Other wise known as The Medium is the Mess-Up

Why Digital Radio Must Be BetterDesigned Than IBOC

January 24, 2000

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWashington D.C. 20554

In the Matter of Creation of a Digital Audio Broadcasting Service

MM Docket No. 99-325

To: The Commission

Comments of thePrometheus Radio Project:

Table of Contents:

Executive Summary

Introduction

1. Lets Get Digital! Digital Radio Has Important Implications For New Entrants

2. A Can Of Worms -- The FCCs Legal Obligations

3. A Can ofExtremely Vocal Worms. ­- The Public Has Spoken On The Need For New Entrants

4. FCC Walking a Tightrope Balancing an 800 Pound Gorilla and an 800 PoundCan of Worms -- Balancing Incumbent vs. New Entrant Interests

5. GottenAny Letters From John McCain, Lately? The FCC Protects the Oligopoly ofBroadcasters, While New Entrants Clamor to Do Public Service.

6. Dance ToThe Muzak ­ The Development of Subcarriers, And Their Demon Spawn IBOC

7. IBAOC In Band, All Over the Channels

8. Competition Means Survival of theLicensed: Broadcast License Holders Are Competing Unfairly In Markets UnrelatedTo Their Franchise.

9. ibocIEM - in band on channel Inside EmissionMask!

10. Geese and Gander- What is Good For Them? Any IBOC Scheme Mustbe Compatible with Second Adjacent Channel Allocations.

11. Great-Another Meeting To Go ToŠWe Recommend An Open Committee To Decide The Fate ofDAB.

12. There is More Than One Way To Modulate A Cat- Alternatives toIncumbent Broadcaster Proposals.

A. Thars Gold In Them Thar Aether- theFate Of Eureka 147

B. Jeremy Lansmans Proposal For The Poetic Return OfFM Broadcast To Armstrongs Original 42-50 MHz band

C. Time And Space AreSometimes Warped: Other Eureka-Like Systems

D. Perhaps AM Can Be FirstAgain?

E. ibocIEM

Appendix 1. Excerpt of Jeremy LansmansLetter to Chairman Kennard

Executive Summary:

The FCC has received abundant comment from thepublic requesting opportunities for new entrants, which LPFM alone will not beable to accommodate. Current proposals for the digitization of radio before theCommission were designed by incumbent broadcasters. They create no opportunitiesfor new entrants. IBOC requires use of new spectrum, which must be auctioned bylaw. Numerous other promising models exist for the digitzation of radio, whichshould be explored before the fate of the new service is resolved. No digitalradio standard can be adopted which conflicts with second adjacent spacingswithout doing substantial harm. An open committee should work on the digitalstandard.

Introduction

The Prometheus Radio Project emerged from the movement tocreate a low power radio service. We provide assistance to communityorganizations that seek to start non-commercial neighborhood radio stations. Wealso actively participate in the rulemaking process to insure that new rulessurrounding all forms of radio incorporate significant components which benefitthe public interest. We advocate provisions which encourage localism, publicservice, opportunities for new entrants, first amendment speech and public forumconsiderations.

1. Lets Get Digital! Digital Radio Has Important Implications For NewEntrants

Though the public remains largely unaware, radio stands at acrossroads with the release of FCC NPRM 99-325. For decades, the FCC has restedits authority to regulate the airwaves on the scarcity of bandwidth. The logicand legitimacy of this system is being undermined by advances in technology whichallow us to use discrete chunks of bandwidth ever more efficiently. Where today,one analog signal occupies a given segment of bandwidth, a well designed digitalbroadcasting system can send 5 times more information in the same allocation. Depending how our new digital broadcasting system is designed, this usable datacapacity can be used to enhance the capabilities of incumbent broadcasters, tocreate opportunities for new entrants, or, most hopefully, to do both. CurrentIBOC proposals only enhance incumbents holdings.

2. A Can Of Worms -- The FCCs Legal Obligations
(We thank FCC CounselDavid Silberman for the title of this section.)

The only reason thatthe FCC has been able to legitimately abridge the free speech rights of thisnations citizenry is for the purpose of preventing chaotic interference on thepublic airwaves. Many desiring to broadcast have been shut out of the mediums ofradio and television due to the scarcity of usable bandwidth created by thepresent allocation system. The recent Dunifer vs. FCC case came dangerouslyclose to undermining the structure of our system of broadcasting. It was notclear that the FCC could pass the statutory test that its bandwidth allocationmodel was the least harmful model possible to freedom of speech. These issueswill continue to be raised in cases related to analog radio broadcasting. Considering that the fate of a great deal of newly usable bandwidth is about tobe decided, the FCC may find itself in an even more precarious position. TheCommission may have to explain to a court why all the benefits of digitizationare retained by the incumbent broadcasters and none are allocated to newentrants.

