Building a Better Model for Ibiquity
 It's
like we're all watching a troubled sci-fi movie: "The Day the
IBOC World Stood Still." Digital audio broadcasting for radio
is being counted on heavily for the industry's survival in this
all-digital electronic era. But the only developments I hear regarding
Ibiquity's proposed rollout of IBOC nowadays are from broadcasters,
and they are not too positive.
Double-whammy wake-up
The double whammy I alluded to in my previous column on this subject
seems to have put IBOC deployment into pause mode: first, the hard
wake-up reminder that broadcasters will pay big bucks to implement
it; second, the prospect that AM IBOC may not work very well at
night during the hybrid transition and will not be endorsed by the
NRSC until more testing and data are evaluated.
Ibiquity is now arranging for nighttime testing of AM IBOC to assess
the real-world behavior of digital noise and interference on existing
AM stations. That could take another six months or longer.
FM IBOC is ready to launch, as soon as the FCC decides to decide
how that will best be done. But the commission is likely to wait
until the AM nighttime issue is resolved and the NRSC makes one
final recommendation for fulltime digital AM service. New rules
will be needed to define the parameters and limits for the new digital
modulation schemes. How will they be controlled and monitored for
compliance to prevent interference? Will all AM stations be required
to limit frequency response to 5 kHz?
Taking risks, charging others
I am still very much an IBOC proponent, in favor of using Ibiquity's
technology to get digital radio off the ground. The company has
accomplished what many thought was impossible, given the restricted
bandwidth allocated to broadcasters in this country. This technology
is still the only card we have to play. It's not perfect but it
will get us out of the gate and improve as time goes on. Digital
radio's time is now.
But here we are, facing the challenge of implementing and paying
for this introductory technology with a controversial licensing
model. It's a scheme that takes most of the financial risk off the
table for its developers and places it squarely on the backs of
broadcasters and equipment manufacturers. And it keeps all future
development and improvements within its own exclusive domain.
Talk to any broadcaster and you'll quickly learn he or she is not
happy with the proposed Ibiquity licensing fees. Talk to any equipment
manufacturer involved with IBOC hardware, and they'll tell you nobody
has placed any contingent orders for anything. It's all about "wait
and see what happens." You've got to figure the Ibiquity management
team is getting a little worried.
Will the Ibiquity partners that own radio stations pony up the
bucks for converting their stations to IBOC quickly, or will they
wait?
Less than 25 percent of U.S. radio stations are owned by Ibiquity
investors. Certainly owners who are not invested are unlikely to
jump in early and spend the money for conversion.
Many stations see this as déjà vu all over again.
They fear it could be another experience like the AM stereo fiasco
of the 1980s.
Not worth the price just yet
With most markets still struggling with the effects of the recession
and a soft economy, budget allocations that may have been earmarked
for IBOC deployment may have been put on hold or decreased. Most
stations have no IBOC equipment budgets at all for 2002.
With tighter capital, even larger groups that are Ibiquity partners
are still trying to decide which stations are worthy of early IBOC
conversion and which are not.
Owners and managers in all markets want to be more certain who
will be the early IBOC adopters, how soon receivers will be available
on a widespread basis, and what effect the satellite carriers are
having on the business of radio before they pay for converting.
Most figure that because the vast majority of the listening audience
will continue to use existing analog radios for at least the next
five years, there is little to be gained from early conversion to
IBOC.
It's probable that many stations will bypass the hybrid analog/digital
mode altogether and switch to all-digital if and when the technology
becomes accepted and established.
Doing the math, again
Let's consider the larger problem of Ibiquity's proposal for licensing
fees and why broadcasters don't like it.
The costs of adding the hardware alone are significant for stations
of all sizes. Ask any general manager and chief engineer how hard
it is to get capital funds allocated for anything big nowadays.
It's like pulling teeth.
Hidden in the cost of the IBOC exciter will be the license fee
paid by its manufacturer to Ibiquity. Add to that the station's
licensing fee, based on the FCC license renewal fee.
After adding up all those figures, you recall that receiver manufacturers
also will get charged an Ibiquity royalty with every IBOC receiver
sold. That cost is, of course, passed on to the consumer - eventually
many millions of consumers.
You begin to sense that Ibiquity is in this game strictly for the
money and that its management has left no stone unturned to get
a rapid return on its investment. Even subcarrier use will get surcharged.
Protecting the franchise
When digital radio transmission was being investigated and developed
by USA Digital Radio throughout the1990s, the driving force behind
it was composed of broadcasters. Gannett, CBS and Westinghouse formed
USADR using some of the best of their own engineers to develop a
successful digital transmission solution that would replace analog
and assure a digital future for radio.
