As part of Radio World’s latest ebook about trends in codecs, we asked a sampling of industry engineers and users for their perspectives on the evolution of codec designs and applications, from remote broadcasts to sophisticated distribution applications. 

Some opted to focus on specifics of their favorite codec brands, others spoke more generally, but all gave insight into the many ways these solutions are serving radio today. Their comments are below, and you can read much more on this topic in the ebook itself.

“A trend that continues and is not a fad is the integration of transport codecs within the broadcast infrastructure via hardware or software that includes associated data, control and timing signals,” said Roz Clark, executive director of radio engineering at Cox Media Group.

“The traditional infrastructure of a broadcast facility continues to evolve, and the ability to add process-intensive capabilities such as PPM, audio processing and other functions to devices that once were designed for a single purpose is moving forward.”

A key requirement of this, Clark said, is to transport all associated signals — not just audio — on time, securely and reliably. 

“Interoperability between the various systems and vendors is key to long-term success and to allow incremental upgrades within the broadcast plant to take advantage of capabilities and efficiencies.”

He said this topic is being addressed in the IEEE-BTSC Aggregated Content Delivery Link standard work currently underway. “The ACDL standard will formalize these requirements and others to ensure interoperability and an international standard to reference.”

How do today’s codecs avoid problems with dropped packets?

“The use of multiple disparate network connections that can use the connections simultaneously to deliver the content is an important feature,” Clark said.

“Ensuring the last-mile connections on each end of the circuit uses different physical delivery is important. Network connections that only use physical media that are delivered over a cable or fiber fall victim to backhoe fade, while last-mile connections that are over-the-air such as 4G or satellite can fail for other reasons.”

By mixing these types at a location, risk can be minimized, and service is likely to survive complete outages. 

At Cox, he said: “The use of IPL technology from GatesAir in links between studios and transmitters has opened up opportunities for us to enhance our operational resiliency. This technology takes the traditional point-to-point dedicated nature of an STL to a scenario where it becomes a multipoint-to-multipoint network of content distribution.”

That opens the possibility of flexibly feeding a tower site from alternate locations on demand as part of a BCP program. “If properly configured, the alternate site can maintain normal operations for the station for internal customers, as well as external customers including streaming audio, metadata etc.”

Browse in and go

“Codecs are becoming agnostic to the infrastructure,” said Ed Bukont, owner of E2 Technical Services & Solutions.

“It is no longer so necessary for a user to physically touch the box to make adjustments. You plug in power, network and maybe some local I/O in the field, browse in and go.”

The “box,” he noted, can be anywhere. 

“All of the tech you need is built in, including AoIP and the latest public network protocols. Several popular brands have multiple codecs in one box, all accessed via a network for connection, control and audio — doing more with less, faster, better, cheaper, a better ROI for the expense of the device.”

Given that more functions in the air chain are now in software, how has this affected workflows? 

“Air chains are generally static except for EAS and backup situations,” Bukont replied.

“By and large, software has made this harder for the installer but easier on the user. A faceless box can have multiple network ports, allowing secure connections to multiple sites while being controlled securely on a management port. 

“Software, and how it integrates at different levels of the OSI model, can allow multiple users and vendors to interact on a common platform from the console, through processing, program delay, EAS, watermarking, STL, all the way into the transmitter, while maintaining a diverse set of reliable paths that may be divergent between content and control.”

Bukont said codecs and a variety of IP connection technologies are making it possible to merge studios while keeping a local presence that was not practical for many even 10 years ago.

“I am less concerned with minute improvements in audio quality that may be masked by background noise of an event. The real advances are in accommodating a diversity of paths via various technologies to create reliable connections with an acceptable fail-over.”

Links to data centers

Lamar Smith, VP and director of corporate engineering at Beasley Media Group, notes that the expansion in use of codecs in radio feels exponential. 

“With the COVID pandemic we scrambled to get as many codec units as possible, from any flavor possible, to allow our staff to remotely work from home,” he said.

“They all served their purpose during that time, but surprisingly, they have continued to be a vital part of what we do daily.”

He said some have changed their purpose a little, but the remote connectivity has continued to be a vital part to all the company’s operations. 

“We are finding the current trend being the use for STL replacements in place of our historical traditional 950 MHz gear and as a way of linking our studies to our data centers, transmitter sites and remote staff contributing to our programming.”

Smith said radio’s familiar tower industry faces a crisis. “It has become too expensive as a way to distribute our content. The delivery of audio to a transmitter site via ISP is a way of limiting the needs on towers for STL antennas.”

He said the use of data centers to distribute content to transmitter sites plays into this. “We may have a data center on the East Coast but feed content to transmitter sites on the West Coast.”

The need to create more and more multi-channel audio paths means software-based devices must be able to handle a number of paths versus an individual piece of hardware for each codec path. 

“While the hardware handling a single audio codec path is still needed, with all the downsizing we have been going through, the data centers have demanded that we have server-based solutions that can handle a lot of traffic in a small footprint,” Smith said.

“That traffic is everything from the traditional algorithms — linear or ACC — as well as using SIP technology to accomplish the needs.”

Given advances in audio coding, DSP and wireless IP over recent decades, what improvements can still be made in the quality of audio delivered by codecs?

“Reliability and robustness are critical to the operation of our codec systems, and these areas need to be the focus of the manufacturers,” he replied.

“While we have seen massive improvements in reliability from our ISPs, inherent issues of the public internet cause short temporary interruptions as well as jitter and latency.”

The use of multiple ISPs to overcome these issues has proven to be effective, he said. 

“But it’s my opinion that this is an area where we should and will see improvements as manufacturers continue to adapt to the needs of the industry and push for quality audio at near-real time delivery while overcoming public internet obstacles.”

Smith said that in one market, Beasley recently needed to move quickly out of a building that housed its offices and studios because the building was being sold. 

“We quickly implemented a data center implementation that allowed the studios and offices to move within 60 days. Using ISP codecs as a way of linking the audio between temporary studios and to the transmitter sites was critical and made the move viable.

“While we have used the GatesAir IPlinks for years now, we have started implementing stream-splicing on our links that feed the transmitter sites across the public internet. We have done this using dual ISP connections such as a fiber provider and Starlink, for example,” he said.

“Sometimes getting dual ‘good’ ISP connections at the transmitter site is difficult, so we have even found success in implementing on the same provider with enough latency on the second path to overcome the failures of the provider. While this adds to the delay of audio going from ‘live’ to ‘on-air,’ we’ve all moved on from expecting real-time audio on the air years ago.”

Diverse connections

Randy Williams is chief engineer of media and technology company Learfield, which specializes in college athletics. Learfield deploys numerous Comrex codecs. 

“The use of CrossLock or some type of SD-WAN technology within the codec allows two or more diverse IP connections to be installed,” he said.

“The codec unit will monitor the incoming connections and ‘switch/bounce’ to the IP source that has the best reliability and lowest amount of packet loss. This ensures connectivity without sacrificing missing audio bits or downtime.” (By default, the IP codecs aggregate all data connections, but Redundant Transmission mode can be selected.)

He said the codecs do well at avoiding dropped packets.

“By using CrossLock, the codec is placed into a VPN connection where it is managing two different network IP connections, similar to SD-WAN. While a connection is established and running, Comrex employs several error protection and concealment techniques and Automatic Repeat Request, which instructs the codec software to send redundant data, allowing the codecs to reconstruct or resend lost packets. These features are running simultaneously in live streams to reduce audio loss.”

Learfield also has begun a systematic migration to a Wheatstone AoIP platform. “There are processing, compression and level adjustments inside the WheatNet blades or software applications. This is drastically reducing the amount of physical audio cabling that would traverse our building and also is replacing external hardware devices that used to perform the same or similar processes.”

He said Learfield’s Comrex IP rack codecs offer various algorithms for broadcast audio connections with AES digital audio inputs and outputs.

Also useful is the multi-stream feature available in Comrex codecs. 

“By configuring a primary ‘main’ unit in multi-stream mode as the ‘encoder’ unit, as many as 10 other codecs can connect to the ‘encoder,’ providing the same quality audio and relay closures. Learfield has made up to 25 different codec connections in multi-stream mode if only using AAC-Mono as the common algorithm profile.”

Williams is looking forward to a recently introduced product called FieldLink. “Once it is proven in larger Division 1 football and NFL stadiums it will be a game-changer for Learfield. It is a dynamic WiFi Access Point codec that allows roaming field reports to connect via smartphone application and deliver high-quality, full-duplex audio to the producer in the press box or studio. This would eliminate the wireless microphone and IFB systems in use during large-scale sporting event productions.” 

When it comes to doing remote broadcasts, field users tend to focus on the practical aspects.

David Tukesbrey is sports director at Hub City Radio, a group of FM, AM and HD multicast stations in Aberdeen, S.D. He uses Tieline gear in his play-by-play work.

After audio quality, he said, “The most important thing for being user-friendly is a tad bigger screen, so I can get connected to the station. I also like that fact that the codec is versatile in terms of size and weight. It doesn’t take up a lot of space on game day on the desk or table that I use.”

For Tukesbrey, a codec fills many needs.

“I do all my coaches interviews on it, with an SD card for storage, and it’s so versatile. I’ve worked at radio stations where audio quality isn’t prioritized. When I’m calling play-by-play or listening on the radio to a game, I want to hear and feel like I’m there. The codec provides that. And you click a few buttons and you’re connected. Getting connected via Ethernet is simple, and even via Wi-Fi is easy.”

Balance for budget

We close with thoughts from Jeremy Preece, owner of Wavelength Technical Solutions.

“As more broadcasters move to using the internet for audio delivery, it is critical to consider codecs that can effectively handle multiple IP paths, using diverse NICs, and integrate stream-splicing,” he said. “This will minimize glitching and occasional dropouts that are inevitable on shared services, especially on wireless/cellular and satellite internet connections.

“It is also helpful to choose a unit that can provide detailed stream performance and alarm reporting via SNMP, etc., as unrecovered packet losses and similar problems can affect listener experience while going unnoticed on standard audio monitoring hardware.”

Audio codecs have been available as software for some time, he noted, so the technology is well tested in that format.

“Using software codecs can greatly simplify distribution from a studio to multiple tower sites and your station’s website and mobile apps. Codecs can also run in the cloud, reducing on-prem hardware and reducing failure points.”

Preece said hardware codecs still have a place, but software models should not be overlooked if redundancy and scalability is a consideration.

Given advances in audio coding, DSP and wireless IP over recent decades, what improvements can still be made in the quality of audio delivered by codecs?

“While it is possible to deliver decent audio at lower bitrates than ever before, broadcasters should budget for the bandwidth to use the highest bitrates possible,” he continued.

“For primary audio paths, choose a codec that can use modern algorithms — AAC+ etc., never MP3 — and whenever possible use 192k or higher. Even better, use microMPX, which provides exceptional audio quality, with stereo pilot and RDS, at bitrates comfortably as low as 384k. 

“If your link budget allows, consider going linear/uncompressed to maximize quality. For emergency or cellular modem backups, that’s a good place to sacrifice quality for reliability and cost-efficiency.”
And when he’s in the market for a codec, Preece bases the purchasing decision on the project goal. 

“A platform for a multi-booster FM+HD SFN system will involve a lot more complexity than a basic IP-STL,” he noted.

“The first step is to accurately identify your needs: Are you sending analog L/R audio, AES, AES192 or MPX? What about metadata, E2X or other IP data services? Consider IP redundancy: Do you need a second or third built-in NIC or will one suffice? 