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969)

The current proposals before the FCCappear to preserve existing relations between media rich and media poor. Theyare just not fair, and while the FCC may be politically capable of implementingone of the proposed IBOC systems, the Commission would certainly violate thespirit and the letter of the laws that mandate its role as public guardian of thespectrum.

3. A Can of Extremely Vocal Worms. ­- The Public Has Spoken On The Need ForNew Entrants

The Commission should reflect upon the great public interestgenerated by its recent LPFM proceeding. It can be discerned from the LPFMrulemaking that there is strong public support for more opportunities for newentrants. However, the public will likely have less input into this digitalproceeding because of the complicated technical issues involved. Very few LPFMlicenses will be allocated in many cities where demand is the greatest. TheCommission must prioritize a digital FM or AM service that accommodates manylocal new entrants, especially in urban areas. The Commission should considerthe interest of the public in LPFM, which is in essence an interest in newbroadcast opportunities, and create those opportunities through digital radio.

4. FCC Walking a Tightrope Balancing an 800 Pound Gorilla and an 800 PoundCan of Worms -- Balancing Incumbent vs. New Entrant Interests

The designssubmitted for DAB by incumbents have reflected their aversion to competition fromnew entrants. The record breaking profits in the Radio industry guarantee theresources to maintain a privileged position in designing radios future. Unfortunately, those who wish to see new entrants and greater public service frombroadcasters have not been included from the beginning of the design process. New entrants lack lobbying, engineering and legal resources. These are necessaryto design, test, and implement an entire broadcasting system. Thus, it falls tothe FCC to actively defend the interests of the public.

5. Gotten Any Letters From John McCain, Lately? The FCC Protects theOligopoly of Broadcasters, While New Entrants Clamor to Do Public Service.

As the Commission is aware, campaign finance reform is one of the prime issuesin this years presidential election. Most of this money is typically used to payfor expensive television and radio advertising. Our political system is, inturn, corrupted by the need of candidates to raise money for their campaigns. Publicly-elected politicians are tempted and tainted by the personal agendas ofprivate donors. This serious compromise of our democratic system could bealleviated by requiring a few simple public service requirements frombroadcasters. Over the years, there have been many proposals to require freeairtime for public candidates. During elections, broadcasters could contributesegments of media time to candidates in order to educate citizens about those whoseek elected office. This would alleviate the financial pressures of campaigning.Incumbent broadcasters howl with indignation whenever this issue is raised. They favor short term profits over their commitment to public service. PrometheusRadio Project believes these stations should not be granted a governmentprotected monopoly if they are unwilling to make even the most minor concessionsto the public interest, particularly when new entrants are clamoring for theopportunity to do the kinds of public service that incumbents refuse to do.

6. Dance To The Muzak ­ The Development of Subcarriers, And Their Demon SpawnIBOC.

In the early history of the FM band, there was not great demand forFM licenses and regulators were not concerned about issues of spectrum scarcity. There were no competing uses proposed for newly usable bandwidth betweenchannels. Allowing FM broadcasters to add subcarriers seemed reasonable. Precedent evolved in which FM broadcasters viewed the space between the channelsas "theirs." Over the years, the FM band became more popular andspectrum scarcity became more of a consideration. As receivers grew moreselective and sophisticated, broadcasters felt reasonable in asking to expandtheir emissions mask and put more signal closer to the edges of their allocatedchannel.
Today there are many subsidiary services on subcarriers which occupythe FM broadcast band- a band which was awarded for free as a public trust. Some,including reading services for the blind, are important and worthy. Othersubsidiary services are strictly for-profit enterprises, such as data carriersand pager services. Until now, the Commission has not actively regulated the useof these frequencies, so long as they have met certain reasonable technicalparameters. (It is worth noting that many reading services for the blind areswitching to the use of a third TV audio channel called "Second AudioProgram" (SAP) that is available to anyone with a stereo enabled VCR or TV,more universally available than special SCA FM receivers.)
We at Prometheus Radio Project understand and appreciate the restraint that theCommission has shown in the past regarding subcarrier content. We believe,however, that this policy has outlived its usefulness. In the near future,subcarriers may become nearly as important economically as the main carrier ofthe radio station. With the implementation of more sophisticated radio services,the utilization of the lucrative SCAs may hold the keys to the future businessmodels of radio, perhaps creating interactive opportunities for listeners orother new features for radio. In all likelihood, many of these implementationswill be crass revenue generators, including services that permit a listener todirectly purchase a recording that is being broadcast. IBOC is, in fact, thedemon spawn of the vague subcarrier policy.

