Posted on 03/02/2005 12:02:39 PM PST by Drango
by Paul McLane
Editor
Radio World
Huzzah, public radio engineers.
Let's take a moment to acknowledge something that has, in fact, been true for some time: Technical innovation in U.S. radio broadcasting is being led by public radio.
Need proof?
Tomorrow Radio - While commercial radio at large was still trying to get up the nerve to stick its toe in the digital waters, public radio was investing in research aimed at exploiting that technology beyond discussions of improved audio quality.
NPR announced its Tomorrow Radio initiative more than two years ago, in partnership with Harris and Kenwood USA. The first time someone described the concept to me, I said, "Commercial radio should be all over that - but it won't, until someone else shows them how."
HD Radio implementation - Public radio stations were among the first eager adopters of the digital technology, helped by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which began awarding grants in seed markets in late 2003. WUSF(FM) in Tampa threw the switch even earlier; it was the first public radio station to go digital, in February of that year.
ContentDepot - NPR Distribution is reengineering its program delivery to streamline how stations and producers select, send, acquire and automate programming.
Surround Sound - The first live HD Radio broadcast in surround? KUVO(FM) did it in Denver. The first U.S. attempt to create a distributed network feed of surround sound? The first U.S. broadcast of surround material on a national scale? NPR's "Toast of the Nation" on Dec. 31.
The expanded PREC - Organizers have done an exceptional job at making the Public Radio Engineering Conference an informative event. Important technical speakers now are obliged to tack days onto their NAB plans to accommodate it.
Relationship with listeners
I asked Mike Starling at NPR why public radio seems to be out in front technically. He cited several reasons in a reply e-mail.
He said public radio engineers are fascinated by what can be done with the application of digital techniques. Further, "We love exploring the technical landscape with an impartial eye for what's new and special - we frankly didn't fret over whether the system ultimately adopted was IBOC, Eureka or McLane DAB, but do care mightily how any technology can be used to deepen the relationship with the radio listeners."
There's "great joy to be found, he said, with the realization that seamless digital booster technology may be near at hand, or that we can offer entirely new, high-quality services where we had just one before."
Starling said public radio engineers, at least at NPR, work for executives who support them and are open to the world of possibilities, within a system that prides itself on public service.
"We have deep respect for scientific accuracy and rigor," he continued. "We don't put our name on a report to the FCC unless we are convinced it's rock-solid. We believe inculcating a process of critical engineering analysis is both a means and an end, that it helps to spot inflection points in the marketplace.
"And last, and probably foremost, a heck of a lot of luck in the technology topics we've chosen to work on, seem to have gained some currency."
Now, one could argue that public radio engineering innovation stands out more not because it has changed in the past 10 years, but because commercial radio changed around it. Consolidation and shrinking technical resources in the deregulated free market may be at work in altering our perceptions. And it's true that public radio doesn't answer to Wall Street and enjoys a funding mechanism not available to commercial radio (although Starling points out that CPB dollars comprise on average roughly 12 percent of local station revenues, and NPR in a typical year receives just 2 to 3 percent of its budget through competitive federal grants).
But these considerations are not only debatable; they strike me as beside the point. Ours is a technical industry, and we should be investing in its technical resources.
Starling finds it ironic that "in the midst of the greatest radio broadcast leap forward since Armstrong invented FM in 1933, we have no industry center for excellence or innovation. ... Frankly, I suspect in hindsight that NPR has served in a de facto limited role to fill that need; but much of the work until now has been cobbled together in our copious spare time between 2 and 5 a.m."
I agree. I'm grateful for the innovation and investment being made by public radio executives and engineers in our future.
(although Starling points out that CPB dollars comprise on average roughly 12 percent of local station revenues, and NPR in a typical year receives just 2 to 3 percent of its budget through competitive federal grants).
Nonsense.
Why do we need a NPR in such a competitive market?
FM radio needs some help. A boost in sound quality would be nice, but their problem is really content, which is lame because all the liberals took over the FM band years ago. Of course, AM is doing just fine (thank you conservative talk radio).
It was hard to read all the way to the end of this article because the small amount of interesting content was buried so deeply within the effusive outpouring of self-congratulation...
The Public Broadcasting system as a whole, gets closer to 33% from all tax dollars Fed & state. Here is my letter to them on that subject...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1353750/posts
Isn't it nice to have government money to splurge on these new innovations that a commercial radio station hesitates to implement because it might not contribute to the station's profit.
NPR should get zero dollars from the taxpayers!
The reason commercial stations aren't jumping all over this is that digital broadcast stations aren't currently commercially viable.
Public radio can do these things, because if the project fails, the taxpayers get to bail them out rather than the stockholders losing their shirts.
And now that public radio has proven that it can be done, why aren't all the commercial stations jumpin all over it now? Because it's still not commercially viable.
The public only bays roughly 12 percent of the revenues for the local stations?
Ask almost any company what a boost of 12% gross income without any increase in expenses does to their net profit.
A 12% subsidy is a huge subsidy, and I personally don't think that it is needed.
If these stations can't remain viable due to advertising revenues and private donations, then obviously the public doesn't value them enough for us to be spending public money keeping them afloat.
NPR only receives 2 to 3 percent of their gross income from the federal government. Why do they receive any? They are a well established program with a considerable base of listeners that should be able to generate significant advertising revenue as well as private donations.
The government should stay out of the broadcasting business. We don't need the government influencing what content gets included, except for possibly some basic decency standards. If the government doesn't have any control over the content, then there can't be any real oversight.
Without oversight, you end up with public money being wasted on things the vast majority of the public either doesn't care about or disagrees with.
The solution isn't government oversight, it's the government getting it's hands out of the business of supporting broadcasting with tax dollars.
When radio networks were connected by Ma Bell's phone lines, Public Radio pioneered the use of satellite delivered programming. Now it's standard issue for the commercial broadcasters.
Ditto on the television side.
When Digital Television first rolled out, it was Public Television stations that led the way with both signals on the air and the HD content to fill it with. Now the commercial stations are following suit.
With HD Radio, again, Public Broadcasters are acting as the pathfinders and the commercial broadcasters will follow when the technology matures.
--erik
Consider these commercial products. They (claim to) use subliminal messages to “help” people into the new age (of Aqarius).
[I am NOT endorsing, much less recommending, these or any other “subliminal” recordings!!]
http://www.xtrememind.com/Subliminal_CD2.htm
http://www.finestimage.com/sublim/index.htm
Do-It-Yourself Digital subliminal propaganda!
http://www.subliminal-master.com/
This article comments on possible “subliminal” channels in encrypted messages.
http://www.zone-h.org/files/33/dss-subliminal-channels.txt
Considering only the above sampling, and considering how easy it would be for a “public” digital radio station to play either some New Age CD, or their own DIY propaganda, one can begin to see why public radio would be excited about Digital Radio.
Next, consider how easy it would be (for a competent technician, not me) to insert a digital message (encrypted, or not) into a broadcast signal. The recipient would only need a copy of the original track (song, music, speech) and have software which could remove all of THAT digital data from the broadcast track. The remainder would be the secret message. (I think that the Terries have already used something, sending pictures over the internet.)
Not a happy thought.
DG
Shouldn't this be "Thank You, Taxpayers"??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.