The FCC itself, wholly focused on the economics of policymaking above all else, erroneously interpreted the coalition of HD proponents—a group that controlled the majority of industry revenue in critical alliance with public broadcasters—as industry consensus. And iBiquity's business model, ripped straight from Microsoft's playbook, killed any natural enthusiasm most broadcasters might have otherwise had for HD Radio.

Here in the pages of Radio World, there has been a relatively vibrant discussion of digital radio over the last two decades. You can watch the tenor of stories and commentaries evolve over time, from dreamy optimism to anxious skepticism. Now the discourse is horribly polarized: those who speak highly of HD are all-in and consider its triumph inevitable. Critics of the technology seem to think it's the End of the World As We Know It—a conspiracy of sorts designed to assimilate all broadcasters under one corporate mothership. Supporters call critics "haters" and "naysayers," while critics think supporters are "shills" or worse.

Meanwhile, in the quarter-century since Project Acorn first took root, the very definition of what radio itself is has been fundamentally transformed, and there's a lot of collective hand wringing about what that means. One thing is clear: HD Radio is not the primary avenue by which broadcasting will make its digital transition.

By this point, you've probably labeled me an HD hater or naysayer. But you're wrong: I love radio and have been involved in broadcasting since I was 15. That love transcends your industry. When it comes to HD Radio, what I am most concerned about is the malaise that surrounds it, and how that malaise actively interferes with radio’s digital transition more broadly.

Whether you are a lover or hater, you can’'t ignore the malaise, and nobody's happy with the status quo. In my book, I highlight three possible avenues for change:

Commit to making HD Radio "work." The IBOC transmission system is built on a series of compromises that dramatically limits its attractiveness and utility. The fact that it works at all is a significant accomplishment in and of itself. Some of these compromises might be rectified in HD's all-digital mode—but even then, nobody expects a quantum leap. Other compromises can be wholly reversed today: for example, iBiquity's business model is not a force of nature, and has strangled innovation.

Making HD Radio "work" could mean many different things. It might mean committing to an all-digital transition, because marketplace forces alone are not working. It might mean reconfiguring the primary motive of HD to prioritize meaningful functionality over chimerical profitability. It might also mean considering technological tweaks to the system that exist outside of iBiquity's black box.

Regardless, any efforts in this direction must be built on open and transparent collaboration—the past practice of closed-door testing and deliberation among select industry and regulatory players has produced bad science and bad blood. If the hottest fire makes for the strongest steel, then HD proponents should embrace creative thinking and a wider discourse. What is there to lose?

Consider alternative digital broadcast technologies. In the FCC’s ongoing AM Revitalization initiative, a surprising number of commenters suggested the agency consider Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) as a digital broadcast system alternative. DRM faces many implementation challenges of its own, and does not offer a hybrid mode. But it does provide a qualitative improvement to analog broadcasting that HD struggles with, and comes with no silly licensing-baggage attached.

The stated position of the FCC is to deny that HD alternatives even exist, and HD proponents would perceive any sharing of spectrum with another system as dangerous balkanization that diminishes their investments. But this is not the 1980s and AM Stereo all over again: interoperable digital radio transmitters and receiver chips exist. Countries in Europe that began their digital radio transition with DAB but are now moving to DAB+ have figured out the retrofit process. Such a consideration need not be the death knell of HD Radio—it could be just the sort of competitive jolt the system needs.

Prepare to cede the public airwaves. There’s no guarantee that AM and FM radio will exist indefinitely. Just ask television broadcasters: today, the value of DTV spectrum as a medium for something other than broadcasting supersedes its legacy use, which is why the FCC seeks to reclaim wide swaths of it. This is not some radical notion from the ivory tower: in 2011, NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith told Radio World that while there was no immediate similar threat to radio, "if they can do it to your neighbor, they can do it to you eventually."

New technologies and networks simply cannot replicate the intimacy, immediacy and reach of broadcasting, yet its potential diminution has implications that most futurologists, enamored with the new, haven’t fully grasped. Better to control that evolution than to suffer it because of bad strategic decisions made a long time ago.

I'll be attending the NAB Radio Show in Indianapolis in hopes of having some interesting conversations on the future of radio and its digital transition. I'm not interested in perpetuating the love/hate dichotomy. I come in peace. And I'm as curious and concerned about the future of radio as you are. Let's brainstorm.

Contrast that with Tampa Bay Lightning director of broadcasting Matt Sammon, who blogs that HD Radio faces an existential threat. His perspective sounds a lot like my book: underwhelming technology, lack of new content, lack of broadcaster and receiver manufacturer support. Reality is not pretty: "if HD Radio doesn't see what’s going on, doesn’t re-brand and reinvent, and doesn’t aggressively try to put out better content, then it will go the way of other period technology."

Mark Ramsey weighs in as chief critic, calling HD Radio "A digital solution grafted onto an analog expectation with a jumble of unpredictably random Frankenstein products indifferent to consumer tastes built by and for the broadcasters which finance it." He encourages the industry to take the GM development as an opportunity to think beyond AM and FM: "From the consumer’s perspective, there is no such thing as 'over-the-air radio' per se....Over-the-air radio is a slice of a channel of distribution in a sea of distribution channels battling for the nexus of content and attention."

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the industry reaction to the GM news is the relative lack of it. Hopefully this will be a topic at the upcoming NAB Radio Show in Indianapolis next week. By then, the technology's apologists may have their spin under better control.

BMW says the cars' electric motor interferes with AM reception. Could this become a trend among other electric-powered vehicles? Broadcasters obviously hope not, and the NAB has reached out to BMW asking it to reconsider. Coupled with Disney's recent decision to get out of AM broadcasting, one wonders if the oldest broadcast band is inexorably shuffling toward obsolescence.