“If HD Radio content is in play, give careful consideration to the delivery method and where the HD equipment is placed. In some cases, sending I2E or E2X from the studio to a tower site may be more cumbersome than simply encoding three or four AES audio streams with a separate IP link for PAD. If you’re not sure what the best solution is, reach out to a sales rep or dealer and ask them to walk you through options. There may be five ways to do it, but only one that is truly the best for your scenario.”

Comment on this or any story. Email radioworld@futurenet.com with “Letter to the Editor” in the subject field.

Read more expert comments about codec designs in the free ebook.

The post Codecs: Increasingly Smart, Increasingly Flexible appeared first on Radio World.

Digital ad revenue is playing an important role in stabilizing overall industry sales for the U.S. commercial radio business.

That’s according to RAB’s 14th Annual Digital Benchmarking Report, produced by Borrell Associates Inc.

The report takes heart from the trend line for digital. Its findings are against a backdrop of revenue totals that are much smaller than 10 or 20 years ago.

The report finds that radio’s digital advertising reached a record in 2025 of $2.3 billion. It also states that digital sales accounted for 24.4% of total revenue nationwide.

That would put overall revenue of the U.S. commercial radio industry last year at $9.4 billion.

For context, in 2005 the radio industry’s revenue was $21.5 billion, according to Radio World’s reporting of RAB data at the time. In 2016, the year RAB said digital ad revenue first surpassed $1 billion, radio’s total that year was about $17.4 billion. (Those were not Borrell-based numbers but give a sense of how the radio revenue picture has shrunk.)

“Borrell forecasts digital revenue will grow slightly faster this year — 9.5% versus 7.8% in 2025 — reaching $2.5 billion,” RAB states in the new release.

“The average station generated $511,873 in digital revenue in 2025, and the average market cluster made $2,263,431.”

RAB President/CEO Mike Hulvey was quoted saying, “Advertisers are recognizing the digital services and products that exist as part of broadcast radio’s marketing toolbox and are taking advantage of it.”

According to RAB, the report finds that “strong and sustained digital growth has largely offset declines in core radio advertising. Since 2022, digital revenue has grown at a compound annual rate of 8.3%, while core radio advertising has declined 2.2%.”

It quoted Borrell Associates CEO Gordon Borrell pointing out that three-fourths of radio buyers are not yet taking advantage of radio’s digital products.

Marketron CEO Jimshade Chaudhari said, “Digital is now the primary driver of revenue stability and growth in radio.”

Another finding: Local advertisers value radio’s “branding power and return on investment,” but many view it as difficult to measure.

“As a result, budgets are flowing toward media that combine radio’s branding with accountability, particularly streaming audio, streaming video and digitally measurable campaigns,” RAB stated.

The report also found rapid adoption of artificial intelligence tools in radio sales organizations but said many managers express concern that AI-driven media recommendations may not favor radio “unless stations strengthen their digital positioning and measurement capabilities.”

The report, which is available to RAB members, is based on ad revenue data from approximately 3,800 radio stations; surveys of advertisers, agencies and radio managers; and market-level digital revenue estimates in 513 U.S. markets.

The post Digital Ad Sales Are Stabilizing Overall Radio Revenue appeared first on Radio World.

“There is an immediate need for radio frequency engineers throughout our state. The Broadcast Technology Academy is providing a direct pipeline of talented and well-trained individuals to fill that need.”

Those are the words of Mark Mendenhall, president of the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters, as reported on the website of Wake Tech Community College.

The NCAB partnered with Wake Tech to develop the 10-week academy “to prepare individuals who are technically minded, mechanically inclined or electrically inclined for careers as broadcast technicians.”

Tuition, fees and books are covered by the state association. Additional funds are available to help with living expenses and transportation. 

The program provides 240 hours of instruction and bench work, eight hours per day, three days a week, for 10 weeks. The school has a lab equipped with modern Nautel solid-state AM and FM transmitters, as well as legacy CCA and Harris radio gear. TV equipment is planned.

The syllabus was written by retired engineer Jerry Brown, using the SBE Engineering Handbook as the course’s textbook; and as the program took shape, Brown also emerged as the instructor and ambassador for the academy. Guest lecturers complemented his teaching.

Students learn about AM, FM and HD radio transmission systems, including transmitters, antennas, transmission lines, remote control systems and program delivery systems. 

Thirteen recently completed the program and subsequently passed the Society of Broadcast Engineers Certified Broadcast Technologist exam. They now should be able to troubleshoot and repair legacy and modern transmission systems.

I asked Jerry Brown if he had encountered any surprises during this first session.

“We found out early on that you need to do a refresher on basic physics and advanced math, such as linear algebra, geometry and an overview of calculus — foundational things when you get into antennas and electromagnetism and those sorts of things,” he said.

“We were able to adjust quickly and we’re addressing this in the course rework.”

Brown said that the program seems to be a good fit for today’s technically minded young people. 

“STEM students find a field that allows them to do everything: computer science, IT, engineering, electrical, mechanical.”

And what a great model this is. I hope more state broadcast associations and technically oriented educators will emulate it.

The next academy at Wake Tech is planned for next summer. More info is at the school’s website.

The SBE recently added Wake Tech’s associate of arts and sciences degree in electronic engineering technology to its list of tertiary education programs that offer training for a career in broadcast engineering and multimedia technology. 

Other schools on the list, according to the SBE website, are Bates Technical College in Tacoma, Wash.; Cayuga Community College in Auburn, N.Y.; and the AFRTS Technical Training Program at the Defense Information School in Fort Meade, Md.

The society is on the lookout for other schools to join its Certified School list, and it has a school sample curriculum to assist schools in creating a broadcast engineering degree program.

Radio World welcomes letters to the editor on this or any story. Email radioworld@futurenet.com.

The post This Program Trains Up New Broadcast Engineers appeared first on Radio World.

Station WKXM-FM in Winfield, Ala., was hit with a cyberattack on its transmitter on Thursday, according to the Alabama Broadcasters Association’s Engineering Services arm.

“Someone gained access to their transmitter, which had RBDS as part of the transmitter software,” according to an email from ABA.

“The intruders took over the data and displayed some very offensive wording.” The attack did not affect program audio itself.

“The station engineer was able to gain access into the transmitter and turned off the RBDS data transmission. It appears the intruder gained access using the factory installed login information and changed the displayed data and the login. The station is working with the transmitter manufacturer to correct the factory login information.”

ABA Director of Engineering Services Larry Wilkins concluded: “This is another warning that stations should be using secure firewall protection in front of all their equipment even the transmitter itself!”

The post Hacker Accesses Display Text at Alabama FM Station appeared first on Radio World.

 

Text has been updated with additional information.

Would you like your station call letters to be WKRP?

That famous call sign currently is held by a low-power FM station in Raleigh, N.C. And while the station isn’t planning to give it up, it would be willing to share if the price is right.

The licensee issued this announcement:

“Oak City Media, a non-profit organization that’s operated a real WKRP for over a decade, is announcing a process by which certain other broadcast stations can share this nostalgic call sign in accordance with FCC regulations, allowing simultaneous use by one AM radio station, a full-power FM station (as ‘WKRP-FM’), full-power television station (with the suffixes ‘-TV’ or ‘-DT’) and one low-power TV station (using the suffixes ‘-CD’ or ‘-LD’).”

Executive Director D.P. McIntire wrote: “For five years, ‘WKRP in Cincinnati’ was the fictional, often dysfunctional setting behind one of the most popular situation comedies in the United States. Originally airing on the CBS television network, immediately after its network run it became a syndication staple for stations, and episodes can still be found on the air in many markets; as can episodes of a revival of the series in the early 1990s.”

He invited broadcast licensees to email him for an info packet “explaining the process, timelines and requirements.”

“At the end of this process, one station in each of these categories will receive authorization to use the WKRP call sign along with Oak City Media,” according to the release.

“The organization meanwhile intends to use proceeds generated through the process to help a number of newer non-profit groups build the ‘third generation’ of LPFM radio stations.”

FCC rules allow applicants to request call signs of their choice if the combination is available.

They state: “Where a requested call sign, without the ‘-FM,’ ‘-TV,’ ‘-CA,’ ‘-DT,’ or ‘-LP’ suffix, would conform to the call sign of any other non-commonly owned station(s) operating in a different service, an applicant utilizing the online reservation and authorization system will be required to certify that consent to use the secondary call sign has been obtained from the holder of the primary call sign.”

McIntire told Radio World that Oak City Media receives several approaches each year from parties interested in obtaining or sharing the call letters.

“We do not want Oak City Media’s involvement in this process to violate either FCC regulations or IRS rules governing 501(c)(3) organizations,” he said, so they’ve created a 501(c)(3) non-profit called IBC Inc., short for Independent Broadcast Consultants.

“Oak City Media will conduct the selection process for whom shares the WKRP call sign,” McIntire said.

“Those who ‘win’ will donate funds to IBC, which in turn will oversee the funds and disburse them to ‘third-generation’ LPFM stations in need until we’ve exhausted what we generate.”

He said the effort has no stated goal amount, “simply to get the most we can so as to provide the biggest ‘pay it forward’ we’re able.”

(See a list of historical uses of WKRP at FCCInfo.com.)

The post WKRP (a Real One) Is Willing to Share Its Call Sign appeared first on Radio World.

Do you ever find yourself feeling a little blue about the radio industry? Spend a few minutes reading Dave Sturgeon, especially if you work on the commercial side of our biz.

“Radio is the only medium that still respectfully assumes you’re busy,” Dave wrote recently in a LinkedIn post.

“Every other medium today demands your attention: Watch this. Click that. Don’t skip. Stay till the end.”

Radio, Dave wrote, does the opposite.

“Radio assumes you’re living your life: Driving. Working. Making dinner. Running a business. Thinking.”

And instead of interrupting you, he wrote, it shows up alongside you.

“That’s not a weakness. That’s radio’s superpower. Because the people with the least time are usually the people with the most responsibility. Decision-makers don’t sit still. They move.

“Radio meets them in motion. It doesn’t fight for attention — it earns trust through repetition, familiarity and presence. Day after day. Week after week.”

In a world obsessed with “engagement,” Dave concluded, radio still understands something fundamental: Busy people buy things.

“That’s why radio doesn’t need to be flashy. It needs to be consistent. Clear. Human. The more demanding media becomes, the more valuable a medium is that respects your time and attention.

“Radio doesn’t nag. It accompanies. If your advertising only works when someone stops what they’re doing, it’s built to interrupt — not influence.”

I liked that post and asked for his permission to share it with you. 

Dave is the founder of Radio TV Agents; he has spent more than four decades as a morning show host, market vice president, director of sales, trainer and public speaker. 

He describes himself as “a Canadian by birth and Californian by residence” who “still believes in coffee-fueled morning shows, a great jingle, and the magic of live, local radio.”

If Dave’s kind of thinking energizes you, check out his book “The Truth About Radio: A Myth-Busting Guide for Today’s Media Buyers and Sellers.”

I asked him to share a few more of radio’s superpowers with us for this column. He sent this list:

• Radio is free
• Radio ads are unskippable
• Radio doesn’t watch you back or follow you around, it respects your privacy
• Radio is word-of-mouth advertising on steroids
• Radio is the original platform for social media influencers (personality endorsements)
• Radio audio entertainment and advertising is “crowd-delivered” — thus radio’s ultra-affordable CPM
• Audio triggers emotions: Emotions make memories and branding stick
• Digital is delivered one-to-one. Radio’s crowd delivery makes all digital advertising work better
• Radio isn’t just music, it’s companionship — music discovery on radio is random and exciting
• When disaster strikes, cable, Wi-Fi, phone service and all other utilities stop working, radio is the last remaining medium that keeps people connected.
• Radio is the soundtrack to your daily journey — the most used in-car medium where people are on their way to spend money

I love Dave’s boulder-smashing energy. You can follow him on LinkedIn. His book is sold on Amazon, and he has a podcast called “The Truth About Radio.” You can also hear an interview with him on The SoundOff Podcast at www.soundoffpodcast.com/dave-sturgeon. 

