At least they're using a tested, proven technology.

Australia is starting it's conversion to digital radio.  The good news: it's DAB.  The better news: it's not IB(A)C.  The bad news:









...um, there isn't any, really.  They're actually doing it right.

Ah geez, here we go...

I realize this is quickly turning from "The Radio Blog" to "The RIAA Blog," but believe me when I say this will ultimately have an effect on our industry, and you need to know everything about what's going on in this legal battle as you possibly can.

The latest?  Apparently the RIAA is taking their message to the streets, and they're starting at Arizona State University .  "Carnival of Jeopardy," indeed.

Would that, in the RIAA's eyes, make ASU students the "sad clowns"?

The RIAA: Failing Left and Right

It just keeps getting better!  This time, we have a middle-aged couple who have complete evidence that they didn't illegally download or distribute copyrighted music.  Not only does the RIAA decide to go after them anyway, they A) file suit in the wrong district, B) attempt to use evidence that was proven inconclusive in previous cases, and C) have absolutely no evidence to positively back up their claim.

Then, the defendants' lawyer sends the RIAA's law firm this letter, upoen receipt of which the RIAA immediately drops the case!

A little unsure of ourselves now, are we, RIAA?

If I were any person involved in the conglomerate's side of this case, right about now I'd be thinking, "How the heck did we even manage to file this suit in the first place?!"

I'm telling you right now, if these snakes don't slither back into the slimy holes they came from, pretty soon they'll be trampled.  Or, worse yet, burned to death.  And we all know what snakes look like when they burn.  It ain't pretty.

Go, Judge Ashmanskas, Go!

The RIAA just keeps losing this case no matter how hard they try to screw this poor family over.

On the Horizon

Now here's some cool news: Kevin Martin has decided wireless broadband should be classified as an information service, and the FCC agreed.  Therefore, it now is.

What does this have to do with radio?  Well, combine this news with the story I linked to below, and you realize that, should the broadband-via-TV device work properly (or should any similar long-range wireless broadband device come into play), wireless broadband will be available everywhere, and once that's the case, Internet radio will be available everywhere.

It's all coming together...

I've heard of TV-over-Broadband, but vice-versa?

Anyone have any details on this thing?  It sounds like a great idea... if it works.

New York Times Covers IB(A)C

Just because I'm in a generous mood (and because I have nothing better to do with my free time), I'll run through this article like I did the one below. The article, written by John Quain and published in yesterday NY Times, is titled:

Local Radio Is Cutting the Static and Going Digital, Finally

As drivers pick their way down the West Side Highway of Manhattan, the noise is often more annoying than the traffic — and it's not just the honking.

It's the gunshots and screamed obscenities as well.

What's so irksome is the static from the car's sound system, a result of congestion in the radio frequency spectrum in an area packed with AM and FM stations. But that analog annoyance may fade away as radio broadcasters, carmakers and consumer electronics companies make the transition to digital radio.

Or so we're told, we still can't find any well-known brand name other than Boston Accoustics who actually makes an HD radio.

While satellite radio customers have enjoyed the clean, crisp sound of digital reception, most people tuned to local stations are listening to analog broadcasts based on technology little changed in the last half-century. But more and more broadcasters are pushing a digital format called HD Radio, which rivals satellite radio quality and promises to eliminate the static.

Bringing you the same crappy programming with a crisper, cleaner sound!

Introduced three years ago, HD Radio is the brand name for a technology developed by the iBiquity Digital Corporation of Columbia, Md. (HD is not an abbreviation for high definition, as it is used by television broadcasters).

Let's just imagine how that might have gone down had the topic come up at the end of the interview, shall we?

QUAIN: So, HD, that stands for "high definition," right?

FERRARA: No, not really.

QUAIN: Oh... okay, uh... what does it stand for, then?

FERRARA: Mmm... nothing, really.

QUAIN: Soooooo you named it "HD Radio," but "HD" doesn't really mean anything?

FERRARA: Yeah, pretty much.

QUAIN: Alright, well, it's been a pleasure talking with you, you're a real jackass.

FERRARA: Well, thank you, I-- HEY, WAIT A MIN--

CLICK.

The HD system digitizes and compresses a station's signal; the digital stream is then broadcast in the same frequency range...

