NRSC-5 Digital Radio Standard ‘Sufficiently Complete,’ NAB Tells FCC
The NRSC-5 standard specifies no audio codec for iBiquity Digital’s in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital HD Radio, but is “sufficiently complete to serve as the basis” for FCC service rules, NAB told the Commission. The NAB’s reply comments again urged adoption of the National Radio System Committee (NRSC) specification.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
But critics again demanded NRSC-5 be rejected, and with it IBOC altogether. Many opposition comments cited the codec issue. But more restated longstanding claims that HD Radio technology is interference-prone, and others lambasted the NRSC standards process as flawed.
NAB “vociferously disagrees” with Impulse Radio that NRSC-5 is anticompetitive and that iBiquity dominated the NRSC process to unfair commercial advantage. The NRSC at one point shut down IBOC standards-setting and “forced iBiquity to discard what the Committee deemed an inferior codec,” NAB said. That contradicts Impulse’s allegation that the NRSC process was tailored to “accommodate the commercial needs of iBiquity,” NAB said.
On the codec issue, NAB said it agrees with CEA -- with which it jointly runs the NRSC -- that lack of an audio codec in NRSC-5 “though not optimal, is acceptable.” Publishing NRSC-5 without a codec specification “represents a workable solution to a thorny problem,” NAB said, again agreeing with CEA. “The NRSC, after much debate and consideration, decided that it was preferable to maintain the single system approach that it had originally sought from system proponents,” the NAB said. This was after iBiquity “consistently” balked at revealing technical details of its audio codec, citing “internal business reasons,” NAB said. Lacking that, NRSC-5 defines “as well as possible an interface describing the use of codecs with this system,” NAB said.
But one strong NRSC-5 critic -- engineer Jonathan Hardis, who said he submitted his reply comments as an individual -- said the NRSC “widely missed the mark” and “clearly delivered a document that met neither its own nor this proceeding’s goals.” NRSC-5 “is useless for its intended purposes in its present form,” he said. Hardis said iBiquity promised a technical standard “containing all essential elements,” but it lacks a codec -- “an essential element that is required to make receivers compatible with transmitters.” He said NRSC-5 also failed because: (1) It doesn’t ensure “seamless compatibility” between transmitters and receivers. (2) It’s not a single specification enabling all receivers to receive programming from all radio stations in the country. (3) It won’t lead to lower costs or increased choices for consumers.
While NAB describes the NRSC process “in the glowing terms of a proud parent, Impulse Radio is clearly unhappy with it,” Hardis said. “The lack of an objective public record makes it difficult to sort through the conflicting claims,” because NRSC meeting agendas aren’t announced publicly, the meetings themselves aren’t open to the press, and NRSC minutes and documents aren’t publicly available, he said.
“The problems with NRSC-5 are at their root an iBiquity problem,” Hardis said. Had iBiquity “provided the technical disclosure” it had committed voluntarily to make, NRSC-5’s outcome “would have been quite different,” he said: “Those in favor of NRSC-5 as it now stands are attempting to move the goal post. The coach and cheerleaders are claiming a touchdown, yet we have only advanced the ball 66 yards -- 2/3 of the way to the goal.”