Industry News

Supporters of a proposal to create a new class of FM in the United States say they will push ahead despite news reports this week that indicate FCC Chairman Ajit Pai doesn’t have the majority of support among FCC commissioners needed to launch a rulemaking process to advance the plan.

Chairman Pai, who in the past has advocated for the new class of service, made the disclosure during testimony Wednesday before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, according to those familiar with the latest development.

The C4 proposal would allow Class A stations to upgrade their signal strength. Experts familiar with the proposal say existing Class A stations would double their power level from 6 kW to 12 kW if C4 is created, but the NAB and others worry that the move would create further interference challenges in the FM band.

[Read: Commentary: Buffer Compromise Would Boost FM Class C4]

The most recent development doesn’t surprise Matthew Wesolowski, CEO of SSR Communications Inc. He is licensee of WYAB(FM) in Flora, Miss., and was co-petitioner of the FM Class C4 petition for rulemaking (RM-11727) in 2014.

The FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry in 2018 (MB 18-184) to further examine the proposal, but comments collected at the time reflected trepidation by some broadcasters and industry experts over the potential for increased interference in the FM band, especially considering the proliferation of FM translators in this country. FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly is on the record as not supporting the C4 FM proposal.

Wesolowski says his C4 FM proposal has faced hurdles in Washington since the beginning.

“In February, 2018, when Chairman Pai announced that a FM Class C4 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be forthcoming, I polled the media advisors of each of the commissioners to see where they stood. At the time, there were at least three votes in the affirmative to move forward on the NPRM, including from the chairman’s office itself,” Wesolowski says. “The Chairman did have a member of his own party coming out against the idea, so it is understandable that he did not want to rush something along without general agreement from his side of the aisle.

Since then Wesolowski says he and other C4 FM advocates have presented Pai and the commissioners with several alternatives and creative workarounds in an effort to win consensus, he said. “We believe that we have several acceptable proposals before the commission right now.”

One of those creative solutions might be waiver-based applications, Wesolowski says. Since 2018 three Class A FM stations have submitted waiver-based applications that would result in the same type of power upgrade sought by supporters of the C4 proceeding. One of the applications failed to gain FCC approval while the other two are still pending, he said.

However, Al Shuldiner, chief of the FCC’s Audio Division, told Radio World earlier this year that he does not view waivers “as a workable solution for something as significant as a new class of service.” He said at the time the FCC would continue to study the issue.

Wesolowski says the interference concerns voiced by the NAB and some of the major broadcast groups, specifically in regards to FM translators, are unfounded.

“Several large groups, relying on intuition instead of hard data, have posited that the FM Class C4 proposal would cause devastating effects to secondary services. The studies do not support that conclusion,” he said. “The FCC’s recent FM translator interference mitigation efforts and reporting standards have further diminished any potential for problems.”

In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, Wesolowski says many Class A broadcasters, hampered by their weak signals, are struggling in the current economic climate. “There are many small broadcasters who are barely hanging on these days and need the commission to approve the FM Class C4 proposal.”

The post C4 FM Proposal Stalls at FCC appeared first on Radio World.

I would like to thank Frank Karkota for the excellent article “No to Digital AM” and I have to agree with him 100%. AM radio works, it always works; neither rain nor sleet nor gloom of night makes it fail (with the exception of the daytimers).

I have a real hatred for digital RF. I am one of those people who live in a rural area, where we still use outside antennas for television. Back in the good old NTSC days we could watch all of the channels we could receive, some maybe a little snowy, but we could watch them all. Now with this digital stuff, only on the second Tuesday of the odd months when the moon is in its third quarter can we watch half as many stations because the audio and or video are constantly breaking up.

Now, digital FM. I put together a Class C HD station a few years ago. I can hear the very clean analog signal on a fair automobile radio in stereo up to about 50 miles from the transmitter, while the HD signal is gone in 15.

I am a volunteer fireman, have been for 50 years. Our county switched from analog to digital two-way. Well, let me say, if I go into a burning building, I won’t take a digital HT; they either work or they don’t, and in a hot fire scene, they don’t. The old analog HTs maybe get a little noisy; but if I am trapped inside, the analog radio will get me out.

