top
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

NAB Attacks Low-Powered FM Radio

by Ted Coopman & John Anderson (ted [at] roguecom.com)
Eddie Fritts and the NAB have failed to take steps to expand reading Services for the blind. Their apparent concern for protecting this service from alledged interference from LPFM seems to be more calculated to use the blind as a bludgeon to stifle the addition of new voices to the airwaves.
Commercial Broadcasters are quick to point fingers, but slow to help America’s Blind

Speaking at the NAB Radio Convention in San Francisco, Eddie Fritts, CEO and President of the Nation Association of Broadcasters (NAB) boasted that his organization’s opposition to the FCC’s new low power FM (LPFM) service was justified, in part, to protect access to Reading Services for the Blind.

Reading services for the Blind utilizes FM ‘subcarrier’ signals; these are ‘piggybacked’ onto the extra bandwidth every FM station enjoys. You can not pick up a subcarrier with a normal radio, and extra transmitting equipment is necessary to utilize a station’s subcarrier resource. But once a subcarrier system is installed at an FM station, volunteers for a Reading Service are able to read books, magazines and other print materials to its visually-impaired clients, who only need a special receiver to listen.

Fritts told NAB Radio Convention delegates that any low power radio service would interfere with subcarriers – and Reading Services for the Blind. He said one million visually impaired Americans rely on these services, and that the FCC did not consider the impact to them when it approved an LPFM plan.

However, as with most of the NAB’s allegations about potential interference, Fritts’ claims have little or no basis in fact. According to Ben Martin, President of the International Association of Audio Information Services (who help organize many Reading Services for the Blind), a "vast majority" of such subcarriers used by the visually impaired are located on stations that broadcast in the educational portion of the FM spectrum (88-92 MHz). There is already little or no space on that part of the dial for new LPFM stations; therefore, these Reading Services will not be impacted.

And while Fritts is quick to claim moral authority on behalf of the nation’s visually impaired, commercial broadcasters are themselves loath to give up any of their valuable subcarrier space for Reading Services. Commercial broadcasters receive large amounts of revenue leasing their own subcarrier space to pager, cell phone, and other data distribution businesses.

Martin expressed support for low power FM, but was concerned about LPFM restricting the growth the Reading Services for the Blind. He further stated that many large cities lack this crucial service. FCC Commissioner William Kennard has stated repeatedly that this service would be protected at all costs as LPFM stations are rolled out across the nation.

Considering that Eddie Fritts and the NAB have failed to take steps to expand this service on their own, their concern seems to be more calculated to use the blind as a bludgeon to stifle the addition of new voices to the airwaves.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Kellia Ramares (RadioKellia [at] aol.com)
Has anyone talked about the possibility of LPFM stations being given the equipment they need so that they can devote part of their time to providing Reading Services? After all, LPFMs are supposed to serve their local communities and I don't think it would hurt if they devoted, say 3 hours a day, to Reading Services.
by john kawakami (johnk [at] cyberjava.com)
It would probably be cheaper to create an "internet for the blind" service/tool and deliver the service over the wires. It would help more people who might be out of range of this service (and it would be available to more people in general).
by Ben
First off, I think most of the people fighting for Low Power FM will heartly agree that Reading Services for the Blind IS A GOOD THING. We should not only be pointing out the FCC will still fully protect Reading Services for the Blind, but that WE will fully support Reading Services for the Blind (not only at it's current level, but unlike NAB, WE WANT TO SEE IT MORE WIDELY AVAILABLE).

There's also no good reason why we can't have both LPFM and expanded Reading Services for the Blind. Why should the choice be between community radio and services for the disabled?? Since the airwaves are for the people but dominated by corporations who don't pay for them, wouldn't the most reasonable solution be to make all the major media corporations (who claim to care so much about the blind) give a significant portion of their subcarrier space to programs like these.

THEY ARE OUR AIRWAVES. We need to keep the NAB from framing this issue like they're not.
by Ishmael Alfredsson
As usual, the "interference" fears put out by the NAB to justify opposition to LPFM are technically specious.

By way of explanation, a "subcarrier" as used by FM stations is an ultrasonic (above the range of frequencies humans can hear) signal which is added to the main audio program. Audio and subcarrier are then modulated onto the FM station's carrier. The subcarrier is itself modulated prior to being summed with the audio to convey the desired information. (e.g. FM stereo uses a subcarrier at 38 kHz to convey stereo (L-R) information; SCA (background music or "storecast" service uses a subcarrier at 67 kHz.)

While the use of subcarriers does increase the width of an FM station's sidebands above those generated by the audio program alone, the subcarrier-related sidebands still have to fit within the station's 200 kHz channel space- space which is theirs alone.

Any sane scheme for licensing LPFM stations will have to avoid permitting the new stations to emit significant energy within the channel space of another station. As long as LPFM stations maintain sufficient spectral purity to keep their emissions within their own channel space, subcarrier services from other stations will be protected from interference the same as their main audio programs. Period. It's really just a matter of being careful about allocating spectral space for LPFM stations, making sure that LPFM equipment meets basic specifications for spurious emission suppression and that LPFM operators are competent enough to keep their signal clean.

The FCC has had a great deal of experience in planning for potential interference problems. They have some pretty damned good engineers working for them who have done just fine at preventing megawatt corporate stations from interfering from each other. If they believe that they can fit low-power community FM into their scheme without jeopardizing existing radio services, it makes a lot more sense to believe them than to listen to some lobbyist's flack who probably couldn't solder his way out of the proverbial paper bag, or explain the "capture effect" to an audience of engineers without making them piss their pants laughing.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network