(And beyond.)

used for the station's analog AM and FM transmissions. The digital broadcast is sent alongside the analog signal, so you can listen to either analog or digital versions of the same content...

No, actually, you'll be listening to both at the same time... unless what Quain was trying to say was that there are additional subchannels, in which case he could have phrased that part of the sentence this way:

The digital broadcast is sent alongside the analog signal, so you can listen to either the station's primary programming or additional, secondary programming.

See? Geez, if I can do a better job at editing The New York Times than The New Yorks Times editors can, you know something's wrong at 1 Times Square.

...and more important, there is no subscription charge.

(Yet.)

The HD signal also carries artist and title information that can be shown on the radio's display panel.

Which is what RDS is supposed to do, but given the lack of support most radio manufacturers have shown for the technology, it hasn't really taken off. (Yes, I realize it's out there in large numbers, but is it on your new Walkman? Is it on your new boombox? Is it on that new home theater receiver you just bought? I rest my case.) In any event, given the lack of support manufacturers are showing for IB(A)C, I'd say it's probably going to go the way of RDS... if not the way of AM Stereo altogether.

The sound improves over a conventional AM station by delivering a better dynamic range — the difference between quiet and loud sounds.

Strange... I'd think that with all the horns, guns and expletives outside the car, you'd want less dynamic range so you can hear more of what's coming through your radio and less "Get the **** off my ****ing car ya ****ing ****er!"

In addition, HD is better at reproducing the high notes of music...

Well, not really. HD just adds them where they previously were absent. If FM radio didn't have to roll off at 15kHz to protect the stereo pilot and AM didn't have to roll off at 10kHz to protect adjacent stations, they'd actually sound better than IB(A)C. IB(A)C isn't actually all that great when it comes to reproducing those highs. I've heard it. It ain't pretty.

HD is capable of highs up to 15 KHz, compared with the current top end for analog AM of 10 KHz, making it sound as good as a traditional FM station.

No, it really doesn't. It sounds like total garbage. The highs are highly digitized and warbly. It rivals a low-bitrate Internet stream at best.

Better yet, HD FM stations can deliver audio that is nearly as good as a CD in quality, with a frequency response of up to 20 KHz, comparable to satellite radio.

I find it interesting that they're feeding us the line "nearly as good as CD-quality" now. Three years ago they were telling us it was as good as CD-quality. But in reality, it doesn't even come close to nearly as good as CD-quality. It's more comparable with a 64k AAC+ stream... which, in actuality, it is an AAC+ stream, run at 96k nominally if there isn't a subchannel on the station. However, given that a single subchannel is nominally 32k, and also given that most IB(A)C stations are running one, if not two subchannels, the highest you're going to get out of an average primary HD stream is likely only 64k (96-32=64 for those of you who aren't mathematically inclined), and since even 128k AAC+ Internet streams just barely scratch CD-quality audio (I'd say it's just above 256k MP3 quality), I'd hardly call a 64k IB(A)C stream "nearly as good as a CD in quality."

To get this higher fidelity of HD broadcasts you don't need a new antenna. But you will need a new radio tuner that can detect and decode the digital transmissions.

For which you'll currently have to drop around $250. That's for the low-end models.

"There was the proverbial chicken-and-egg problem," said Peter Ferrara, chief executive of the HD Digital Radio Alliance, a consortium of broadcasters including ABC Radio and Clear Channel Communications. "Consumer electronics people didn't want to make radios until there was content available, and broadcasters didn't want to invest in putting out the content until radios were available."

That was never the primary problem, and Ferrara knows it. The problem always was and still remains that manufacturers don't want to spend the money on the licensing fees (which are ridiculously high, not to mention the fact that they exist to begin with... there's no licensing fee for analogue radio!). Not to mention that if they do spend the money, they'll have to pass that cost down to customers, and the average customer doesn't want to pay the one-time extra cost on each radio they buy. That's the risk that the companies who are making IB(A)C receivers are taking: how much are they going to spend until they figure out the public isn't interested in the technology? Most companies don't want to play that game.

But broadcasters decided to take the plunge at the end of 2005, according to Mr. Ferrara, by forming the alliance to promote digital radio and by committing to introduce HD Radio stations in the nation's top 100 markets. That rollout is nearly completed, with 1,204 stations broadcasting in HD Radio as of last month, reaching a potential audience of 235 million listeners.