Now that I have expounded on my distaste of digital RF, let’s go into AM. Frank hits the nail on the head: You can receive AM radio on anything. How many people remember the razor blade radio, it’s a crystal set but used a piece of graphite and a razor blade edge for a detector.

AM is simple, digital is overly complicated. The way things are going in this world, it might not be long before we are all hiding in foxholes trying to build an AM receiver.

Frank also mentions quality. I personally couldn’t care less if the radio station has a response from DC to light at .00000001% harmonic distortion and -125 dB S/N; if the programming sucks, I won’t listen, case closed. I would much prefer any AM  station that is programmed with what I want to hear, and don’t care if the response limit is 3 kHz with 10% distortion in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Radio listening is down not because it needs to be digital, it’s down because much of the programming is just plain bad. Everything voice tracked, no local personalities,very limited music rotation, dollar a holler 40 minute stop sets, it’s bad.

I gave up on most FM years ago although there still are a few good small-owner FMs around here in Iowa. The AMs for the most part dial up stuff on the old XDS receiver and walk away. So what’s the difference; make AM all digital and the programming will still stink. There have been some improvements in AM programming because of the FM translators, but the AMs just sound like automated FMs with nobody home.

I have to agree 100% with Frank, let’s keep at least one form of communications reliable: good old tried-and-true analog AM. With the newer receivers it sounds good and works. Maybe at night with the skywave it fades in and out, but it will never go to complete nothing, as when a digital data stream gets  the slightest glitch. It’s another case where “we built something now let’s force it down their throats to create a market.”

What’s wrong with Class B modulators and Class C RF amps anyway?

[Related: “Don’t Shrug Off Benefits of AM in Digital”]

The post Letter: AM Is Simple, Digital Is Overly Complicated appeared first on Radio World.

Here’s news of interest to the alerting community, including those working in broadcasting.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency now makes available an archive of Common Alerting Protocol, or CAP, messages sent by alerting authorities through the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) since mid-2012.

Check it out here. (Note that traditional “EAS only” alerts are not part of this.)

“FEMA leadership prioritizes hosting and publishing the datasets, which allows internal and external partners to understand IPAWS data, conduct analysis and to inform decisions to improve alert and warning,” FEMA stated in an announcement.

“Several stakeholders, including researchers, media, the public and those who have submitted FOIA requests, are now being directed to OpenFEMA for information.”

One of the people interested in this development is Ed Czarnecki, senior director of strategy and government affairs for technology manufacturer Digital Alerting Systems.

“This new IPAWS web archive of alerts should provide a very handy reference source of historical CAP alert data for a variety of users, including academics, policy researchers, the press and others,” he told Radio World.

“The IPAWS archive isn’t a real-time resource, and includes a 24-hour delay in archiving messages,” he noted. That delay is to reduce the risk of being confused with an active alert received from the live IPAWS feed.

“So it isn’t something for monitoring or compliance purposes. The new IPAWS archive will only show what CAP alert have been sent into the IPAWS system. It will not reflect which CAP messages have actually been received or processed by broadcasters. The archive will also only show the CAP messages that have been entered into IPAWS, and not any conventional EAS-only messages.”

He noted that for monitoring, aggregating and auditing alert messages at broadcast stations, companies like his own provide tools that aggregate real-time EAS and CAP alert data.

As described more specifically on the OpenFEMA site: “This data set contains recent, historic and archived IPAWS Common Alerting Protocol v1.2 messages from June 2012 to the present including date, time, event code … city, county, joint agency, police, law enforcement, Collaborative Operating Group (COG), state(s), locality, territory or tribe. It can be used to capture and analyze historic and archived messages.”

This is raw, unedited data from the IPAWS Alert Aggregator created by over 1,450 alert originators across the country.

Questions about the program can be emailed to OpenFEMA@fema.dhs.gov.

[Related: “FEMA Says No National Alert Test This Year”]

The post FEMA Makes Archive of IPAWS Alerts Available appeared first on Radio World.

The sale of the legacy WMAL(AM) tower site near Washington has been completed by Cumulus Media.

The company said this week that it has finally closed on the sale of the 75-acre piece of land in heavily populated Bethesda, Md.