7. IBAOC In Band, All Over the Channels-

Contrary to what has been claimed, the current IBOC proposal does require newspectrum to be allocated to incumbent broadcasters. This proposal wouldeffectively double the bandwidth radio stations are allowed to use. Incumbentbroadcasters argue that this spectrum is unused and is already part of theirchannel. However, the FCC forbids them from generating emissions outside theircurrently allotted bandwidth. Since this use of the spectrum may preclude otherservices, including Low Power FM located on second adjacent channels, it appearsthat the industry IBOC proposal is in fact a new allocation. As required underthe Telecommunications Act of 1996, this spectrum therefore should be auctioned. We believe many potential licensees in wireless services would happily pay moneyto the public in order to use this bandwidth. Given recent technologicalinnovations, the FCC could auction those spaces between stations to data servicesand raise millions of dollars. Only non-commercial licensees may be allocated newspectrum without auction under the Act of 1996. While Prometheus Radio Projectdoes not advocate auctioning the bandwidth in question, we raise the issue todemonstrate the magnitude of subsidy to incumbents that the IBOC plan wouldcreate. The question arises -- What, if anything, will broadcast incumbentsgive in return for doubling their bandwidth?

8. Competition Means Survival of the Licensed: Broadcast License Holders AreCompeting Unfairly In Markets Unrelated To Their Franchise.

Because their license permits them to generate immense profits while using thepublic airwaves, radio broadcasters should be required to give something back inthe form of public service. A pager company might pay the US government millionsof dollars at auction to use a new frequency. Alternatively, they may pay anincumbent broadcast station to use bandwidth which the broadcaster received forfree. Public service obligations exist for those operating in the broadcast band,however subcarriers have been treated as exempt from this requirement.Ultimately, it appears IBOC is not about the digitization of audio. Rather, itis a spectrum grab on the part of incumbent broadcasters who seek to competeunfairly with other commercial wireless services, services which would otherwisepay top dollar at auctions for use of this valuable public resource. Of course,convergence of technologies is important, and the transition to digitalbroadcasting is inevitable. However, the broadcasting model that has emergedrepresents a problematic social and legal experiment. The unfair, oligopolisticfranchises that form its basis should not carry forward into the future.Broadcasters must not be allowed to compete unfairly with other wireless servicesunless they are willing to operate with special obligations to the publicinterest.

9. ibocIEM - in band on channel Inside Emission Mask!

One possibility is that if incumbent broadcasters want to implement IBOC, theyshould do so inside their existing subcarrier architecture. This would allow theFCC to implement either LPFM on second adjacent frequencies, or auction off thespaces between stations to non-broadcast services, both of which benefit thepublic. FM stations should sacrifice their analog subcarriers , if necessary, toimplement IBOC. The data that was there can be digitized, and the whole ensembleof services can be implemented without expanding the emissions mask. Thebroadcast industry could easily come up with a standard for IBOC that requires nochanges in FCC rules at all by agreeing on a single bandwidth plan that allstations use for subcarriers.

10. Geese and Gander- What is Good For Them? Any IBOC Scheme Must beCompatible with Second Adjacent Channel Allocations.

Sometimes, we at Prometheus wonder how much interference industry studieswould find if LPFM was a given and IBOC was required to fit around it. In fact,that already happened with grandfathered short space stations. As far as we havebeen able to surmise, this part of the research has not yet been done for digitalradio. IBOC will not perform adequately if it can not tolerate interference fromand prevent interference to 2nd adjacent short space stations. There are manyhundreds of these stations now, and LPFM can have only a fraction of the impactupon digital radio that these superpower stations have. The redundant signalarchitecture of digital should be able to take care of any interference toIBOC.

11. Great- Another Meeting To Go ToŠWe Recommend An Open Committee To DecideThe Fate of DAB.

Ford proposed the creation of a public-private committee with open membership,which would achieve consensus and even recommend specific transmission standardfor adoption by the Commission. We at Prometheus Radio Project do not know ifFord Motor Company had the likes of us in mind when they suggested an"open" committee to make recommendations for digital transition, but weare happy to invite ourselves if no one else will. We strongly believe thatorganizations representing potential new entrants and voices that have beendenied access to the airwaves should be invited to participate in the planningstages of the allocations. Public interest groups, new entrants and those groupstraditionally denied access to the spectrum should not be presented with a fait acompli at the end of the game, but should instead be part of thedialog from the very beginning of system design though implementation.