No, right now they're reaching a potential audience of about 3. 235 million listeners do not have HD radios.

The alliance expects there to be about 2,000 stations broadcasting in the digital format by the end of the year. (A list of stations that broadcast HD is available at hdradioalliance.com.)

And in the future, those stations will be known as "dupes."

Satellite radio initially gained traction by adopting a marketing approach similar to that used by cellphone companies. XM and Sirius entice listeners with relatively inexpensive tuners, often less than $100, but then charge buyers a monthly fee of $10 or more. HD Radio took the opposite approach: tuning in was free, but early HD-compatible radios were nearly $1,000.

Now they're just less over-priced.

But prices have dropped, with tuners costing half that much or less. JVC's in-dash HD-W10 Mobile HD Radio, for example, costs $188 and includes a CD player. Wal-Mart began selling the JVC model at about 2,000 stores this month.

And it will be off the shelves in two months. You watch.

Carmakers have been much slower to adopt HD Radio. Among the major auto companies, only BMW, which had previously limited HD as an option on some premium models, will offer the HD Radio option on all of its vehicles this spring.

But if you want an affordable car with HD standard, you're SOL.

Add-on HD Radio tuners are also available. The Directed Car Connect HD Radio, for example, is $199 and connects to jacks on the back of existing in-dash head units using connectors known as RCA plugs. The model includes a display that can be mounted in or on the dash, but the company recommends having a professional install the tuner.

Visteon, the automotive electronics supplier, will also offer a similar product called the HD Jump for $249 next month. The HD Jump will include a cradle so that it can be used not only in a car, but also at home as a tabletop HD Radio.

Because we weren't innovative enough ourselves, so we just ripped the idea off'a XM.

While HD Radio does not offer a breadth of programming for different tastes comparable to XM or Sirius, it has thrown a new ingredient into the mix: multicasting. Also called HD2, multicables...

"Multicables?" I think that was supposed to read "multicasting enables," but one can never be sure. Again, editors? Where were you on that one? (By the way, here's the link to the original story so you can see that it really was written that way and that I'm not just trying to make the New York Times look bad. They're doing a pretty good job of that on their own so far.)

...individual HD stations to divide the digital stream into as many as eight separate channels within their existing frequency.

I certainly hope he means eight separate channels as in, "eight separate channels allowing for four different programming options; the primary signal and three different sub-stations. " Otherwise, I could go sit on the toilet right now and make noises that would sound better than the audio coming out of a stereo tuned to a station that broadcasts seven subchannels in addition to their primary signal. Though, for that matter, the bathroom noises would probably sound marginally better than a station broadcasting three additional subchannels as well.

For example, about 500 stations offer a second HD programming channel, enabling them to appeal to smaller audiences in niche markets. WKTU-FM in New York uses its second channel to broadcast country music. In Dallas, a Clear Channel station, KHKS-FM, offers Pride Radio for a gay audience on its second HD channel.

Which is really just a dance station, and I frankly find that rather sexist of Clear Channel to assume that A) only gay people listen to dance and B) all gay people listen to dance. I'm straight, and I listen to dance. I also have gay friends who don't listen to dance. See how that works, Clear Channel? Geez...

By the way, I can't be the only one who noticed Quain didn't specify KTU as a Clear Channel station. I doubt there's any meaning behind that fact, I just found it odd that he mentioned Kiss 106.1 as such and didn't add that KTU is as well.

Nationwide coverage and acceptance of HD Radio is probably years away.

If ever, God forbid.

One impediment is that the average cost for a station to add HD is about $100,000, according to iBiquity and the HD Alliance.

Another is the fact that it will obliterate the AM band, home to some of the most successful stations (and, in some cases, the most successful station) in most larger markets.

And although several automakers have said they would offer HD Radio as an option, none besides BMW have made any announcement.

Good! Let's keep it that way!

"It's the last medium that hasn't converted from analog to digital," said Rob Lopez, national marketing manager at Panasonic, which has offered an in-dash HD Radio unit for several years. "So I'd like to think we'd see HD Radio as a standard feature in cars in the next five years."