The buyer is Toll Brothers, which plans a housing development.

[Related: “WMAL Tower Site Demolition Begins,” 2016]

President/CEO Mary Berner issued a statement: “Given the difficult operating environment, our ability to continue to strengthen our balance sheet with the proceeds of this deal is particularly meaningful, and we greatly appreciate the efforts of Toll Brothers in working with us to bring this five-year effort to completion.”

The sale price was $74.1 million. “Net proceeds from the sale are required to be used to pay down debt, unless otherwise reinvested in the Company’s business over the next 12 months,” it stated.

The site had been active since WMAL put a transmitter into service there in 1941. Cumulus turned off service from the site in 2018. The call sign of its station on 630 kHz is now WSBN.

[Read a related technical story, “Diplex Two Four-Tower DA Stations 60 kHz Apart? No Way!”]

Watch a drone video of the site below.

The post Cumulus Completes Handoff of Old WMAL Tower Site appeared first on Radio World.

“Unfortunate and substantively wrong.”

That’s the reply from a group of broadcast owners to the criticisms they received this week from GeoBroadcast Solutions.

This is a brewing disagreement about separate proposals which nevertheless are related, given that they both seek to envision new and potentially dramatic changes to how FM licensees in the United States are allowed to use the spectrum.

To review the background: Technology company GeoBroadcast Solutions wants the Federal Communications Commission to allow FM stations to air unique content on synchronized FM boosters, to create very localized “geo-targeting” ability, an idea it has been working on for most of the past decade.

A group of two dozen owners collectively called Broadcasters for Limited Program Origination recently told the FCC that if it were to allow that idea, the commission should also allow translators to originate content, potentially an even bigger change in the FM landscape. (Here’s a link to that proposal.)

Boosters and translators were created to help deliver a primary station’s content (on the same or different frequencies, respectively). They are prevented from originating their own content. But the number of translators has skyrocketed in this century due to several factors, most recently the FCC decision to grant AM stations FM translators of their own.

GBS visibly has been working to garner industry support for its idea and would like the FCC to take the next regulatory steps. So one can imagine the reactions in its offices when a group of broadcasters came forth with a call to broaden the discussion to translators. As we reported, the company this week “took issue” with how the broadcast group had connected their proposal to its idea. [Read “GBS Emphasizes That Translator Proposal Is Separate From Its Own.”]

Now the owners have fired back through a statement from their attorney John Garziglia of Womble Bond Dickinson. They say they are just seeking the same opportunity for limited program origination for translators as GBS is asking for boosters.

“GeoBroadcast Solutions’ claim that geo-targeted programming emanating from an FM translator is ‘fundamentally different’ is only true in the sense that GeoBroadcast Solutions will be unable to profit from the proposed FM translator service to the public,” it stated.

“FM translators and FM boosters are both secondary FM facilities carrying the programming of a primary radio station. The only substantive technical distinction between the two is that an FM booster is on-frequency and has a significant potential to cause interference to its primary station’s radio listeners, while an FM translator has no potential of causing such interference.”

The broadcast group said it is not critical of the GBS concept and that indeed it makes “eminent sense for secondary facilities that re-broadcast the programming of a primary station such as FM translators and FM boosters to have the flexibility to be able to broadcast geo-targeted programming that a broadcaster determines will best serve its listening audience, including localized emergency alerts, news, advertising, city council meetings and high school sports games.”

But, they said, this shouldn’t be limited to boosters. In fact, they said, “Multiple FM translators serving different portions of a station’s coverage area could now, but for the FCC’s program origination restrictions, geo-target different areas, since many radio receivers with RBDS will switch frequencies between geo-targeting FM translators carrying the same primary station.”

Touching on an issue of industry concerns about the GBS proposal, the broadcasters said that if translators were to be allowed to work in a geo-targeting capacity, they would not be subject to destructive interference to the primary station’s radio audiences, “unlike FM boosters in which interference may be reduced but never entirely eliminated.”

The group further criticized GBS for “troublesome chutzpa” in comparing its technology work to the innovations of ATSC 3.0. The booster proposal, they said, “is hardly a ‘technological advancement.’” GBS declined further comment.