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post Dave Sturgeon Celebrates Radio’s Superpowers appeared first on Radio World.

No burning decisions specifically about radio broadcasting appeared on the FCC’s January meeting agenda today, but the commission took several actions of interest.

It unanimously adopted an order to enhance unlicensed use in the 6 GHz band for a new product category called “geofenced variable power” or GVP devices that can operate both indoors and outdoors at higher power than previously authorized devices.

“This action enables consumers to benefit from supercharged Wi-Fi and a new generation of wireless devices, from AR/VR and IoT to a range of innovative smart devices,” it said.

We reported on this pending action earlier this month. The proposal has been pushed by tech companies Apple, Broadcom, Google, Intel, Meta, Microsoft and Qualcomm. In 2024 the Consumer Technology Association told the FCC it supported the idea.

Chairman Brendan Carr said that at the recent CES show, “America’s tech industry debuted Wi-Fi 8 routers and chips for launch as soon as this year. This next generation of Wi-Fi will offer blazing fast speeds and massive bandwidth with more efficient power, higher throughput and better client-to-client communications.”

He noted that in 2020 the FCC opened 1,200 MHz in the 6 GHz band for unlicensed use. With this action he said the FCC brings more unlicensed spectrum to the marketplace “and [will] allow innovators to supercharge existing unlicensed bands. … With higher power and outdoor mobility, expect more compelling AR/VR, short‑range hotspots, automation and navigation.”

Gary Shapiro, the executive chair and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, issued an enthusiastic statement: “Unlicensed spectrum is the foundation for transformative technologies like Wi-Fi, and opening more of the 6 GHz band will supercharge the next wave of innovation, including augmented reality, virtual reality and other game-changing applications.”

Foreign ownership

Separately and unanimously the FCC also codified foreign ownership review requirements.

It said the goal was to maintain strong national security review processes while providing clarity for foreign investment.

“The agency’s longstanding foreign ownership review has helped protect against national security risks when reviewing increasingly complex ownership structures for FCC license holders, namely broadcast, common carrier wireless, and aeronautical licensees,” it said in a statement.

“Today’s action codifies many of those processes to ensure its foreign ownership requirements are clear and consistent, and to streamline the review process.”

The rules codify the policies and practices that it says the FCC has developed over the last decade to review complicated ownership structures under its Section 310(b) rules.

Foreign ownership reviews for broadcast licenses are led by the Media Bureau.

Foreign adversaries

The commission also established new rules intended to create transparency about the control of licensed entities by foreign adversaries. Again the FCC was unanimous.

“Foreign adversaries have made clear their intent to probe and penetrate vulnerabilities across our communications ecosystem,” said Carr.

“We have seen this through cyberattacks like Salt Typhoon. We have seen it in the equipment pipeline, where foreign adversary‑controlled labs could attempt to influence the testing and approval of devices bound for the U.S. marketplace.

“We have seen it in the online marketplace, where millions of prohibited devices linked to foreign adversaries were being sold to American consumers. And we have seen it at the carrier level, where entities with concerning ties to foreign governments have sought to operate in U.S. networks despite clear national‑security risks.”

Carr said the vote “sets up a clear, risk-based reporting structure that requires entities to attest to whether they are owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of a foreign adversary.” He called it an agency-wide effort that “builds on a year’s worth of national security initiatives and establishes a uniform system for identifying foreign adversary control across all FCC licensees and authorization holders.”

The order places each license, permit or authorization into a series of schedules, based on a variety of factors including national security risk of foreign adversary control and reporting burdens, and it imposes reporting requirements about equity and controlling interests.

The FCC said, “Today’s action, as well as those spearheaded by the commission over the past year, including establishing the Council on National Security, will strengthen the security of U.S. communications networks by tracking many of the ideas laid out in the pending bipartisan Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency (FACT) Act led by Senator Deb Fischer and moving swiftly to protect national security.”

We will watch for announcements about the paperwork impact of these foreign ownership and foreign adversary rules on broadcasters.

Meantime next month’s FCC meeting will include an agenda item specifically of interest in radio broadcasting: an application window for new FM translators for noncom educational stations.

The post FCC Approves New GVP Devices for 6 GHz Band appeared first on Radio World.

We have more details about the FCC’s plan to invite applications for new FM translator construction permits for noncom educational stations in the reserved band, 88.1 to 91.9 MHz.

We reported yesterday that Chairman Carr had mentioned a planned vote in a blog post. The commission subsequently released the draft of the notice on which it will vote on Feb. 18.

You can read the full draft notice here in PDF format.

The notice will direct the Media Bureau to begin work to open the filing window, the first of its kind for stations in the reserved band. Specific dates would come later.

Under the plan, an applicant would have to be the licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or LPFM that the proposed translator would rebroadcast. The FCC does not plan to accept major modifications to existing NCE reserved band translators.

The commission also is proposing a limit of 10 applications nationally for each applicant (but four for tribal LPFMs and two for other LPFMs). But it also is asking for public comment on its proposed eligibility restrictions and caps.

“The commission has employed application caps or eligibility restrictions in prior reserved band full-service NCE FM windows and non-reserved band FM translator windows to promote efficiency, curb speculative applications and expedite the processing of applications and expansion of new service while preserving spectrum and future licensing opportunities,” it wrote in a summary sheet.

“For example, in both 2007 and 2021, before the NCE FM station filing windows opened, the commission sought comment on an application cap and subsequently established a limit of 10 NCE FM new station applications filed by an applicant during each filing window.”

It said the application limit was an effective safeguard and helped restrict the number of MX applications, prevented mass filings and allowed the FCC to process and grant thousands of new NCE FM applications. It noted that it also has imposed such restrictions in prior translator filing windows.

And as noted above, the FCC said that it will not accept applications for major mods to existing NCE reserved band translators. “An applicant seeking a major modification to an existing NCE reserved band FM translator station authorization may apply for a new station and, subsequent to commencement of operations with its newly authorized facilities, surrender its old station license.”

Do you receive the daily Radio World SmartBrief newsletter?

The post FCC Releases Details of Proposed NCE Translator Window appeared first on Radio World.

Orban’s first audio processor for FM broadcasting, the Optimod 8000, has turned 50. To mark the anniversary, Orban is sponsoring this series of interviews of Bob Orban in conversation with Radio World Editor in Chief Paul McLane. This is Part 3. (Read the earlier parts starting here.)

Paul McLane: When we spoke last, you talked about building on the success of the FM 8000 processor and getting into AM with the Optimod 9000. The early 1980s must have been a time of significant growth.

Bob Orban: The 8000 had caused us to grow rapidly and gave us the luxury of being able to take our time in terms of product development. There was plenty of money coming in, and we didn’t have shareholders other than John Delantoni and me, so we didn’t have quarterly reports to answer to.

McLane: Tell me about the design process — was it basically you sitting down and thinking? Was there a team effort?

Orban: I did the engineering design work at the time, and we had a PCB layout guy. John Delantoni, who had worked in electronic manufacturing, was responsible for production design. I didn’t do PC board layout, I didn’t do mechanical design. I did the electrical design, and what today you might call the algorithm design — although, back then, that was synonymous with the circuit design of the product.

McLane: This is all before tabletop computing, surface-mount technology and DSP took off, right?

Orban: I was a very early user of computers. I learned programming in college, first Fortran and later Algol, so I had familiarity with the concepts even in the ’60s.

My first one really was a programmable calculator, the HP 9100, around 1969. Then in 1975 we were able to afford a Tektronix 4051, one of the first devices you might call a personal computer. It used a Motorola 6800 microprocessor and a Tektronix storage tube as the display. It was programmed in BASIC. So even though desktop computing really came on the scene with the IBM PC and Apple II, I’d been doing it since 1975 with this Tektronix device.

One thing that distinguished Orban from its competitors was the formal mathematical design process we applied to our products.

For example, we started serious “design for manufacturability” by doing sensitivity analysis. That’s where you do circuit analysis and determine the effect of component tolerances on the final behavior of the circuit.

If you look back at those old Orban analog products, you’ll see components with various tolerances. That wasn’t driven by cost, as you might think. It was driven by mathematical analysis of the circuit to determine which components were the most sensitive and required the tightest tolerances.

McLane: Was that unique among processing manufacturers of the time?

Orban: I can’t speak for others. CBS Laboratories had a very good technical team and I’m sure they had access to computing facilities, but I don’t think they were thinking of processing in the same sophistication that I was at the time, particularly regarding the filter design. They were thinking of gated compressors and peak limiters embedded in other parts of a conventional transmission chain.

McLane: Now tell me about the genesis of the Optimod-FM 8100A.

Orban: Well, I knew that we could do better.

Dave Hershberger, who was working for Harris, had come up with a clever overshoot compensation scheme for a new generation of Harris stereo generators, so I needed to do something to respond to that. At the same time, my invention of distortion cancel clipping, first used in the 9000, opened up a new opportunity for FM processing.

The big weakness of the 9000’s distortion cancellation was that it required analog bucket brigade delay lines. Those were fine for AM in terms of their noise and distortion performance, but they weren’t quite good enough for FM.

So one day I had the idea that instead of using these analog delay chips, I could use the main 15 kHz low-pass filter already in the FM processor as a delay line if I applied group delay correction to it.

That was another result of computer-aided design, designing the matched filters between the 15 kHz main low-pass filter and side-chain low-pass filter for cancellation. They had to be matched in magnitude and phase over the 0 to 2 kHz region. That’s something that could not have been done without the computational resources I had at the time. I wrote programs to do that.

Now we had distortion cancellation with high basic audio quality, a very clean signal path. That allowed me to do much more aggressive clipping than the 8000 had done, to rely much more on the clipper for high-frequency control, which allowed the 8100 to be substantially brighter.

Another influence was Mike Dorrough and the Discriminate Audio Processor, the DAP 310. There were also home-brew multiband processors out there.

The problem I had with a simple multiband processor was that if you were doing purist processing for, say, a classical or a jazz format, you wouldn’t necessarily want all this automatic re-equalization that happens with the multiband compressors of the time.

I came up with the idea of variable coupling between the main part of the compressor, which was above 200 Hertz, and then a base compressor that was below 200. To avoid bringing up high frequencies unnecessarily, the basic 8100 was not a three-band like the Dorrough, it was a two-band. Then the high-frequency limiter was separate, designed to control high-frequency overload due to the FM preemphasis curve, instead of just doing automatic re-equalization.

Then I came up with the frequency contour side-chain overshoot corrector, which was my response to Dave Hershberger’s clever design. But unlike his, it did not increase clipping distortion in the frequency range below about 5 kHz.

I applied for patents on a number of these things. Patents were an important part of our business strategy, to protect our intellectual property.

An amusing anecdote: I was testing a prototype of the 8100 on KSOL in San Francisco. The late Bill Sacks was responsible for one of the other Bay Area stations. Later, when the cat came out of the bag, Bill was quite ticked off. He said, “Boy I chased that thing. I could just never quite get there. So now you’re telling me that that’s what you were doing!”

McLane: How did the market launch go?

Orban: We subscribe to the IBM philosophy, which is that when you announce a product, you need to be able to deliver it pretty much the next day, otherwise it’s going to cannibalize your existing sales.

People tested them and that that the 8100As were sufficiently better than their 8000s that upgrade was warranted. The product was a very big success for us, in fact it’s the best-selling Orban processor in the company’s history.

We eventually sold something like 10,000 units over the years, and it stayed in production for I think 10 years.

McLane: For 8000 users, this was not a modification, it was a full replacement.

