details appeared first on Radio World.

Radio World today announced winners of the 2020 “Best of Show Awards, Special Edition.”

Recipients are:
Angry Audio Bluetooth Audio Gadget

DEVA Broadcast DB4005 SDR-Based FM Radio Modulation Monitor

Digigram IQOYA CONNECT Codec Manager

ENCO Systems WebDAD Mobile Radio Automation

Nautel LookingGlass

Wheatstone GSX Programmable Console

A special edition of the program was created this year in the absence of a physical spring NAB Show. The program honors and helps promote outstanding new, recently introduced and pending products and services.

“Our thanks to the many companies that participated in this year’s program under such unusual circumstances,” said Paul McLane, managing director of content in Future’s B2B media technology group. “It’s clear from the nominations that despite the current health crisis, technology innovation remains strong in our industry.”

Winners are selected by panels of professional users and magazine and site editors. Companies pay a fee to participate; not all entries are chosen. Winners and nominees will be featured in a program guide to be distributed shortly to 95,000 broadcast and media readers across Future’s media brands.

 

The post Radio World Announces Winners of “Best of Show Special Edition” appeared first on Radio World.

The results of the 2019 EAS test are in.

The Federal Communications Commission released the results from the August 2019 nationwide EAS test, which demonstrated that the nation’s broadcast-based EAS distribution system largely works as designed — though the test did expose several issues within the system that require improvement.

The Aug. 7, 2019, test marked the fifth time a nationwide EAS test has been conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in coordination with the FCC. This test used only the broadcast-based distribution system and as in previous tests, the purpose was to evaluate the readiness of EAS participants to receive and then retransmit the alert to other stations.

[Read: FCC Shares EAS Test Results]

An FCC analysis of the 2019 test found much good news, starting with the fact that a significant majority of the EAS participants successfully received the national periodic test code (NPT) and then turned around and retransmitted the NPT to other EAS participants. Other good news: this time around, 20,250 participants were involved with the 2019 test, marking a participation rate of 78.6%, which is up slightly from 76.3% in 2018.

 As in previous tests, radio topped the list with 82% of stations participating, up from 78.7% in 2019. Participation was lower overall for both TV and cable in 2019 with 68.2% of television broadcasters participating and 73.4% of cable systems, IPTV and wireline video system participating in the test.

Low-power broadcasters had some of the lowest levels of participation with 55.9% for LPFM and 48.1% for LPTV. Yet there is some good news to be found. Low-power filings increased by 292 in 2019 when compared with 2018.

This time around, participants were again expected to submit information via three separate forms. Form One asked EAS participants to report basic identifying information including ownership information and the name of their EAS equipment; Form Two asked participants to report day of test results, including whether they had successfully received and retransmitted the test alert; and Form Three asked participants to report more detailed test results, such as the first source from which the alert was received.

The test also asked participants to report the languages in which they received and retransmitted the test alert. This year, the test alert message was sent only in English; in previous years, the message was sent in both English and Spanish.

As anticipated, the test also shed light on challenges that impeded the ability of some EAS participants to receive and/or retransmit the NPT.

Test participants reported problems with equipment configuration, audio quality, alerting source problems and clock errors, among other issues. The retransmission issue with the highest number of reported problems: the transmission was not received at all. More than 2,530 test participants reported this problem. Other issues included audio issues, power issues, signal issues, internet issues and even lightning — 20 participants reported issues caused by bolts of electricity from above.

This year, several State Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs) reported to the FCC that certain areas of their state did not receive the alert. SECCs from Florida, Michigan and Georgia reported delivery problems to the Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations. The FCC also received reports of smaller-scale monitoring source issues in parts of Wisconsin, North Dakota, Colorado, North Carolina and New Hampshire.

FEMA also confirmed that several PEPs did not transmit the alert due to varying degrees of equipment failures. Overall, FEMA reported that of 77 PEP stations, 12 (approximately 16%) experienced technical issues receiving and retransmitting the alert on the test day.