We’ll see where this goes next. The FCC is taking comments about RM No. 11858 via its comment system by July 23. You can read our coverage of recent comments about the booster proposals here.

The post FM Translator, Booster Advocates Disagree in Origination Dispute appeared first on Radio World.

GeoBroadcast Solutions has a gripe today.

GBS is the company that wants the Federal Communications Commission to approve a special synchronized use of FM boosters to allow stations to offer geo-targeted content.

But as we’ve reported, a separate alliance of two dozen radio groups has said that if the commission approves of that idea, it also should let FM translators offer original content.

[Read: Should Translators Originate Content? FCC Is Taking Comments]

Now GBS wants to make clear that the two proposals are entirely separate.

“GeoBroadcast Solutions takes issue with the efforts by Broadcasters for Limited Program Origination to connect its own request with the FCC by attempting to join the petition we filed on March 13 for a simple rule change,” the company stated in an email.

“Our filing relates solely to FM boosters, and proposes no changes whatsoever to the FCC’s rules regarding translators. Our proposal thus reflects technological advancements in the same way that the 2017 FCC decision that allowed television broadcasters to use the Next Generation TV standard (aka ATSC 3.0), reflecting technological advancements. Our proposed minor rule change would add just two clauses in the rules (§74.1231) and does not call for any other change.”

GBS pointed out that its idea is to allow geo-targeted programming “during a fraction of the broadcast hour.” It says its technology has undergone “multiple field and lab tests” and been in development since 2011.

“Furthermore, our proposed rule change would capitalize on the original purpose of FM boosters and its ability to use the same frequency for spectrum efficiency,” GBS continued. “Proposals to use non-fill-in translators to transmit a week’s worth of key programming would skew this proceeding in an entirely different direction. It is so fundamentally different than what we proposed that it warrants an entirely different discussion, since it proposes a fundamental rewrite of rules on certain translators and is not driven by technology innovation.”

It said it supports innovation but that “each offering must stand on its own for its merit and market potential, and not create the misrepresentation that they should be connected in some way.”

The post GBS Emphasizes That Translator Proposal Is Separate From Its Own appeared first on Radio World.

Who earned the Radio World “Best of Show” Awards? What should radio people know about the Xperi/TiVo deal? Why does WWV still matter? Explore the answers in this issue — along with much more, including two stories related to artificial intelligence: a chat with Zack Zalon of Super Hi-Fi and a commentary by Ryan Steelberg of Veritone.

Read it online here.

Prefer to do your reading offline? No problem! Simply click on the digital edition, go to the left corner and choose the download button to get a PDF version.

Newsmaker

Super Hi-Fi Queues Up Streaming Music

Who is this company that has been grabbing headlines lately in music and radio technology?

Global Radio

Radio Méga Creatively Connects With Listeners

Community station in France runs a radio studio on an electric tricycle.

Also in this issue:

• State-of-the-Art Audio on an Octal Tube Socket
• On-Air Solutions During Coronavirus Quarantine
• College Radio: After the Shock, Resistance Is Now

The post Inside the June 24 Issue of Radio World appeared first on Radio World.

After a few starts and stops, the Federal Communications Commission has approved a construction permit for a new FM translator in El Cajon, Calif. — after making clear its rules on issues like contour overlap, engineering errors and how best to calculate interference for translators that do not yet exist.

It was a back and forth battle for two licensees looking to get broadcast licenses approved. Last year Family Stations Inc. came out on top as the winning bidder for a new cross-service translator station in El Cajon, though it soon saw its application dismissed by the Media Bureau for potential contour overlap violations.

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

While Family Stations went about filing a petition to amend that translator application, licensee Positive Hope filed a modification application seeking a new transmitter site for its low-power station KVIB. But that petition too was given a hard stop by the FCC when the Media Bureau dismissed the modification application due to a failure to comply with minimum distance separation requirements.

In the meantime, Positive Hope filed an objection to Family’s translator amendment and asked the Media Bureau to step in and reconsider the earlier dismissal of its own application.