Orban: It was a replacement. You also now had a built-in stereo generator. And it had the same barrier strips on the back — you could basically disconnect the wires from your 8000, put the 8100 in the rack and reconnect the wires, and you’re in business.

McLane: Were you positioning it as a processor for all formats?

Orban: It was designed so that you could go to the purest end if you wanted to, but you could also speed up the release time and reduce the coupling between the master and base bands. It was also a very competitive rock and roll, pop music, urban processor.

McLane: Are we getting into the era of presets?

Orban: This was entirely analog, so it didn’t support presets. We suggested setups in the manual, but you had to go inside the box and adjust the knobs to the manual’s recommended settings.

There were a lot of consultants who had their own secret sauce; and because the peak limiting and distortion cancel clipping systems were so strong, people started putting processing in front of it again, as had happened with the 8000. One of the biggest successes was Glen Clark’s Texar Prisms. There were also Circuit Research Labs boxes, and a number of lesser players in terms of the popularity including the Pacific Recorders Multimax.

McLane: Did it annoy you that people were putting boxes in front of yours?

Orban: As long as their checks were good in buying the 8100, that was the main thing that I was concerned with!

By this time I had learned an important lesson for anybody doing processing: Don’t confuse your own preference with the preference of the wider audience. Different people have different preferences, and that’s okay, that’s part of life.

You can either go along and help them achieve those preferences the best they can, or you can be resistant. And being resistant is just foolish.

McLane: In 1984 you introduced the 8100A/XT 6-Band Accessory Chassis. Why was that necessary?

Orban: We saw that Texar was having a big success with the Prisms. We realized that there was an opportunity not only to make a much more multiband processor but to do it in a novel way that embedded itself into the circuitry of the 8100 and that exploited its existing distortion-cancelling filters, which of course, you couldn’t do with an external product.

I came up with the idea of multiband distortion cancel clipping, where each band has its own independent distortion cancelling. It occurred to me that, because everything but the clippers are linear, you can use the single distortion-cancelling filter for all of the bands, which greatly simplifies things.

I’d had experience with six-band compressors in the 9000 and the 9100 so we knew how to do it. We came up with a hybrid that plugged into the 8100A with an umbilical cord into a connector in the back, and you moved a few jumpers on the 8100’s printed circuit boards.

The 8100A/1 made those provisions, and you could upgrade them. [See a 1986 manual for the 8100A/1 from the website World Radio History.]

8100A units could be field upgraded to 8100A/1 status via the Orban RET-27 upgrade kit. It required soldering to the backplane and replacement of several PC cards. According to the XT2 manual, the upgrade could be expected to take about an hour, and the XT2 manual contains installation instructions for the kit.

When we got the 8100A/XT out on the market, some people pushed back against the tuning, so I did more work on that. I also discovered that it seemed to work better when the top-band compressor was controlled by the side chain of the band below the top band.

Those two modifications, along with additional tuning controls, became the 8100A/XT2, and it seemed to be exactly what the market was looking for. Again it stayed in production for a number of years.

McLane: What does the success of these products tell us about the radio marketplace of the time?

Orban: They wanted it louder, they wanted it brighter, they wanted it cleaner.

Those three requirements require tradeoffs. Usually when you push one, you get less of the other. Our goal was to offer a toolkit that allowed you to push that as hard as you possibly could, with the best compromise depending on your preference.

It was not up to me to dictate user or program director preferences. They knew more about programming than I did, and they did focus groups, they watched the ratings. I just provided them with the tools to realize what they wanted to do.

We wanted to serve any format, from the BBC doing classical music all the way to an aggressive rocker in the New York City market.

McLane: Meanwhile you were introducing products on the TV side.

Orban: The Optimod-TV 8180A, introduced in 1981, was basically an 8100 without a stereo generator.

Around the same time, CBS Technology Center, the successor to CBS Labs, had come out with their second-generation CBS loudness meter and an associated loudness controller.

There had been an FCC docket on loud commercials. I saw an opportunity to address the FCC’s concerns and introduce a good-sounding processor that could be tuned appropriately for television. It was based on the 8100, which is a highly tunable processor.

We licensed the loudness controller and loudness meter technology from CBS Technology Center — we never brought out a commercial version of the meter, it was just too expensive with analog components.

I did some mathematical transformation of the original filters in the CBS IP package to reduce the cost, but even so, it would have been very expensive. When we finally introduced the free Orban loudness meter in DSP in 2008, one of the goals was to finally make the CBS loudness meter available to the wider public after a gap of many, many years.

So in 1983 we introduced the 8182 version, which added Hilbert-Transform clippers and a CBS Loudness Controller to the original 8180A.

Hilbert-Transform was based on the work of the mathematician David Hilbert, which in turn was based on work by Michael Gerzon, who was active in the Audio Engineering Society and a published author. He figured out how to do an RF clipper without using RF modulation by doing a model.

I borrowed his work and combined it with distortion-cancelling ideas of mine. That turned into the Hilbert-Transform clipper, first used in the 8182 Optimod TV but later also in the Optimod-HF 9105 for international shortwave.

McLane: How did the TV side of the industry respond to your products, how were sales?

Orban: Slow but steady. TV stations did not think of their revenue in terms of loudness wars, for very good reasons, but they were under pressure from the FCC for the loud commercial issue.

We offered them a package tied up with a bow that would solve their loud commercial problem and provide a comfortably listenable audio stream. People could just relax and enjoy and not even think about it. Dialogue was intelligible. Commercials weren’t too loud, everything was consistent.

The 1990s was a golden age of intelligible dialogue, before a lot of the practices that have caused such a big problem.

McLane: A couple of years later you added the 222A Stereo Spatial Enhancer.

Orban: Eric Small had introduced the StereoMaxx, a stereo widening tool that was getting popular with broadcasters as an add-on. Again we saw a business opportunity to put our own spin on it. It worked completely differently from Eric’s device and had several advantages. It didn’t amplify reverberation excessively.

We also had the 275A Automatic Stereo Synthesizer, which had automatic detection and recognition of stereo and mono programs, and automatic stereo synthesis. That was a result of the transition to BTSC stereo. There was a lot of legacy mono material out there still being broadcast.

McLane: Speaking of which, how has the quality of source material affected these conversations? Have you seen that change dramatically?

Orban: One dramatic thing that happened in television was that the networks finally got off the AT&T Long Lines and were able to transmit 15 kHz audio for the first time, instead of 5 kilohertz. Television sound suddenly became high-fidelity. Between that and BTSC stereo, probably the biggest change in the consumer space was in television audio.

Vinyl records could sound very good and they were played on the air. Tape carts had their problems; they were convenient, but there were the endless phase issues.

Whatever you might say about early CD sound from an audiophile perspective, CDs were a godsend from a broadcast perspective, because by and large they didn’t skip and they cued easily. They didn’t require cleaning gunk off a stylus, or head alignments.

So radio had had access to high-quality, high-fidelity source material since the late 1940s when the LP record was introduced, and then, starting in 1957 with the stereo LP. As far as the audience was concerned, CDs were a marginal improvement in audio quality but a big improvement operationally.

Then things went backwards. Stations started using MP3s as broadcast sources, which I thought was a big mistake. The people who had thousands of MP3s on their playout systems eventually became second-class citizens when hard disk got cheap enough that you could do linear audio on the playout systems. But that was later.

McLane: What else do you remember from that period?

Orban: It was a great time for us. It was exciting. We managed our growth pretty well; we didn’t take on debt.

When we finally were in a position to sell to AKG, we were in a very good position. But that’s the story for next time.

The post Our Conversation With Bob Orban, Part 3 appeared first on Radio World.

Jim Kuzman is a lifelong broadcaster. He has been with Telos Alliance since 2011 and serves as the company’s director of content but occasionally sneaks off to lend his ears and audio-processing expertise to the Omnia team.

He took our questions for your ebook “Streaming Best Practices.”

Radio World: Jim, what’s the most important trend in how audio streaming and workflows have evolved for radio?

Jim Kuzman: Streaming listenership is on the rise, and savvy broadcasters are sitting up and taking notice of how and where their audience is “tuning in.”

Studio technologies like audio over IP are ideal for IP-based deliverables like streaming audio. Radio companies that have already embraced it are perfectly poised to deliver high-quality streams, while those who have yet to make the leap now have the perfect reason to get on board.

In terms of workflows, broadcasters have never had so many options, ranging from dedicated proprietary hardware to software hosted on bare metal servers to scalable and flexible cloud-based platforms. Whether you’re a single station serving a small community or a large group in a major market, there are technologies and workflows that match your needs.

RW: What role do Telos products play in this ecosystem?

Kuzman: Our streaming products fall into two basic categories, audio processing and stream encoding, with a fair bit of overlap between the two within our lineup.

For instance, Omnia Forza HDS is available as a standalone on-premises or cloud-hosted software processor, but it is also a processing option in our Z/IPStream X/20 (software) and Z/IPStream R/20 (hardware) processing and streaming platforms. Z/IPStream also offers an Omnia.9 processing option, while the Omnia.9 itself includes built-in stream encoding for each of its sources.

We believe giving our clients processing options for their streams is just as important as for their terrestrial broadcasts.

RW: What techniques or best practices can you share for maintaining audio quality?

Kuzman: Much has changed in the audio world over the past several decades, but one truth remains: Paying attention to the details at every step of the process and every stage of the audio path pays off, whether the content is destined for an analog over-the-air signal, an HD or DAB channel, a live stream or on-demand listening.

Because streaming audio is often delivered via a lossy codec and podcasts are typically saved in a data-compressed format, maintaining linear or lossless audio for as long as possible reduces the effects of cascading data compression, particularly at lower bitrates.

For lower-bit-rate streams, where the effects of data compression are more audible, adjusting your processing to help mask them — or at the very least, not exaggerate them — can make for a more pleasant-sounding stream with less listener fatigue. Tailoring the EQ and carefully adjusting the middle and upper bands of a processor’s multiband AGCs and limiters is key. Omnia Forza also features our SENSUS algorithm, which intelligently preconditions audio destined for HD and streaming paths.

Approaching and understanding loudness in the right context is important, too. We all know the benefits of and reasons for building loudness to a certain level for analog AM and FM signals, but as everyone also knows, there are trade-offs.

With streaming audio and podcasts, you are trying to manage and control loudness to meet a certain LUFS target, not build it. This is a huge gift, as it allows you to relax the processing and let the music breathe.

You still want consistent levels and a uniform spectral balance, but you’re no longer on the hook to beat up the music purely in the name of competitive loudness. Make the most of that opportunity; your listeners will notice.

RW: What considerations come into play for HD Radio multicasts?

Kuzman: Unlike analog FM, HD Radio isn’t frequency-limited to 15 kHz, doesn’t employ pre-emphasis and doesn’t rely on hard clipping for peak control.

Not having those things working against you helps in terms of audio quality, but HD has its own challenges. Even though HD Radio uses a lossy codec, if the primary channel is fed linear audio through an uncompressed path and is allotted all of the available bits, there are minimal audible artifacts.

When you start adding HD subchannels, you’re slicing the metaphorical pie into smaller and smaller pieces. All of the channels must be run at lower bitrates to make room, including the primary HD path. This is analogous to running streaming audio at reduced bitrates, so the same recommendations for adjusting your processing to help mitigate the audible effects apply here. We’re always available to help people balance the trade-offs.

RW: What should streamers know about encoding formats?

Kuzman: The two primary considerations are compatibility and the tradeoff between audio quality and bitrate.

For lossy formats, MP3 has a slight edge for compatibility, as all popular modern web browsers, including Chrome, Safari, Edge, Firefox and Opera, natively support it on desktop or mobile. AAC runs a very close second, though Firefox introduces a caveat or two depending on the operating system. Ogg Vorbis can deliver very high quality at high bitrates and is recognized by most web browsers, but isn’t as efficient as AAC. 