"Though I'm most likely wrong in that line of thought," he added.

William Scully, a BMW spokesman, pointed out that listeners didn't necessarily have to choose between satellite and HD Radio.

"It's not an either-or kind of thing," he said. "Our Logic 7 combo models come with satellite and HD radios."

So not only can you get better programming, you can get additional crappy programming as well, all for three times the price! Whatadeal, whatadeal!

So ultimately, one way or another, car radios will enter the digital era.

But only with the addition of WiFi connectability.

And that will bring better sound into autos, so that the only static you get in the city is from other drivers — not from the radio.

Just try to dodge the bullets.

Recording Industry Applauds Royalty Increase... or they... wait... yes? Kinda? Is that, um... who? Maybe?

Found this interesting article on AllAccess today.  I'm going to break my thoughts on it down piece-by-piece to give you just as close a look at this BS as I possibly can.

SOUNDEXCHANGE today said that recording artists from across the country announced their "enthusiastic support" for the new digital royalty rates announced on MARCH 2 by the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD.

Any time a royalty collection agency sends out a press release stating that their artists support a royalty rate increase, you can pretty much bet it's not the artists who support it, it's the agency.

Here's a sampling:

"If music adds commercial value to someone's site, then there is a monetary value due the writers and recording artists," said JODY STEPHENS of BIG STAR and GOLDEN SMOG. "The decision by the CRB helps us afford to continue to add this value of music."

Big Star and Golden Smog?  Who?  I'm sorry, just who are you again?  What singles of yours have I heard?  Yeah, didn't think so.  I agree with the general principle of what Ms. (or Mrs., I honestly don't know who the heck she is, let alone if she's married or not) Stephens is saying, but to be frank, she hasn't the slightest clue what she's talking about.  The hundreds (and beyond) of legitimate webcasters currently in operation do pay royalty fees... so do those entities legitimately using music on their web sites.  Ms. (or Mrs.) Stephens makes it sound as if they aren't, and that's simply not the case.  In addition, if she realized what these rate increases are going to do to the industry as a whole, she'd also realize that she and the rest of the music industry are going to be making less money, as those who are unable to pay the increased fee will no longer be using the music in question on their websites and in their streams.

Jody, I'm afraid you're ignorant of the facts, therefore you have no room to talk.

MICHELLE SHOCKED...

 
Again, who ?

...said, "A lot of Internet users think of music as a product created and generated by major labels with corporate megadollars...

(And they'd be right.)

...and so think nothing of taking or paying very little to use this music.

However, that's not a reason to punish those who do legitimately use music online.  So not only do we have another artist who's ignorant of the facts behind this move, she's commenting on Internet piracy, not the royalty rate increase!   Someone didn't get the memo!

"But the evidence shows that a large majority of music is now created by independent artists with very small margins trying earn a living...

IT IS?!  REALLY?!   Is that what you're hearing on your radio?  Because it sure as heck isn't what I'm hearing on mine!  I'm hearing multi-million-dollar-selling artists who are making so much money from their recording contracts that one is even in the process of bringing a certain major-league sports team back to New York City, many more than several who are well above the defining line of wealth, and the majority of whom are certainly above middle class when it comes to earnings brackets.  "Very small margins," huh?  I'd certainly like to be in a position where I could consider those margins to be "small."

"...and it's in that context that the recent decision to raise the Internet broadcasting rates are seen as an encouragement to creativity and independence."

If she's as poor as she claims most recording artists are, I hope she's saving every penny she's got, because the very increase she's praising (for the wrong reasons... again, this is not an Internet piracy issue as she sees it to be) is going to bankrupt the online broadcasting industry, and any money she's hoping to make from that sector will vaporize before her very keyboard.

Said COUNTRY MUSIC HALL OF FAME inductee HAROLD RAY BRADLEY...

Oh, finally... an industry veteran and someone who knows what they're talk... um... wait.  How long has it been since music he's been involved in has been in the mainstream?  How much airplay does his music receive these days?  I smell the pungent stench of bias...

"I've been a recording musician for 61 years, and although a lot of people don't know my name, they've heard me playing on their favorite recordings by ELVIS PRESLEY, WILLIE NELSON, PATSY CLINE, ROY ORBISON, TAMMY WYNETTE, JIMMY DEAN, LORETTTA LYNN, BRENDA LEE, HENRY MANCINI, JOAN BAEZ and many others."