Family responded in a petition for reconsideration by arguing that its translator amendment is permissible under FCC Rules. It quoted the section of the rules that defines an application for minor change any application seeking to make a channel change to any same-band frequency “upon a showing of interference to or from any other broadcast station.”

Family pointed to interference with station KKLJ(FM) in Julian, Calif., as the basis for its translator amendment and said it has identified at least 83 individuals who are located within or very close to the area in which the 60 dBu contour of the translator overlaps the 45 dBu contour of station KKLJ. These individuals would “likely experience interference if the translator were to operate on the frequency proposed in the initial application,” the licensee said.

Not so fast, argued Positive Hope. In its informal objection and petition, the licensee contended that Family is not eligible to apply for a non-adjacent channel change under FCC rules because Family cannot demonstrate interference because “no interference can exist for a translator that cannot exist.”

Plus, Positive Hope said, if a nonadjacent channel change were allowed in this circumstance, “any translator applicant that gets dismissed for any fatal translator engineering error would simply find any nearby FM broadcaster that would appear to interfere with the translator applicant’s original proposal, then pull together a petition for reconsideration.”

Positive Hope also argued that the translator amendment was unacceptable at the time it was filed because the specified facility conflicted with co-channel station DKRSA(LP) in El Cajon, Calif.

But the FCC has very specific rules on when it can consider certain petitions. In these cases, the Media Bureau said that it will consider a petition for reconsideration only when the petitioner shows either a material error in its original order or new facts are raised that were not or existing at the time. The commission said that Positive Hope failed to meet either burden.

The commission clarified that yes, in fact, Family is eligible to seek a non-adjacent channel change for the station because the channel change rule set out in the FCC rules applies to amendments to long-form applications. Furthermore, the commission said it would favorably consider petitions for reconsideration of an initial dismissal when the applicant submits an amendment within 30 days of dismissal.

In the case of Family, the licensee made a proper showing of interference to justify a non-adjacent channel change under the FCC rules; such a showing may consist of a simple engineering statement of mitigation of interference at the requested frequency, the bureau said.

An unbuilt station, by necessity, must submit a showing of predicted rather than actual interference. In this case, the commission found a significant zone of potential interference within the contour overlap of the translator’s 25 dBu contour and KKLJ’s 45 dBu contour — that indicates a substantial possibility of interference to KKLJ listeners in this area. No such zone of potential interference would be created with another broadcast station at the proposed frequency. Therefore, the commission accepted Family’s showing that the proposed non-adjacent channel change would avoid predicted interference.

The bureau did not buy Positive Hope’s argument that Family’s translator application should have been dismissed for failing to protect DKRSA. In this case, the filing of a petition for reconsideration does not automatically stay the decision for which reconsideration is sought. Instead, a bureau action remains in full force and as a result, there is no basis for reconsidering the staff’s decision not to dismiss the translator application due to the status of the cancelled DKRSA facility.

As a result, the bureau granted the petition for reconsideration filed by Family Stations, it reinstated the new translator application and denied the objections filed by Positive Hope.

The post California FM Translator Gets Green Light appeared first on Radio World.

U.S. local radio advertising this year will total about $12.8 billion, according to a new forecast from BIA Advisory Services.

It’s not a welcome number, though it’s unlikely to surprise any radio sales managers. If it holds, it would be a drop of about 9% overall compared to last year’s $14.1 billion, whereas BIA’s original 2020 projection had anticipated slight growth for this year.

The research company said it is reducing its forecast due to the impact of the pandemic on the economy.

Broadcast ads still make up the biggest piece of radio’s revenue pie, and unfortunately that’s the segment where the pandemic is really taking its toll. The BIA estimate projects $11.4 billion for over-the-air revenue — which would be a decline in spending of more than 10% from 2019 — and $1.4 billion for digital revenue, including local ads sold by streaming companies.

The digital component is notable, holding at last year’s pace.

[Related: “This Is the Time to Make Connections”]

SVP and Chief Economist Mark Fratrik noted that radio’s digital spending number passed $1 billion only last year. “For 2020, our ad forecast shows that digital sales, including streaming, will stay steady. Then by 2021, radio online revenue will start to climb back up again. On the over-the-air side, we see a bigger COVID hit, with a steep drop in 2020 and some recovery back by 2021.”