Lossless formats such as FLAC, WAV, AIFF and ALAC are available, but they do not enjoy the same level of near-universal compatibility, and by their very nature are not nearly as efficient as their lossy counterparts.

Like so many things in the audio world, compromises and trade-offs are lurking around every corner. 

The most significant one for streaming is accepting lower audio quality for the sake of using less bandwidth, or, conversely, using more data and a bigger pipeline in exchange for better fidelity. AAC, which includes several variants optimized for low-bit-rate streams, comes out ahead in terms of efficiency, as it requires roughly half the bandwidth of MP3 to deliver the same perceived audio quality. That gives you the choice of using AAC to either improve your sound at the same given bitrate, or achieve an equivalent sound at half the bitrate compared to the same stream using MP3.

Streamers should also consider how listeners consume their content. A 320 kbps AAC stream might be appropriate for critical at-home music listening on higher-end speakers or headphones, and be very much appreciated by a discerning audience, but it is overkill for delivering a podcast through a smartphone speaker using mobile data. Many streamers address this by providing listeners with both a lower bitrate and a higher quality option.

RW: How can a station that is streaming match levels among different sources?

Kuzman: Mismatching of audio levels — specifically commercials that are louder than the main program content — is one of the top complaints from listeners. It applies to television, streaming video services, on-demand content and most definitely streaming audio. 

No one enjoys having to turn up the volume to understand what someone is saying and then scrambling two minutes later to turn down a blaring commercial! The same is true when transitioning from one song to another. The audience expects to set their volume once for a given session and be done, and rightfully so. 

There are two primary ways to ensure consistent levels across sources: real-time processing and file-based processing.

Using a dedicated real-time processor is not dissimilar to what radio stations have been doing for decades to smooth out differences in loudness and, in most cases, provide spectral consistency. The most important consideration with the real-time approach is to use a processor specifically designed for streaming audio, ideally one where you can set an output loudness target for a specific LUFS. 

If you are tempted to feed your streaming encoders with the output of your FM processor to save time or money, don’t. It’s the fastest path to an awful-sounding stream that will drive listeners to your competition.

File-based processors such as our Minnetonka Audio AudioTools Server allow you to achieve uniform loudness and create your signature sound across your entire library, and are worthy of serious consideration for streamers. They provide automatic, faster-than-real-time batch processing using watch folders and specific predetermined workflows, which can be a real time-saver and deliver very consistent results.

RW: What else should we know?

Kuzman: Taking the time to do streaming right and treating it with the same care as your terrestrial signal is a must if you intend to build and keep an audience. Streaming audio is on the rise. Your listeners are already there, and they deserve the best-sounding stream you can give them.

[Check Out More of Radio World’s Ebooks Here]

The post Kuzman: Give Your Listeners the Best Streams You Can appeared first on Radio World.

The problems of the AM radio band in the United States are not a reason for the FCC to leave current radio ownership caps in place. That’s the view of Connoisseur, Townsquare, Bonneville and several other radio groups.

They also told the commission that U.S. radio broadcasters are in an existential crisis.

The FCC has been taking reply comments in its latest quadrennial review of broadcast ownership rules.

Under current rules, in a market with 45 or more stations, one entity can own up to eight stations, including up to five in the same service (AM or FM). The limit is smaller as the number of stations in a market decreases.

As we’ve reported, the National Association of Broadcasters is leading a push to remove those restrictions, including local caps on radio ownership in a market, which would allow further industry consolidation.

Mid-West Family Broadcasting, Frandsen Family Stations, Midwest Communications and Legend Communications joined Connoisseur, Townsquare and Bonneville in a filing.

The groups disagreed with musicFirst, the Future of Music Coalition and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, who have told the FCC that allowing more FM consolidation could harm AM broadcasters.

“The problems of AM will exist whether or not there is greater local ownership,” the groups wrote.

“Already, AM licenses are being surrendered every year because there are no viable business options for owners to pursue. … As rising waters raise all ships, all radio broadcasters will benefit from enhanced competitive opportunities created by the elimination of the Local Radio Ownership Rule, including by making broadcast radio more financially appealing to investors.

“Increased ownership caps may also allow for AM specialists to come into markets and buy many AMs to provide unique services.”

“Existential crisis”

The seven companies said the time is now for the FCC to remove the “archaic regulatory burdens that restrict radio’s ability to compete” in the marketplace.

The companies told the commission that U.S. radio broadcasters are “in an existential crisis as they can no longer compete effectively in the 21st century audio marketplace.” They believe that in the last 12 years, radio has lost about half of its audience and almost half of its advertising dollars without adjusting for inflation.

Among their arguments is that the FCC must consider competition across the entire audio marketplace; that broadcast radio competes directly with digital media for listeners and ad revenue; and that consolidation will not lead to less program diversity in local markets.

“The few comments opposing relaxation or elimination of the rules that focus on radio rely on unproven canards that modifying or repealing the radio rules will somehow lessen format choices for local listeners, deprive them of local news and information, harm AM radio and otherwise be contrary to the public interest,” they wrote.

“These claims simply do not withstand scrutiny.”

They told the FCC that the ownership rules are not responsible for less minority and local ownership. “Instead, competition from digital media is to blame.”

Greater diverse and local ownership cannot happen without access to capital, they argue, “and the barriers to full competition from broadcasters explains that lack of capital.”

“The commission must act now to allow broadcasters to build strong local brands that can compete against the Tech giants,” they wrote.

“The long-outdated Local Radio Ownership Rule prevents local radio broadcasters from competing effectively in today’s media marketplace by achieving the scale necessary to compete against digital audio platforms for local advertising revenue and audience share.”

They said competition for audience and advertising has only increased since the commission declined to change the rules in the previous quadrennial review.

“These trends will only continue as non-broadcast media outlets — many of which are controlled by the biggest companies in America — continue to explode. Absent relief from outdated and overly restrictive ownership limits, over-the-air radio stations will simply be unable to maintain their current levels of service to their local communities.”

[Read their comments in PDF form.]

The post Don’t Let AM’s Issues Stop Ownership Reform, Groups Say appeared first on Radio World.

The musicFirst Coalition and the Future of Music Coalition are pressing the FCC not to do away with the current FM ownership caps.

Those rules limit the number of FM stations that one entity can own in each geographic market. The commission is reviewing its ownership rules, as it must every four years, and the deadline for reply comments has just passed. Licensees represented by the National Association of Broadcasters hope the FCC will remove the limits. Read our story on NAB’s reply comment filing here.

The two coalitions are longtime opponents of further radio ownership degulation and they frequently work together on the opposite site of issues from the NAB, most notably on whether broadcasters should pay performance royalties.

FMC and musicFirst argue that the public interest requires the FCC to keep its FM subcap “in order to protect and promote viewpoint diversity, localism and competition between local AM/FM radio broadcasters.”

They say NAB’s argument that the current rules harm broadcasters and the public is false.

“Over 1,800 individual AM/FM radio listeners and a plethora of organizations across a wide array of the political spectrum have stated in comments in this proceeding that broadcast ownership rules remain necessary in the public interest in competition, localism and viewpoint diversity,” they wrote.

“This is because the commission’s broadcast ownership rules protect audiences, independent broadcasters and all kinds of AM radio broadcasters (both independent broadcasters and big companies that have invested in AM holdings).”

To advance their argument, they cited specific or general comments about broadcast deregulation from organizations as disparate as iHeartMedia, Newsmax, SAG-AFTRA, the American Conservative Union Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Freedom, Free Press and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters.

The coalitions believe further deregulation would hurt “all smaller broadcasters who want to continue to compete for audiences and advertising dollars within the local markets they serve” and that it would be harmful to the entire AM radio industry.

The only possible beneficiaries of economies of scale, they told the commission, would be “those few radio owners that had already maxed out their commercial FM ownership within the local communities in which they broadcast. …

“Such owners of (already large) local clusters would, in the process of buying more local FM stations than previously allowed, gain further local market share specifically at the expense of every other remaining owner of local FM stations who must then try to compete with their now comparatively gigantic local competitor for advertising dollars.”

FMC and musicFirst said the NAB wants the FCC to believe that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between AM/FM ownership consolidation and increased program variety.

But they cited evidence to cast doubt on claims that larger station groups will offer the public more variety.

The groups were dismissive of a radio programming study from BIA Advisory Services that commissioned by NAB last year.

They say the NAB arguments are “obscuring the fact that the diversity of music, viewpoints (through music and spoken word), and local voices has decreased since 1996 radio ownership deregulation. We challenge the NAB to show whether the number of unique artists and unique songs on the radio increased in the wake of mergers following 1996. Additionally, by all means, show what percentage of artists, before and after 1996, were local to their regions, and what percentage of topics discussed were specific to local concerns.”

Also, when large radio broadcast entities complain about their profit levels, they asked the FCC to remember that several of them “are spending much of their available cash servicing debt that they acquired in the wake of the last time that the ownership caps were loosened.”

In the wake of the elimination of the Main Studio Rule in 2017, the continued, “many stations that used to be staffed by local personnel are now, at least part-time, programmed and/or voiced remotely in order to cut costs further, thereby further diminishing the local connection that AM/FM listeners appreciate.”

They gave as an example the overnight broadcasts on Audacy station KNX-FM in Los Angeles that consists of programming from KCBS-FM in San Francisco.

They also told the FCC that noncommercial Educational Media Foundation, “which now owns over 1,000 broadcast signals across all 50 states, has nearly monopolized, and homogenized on a nationwide basis, the Christian music radio airwaves, including making it so that listeners of Christian music in any given city are likely listening to exactly the same playlists and shows as Christian music listeners in another city with completely different local needs.”

[You can read the full filing in PDF form here.]

The post Music Coalitions Say Deregulation Will Hurt Smaller Stations appeared first on Radio World.

This is one in a series about best practices for streaming for radio stations.

Karl Lind is chief engineer with Northwestern Media, servicing approximately 30 full-time FM stations and translators as well as one AM daytime station in Iowa and Missouri. 

Radio World: Karl, what would you identify as the most important trend in how audio streaming technology or workflows have evolved for radio companies?

Karl Lind: In recent years, this industry has seen a decline in traditional over-the-air broadcast reception in homes, coupled with an exponential increase in the number of smart home devices natively capable of internet-based streaming. Fewer individuals and families leverage traditional broadcast in their homes; in many cases, homes will be found without a radio. 

As the demand for over-the-air broadcast continues to decline outside of the motor vehicle, radio broadcasters need to acknowledge the decline and prepare to leverage online content delivery as the next generation of home radio listening. 

RW: What kind of processing do you use, and is it different from your on-air?

Lind: Within Northwestern Media, we utilize a few different processors for our webstream encoding. 

In all cases, the device handling the stream encoding is responsible for the audio processing. As an organization that employs Telos Omnia.9 at many of our flagship stations, we use either the Omnia.9’s internal stream processor and encoder or Claesson Edwards’ BreakawayOne audio software processor and encoder. 

While the processing on our streams is remarkably like the sound of our FMs, the stream’s density is reduced to compensate for lossy compression algorithms. The result: Omnia quality processing on both FM and webstream. The webstream audience is growing, so we are making sure we prioritize the listener experience just as we would our FM signals. 

RW: What techniques would you recommend for maintaining audio quality for streaming audio and podcasting?

Lind: Take care of your listener’s ears. 

Broadcasters need to carefully balance compression algorithms, bitrates and processing. For streaming audio, stations need to consider their bandwidth capacity, billing for CDNs (as applicable), and revenue potential. For a highly profitable webstream, you may want to consider a higher bitrate and a more standard algorithm. The higher your bitrate, the better your sound, but the higher your streaming provider bill. 