12. There is More Than One Way To Modulate A Cat- Alternatives to IncumbentBroadcaster Proposals.

Prometheus Radio Project supports the exploration of alternatives to theproposals of the incumbent broadcasters. Alternative spectrum allocation modelsexist. There are a thousand conceivable ways that radio can be digitized- eachcreating different winners and losers. We have not conducted exhaustive researchof these alternatives, nor have we even exhaustively researched their viabilityin relation to IBOC. We hope to accomplish more during reply comments. However,we believe they are worthy of the commissions consideration as the staff examinethe possibility of creating space for new entrants in Digital RadioBroadcasting.

A . Thars Gold In Them Thar Aether- the Fate Of Eureka 147

While wehate to be "behind the curve," Prometheus Radio Project feels compelledto point out that the failure to implement Eureka 147 in the United States willmean a significant loss for the public. Special radios will be required tolisten to IBOC broadcasts, and these radios will be of no use anywhere else inthe world. We cannot expect these consumer radios to be as cheap as thosemanufactured for a world market. Eureka also uses proven, implemented technologyand an intelligent, highly efficient use of a new spectrum allocation as opposedto the "wheels-within-wheels-within-wheels""carrier-subcarrier-sub-sub-carrier" architecture of IBOC.
Ourunderstanding is the US military is unwilling to give up the spectrum that therest of the world is using for DAB. (And how the military intends to continueto use it to navigate their missiles or aircraft without interference from popmusic stations is beyond us -- it would be quite a disaster if missiles begintaking their directions from Rage Against the Machine lyrics, or the TalkingHeads "Burning Down the House."). As noted, receivers using a standardbased on Eureka but manufactured to receive on a different set of frequencieswill be much closer to compatible with radios throughout the world and will bemuch cheaper to manufacture due to the economics of scale. Compatibility isparticularly important in an era of increasing globalization. Eureka has somedisadvantages, but we should consider its advantages when trying to find asolution for the United States.

B.Jeremy Lansmans Proposal For The Poetic Return Of FM Broadcast To ArmstrongsOriginal 42-50 MhZ band.

Included as an appendix is an excerpt from a letter written to CommissionerKennard about one possible scheme for a Eureka like service. The servicedescribed sounds agreeable to us, but we have not thoroughly researched thecurrent users of that spectrum. There are some concerns about the noisiness ofthat particular swath of spectrum, which may be attenuated by using newer, COFDMmodulation techniques. All new spectrum solutions carry the risk that incumbentswill try to get out of returning their analog allocation for as long as possible.Some other possible pieces of spectrum that could be used for such a plan mightbe 2300-2305MHz. No primary use is allocated to that band. Amateurs havesecondary use at this time, and have requested primary use that has not beengranted. Unlike many other bands, there is no Congressional requirementspecifically to auction this band. Some other pieces of spectrum that may beavailable are 139-140.5 and 141.5-143 MHz. These should be considered for alldigital radio proposals.

C. Time And Space Are Sometimes Warped: Other Eureka-Like Systems

Comments have been submitted for the Japanese ISDB-tn system. It has been suggestedthat this system may be a good candidate for the 82-88MHz plan. We are generallysupportive of the idea of using new spectrum for digital broadcasting. 82-88MHzis problematic because it may not be availiable for quite a while. We generallythink that it is better to find spectrum that is not currently in use for digitalradio. A new spectrum proposal coupled with IBOC could be very interesting, butwe do not really understand how it could work. One possible scenario that couldwork for a large part of the country (where there are no current channel 6allocations) would be the following: All current (and some new) broadcasterswould be given a tight, eureka style allocation (unencumbered by analog)allocation in 82-88. LPFM goes ahead without care for the second adjacents, sinceIBOC is not implemented. Once DAB is firmly established in 82-88 (or otheravailable spectrum), 88-108 sunsets its analog and becomes fully digital, withall kinds of possiblities for everyone. 102-108 MHz could probably even be givenback for other purposes, if sufficient new opportunities are created. Asdemonstrated in REC network comments, a large portion of the country has nochannel 6 allocations. Although not optimal, digital could start immediately. Therest of the country could phase it in as analog broadcasters phased out. Itshould be noted that many times, there is not geographical equity in theimplementation of a new service: witness LPFM, Cable, and high speed internetservices.