When it comes to next steps, both the FCC and FEMA said they plan to take measures to continue to improve the EAS system. The FCC plans to conduct targeted outreach to look into operational complications as well as improve participation in the nationwide test. FEMA notes that it is actively taking measures to improve PEP performance going forward.

“The 2019 nationwide EAS test was successful in that it demonstrated that the nationwide broadcast-based EAS distribution system would largely perform as designed, if activated without the availability of the internet,” the FCC said. “At the same time, the test exposed several deficiencies within the system that require improvement. [C]ontinued and regular testing of the system will help ensure that any needed improvements and adjustments are made to address those circumstances that can be identified in advance, and that EAS equipment is in reliable working order.”

 

The post FCC Releases Results of 2019 EAS Test appeared first on Radio World.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications’ Radio Hall of Fame Nominating Committee announced it is now accepting suggestions for 2020 nominees through May 29, 2020.

Inductees will be honored at the annual Radio Hall of Fame ceremony in Chicago, currently scheduled for October 2020.

Radio Hall of Fame nominations can be made in the following categories:

• Longstanding Local/Regional (20 years or more)
• Active Local/Regional (10 years or more)
• Networks/Syndication (10 years or more)
• Longstanding Network/Syndication (20 years or more)
• Music Format On-Air Personality and/or Spoken Word On-Air Personality

To make a nomination, visit www.radiohalloffame.com/nominate.

Radio Hall of Fame awards

The Radio Hall of Fame’s Nominating Committee selects a group of radio personalities and programs for nomination each year. The Committee accepts and takes into consideration the suggestions from members of the radio industry and from listeners nationwide.

Nominees in four of the six categories are then voted upon by members of the radio industry for induction into the Radio Hall of Fame. Nominees in two categories receive both voting consideration by the listening public and the Nominating Committee.

This fall also marks the 100th anniversary of the radio industry, included as be part of this year’s celebration, with KDKA in Pittsburgh often cited as the first commercial radio station in the United States for broadcasting the 1920 presidential election returns.

“Being the 100th anniversary of radio makes this year’s celebration even more special,” said Radio Hall of Fame chairman Kraig T. Kitchin in a press release.

The post Radio Hall of Fame Now Accepting Nominations appeared first on Radio World.

STOCKHOLM — Sweden was one of the last countries in Europe to distribute legal commercial radio broadcasting licenses.

Only in 1993 did the government start issuing two local commercial licenses for each broadcasting area. The exception was major cities where it issued more, still local, licenses. Before that, listeners could tune to only four public service channels.

DIGITAL PIONEERS

Christer Modig is the CEO of commercial media and entertainment company NENT Group.

At the same time, Sweden (and Norway) were the first two countries to launch regular DAB broadcasts. Public service broadcaster Sveriges Radio turned on DAB in 1995. Unfortunately, the first generation of the DAB standard never really took off.

In 2002 SR announced it needed additional public funding to continue DAB transmissions. The government denied SR’s request, and SR shut DAB down the same year.

In 2010, when the second generation of the standard DAB+ was available, the Swedish government announced that spectrum would be allocated to commercial DAB+ networks (two multiplexes), and issued an enquiry to gather contributions and positions on how to best plan and manage the FM to digital transition.

It was a matter of “how and when,” not “if.” Thus the future road for the Swedish airwaves seemed to be paved with digital bricks. In 2014 the government presented the results of this enquiry and issued the first DAB+ commercial licenses.

“However, in 2015, following a change in government and before we even had a chance to launch, the government decided not to proceed with the proposed plan,” explained Christer Modig, CEO of commercial media and entertainment company NENT Group. “Since then, DAB has been on hold, nothing has happened for years.”

SUSTAINABLE AUDIENCE

Even if Swedish commercial broadcasters had DAB+ licenses, no one launched a digital station. According to Modig, there were two main reasons for this.

Christer Modig is the CEO of commercial media and entertainment company NENT Group.

First, he said, there was not a clear government decision, and without that the public service broadcaster wouldn’t move toward DAB+. “And without the audience the public service is sitting on [about 70% of listening in Sweden], everyone thought it was impossible to build a sustainable audience for DAB+,” he said.