It expects the biggest spending on radio will come from the finance/insurance, retail, auto and tech sectors. “These industries may benefit from the continuing shift in radio listening from the car to the home as at-home audio environment features give consumers multiple opportunities to consume promotions,” the company said.

It calls streaming “a major growth opportunity for broadcasters to maintain existing audiences and attract new, younger listeners,” noting the popularity of streaming and podcasting compared to before the pandemic and saying these trends are “likely to take root.”

Earlier BIA projections anticipated that 2020 would be a relatively decent year for radio and other media thanks in part to it being a big election year.

The post Broadcast Radio Ads Tank While Digital Holds Up appeared first on Radio World.

Author Joe Pags is host of “The Joe Pags Show.”

I began my broadcasting career 31 years ago, working in local radio. My career took a detour into television when I became the main news anchor at the local NBC affiliate in Saginaw, Mich. I stopped doing radio for a while and did television news anchoring for about 13 years.

But radio is my first love, and I especially love talk radio. So I found a way to get back into it — first in Albany, N.Y., then on a morning show in San Antonio, at WOAI(AM) 1200 kHz. I took a big pay cut, but I did it because I love radio.

I’ve been there for 15 years now, and in that time, I’ve been able to shape the show into something that felt right for me. We shifted to an afternoon spot and more toward talk radio, and we started syndicating. “The Joe Pags Show” (www.joepags.com) is now heard on 130 stations through Compass Media Networks.

People love our show because we don’t fit into a traditional talk show mold. I’m in this industry because I’m an entertainer, so we focus on that first and foremost. We integrate music and other segments to maintain a lighthearted tone but also bring straight news and information expected by our core listeners. We offer a morning show feel in the afternoon, one that appeals to people in demographics that aren’t typically consumers of talk radio.

About 10 years ago, I was diagnosed with cancer. I wanted to get back to work as quickly as possible, so I began building out my own studio, which is closer to my home. Since then, I’ve been doing the show primarily from my studio.

For about nine years now I connect to WOAI by using my Comrex BRIC-Link codec. So much of my career has depended on me being able to connect quickly to affiliate stations or for doing fill-in spots for other nationally syndicated hosts, and BRIC-Link has made this possible. In the last several years, I’ve only had to set foot in the WOAI facility a handful of times.

I’ve always believed it was possible to be a broadcaster, in the truest sense of the term. I’ve never been a TV guy or a radio guy or an internet guy — I’m a guy who wants to broadly cast what I do. I think that all of broadcasting can be utilized in one show. Given that belief (and my experience in television), I’ve always wanted to incorporate a visual element into our show. I want people to have the option to listen to “The Joe Pags Show” live and also as a podcast, and to make it possible for them to watch it as a live video stream. Letting people see the inner workings of the radio station while I’m doing the show is pretty cool.

Several years ago, I purchased a Comrex LiveShot to do live video broadcasts with NewsMax TV. It has worked very well for us — we experienced very little delay and found the video quality to be amazing. It was easy to set up. Granted, I am a technical person, so I more or less know what I’m doing, but I think LiveShot would be easy for someone with less experience too. There’s a video/audio input, an output, and once it’s connected, that’s it — you’re ready to go. Plus, the LiveShot Control App has made it easy for me to monitor connections from my smartphone, so I could make adjustments without fuss.

We did a show from the studio with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz as a guest, and I found it to be startlingly easy to use. We were live on the radio, and also connected with live video to NewsMax TV. I hooked up two cameras — one for me, and one for the two-shot. The broadcast went off without a hitch.

I think it’s vital that we, as radio broadcasters, don’t lock ourselves into one format, because we’ll be left behind by technology if we do. We have to be thinking about how to play to a new, younger audience — a more diverse audience than we traditionally expect to have. How do you keep them connected? Fifteen year-old kids spend much of their time on TikTok and Snapchat, which are heavily video-based. There’s constant visual stimulus, and I think we’d be remiss if we didn’t provide that also. I appreciate that Comrex technology has given me the flexibility to work from home and explore more of these avenues.

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

The post User Report: Pags Uses Comrex LiveShot to Break Barriers appeared first on Radio World.