Hooray for credentials!  Or is that name-dropping?  I can't tell which...

"I know just how hard musicians work, just how valuable our creativity is to the businesses that play our recordings...

Oh, good!  So then you realize this decision will bankrupt them and, in turn, you!

...and just how important it is to musicians to be paid fairly so we can continue to make music. The COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD got it right."

Okay, well, scratch that.

And TWISTED SISTER's JAY JAY FRENCH...

HAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahaha!!!  Hooray for today's most popular genre!

...opined, "With the shrinking royalties from the usual sources...

Ahem.  Crow T. Robot voice, please.

...we decided it was time to crush the little guy, too!

Thank you.

"...the ever-expanding digital universe is apparently becoming the future...

Ahem.  Tom Servo voice, please.

...therefore it must be destroyed!

Thank you.

"...and, before our very eyes, it is here now. I wholeheartedly support all organizations that endeavor to collect and account to all the hard-working artists...

Um, excuse me, but, uh... your nose is brown.

...whose material is exploited.

Ah, so legitimate use now falls under the term "exploitation!"  What a delightfully twisted (no pun intended) view of reality!

"I applaud these new royalty increases as they scratch the surface of the new world order."

That's right, fight new technology!  So what if the old technology doesn't sell anymore and it's failing us?  Let's beat a dead horse!

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm all for artists getting paid.  That's exactly why I'm against this rate increase.  These sorry fools have followed the RIAA's mantra of "new is evil" for so long that they don't realize they're killing themselves off.  If I may speak to them directly for a moment...

YOU FOOLS!  Can't you see the forest for the trees?  Don't you realize that this rate increase will result in you making less money?  Wake up and take a look around you... the webcasters aren't protesting the move for nothing!  If they can't survive the rate increase, they can't play your music.  If they can't play your music, you don't get paid.  Once that dawns on you, you'll look back and it'll hit you: "Hey!  I was a real MORON for supporting that!  Because now I'm not getting paid as much as I could have been if the change hadn't happened!  Boy, hindsight sure is 20/20, ain't it?"  Maybe then you'll finally understand that all of us who were opposed to the increase were on your side all along!

Weekend Update

I'm probably violating some 32-year-old copyright by using that title (sorry Chevy, Lorne and NBC).

Anyway, here's some reading for you to do on the topic of the copyright ruling .  It's all basically the same stuff I've said already, but Wil Wheaton went so far as to include snippets of other posts (which are good reading in and of themselves) and encourages you to call, e-mail, fax and write letters to, as he puts it, "your congressmorons" (but don't call them morons).

Blogger and Nevada Appeal (Carson City) tech writer Tasha Costa brings us an editorial about Debbie Foster, the Oklahoma mother who took the RIAA to court for legal fees (and won) after they backed out of an illegal-downloading lawsuit that, by their own admission, was unfounded to begin with.  Based on RIAA president Cary Sherman's 2005 comment that the only thing he knew about the downloading lawsuits the organization files is that the defendants have Internet access, Costa makes an excellent point of likening the RIAA to schoolyard bullies... and points to the fact that the tactics used are riding the line of extortion.

But, of course, there will always be fools out there.  In yet another case of people ignoring the wisdom of the plea, "Don't encourage them; they'll just get more obnoxious," Business Week reports that 116 out of 400 college students recently accepted discounted out-of-court settlements in the mass John Doe lawsuits the RIAA filed over downloading through college computer networks.  Not that I'm advocating ignoring a lawsuit, but every once in a while you've got to stop and think, "Do I really have to part with enormous amounts of cash over this?"

Which brings me to another point: since when was hacking legal?  Because last I knew, it wasn't, and as far as I've seen or heard, the RIAA doesn't have the authority to A) be granted a warrant or B) act on one if they did have that authority.  Now, by the Sherman admission above, we can assume they don't have law enforcement agencies acting on warrants because they don't even know who they're suing or if the people they're suing are even guilty of what they're dragging them into court over in the first place.  But let's say for the sake of argument that the average person doesn't realize this (and, given the third story, that's a pretty safe assumption).  What is it going to take for an innocent defendant in one of these lawsuits to file a countersuit against the RIAA and claim not only legal fees but time lost from work and defamation of character as well?  Just sue the living crap out of them!