Carefully balance all three points and remember to prioritize your listener’s experience over your profit margin. 

Speaking to specific recommendations for streaming, I always set a hard deck in compression method of 96 kbps HE-AACv1. I have found anything below that bitrate and algorithm (even utilizing HE-AACv2) to possess noticeably poorer fidelity, especially once you introduce processing. 

There is a vast number of combinations you can use to deliver your content, but the aforementioned configuration should get you started in the right direction if you’re trying to get your stream off the ground.

RW: How can broadcasters monitor all their streams efficiently?

Lind: Being able to monitor and alarm on stream issues is becoming increasingly more important as stations’ streaming audiences grow and engineering forces shrink. Inovonics recently developed its 611 Streaming Monitor, which can monitor and alarm up to 30 different streams in stream rotation. The 611 is compatible with SSL, Icecast and HLS, making it versatile in all modern and legacy stream deployments. With consideration toward simplicity and reliability, we’ve found the 611 to be the best choice for monitoring our audio streams.

Read more on this topic in the ebook “Streaming Best Practices.”

The post Take Care of Your Listener’s Ears appeared first on Radio World.

Over 10 years, the number of AM radio stations in the United States has dropped by 7%, while the number of noncom FMs has increased 16%. And FM translators and boosters soared 36%.

The FCC has released its latest count of broadcast station licenses, providing the totals as of the end of December 2025.

Here we report those results and compare them to one year ago and to a decade ago:

AM radio: Like others in radio we watch the AM total with particular interest given the challenges of that band and frequent reports of smaller stations going silent. There were 4,342 AM licenses as of the end of December. That’s down 41 stations from a year ago and down 342 from 2015, a decline of 7%. Steadily, the senior band is shrinking.

FM commercial: This category declined slightly over both one and 10 years. There were 6,589 FM commercial stations in December, 36 fewer than a year earlier and down 112 from 2015, a 2% drop.

FM educational: This category is in demand. As of December there were 4,755 noncom FMs. That was an increase of 278 stations in just one year, the result of a recent application window. It’s also an increase of 660 stations over 10 years, a 16% jump. (In late 2002 there were only 2,331 NCE stations.)

FM translators and boosters: There were 8,867 of these in December, down very slightly from a year earlier but up by more than 2,300 licenses compared to a decade ago, for an increase of 39%. Translators grew dramatically in part because of the FCC’s program to provide translators to AM licensees.

Low-power FM: There were 1,994 LPFMs in December, 26 more than a year earlier as new stations from the 2023 LPFM window come online. Ten years ago the number was 1,433. (The LPFM category’s historic peak to date was around 2,200 stations about eight years ago.)

The post Here’s How FCC Station Totals Have Changed in 10 Years appeared first on Radio World.

Curtis LeGeyt is entering into the fifth year of his tenure as president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters. We asked him to discuss the association’s priorities in the new year. He spoke with Radio World in late December.

Radio World: First, what do you consider your chief successes for radio of 2025?

Curtis LeGeyt: It’s been a tremendous year through the lens of reaffirming policymaker interest and ensuring that this medium can continue to thrive.

From the go last Jan. 20, there has been something to react to every day in Washington, and a lot of noise. It can be very difficult to break through.

We have been unified as an industry in telling our story, and policymakers have reacted. To have gotten the “AM for Every Vehicle Act” out of the gate so quickly — more than 300 House co-sponsors, more than 60 Senate co-sponsors, a filibuster-proof majority, and moving the bill with near-unanimity in both the House and Senate Commerce committees — it’s a tremendous accomplishment and testament to our members’ work across the country in a difficult environment.

We obviously are dealing with a new chair at the FCC, frankly new commissioners across the board. They’ve been solicitous and open to understanding the challenges facing the radio industry, the need to allow radio to better compete on a level playing field with the tech platforms who have siphoned those advertising dollars out of local communities.

We’ve seen the commission move quickly to open its latest quadrennial review of local ownership rules. We feel that the commission is very open to our perspective as to why those rules need to be updated to allow broadcasters to better serve our community.

And then the perennial issue that radio needs to win, year in and year out, to secure the future of our medium is the performance tax.

The music industry continues to pour substantial resources into that fight, adverse to the interests of local radio. In spite of their energy and in the wake of a contentious hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we’re again showing that members are willing to step up and support local radio in this fight. We’ve got more than a majority of the House of Representatives supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act.

A new administration, a new Congress, gives a clean slate to reaffirm our values, our service. We don’t register Republican, we don’t register Democrat, we register local and trusted. In a divided Washington, because of the work of our members, we’ve been able to tell that story.

RW: Have you been disappointed about not accomplishing something in particular?

LeGeyt: Washington is never going to move as quickly as the marketplace nor the needs of our membership.

We are at an existential moment for local radio, with heavy disruption from the tech platforms. We are competing with behemoths. We need Washington to act on these issues.

By any measure within the beltway, we’re achieving tremendous success; but it’s simply not quickly enough to address the day-to-day needs of our members and communities.

My disappointment is just that the machinations of Washington seem to be moving slower and slower every Congress. But I am comforted and thrilled that within those constraints, we have managed to break through, garner bipartisan support, get movement of our legislation through committees in terms of substantive policy.

This [AM legislation] is the most co-sponsored bill in the House of Representatives this Congress. We’ve got all the tools we need to get this over the finish line. But institutionally, Washington is moving a little slower than we would like.

The funding of the federal government alone has taken up substantial time and bandwidth of policymakers. We’ve got to work within the constraints of the institution. My disappointment is that the institution cannot move more quickly; but we’re going to prevail in spite of that.

RW: Regarding local radio ownership caps, you’ve talked before about Chairman Carr’s generally supportive attitude; and the outcome certainly felt almost assured to me, given the 2–1 Republican majority. But then President Trump made remarks about not wanting to help TV companies that he considers left-leaning. Is this going to have any impact on the radio discussion?

LeGeyt: The reason we’re even having this conversation about modernization of the rules is because listeners and viewers across the country have reached out to Washington, expressing the need to allow local radio to better compete.

We got out of the gates very quickly this Congress with a media blitz, educating policymakers on the need for the FCC to act quickly on this issue. We were bolstered by a court decision over the summer that clarified the FCC ability to further deregulate in this space.

Chairman Carr has a broad purview over all areas of telecom and broadcast, and for local ownership to rise to the top of his “to do” list is a testament to the fact that local listeners and viewers have engaged with Washington. More than 200,000 of them, and nearly 100 bipartisan lawmakers, have reached out to Chairman Carr saying this is the time to modernize these rules to allow broadcasters to better compete.

There are well-heeled adversaries that we need to deal with. But we feel we are right, not just on the policy but the politics. We’re continuing to show Chairman Carr that it’s an imperative of his allies across Washington to level this playing field.

I’m very optimistic that he’s been open to hearing our argument on this, and that he’s got a lot of support to move quickly.

RW: Do you agree with Chairman Carr that the FCC is not an independent agency?

LeGeyt: Our job at the National Association of Broadcasters is to meet regulators where they are. We’re telling our story to Chairman Carr, to Commissioner Gomez, to Commissioner Trusty, irrespective of legal questions as to how the FCC ought to be treated. For local broadcasters, we don’t get focused on those side shows.

RW: After the Jimmy Kimmel situation, you said that government pressure over content is not new and has come from both parties. But isn’t what President Trump and his administration have done historically unusual? He’s been vocally blunt in a way that many people interpret as pressure on broadcasters, to the point of threatening licenses. Isn’t that different?

LeGeyt: Look, our credibility as local radio stations is going to be dependent on our independence from political interference. Our audiences need to be able to trust that what they’re hearing over our airwaves is based on independent decision-making and views that aren’t being influenced by any president or any government official.

Our role at the National Association of Broadcasters is to reinforce our First Amendment right to deliver our programming free of government influence. I’m going to pound the table on that every opportunity I get, not just over the course of this administration but over the course of any administration, as we’ve done in the past.

RW: Is it a foregone conclusion that the rest of the C-band is going to be taken, based on what Congress has told the FCC to do?

LeGeyt: From our perspective, this is about allowing broadcasters to continue to deliver this programming. We have expressed our concerns around our usage within the C-band and how undermining that, absent a technical substitute solution, will impede local communities, impede the quality of our broadcast and drive costs up for our stations.

Yes I expect that the commission is going to continue to move forward, but we’re going to ensure that local broadcast stations are protected.

RW: You’re saying, “If you’re going to move us, you’d better help pay to move us.”

LeGeyt: That’s exactly right. And you’d better ensure that the substitute works from a technical perspective, so there’s no gap in our ability to serve our communities. The FCC has been open to that argument. I have every confidence that they’ll get this right.

RW: You’ve made an internal realignment to accelerate development and deployment of the Broadcast Positioning System. Technology executives Sam Matheny and Tariq Mondal have roles exclusively focused on BPS. You also launched an Industry Affairs and Innovation department, led by April Carty-Sipp. Why is BPS so important to your members?

LeGeyt: This is one of those unique moments where broadcasters have the ability to serve the country while creating additional business opportunities for local stations and bolster the reputation of our industry and our use of our spectrum.

The vulnerability of the GPS system is a major national security concern. The first Trump administration issued an executive order calling for viable complements to GPS, because if it goes down, you’re talking about major disruption to our financial systems, our energy grid, our transportation systems.

Although a lot of interests have explored solutions, none has what local broadcasters have: an infrastructure already in place across the country in 210 markets to solve this problem, one that is land-based, not satellite-based and susceptible to the same type of spoofing that GPS is susceptible to.

Our team has done incredible work over five years to explore what is now an active proof-of-concept that our technology can serve as a viable complement to GPS.

We’ve entered into a partnership through the Department of Transportation with Dominion Energy so we can test our technology alongside a meaningful critical infrastructure partner. We’re thrilled about the progress.

We have realigned our organization to further our focus. This is an existential challenge that the federal government must solve for the security of our country.

We want to step up and show that this is something that the NAB is focused on solving alongside them. We can’t do it if it is a project that a couple of NAB employees spend 20 to 30% of their time on. Sam and Tariq will spend 100% of their time while building out a team to take this from concept to reality.

The federal government has been receptive to this technical solution. We’ve been working not just with the Department of Transportation, but with the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce. We’ve had continual touch points with the White House.

For broadcasters, it’s just another example of how we’re using our spectrum, our technology, and that where other forms of technology fail, we’ve always been there in times of emergency. This is a further use case that demonstrates broadcasters’ role in our civic life.

Beyond BPS this realignment also allows us to focus our efforts on technology issues that really sit at the intersection of business and innovation. Whether you’re talking about the connected car, AI, how we rate on search platforms … increasingly our technology issues are also business issues, and vice versa. Aligning our remaining technology team within a new Industry Affairs and Innovation team breaks down a silo that will also help us address other issues that are existential to our radio and television members.

RW: I’m sure there are competitors for the role of GPS backup system. What would success look like for you — are you looking for government funding? Are you looking for an endorsement as the government’s official secondary backup system to GPS?

LeGeyt: We start with the second piece, which is agencies across the federal government recognizing the viability of this technology to secure our critical infrastructure. And if we do that, the other pieces will take care of themselves.

RW: NAB has spent a lot of time engaging with carmakers about the dashboard. But every year we see headlines that this or that car isn’t going to have AM or even FM. And it is increasingly hard to find radio within the menus. How can radio counter these trends?

LeGeyt: First of all we need to get the AM for Every Vehicle Act passed.

The core of that bill is AM radio and ensuring that every newly manufactured automobile includes access to it; but that overlooks two important points.

