Relaxing 2nd Channel Interference Protection

Introductory Remarks

Industry Canada recently performed a study entitled “Second Adjacent Channel

Interference Study of FM Broadcast Receivers”. From analysis of the results obtained,
it is possible to draw some preliminary conclusions on the impact of a reduction of 2 nd
channel D/U ratio from the present –20 dB to the suggested –40 dB used by the FCC.
The following few pages summarize the results and suggest a course of action in light of
the concerns of present broadcasters and the technical issues surrounding ‘disturbing’
interference.

Nature of Statistical Averaging

Note that the statistical measure used for the average is the mean in our analysis of the
data.

In the case where the wanted signal is characterized by a 54 dBuV/m field strength, for
the five classes of receivers considered in the study, the following table summarizes the
results obtained for average D/U ratios before unacceptable interference occurs in the
lower and upper 2nd adjacent channels.

Mean D/U before Unacceptable Interference Noted (dB)

(absolute value)
91.9 MHz 97.7 MHz 103.7 MHz
1 - Lower 2nd adjacent 31.2 34.4 25.3
1 - Upper 2nd adjacent 27.1 23.5 27.2
2 - Lower 2nd adjacent 49.8 48.9 52.3
2 - Upper 2nd adjacent 49 51.4 52.9
3 - Lower 2nd adjacent 50.8 51.7 52.7
3 - Upper 2nd adjacent 48.6 53.1 53.2
4 - Lower 2nd adjacent 61.7 62.3 51.2
4 - Upper 2nd adjacent 62.4 62.5 50.4
5 - Lower 2nd adjacent 43 22.7 19.6
5 - Upper 2nd adjacent 25.1 31 16.6

From the above, we note that for most receiver categories the variation between the
acceptable interference for lower and upper 2 nd adjacent channels is quite small. Given
the size of the sample space, it is perhaps negligibly so. Further, there is no consistent
pattern, such that the lower is always greater than the upper or vice versa, for all
frequency samples. Thus we are justified in averaging them to arrive at a sole D/U
figure for 2nd adjacents, upper or lower.

The same argument could be applied to channels with centre frequencies in lower,
middle, or upper portions of the FM-band. The values for D/U do not differ markedly for
 91.9, 97.7, and 103.7 MHz and the differences are not consistent throughout the
classes. In any case, it is impractical to specify different levels of protection for stations
broadcasting in different portions of the band. Hence, an average of the lower, mid-, and
upper channel statistics is also warranted.

Mean D/U’s before Unacceptable Interference

Assuming the correctness of this approach, our data for a wanted field strength of
54 dBuV/m would appear thus:

Mean D/U before Unacceptable Interference Noted at a

54 dBuV/m Field StrengthdB
1 - 2nd adjacent 28.2
2 - 2nd adjacent 50.7
3 - 2nd adjacent 51.7
4 - 2nd adjacent 58.4
5 - 2nd adjacent 26.4
Overall weighted mean 47.8

Mean D/U before Unacceptable Interference

(54 dBuV/m field strength)

70
60
(dB- absolute)

50
Mean D/U

40
30
20
10
0
Low-cost Middling High-cost Car radio Boom box
FM Receiver Class

2
Preliminary thoughts

From the table for a wanted field strength of 54 dBuV/m, as well as the original CRC
study, key points emerge:

1) 10 of the 13 receivers tested performed better than even the proposed –40 dB ratio.
Only 3 of the 13 sampled failed to meet the acceptable interference rejection criteria
of the more relaxed D/U ratio. This is in the range of 77% of receivers performing
well in a relaxed regulatory environment.

2) Provided the samples used in categories 3, 4, and 5 are representative of the typical
receiver in their respective categories, the current requirement of –20 dB is far too
stringent in these cases and could be reduced substantially. The –40 dB ratio
currently used by the FCC between commercial stations on the 2 nd adjacent channel
would be more appropriate.

3) At first glance, the results for categories 1 and 5, if they are representative of typical
receivers in their class, indicate that a D/U of –40 dB for second channel
interference might be somewhat ambitious for these classes. However, this
conclusion is subject to question. In the sample from category 1, the SNR did not
drop past 50 dB in any measurement. From critiques of such studies in the U.S., a
50 dB SNR is perhaps a bit conservative in measuring how much noise is tolerable.

Nevertheless, let us assume the results are accepted as representative and the study’s
parameters as to what constitutes noise are accepted also. In that case, it seems that
there might be some concern as to whether cheaper, lower-end receivers found in the
$10-100 range or in boom boxes would deliver acceptable sound if the D/U ratio
between second channel commercial stations was reduced to –40 dB.

The Weakness of the Interference Argument

This becomes an issue of juggling competing interests to maximize efficient and

productive use of the nation’s spectrum. Ultimately, a key consideration is how people
typically choose to listen to their favorite radio broadcasts. If a significant majority of the
listening public makes use of low-end radios or boom boxes as their primary means of
radio listening, it might be harmful to the interests of broadcasters to change the present
rule too dramatically. Even this is by no means certain as the 54 dBuV/m contour is, to
generalize roughly, around 86 km away from the site of transmission. Since the
disturbing 2nd channel interference will likely affect only these outlying portions of the
service area, the impact on the population centre targeted is minimal to nil. The small
populations in the outlying parts of the serviced area can be safely deemed an auxiliary
component of the broadcaster’s intended audience.

3
But it is clearly not the case that the majority of the public’s radio listening time, or even
a significant minority for that matter, occurs through cheap clock radios and boom
boxes. Most people use clock radios only to wake up in the morning and rarely listen to
them for a significant period of time. A majority use car receivers during their daily
commutes as a primary means of enjoying radio broadcasting. Those that listen to
radio for entertainment during the day or in the evenings, either at home or in the office,
generally do so from superior quality receivers.

The Case for A Relaxed 2nd Channel D/U Ratio

There is strong anecdotal proof from the United States, where a –40 dB D/U ratio
between commercial stations on the 2 nd channel has been the norm for years, with little
detriment on the radio broadcasting industry as a whole.

The results of this study, as well as decades of experience from the U.S are compelling
evidence that the impact of a shift from a –20 dB to a –40 dB ratio will have a minor
impact on the interests of current broadcasters from the standpoint of ‘disturbing’
interference. To summarize, this is for two reasons:

1) Harmful interference will only occur for roughly one fifth of receivers sampled,
namely cheaper ones of poor quality. Furthermore, the vast majority of radio
listening time is done on better quality receivers that could tolerate a D/U even
worse than the proposed −40 dB limit.

2) The areas affected will be on the outskirts of the main population centers
targeted. Hence, the potential for disturbing interference is reduced still further to
low-quality receivers in auxiliary areas only.

The comparative benefits to whatever minimal interference would be caused are

significant. One could argue that a greater number of broadcasting stations would
increase pressure to produce high-quality programming with broader appeal.

The benefits that allowing an increase in the number of broadcast stations through a
decrease in 2nd channel protection would afford are clearly greater than the potential
downside. This is not only true from the viewpoint of maximizing the productive use of
the spectrum, but also, in accordance with the wishes of the CRTC, as a step to
allowing the number of channels necessary to reflect the diversity of Canadian society.