Secondly, all the commercial FM licenses were expiring in 2018. So at that time commercial broadcasters didn’t know whether they would have had an FM station after that time to support the digital transition. “It [digital] just stopped.” Modig concluded.

In 2018 the Swedish government reissued eight-year commercial FM licenses, and for the first time, it issued three national commercial licenses in addition to a number of local licenses which, if properly assembled, allowed the creation of a fourth national commercial FM channel.

Almost at the same time, the Swedish military made a claim for the DAB+ spectrum, since, according to Swedish law, it was entitled to it because the broadcasters were not using it.

“No other commercial radio groups in Sweden showed interest in launching DAB, neither did Sveriges Radio, so we decided we would have to do it alone,” Modig explained.

THE FIRST

In July 2018 NENT Group launched 13 DAB+ channels: four simulcasts of FM stations, seven brand new channels and two partner channels. Initial coverage reaches Stockholm, Gävle and Uppsala.

A comparison between NENT Group’s streaming and DAB+ audience figures.

In total, around 4.4 million people (out of a population of 10 million) can today tune to NENT’s DAB channels. This accounts for 43% of the population. At the end of 2019 the broadcaster widened its coverage to reach Malmö and Gothenburg.

NENT said they did this at first to protect the DAB spectrum from getting allocated to the Swedish military. “If we didn’t use it, nothing could stop the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority from giving the frequency space away,” Modig said. “But we also wanted to reignite the political process on DAB+ and push for a decision.”

The idea has also driven other Swedish broadcasters to join them and proceed with the digitization plan and to secure the DAB+ licenses for renewal in 2022. Modig believes that, if NENT remains the only broadcaster to use the DAB+ licenses, authorities probably won’t reissue them.

Despite the lack of any public endorsement for DAB+ broadcasts in the country, based on listening figures, it appears as if Swedish people own far more DAB radio receivers than one would imagine. Although there are no official statistics about how many DAB radio receivers have been sold in Sweden.

GROWING FIGURES

DAB+-capable radios have been sold in “hi-fi” stores since early 2000. After 2010, the bigger electronic chains began carrying DAB+ devices, and today, most new cars come with a DAB receiver as standard or as part of a “sound pack” option.

Swedish radio broadcasters rely on a Portable People Meter system to study listening figures. NENT encoded its DAB+ channels for PPM measurements, and surprisingly they realized that around 250,000 people listen to their DAB+ channels. Coverage rollout reached only 2.4 million potential listeners at the time of the measurement.

Looking at the comparison between NENT’s online and DAB listening figures, online NENT reaches about 600,000 people every day, about 14–15% of the entire Swedish population.

“We reached 250,000 listeners on an overall potential base of 2.4 million people covered, without any marketing or promotions,” Modig explained. “When we cover Malmö and Gothenburg we will add another 2 million potential listeners. I strongly believe our DAB numbers will pass our online listening figures before the end of 2020.”

GOOD RESULTS

NENT representatives visited some shops and commercial centers and they found that nearly nine out of 10 radio receivers sold are DAB+-capable. Together with the potential listening base coming from DAB+ in-car receivers, this could explain the surprising listening figures NENT’s DAB+ service has experienced.

NENT’s effort has brought some remarkable results. In November 2019, Swedish Radio submitted an application to the Ministry of Culture for a national DAB+ permit for the period of 2020–2025. With its current permit, the public broadcaster is authorized to broadcast digital radio in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and Norrbotten. As part of its new application, Swedish Radio has requested a nationwide permit for 10 channels.

Then in February 2020, Bauer Media announced it would start DAB+ services in Sweden in the summer of 2020. It plans to launch multiplexes in the cities of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. The network plans to cover over 40% of the population with 10 DAB+ digital radio stations.

“Throughout Europe, listening to digital radio is growing via DAB +,” said Teemu Korhonen, distribution manager at Bauer Media in a press release.

“It will be great fun for listeners in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö who will get several new radio channels to listen to. DAB + is the natural step for future-proofing and developing radio for its listeners.”

The post NENT Group Drives DAB’s Future in Sweden appeared first on Radio World.

.

.