Protecting and preserving the industry in the face of other competing
digital media was a much larger and more important priority than
making a profit on the venture.
USADR's attempts with digital radio in the mid-1990s with FM1 and
FM2 did not succeed well enough to replace analog. More brainpower
was needed from companies doing digital communications research
for the military and the telecom industry to push the development
of digital radio for broadcasting to the next level.
The formation of Ibiquity did that, but also brought along other
business influences that were not native to broadcasting.
Only a software company
Soon after USADR and Lucent merged, a new tone seemed to emerge
from the management of the new corporation called Ibiquity. They
began telling us that it is basically a software company that has
developed the IBOC digital radio solution on a computer-based platform.
They will continue to develop and improve the software that runs
the hardware that transmits and receives digital radio.
And like any other large software company, they will levy charges
and fees for all that use the software. IBM and Microsoft established
and perfected the paradigm and many have followed it with considerable
success.
We now appear to have a privately held corporation that has converted
itself from an R&D technology company to a software company.
It proposes to control and profit from every aspect of the OS it
has invented for an entire industry that is charged by Congress
to serve the public welfare and necessity.
That is a bit of a departure from the model that compels even Microsoft
to compete against many other software companies that use computers
for all kinds of commercial and industrial applications.
Inventions that have improved radio technology over the years have
been patented. Some of the inventors were rewarded, others were
not. But never has one new invention attempted to become the exclusive
and controlling basis for how all future transmission and reception
over the public airwaves will be carried out.
Broadcasters are understandably unnerved and suspicious.
Forging a better model
My IBOC sparring partner Skip Pizzi has been critical of Ibiquity's
proposed fees and licensing model. He says the comparison to that
of software companies like Microsoft, his full-time employer, doesn't
apply.
In his last return salvo regarding IBOC, Skip suggests that a more
appropriate model for Ibiquity might be the one followed by digital
audio processing companies and other firms that invent and sell
computer-based hardware to the industry. They build the cost of
the software and future improvements into the initial price of the
hardware or charge a nominal fee for software upgrades. All stations
pay the same prices no matter the market size.
It's not quite that simple, nor is that model appropriate for Ibiquity.
It is not a hardware manufacturer and never will be, any more than
Microsoft would ever build or sell computer hardware beyond incidental
devices. It has developed a platform that, by all indications, has
proven worthy of launching the radio broadcasting industry into
the digital age. By the time it deploys, perhaps $150 million will
have been spent on that effort.
Even though the hardware engine and associated software that runs
the IBOC exciters and receivers are now proprietary, it doesn't
have to stay that way. IBiquity has partnered with Impulse Radio,
developing a universal open standard for IBOC data. Why not extend
that concept for the entire bit stream, to all interested parties?
Inviting other players
The management of Ibiquity needs to consider that their invention
would stand a much better chance of succeeding long-term if it were
"opened up" for others to be able to add features and
perfect system performance in the future.
Broadcasters are uncomfortable with the idea that one company,
whether private or public, completely controls the technology that
transmits and receives their product.
Certainly Ibiquity deserves to be rewarded with some form of royalty
structure for what it has developed thus far. But it must also realize
that most commercial systems that are developed as proprietary and
stay that way have a much steeper hill to climb before the mass
market accepts them, if they're accepted at all.
I have allowed my supportive position on IBOC to remain flexible.
I have always felt that stations will pay enough of the IBOC price
tag with the purchase and installation of the required hardware.
While a modest one-time or ongoing licensing fee for transmitting
IBOC is justified, it needs to be deferred for at least a year after
installation. The big long-term payoff for Ibiquity will come from
the receiver royalties.
I am now thinking that a much better model for assuring the success
of Ibiquity's invention would be an open standard. OK, Skip, I'll
give you that one: a standard established and maintained by the
IEEE, so that any software company involved with digital audio and
RF development could participate and be rewarded for any future
improvements they would bring to the technology.
Counting on Bob
That kind of structure would go a long way to placate the apprehensions
of broadcasters as well as all hardware and receiver manufacturers
who are not happy with the current state of affairs - especially
those who have no vested interest in this venture.
Maybe it's the proper role of the FCC or the Congress to step in
and protect the interests of the public and the industry before
the Justice Department creates another Microsoft-like antitrust
boondoggle.
It's up to Ibiquity CEO Bob Struble and his brain trust to reconsider
their proposal seriously. Don't be so greedy out of the box, Bob.
We don't need your new digital radio engine going into a stall and
spinning out of control into oblivion.
The entire radio industry is counting on your best judgment to
make appropriate revisions to your proposal so that digital radio
has a better chance to evolve and prosper for many years to come.
Guy Wire is the pseudonym for a veteran broadcast engineer with major-market radio credentials. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Radio World. RW welcomes other points of view.
|