Radio’s viability as a whole, including FM, is tethered to the future of AM radio. Policymakers have stepped up because of some of the unique attributes of AM radio, but realistically AM’s place in the dashboard secures radio’s place in the dashboard. It will allow us to focus on how we better innovate this product, rather than getting distracted day in and day out on the even larger question of how to keep our product in the automobile.

Also, the bill not only ensures that AM — and therefore radio — is going to be in the automobile, but that it’s readily accessible. As we are competing in this screen-based environment in the car with endless numbers of apps, it’s getting more and more difficult to locate radio. This bill, if implemented correctly, will right-size that.

All we’re looking for is the ability to compete on a level playing field. The motivation of these tech companies, and by extension the automakers, is to prioritize products that they can sell with a subscription service or where they can monetize the data. Radio sits outside of that.

Yes, policymakers are embracing this legislation because of public safety, but they are also doing it because they recognize the competitive imbalance and the incentives for the autos to make access to radio difficult.

We’ve got to get the bill over the finish line, but we also need tell our story better. We’ve focused on direct engagement with the autos, especially on a global stage. April Carty-Sipp, Sam Matheny, John Clark and David Layer have focused on telling this story to the automakers, reminding them of the enduring popularity, the hundreds of millions of listeners.

This is often overlooked, because who are they hearing from every day? It’s the tech platforms. Radio is fragmented, so we don’t always do a great job of speaking with one voice.

We are getting better at that, and you’re seeing the results in terms of responsiveness from the automakers. But especially once we get on the other side of this bill, this is something that we need to do even better.

RW: You’ve talked about consumer anxiety over effects of AI on content and news coverage. Recently the administration issued an executive order pushing back on state laws about artificial intelligence, saying they can slow innovation. What are the ramifications for broadcasters?

LeGeyt: The administration rightfully recognizes the difficulty that a patchwork of state laws will mean for businesses that need to operate and are trying to innovate, including broadcasters.

But there are major issues here, and the NAB has flagged those relevant to local broadcasters — protecting the image and likeness and voices of our local personalities, as well as ensuring that, when our local and news content is used by these platforms, we have the ability to control how that content is used, achieve attribution and be compensated if our content is monetized by the platforms.

We’ve seen it for the last decade in the context of traditional search through Google and Facebook. Our own content is not only being used or accessed by those platforms, without our permission at times, but it’s being used to compete against us for advertising dollars. We’re effectively undermining our own medium because of our lack of control and market power.

Those issues are exacerbated in the AI context. This is something policymakers need to recognize. We are pushing for one standard federal set of rules, because that is preferential to a patchwork of state laws. But one way or the other, policymakers need to deal with this.

RW: NAB had a lot to say when the chairman invited comments in his “Delete, Delete” initiative [see “NAB’s Roadmap for the FCC”]. You made some proposals of your own and talked about third-party ideas that your organization keeps an eye on such as LPFM power increases, eliminating FM allocation requirements and others. Some seem pretty far-fetched. Are there issues that you’re keeping a particular eye on?

LeGeyt: It all falls by the wayside if we don’t achieve meaningful ownership modernization. We structured our “Delete, Delete” comments saying that until you address this first issue, we don’t want to talk about the others.

We submitted them for the record, because they further tell the story that local radio is far and away the most over-regulated medium, and we’re competing against behemoths that don’t have to abide by any of these regulations, creating an unlevel playing field. Hopefully those are 2027 and 2028 priorities, and we can have a further discussion about them.

But we are laser-focused on getting ownership rules modernized and ensuring radio’s ongoing place and prominence in the automobile. Those are our priorities.

RW: Is it possible the FCC would act on ownership this coming year?

LeGeyt: We have seen from the chairman, as well as the other commissioners, a real openness for digging into this and an understanding of the existential moment that we are in for local radio. I don’t control the timetable, but I can assure our members that this is very much top of mind for the chairman, fueled by the fact that hundreds of thousands of broadcast listeners and viewers have engaged with policymakers. They’ve responded and are pressing the FCC chair to act quickly here.

RW: Anything else you’d like radio people, owners, managers, engineers, to know?

LeGeyt: It’s a thank you for the tremendous service being done at local radio stations across the country. We know the challenges grow by the day. The most rewarding part of my job is when I get out of Washington, visiting stations and ensuring that our advocacy agenda is in sync and matches the needs of our members. I’m in awe of the work being done.

There’s such a fascination right now with tech, with AI, how all of these innovations are going to shape our society. But no one is doing what local radio does, which is that local community presence. It is hard. And in those times of emergency radio does its best work. That’s in our DNA, and I love telling that story.

Comment on this or any story. Send letters to the editor to radioworld@futurenet.com.

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post NAB Is Optimistic About Ownership Rule Reform This Year appeared first on Radio World.

Described as the largest SSDAB multiplex in the United Kingdom, U.DAB in North London has now launched with 26 stations.

The multiplex has been operating for years in a trial mode with three transmitters. Its founders started with “Trial London,” a test of the concept of a “small-scale” multiplex, in 2015.

“What was supposed to be nine months, ended up being 10 years,” they state on their website.

Small-scale DAB is a technology intended to provide a low-cost route for local commercial, community and specialist music services to broadcast on terrestrial digital radio to a relatively small geographical area, according to the website of regulator Ofcom.

U.DAB applied for the full-time North London license in 2023 and was awarded it a year later.

“The trial relaunched as the full-time North London multiplex in December 2025, expanding to six transmitter sites from the original three.”

They said in the announcement that the fully licensed multiplex now covers 4 million adults across North and Central London. “The resulting improved coverage, and increased audience, will provide a far better listening experience for the wide range of radio stations carried on it.”

U.DAB Ltd. is a consortium whose shareholders include Audessence, Sammy Jacob, Solar Broadcasting, Muxnet and Community Stations Reprezent, Rinse, Resonance, Nagrecha Radio, The Beat and Rainbow Radio.

The organization said it has capacity to add a few more services. (Here’s a list of stations currently heard there.)

U.DAB says it seeks to give opportunities in particular to community and smaller broadcasters, who get “significant” discounts on the cost of participating.

“The scale of the multiplex, the largest of its kind in the country, means we also host commercial broadcasters keen to reach large numbers of listeners.”

Founder Martin Spencer was quoted in the announcement, “It has taken significant time and effort to finally achieve this, and the steady commitment of those many stations that have remained with us over the years is much appreciated.”

[See a U.DAB coverage map.]

The post Small-Scale DAB Multiplex Launches in North London appeared first on Radio World.

The Radio World editorial team is sharing stories that we found particularly newsworthy, meaningful or fun to cover. 

Radio World’s heritage is technical, and we celebrate radio engineering every day. But as its editor for almost 30 years, I have also sought to provide you with stories about radio’s people, its history and the fun or intriguing radio stories you might not read elsewhere. Here are some of the ones I found most interesting; Elle and Nick will share theirs in the next couple of days. Happy holidays!

Andy Gladding Champions Radio’s Future

We created the Radio World Excellence in Engineering Award 22 years ago to honor people who are doing outstanding work, particularly those who are in the midst of their careers. I am particularly excited about what Andy is doing to help develop excitement for radio among younger people, and then helping them find jobs.

Shulins Makes a Career by Staying a Step Ahead

Speaking of award-winning engineers, click the link above to read our profile of Paul Shulins, who was honored this year by the NAB with its Engineering Achievement Award.

This Connecticut LPFM Is a Community Safeguard

Elle Kehres tells the story of WSIM(LP), which is licensed to Simsbury’s volunteer fire department, and the broadcast engineer who is helping the station with its technical upgrade.

Ham Operator Must Pay in First Responder Interference Case

Reader interest in this story was a clear reminder of how many people in our industry circle are active in amateur radio. Jason Frawley acknowledged that he’d operated on a frequency without authorization but said he did not interfere with government communications and was only trying to help. This was the largest penalty issued by the FCC in such a case.

Trump Presidency Will Bring Sweeping Change to FCC

“Broadcast regulatory experts expect ‘fast and furious’ changes at the Federal Communications Commission with Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office,” Randy Stine wrote. Here was our attempt to anticipate what Trump 2.0 would do as president and how an FCC led by Brendan Carr would regulate. How did we do?

How Mount Wilson Survived Another Scare

Nick Langan has been writing for us for three years and joined our editorial staff full-time one year ago. Here, he tells the story of how broadcast infrastructure was threatened by the Los Angeles wildfires, and how engineers responded.

Check Out What draw.io Can Do for You

I grabbed this one because I like really nifty problem-solvers, I’m a sucker for a nice documentation tool and, well, I just love Workbench.

I Love the Sticks

Few stories have prompted more letters to me than a column in which I shared my love of broadcast towers, including my memory of looking out a station’s back door on a summer Saturday to enjoy the towers standing in a cornfield at sunset.

My Conversations With Bob Orban

Orban’s first FM audio processor was introduced 50 years ago. Radio World is partnering with the company for this series of conversations with Bob, who provides fascinating insights into his important early days. Read the first two parts here.

A Belt From Gates Radio

Readers loved this throwback story by Criss Onan. He wrote about a time when Gates Radio sought to simplify operations by developing a control storage device using a wide audio tape belt for spots, promos and PSAs. (Put THAT in yer cloud and play it!)

Questions for a New Year

Finally, what questions about our industry are on your mind as we head into a new year? I’m curious to know. Here are some of mine.

[Sign Up for Radio World’s SmartBrief Newsletter]

The post Radio World Staff Picks: Best of 2025 (Paul’s Edition) appeared first on Radio World.

What questions about our industry are on your mind as we head into a new year? I’m curious to know. 

Here are some of mine.

I wonder what kind of technology decisions and innovations radio organizations around the world might explore in 2026 to protect and grow their businesses.

Will the U.S. radio industry provide continued employment for people who currently still work in this field? 

Will the growing use of tools that rely on artificial intelligence erode human employment in radio? 

Will iHeartMedia set a new precedent for radio with its “Guaranteed Human” initiative, which promises that it will not use AI-generated personalities or synthetic vocalists?

How will the long-term trend toward using software instead of hardware-based tools in the air chain change the way radio engineers plan their facilities and infrastructure? 

Will more companies reduce their studio footprints and make increasing use of regional centers and NOCs? Will they outsource more of their operational systems to third parties, extending a trend we’ve seen in network monitoring and ad traffic management?

What additional impact will the move to software have on our industry’s manufacturing and vendor ecosystem?

Will the FCC eliminate restrictions on local radio ownership? Will President Trump’s recent signals to the FCC that he opposes further deregulation of TV ownership make a difference to what the FCC does with radio?

How will public radio stations navigate their challenging new financial landscape after seeing their longstanding federal funding yanked out from under them?

Will one or more of the largest U.S. commercial broadcasters file for financial reorganization, as debt continues to gnaw at them?

Will Educational Media Foundation continue to expand its presence and acquisition of FM signals, programming them with a national Christian syndication model?

Will OTA broadcast reception become harder and harder to find in the menus of car dashboards? Will the auto industry at large actually remove FM reception as well as AM from more dashboard designs? Will Congress approve an AM mandate; and would it ever consider an FM version? 

Will plans by the NAB Show for a concentration of broadcast vendors plus on-floor conference presentations boost the convention experience for radio and TV attendees?

Will the Trump administration come to regret defunding U.S. international broadcast entities like VOA, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia?

These are some of the issues we’ll be following in the coming year. What questions are you keeping in mind? Drop me a line at radioworld@futurenet.com. Meanwhile, happy holidays, and here’s to the best of new years for you and your colleagues and loved ones. 

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post Questions for a New Year appeared first on Radio World.

(Above is a drone flyover view from the Vegas Means Business website.)