D. Perhaps AM Can Be First Again?

One further possibility should be noted. While the benefits of DAB are clear cutin AM, the record is more muddy on the benefits of FM. Perhaps digital IBOCshould be done first in AM on a short timetable, and FM could be implementedlater after lessons are learned from the AM experience. An interesting effect ofthis might be to restore vigor to the competitiveness of AM broadcasting, sincethe digital signal would be of comparable quality to FM.

E. ibocIEM

We note that possibilities for truly in-band-on-channel-inside-emission-maskDigital radio have been explored. We have not yet gained access to this document,but we are under the impression that it may hold some answers regarding insidecurrent emmission mask IBOC.
Proceedings of NAB Broadcast EngineeringConference, 1996 ON-CARRIER DIGITAL FM TECHNOLOGY: A NEW APPROACH FOR DIGITALAUDIO BROADCASTING AND EXTRA HIGH SPEED DATA TRANSMISSION -- David P. Maxson,WCRB 102.5 FM and Dr. David K. Murotake, Sanders [Page 21]

F. Multi Media Broadcast Service

We also note with interest the CEMA (now CEA) proposal for a multi-mediabroadcast service. We think that the possiblity of such a service is interesting,and hope that other spectrum can be found to implement such a service. Wepetition that the implementation of any such broadcasting service be accompaniedby the presence of reserved, educational bands as an integral part of theservice. We further petition that a decent number (lets say thirty) of audiochannels for new entrants be included.

Appendix 1: Excerpted from a letter to Chairman Kennard From Jeremy Lansman,Owner KYES TV Alaska

We are thinking of proposing a radio broadcast transition todigital, that might be seen as having a parallel in DTV. Core (no pun intended)concepts are:
1. Give existing AM and FM stations a digital channel (100 kHz intwo 50 kHz slices for close multipath protection).
2. Reallocate 42-50 MHzto Digital Radio. 42-50 is noisy & requires large antennas making it lessfavored for land mobile use. However it would be quite fine for high poweredbroadcast use. It was the original FM broadcast band. Features would be;
a. COFDM modulation somewhat like the IBOC proposal by Lucent.
b. Allow onchannel boosters. These work very well with COFDM.
c. Allocate each stationa geographical boundary, field strength not to exceed a limit on the boundary. Transmitters can be anywhere. No prior FCC permission needed to build except onboundary as with cellular telephone.
d. Occupied spectrum in a 50 kHzchannel would be less (40-45 kHz?) eliminating the need for adjacent channelprotection.
e. Near 80% spectrum efficiency. Present efficiency is lessthan 20%. The broadcaster can chose 96 kb/s for an extremely robust signal, orhigher data rates at the cost of coverage which could be replaced by carefulplacement of on channel boosters.
f. Very high spectrum efficiency shouldallow every AM & FM station replication coverage in the new 42-50 band.
g. 42-50MHz dual digital-analog operation would be permissive, not required.
h. After afuture deadline, analog stations must be turned off. Stations not broadcastingin 42-50 MHz must convert to digital in their present band. 42-50 broadcasterscan choose to stay, or go digital in the old analog band.
i. Present landmobile licensees of 42-50 would be required to prove they actually use theirlicense, or lose it. If used, the prospective digital broadcaster must pay torelocate the land mobile station, or may, by agreement, allow the LM station touse some of the broadcast bitstream for dispatch. Those few LM operations thatneed low band VHF due to rugged terrain, etc. might be relocated below 42 MHz.

Can this be a win win? Total number of usable channels in 42-50=80. Since D/U ratioswould be almost 1/1 at low bit rate, and no taboos would be required, everyexisting analog station should be able find a home with equal or better coveragein the new band. Many land mobile users should be happy to have facilitiesupgraded. If no one wants to pay them to leave, they could stay. We think thisidea could get support from every constituency. In most places the 42-50 bandwill not be filled by existing broadcasters. This might leave a bit of room fornew stations following the wave of applications by existing stations. After fullconversion to digital, there would be not just 8 MHz (80 channels) low VHFbroadcast spectrum, but 88-108 digital as well for a total of 28MHz (280channels). Since spectrum use would be close to 100 percent, we think a typical listenercould hear almost all 280 stations. There would be a lot of room for new VHFbroadcasters in the digital future, assuming ownership limits were not increasedfrom the present values. In a universe where one can hear over 200 stations, Ihave no problem with one broadcaster owning 8.