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would just love to see it happen!

Oh, and in OTHER news today...

The Citadel/ABC merger was approved.  Whoop.  Hoot.  Yay.

More consolidation, that's just what we need.  Especially being led by a company that, in my local market, recently "released" a PD who successfully launched the first decent CHR the market had seen in years and put the PD of a failing cluster in a neighboring market in charge... in addition to the duties that person still holds in the neighboring market.

Yep... this is great news for the industry.

Say goodbye to AM radio.

Morons.

Hypothetical (even if highly unlikely) situation:
- A major disaster occurs (natural or attack) overnight.
- All the FM's are VT'd overnight (that's not that far a stretch of the imagination, is it?).
- The Internet is completely congested due to everyone trying to find out what's going on (remember that happening on 9/11? It did.).
- Cable TV gets knocked out and most people don't have an antenna capable of picking up a digital signal.
- The only other source of information, AM radio, has been destroyed by our own government (in all their wisdom) with digital hash.

We're SOL.

They did this without further consideration of anything... no fact checking, no engineering studies, no common sense... nothing .  Your tax dollars at work, folks.

If this doesn't spark a rush to Internet radio, at least for overnight talk show fans (such as myself), I don't know what will.  Otherwise, they're pretty much screwed too.

I like 9 FM even MORE!... and why that means Internet radio will survive.

In light of the recent CRB ruling (which proved to us that the RIAA simply has nothing better to do with their time than screw us all over), Chicago's 9 FM has decided to halt all CD giveaways... and is even asking listeners to return CDs they've won from 9 and other stations in order to send them back to the RIAA who so desperately needs the money!

This comes on the heels of news that NPR and Cheap Channel (whoa... they are capable of doing something right!) teamed up to petition the CRB for a re-hearing on the ruling.  That's in addition to all of the previous petitions filed by small and large webcasters, mom-and-pop stations with streams and the like.  Hmm... Radio vs. The RIAA.  It seems not all of the industry is in agreement!

What makes this even better is that this move has streamers, who generally aren't fans of the Big Boys, pulling for corporate radio in it's fight to protect their own streams!  As most of us have seen over recent years, the money Clear Channel waves in front of the faces of decision makers gets things done, and if they want to save Internet radio, it will be saved.  Amazingly, this means that at least on some level, they're acknowledging Internet radio's capability of competing with them... despite all that they've said in the past about the new medium being a non-factor.

Even more interesting is the fact that this proves traditional radio, as it exists now, is moving online, something I've been questioned on by others numerous times.  I've been saying for years that Internet radio is going to overtake traditional broadcast radio, and that if traditional radio is to survive, it has to have a presence online.  I've been called everything from an ignoramus to an imbecile to a liar (the latter being in the case of someone claiming I didn't truly believe what I was saying) on this topic, but I've stood by what I've said over the years, and it's happening.

Once again, folks, it's time to wake up.  As of this posting, it's 2:30 AM.  Do you know where your potential audience is?

Radio Goldfield: Illegal.

As most of you come from the various message boards I post to, I'm sure you already know my position on the pirate station in Goldfield, NV.  It's wrong, illegal, sets a bad precedent, and quite frankly ought to result in each person involved in that decision being fined and, in my opinion, fired.

Apparently, RadioWorld's editors agree with me.  At least on the part of this being illegal and wrong.  As for the FCC suffering repercussions from this mess, who knows?  They don't bring it up in the editorial.

It's been a long time. I shouldn't have left you.

Sorry for the posting drought... employment-related issues came up and lasted quite some time.  I'm back though, and I have a question: just what the heck is up with this ?

Clear Channel

VISION, must NOT, be SOLD.

lovedaddy, 3/20/2007 11:19:14 AM

Message #202987

Found that on the job listings page at AllAccess.  Disgruntled former employee or just someone who wants to make a point?

As Spock would say, "Curious."

Anyway, I'll be posting a lot more often now, and you'll see me playing a little catch-up here too, as I comment on some past issues (or ones that started while I was gone and are still continuing) as well as the new ones that come along.