Registration has now opened for the spring NAB Show. The convention takes place April 18–22.

Major renovation work at the Las Vegas Convention Center is complete. Show organizers promise “a more modern, connected and intuitive campus experience” that includes better lighting, contemporary finishes and clearer sightlines.

Approximately 100 radio and TV technology exhibitors will be newly concentrated in an area of the reopened Central Hall just inside a new front entrance to the freshly renovated Central Hall.

Structurally, the front of Central will have a soaring architectural feature matching the West Hall. Central’s front wall was brought forward, creating a new indoor hallway where an outdoor patio and bus canopy once stood. (You can see a panorama of the new Central Hall entrance here.)

Last year’s convention drew about 55,000 people. The post-COVID high for the event has been 65K in 2023.

In an announcement, Karen Chupka, executive vice president, NAB Global Connections and Events, said, “The breakthroughs we’re seeing in AI, cloud and new content models are redefining how our industry works, and 2026 will reflect that shift.”

An expanded four-day Sports Summit will explore the future of sports rights and fan engagement in a theater on the floor of the West Hall; it will be open to all attendees for the first time.

A three-day program will focus on the business of media and entertainment, in partnership with The Ankler. This too will take place on the exhibit floor in West Hall and be open to all attendees.

The Creator Lab will have an expanded footprint and will be in Central Hall. NAB said the creator economy is projected to be valued at $500 billion by 2027.

Show organizers will launch a new NAB Show mobile app in March that will include tools for creating and managing schedules. It will allow attendees to exchange contact information via QR code  onsite, among other improvements.

The post Registration Opens for Spring NAB Show appeared first on Radio World.

This is one in a series about managing radio operations and infrastructure effectively.

Vermont Public was created in 2021 by the merger of Vermont Public Radio and Vermont PBS. It airs 38 signals from 27 sites, including 15 full-power radio stations and 15 FM translators, programmed with news or classical music, as well as three full-power TV stations and several TV translators.

Joe Tymecki is senior vice president of engineering and technology. He talked with us about budgeting and the sense of urgency resulting from the end of federal funding in public media.

Radio World: It must be challenging to approach budget questions following a merger.

Joe Tymecki: Yes, and with IT under our purview, there’s even more to wrangle. 

On the surface we’re one company, but in some cases we’re still operating as two technical plants — with our networks, our private LANs, our terrestrial fiber circuits and Windows domain controllers. We’re working to address that, one project at a time.

Then in August we had to lay off 13 people and eliminate two other open positions, due to the federal funding situation. Every one of those people was contributing, everyone was already super busy. But income and outgo were starting to diverge badly.

In our workflows we make extensive use of shared documents. We use a Google spreadsheet, a legacy from the radio side that has existed for 14 years. Our new fiscal year starts in July but we already have a tab on the sheet for the next fiscal, and sometimes two years out.

Everyone in technology and every manager has access to that sheet. I tell them, “If you think of something, don’t mention it to me in the hallway. Write it on the list, and at budget season I will circle back to discuss what you need, whether it’s new lenses for the Sony field camera or chargers for electric cars in the parking lot. Tell me what it is that you want to do and if you have even a wild-ass guess as to what it will cost.” This might involve IT, studios, compliance with FCC rules and so on.

RW: That provides a starting structure.

Tymecki: Then I or Kira Parker, the chief engineer of transmission, or Frank Alwine, chief engineer of studios, will discuss it with our facilities person. This applies mostly to capital items, but it also includes expense items. It gives us an early idea on whether we’re going to need, say, a million dollars this year or $300,000. 

Then we have a big round of winnowing to focus on what’s important. Do we need to replace our mountaintop ATVs or our site generators? Are there pieces that we can punt until next year? 

We consider ourselves as being in the content delivery business, so that’s our north star: How can we help our people do their jobs internally to meet that goal? 

Anticipated service life is tracked in our accounting system. Everything’s always fully depreciated though. Honestly we don’t really replace things on a schedule. We replace based on need.

Until recently we had an old Harris tube transmitter from the late ’70s or early ’80s still in backup service. It couldn’t do HD Radio, and it could barely do 1,800 watts, but that was enough to keep us on the air in an emergency. We should have replaced it 15 years ago, and we finally got around to it.

Often what drives the decision is not that something stops working but that we can’t get support for it anymore. For example in TV master control, we had playout servers that were still highly functional but no longer supported by the manufacturer. The TV engineers were going to eBay and buying ingest and playout blades that others had decommissioned, just to try to keep servers on the air. Even the manufacturer couldn’t get parts; Sony had apparently stopped making a key chip.

That’s when we say, “I guess we have to replace it.”

RW: How do you track and forecast costs like power, site, rent, maintenance?

Tymecki: We use a popular cloud-based accounting system; and we do a monthly dump to Excel because we like its spreadsheet tools. As we approach the end of a fiscal year we have a good idea of how we’ll end up, and we can start populating next year’s numbers.

Vermont is a small state, so there isn’t an open market for utilities like electricity and natural gas. But if we know that a given utility is planning a 2% increase we can build that in.

The accounting system manages purchase orders; and we use a different system to manage external credit card purchases. We now tag our spending to the 27 sites so we know what each site is costing us. 

Kira, our transmission chief engineer, makes much use of internal tagging. And it’s not just major recurring costs like power. If we stop at a local Ace Hardware to buy parts to shore up an ice bridge — well, those kind of things add up. If we have to get a tower crew to repair or replace tower lights, we can tag that to a site too.

External costs like data networks are more unwieldy. For instance there are a couple of bandwidth providers in Vermont. In some cases we have parallel fiber lines going up the same mountain, one to the TV transmitter side of the building, one to the radio side.

[Related: “Public Media Stations Confront Money Crisis”]

This reminds me to share a cost-saving suggestion. When you sign a three-year contract, they usually won’t call you when the term is up, so you just keep paying that rent, whether it be $300 or $800 a month. 

But whenever I’ve gone back to a provider to renew a contract, they inevitably will say, “Yep, the rate’s lower now.” Especially at sites where we have multiple providers, the situation is extraordinarily competitive. It’s the same with our internet connections at the studio facilities — suppliers are tripping over each other to try to get our business. 

In fact I called one of our big fiber providers and said, “I need a list of every circuit we have with you.” I had a good idea but wanted to know what they thought we had — the contract dates and monthly payments. And about half of them had expired. Without even dropping a note, our salesperson, said, “I can absolutely get you better rates on all these.” 

Sure, switching fiber providers is a pain. Half of our network is on an MPLS-like system. Those are a little more difficult to change over or reconfigure, and we prefer not to make extra work for ourselves if we can avoid it. But those are the kind of things we look at on the utility side.

RW: Do you have discussions with your team about finding efficiencies and extra dollars?

Tymecki: Jeff Mahaney, my counterpart at Maine Public, has a Maine farmer mentality about new spending. He asks: “Is what you’re proposing to do worth laying somebody off for?”

Especially since our layoffs, we ask everyone to look at every expense in that light. We’re down to saving hundreds. Not that we were flush with money in the past, but now we might look at a data switch that’s getting full and old, and if it’s still supported, we’re not going to replace it unless there’s an immediate risk or a lack of support. 

Over the summer we discussed raising the set point of the air conditioning at our sites. Some of them are very well air conditioned, and even on a 96-degree day, which we get now in Vermont, the sites will be 65 degrees inside. We have a lot of Nautel equipment, so we talked with Jeff Welton, who told us the transmitters will be perfectly happy in the low 70s. So we took that advice.

We’re also taking steps back from HD Radio. We put a new classical station on the air two years ago and had HD Radio on it for about a month, but the importer/exporter failed, and we just left it off. We took the transmitter and repurposed it to a site where we still need HD so we can keep an analog translator going. 

Similarly, when we bought a small station from a local college, we decided not to do HD because of the cost. We’re not abandoning HD yet, but we’re not growing the HD footprint. 

Both Nautel and GatesAir now put the importer/exporters in a single box. If you’re doing HD2 and HD3, you have to get the audio to your site separately. In the past we put the importers at the studio, and it would send the MUX over the data line. You can’t do that anymore unless you buy a second box, and it becomes a kludge. We didn’t want to buy another pair of codecs to get the audio to the site. In the end, is that a lot of money? No, but 3600 bucks is 3600 bucks.

RW: Are more of your bills now for monthly services rather than one-time hardware purchases?

Tymecki: For traffic and billing, our TV and radio systems are cloud-based now, as are the accounting systems. 

We use an out-of-house IT provider for our deep networking — firewall management, subnets and so on. Also, we’re now emphasizing computer security over convenience. That is a recent and major philosophical shift. We’re using a cybersecurity awareness provider for in-house training and testing to see how susceptible people are to phishing attacks. 

Also, we don’t have a TV master control anymore; we shut that down early last year. It is now hosted by Centralcast in Syracuse, N.Y., a wonderfully run operation. All of our program storage and automation are there. They have ports to our cloud-based traffic system, and the over-the-air ATSC is fed back to us over a fiber line. We have multiple backup provisions in case of backhoe fade. 

Operationally, this was a huge change. We can’t just run down to master control anymore and say, “Hey, can you pull this show and put this one on?” We have to work through their processes. And we did eliminate personnel; we don’t have people sitting in master control anymore. 

We also have a membership data system that is cloud-based; and of course the big item in the cloud is email. Until the merger, radio still hosted its own servers and phone systems. Now we’ve migrated to the same VoIP provider that television uses, and put everybody on a cloud-based email provider. 

We were never current on Windows server upgrades anyway; it would have taken a full-time person just to stay on top of those. Now you’re not lying in bed at 2:30 in the morning wondering whether you’re missing a security patch. 

RW: Calculations of total cost come into play with decisions about transmitter purchases.

Tymecki: On our big station, WVPS, we had a Nautel NV30 that had been on the air for years. And our backup transmitter only made around 5 kW rather than the 24.8 kilowatts needed on the output. 

When it came time to purchase a full-power backup, it was the start of COVID and money was tight. We chose a liquid-cooled transmitter. All of our large TV transmitters are liquid-cooled. And I told our board that we shouldn’t be paying money to make radio waves that heat the room and then paying more money to move that heat outside. 

Separately, when we recently needed lower-power 1 or 2 kW transmitters, we shopped to buy efficiency. We went with Nautel for those. 

And not to harp on HD Radio, but it makes transmitters inefficient. Classical WVER-FM in Rutland only has a 1,000-watt transmitter now but the power consumption probably dropped 20% just by not having HD on there. Because the transmitter is more efficient, we were able to pull out our VS2.5 and put in a lower-power analog-only unit. We didn’t need that step up in size because we weren’t doing HD. 

If there’s anything we can do to move the needle even a little bit, we should.

RW: Other tips or thoughts?

Tymecki: We have sites that before the merger were owned by the radio company and sites that were owned by TV.

In Bennington we own the radio site, while television rents a site on the other side of town. We’re paying $20,000 a year on that, so now we’ve applied to move that translator onto our radio tower. Yes, it’s going to cost to get a tower crew, and we’ve done the engineering for it. But at worst, this project will pay for itself in less than two years. And it’ll make maintenance easier.

Also, we’re rethinking past practices. At Vermont Public Radio they managed like Sherwin Williams — they wanted to cover the earth with signals. This meant we had a lot of translators and translator CPs. But back then, listeners didn’t have smart speakers, they didn’t have great cell service, they didn’t have reasonable WiFi at home. 

All that has changed. So now we have to consider whether maintaining a 10-watt translator in a corner of the state is worth $18,000 a year in rent. Certainly someone will be upset if we take it off. But with the kind of financial crisis we’re in, we have to take a very careful look.

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post Every Cost Deserves a Very Careful Look appeared first on Radio World.