It would also seem that something similar may be happening with HD Radio. General Motors has removed HD functionality from a wide array of 2015 vehicles, including the Chevy Traverse, Chevy Silverado, GMC Sierra, Chevy Impala, Buick Enclave, and Buick Regal. Many (but not all) of these makes and models will have wireless broadband connectivity added to their infotainment stacks.

Earlier this spring, Consumer Reports highlighted HD Radio as a feature to avoid when buying a new car. Presumably GM is reacting to market demands—and if so, it does not portend well for the malaise that is HD adoption. There's been no reaction yet from iBiquity or the NAB on these developments.

There could be another injection of energy into the translator marketplace before the end of the year. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has been making noise about his AM Revitalization Initiative and wants to see the FCC do something on that front sooner rather than later. Thus we may see an application window for new FM translators as soon as the agency has sorted the latest wave of LPFM licensees.

In many respects, this may be the last gasp for speculative profiteering in FM broadcast spectrum...at least until FM gets repurposed for a use other than broadcasting.

The latest developments began with the launch last month of Free Radio On My Phone, a public-awareness campaign for enabling FM reception in smartphones. The campaign is a joint project of NextRadio, the National Association of Broadcasters, National Public Radio, American Public Radio, and the Educational Media Foundation—all heavy-hitters in commercial, public, and religious broadcasting. EMF has also agreed to sign its entire station-roster up for enhanced NextRadio services.

The Free Radio argument is simple: greedy wireless carriers would rather you pay to stream music than to get it for free via broadcast radio. Also, radio is the go-to medium in times of emergencies, so having access to radio on your phone makes you safer.

The campaign provides links through which consumers can contact their wireless provider, phone manufacturer, Congress, and the FCC. The reach of the participating organizations means listeners will hear a lot about radio on phones over the next several months, but will they be motivated to take action?

NextRadio seems to think they will. Its parent company, Emmis Communications, and the NAB funded a two-part "study" of NextRadio whose results were released just after the launch of the Free Radio On My Phone campaign. Phase one of the "research" was conducting one-on-one interviews with smartphone users about the potential benefits of having radio on your phone.

The most interesting takeaway is that most folks under 40 don't even think of radio as a portable medium: for most of their lives radio is something that has lived in the car. They don't have or desire a stand-alone radio receiver, and the mp3 players they grew up with never had one.

Phase two was an online survey administered to 800 respondents about the attractiveness of NextRadio itself. Surprise: after watching an introductory promotional video about the app, more than 80% said they were interested in learning more and could see the benefits of having FM radio on their phones.

"Study" and "research" are in quotes here because the project doesn't really resemble anything worthy of those words. The funders got the results they paid for, as the two phases were basically just suggestive conversations. First you put a phone with NextRadio in the hands of some folks, let them play with it, and then ask them nice leading questions about it. Then, screen a promo video and inquire as to whether the NextRadio app is "really cool" (this was actually a survey question, to which 92% of respondents agreed).

Broadcast consultant Mark Ramsey has rightfully savaged this information for its lack of integrity, calling it a "silly publicity stunt" and "junk science." He also savages the app itself as a wasteful diversion from radio doing convergence right (whatever that is). Using data provided by NextRadio, Ramsey estimates that the app is only being used by 100 people at any given time. "Your own radio station’s web stream is likely serving more listeners right now than the entire NextRadio platform at the same time," he writes. "The best that can be said is that usage is growing (almost) every month. Modestly."

Meanwhile, NextRadio has since trumpeted the "research" results. In addition, Cumulus subsidiary Westwood One has stepped up to take some of the burden off Emmis' back for keeping Sprint on the NextRadio team, by agreeing to handle the ad inventory the industry owes to Sprint for turning FM chips on in selected mobile devices. At the same time, there's no guarantee that the next generation of domestic Android and Apple devices will have all the necessary hardware and firmware to universalize FM reception.

In many respects, the frames of this debate are shaping up to be HD Radio all over again: focus on the technology du jour and create a perception of momentum around it, then declare victory and congratulate yourselves while the world passes you by. Critics default to the most radical position possible, and thus go mostly ignored. Radio's already late to the app game, and while the coalition of broadcasters who have affiliated with NextRadio is impressive, their commitment to full-on interactivity (which comes at a price) is less so. [No place for HD Radio in smartphones, so no need to worry about that here.]

If it only it were that simple. Radio is a medium whose technological underpinnings are undergoing major flux. As an industry, there's a lot of initiatives in play and each one is attempting to paint itself as the magic bullet that will bring radio broadcasting fully into the digital present. That's not a constructive paradigm, though Mark Ramsey's base critique—it's the content, stupid, not the delivery system—is spot-on. It's also a critique that transcends any particular radio platform.

Noises Over Norwell broadcast from a two-story home in Dorchester currently under the receivership of Fannie Mae. Its former owners moved back in with the assistance of City Life/Vida Urbana, a grassroots organization dedicated to fighting economic injustice in Boston. The station was a cornucopia of information, discussion, and creativity about the state of the economy and the surrounding neighborhood; when "dormant," you simply heard the ambient sounds of a lived-in home.

TOUCH FM founder Charles Clemons appeared on Noises Over Norwell to wholeheartedly endorse its mission and the notion of radio as a medium for change. The station itself was organized by John Hulsey, an artist and Harvard graduate student who recognizes the symbiosis between pirate radio and social movements. "The same communities that are being pushed out of their homes are being shunted out of the media landscape," Hulsey told Marisa Mazria Katz.

"From a broader view, we can see both shelter and public discourse as basic public goods. If we don’t affirm and protect these as foundational building blocks of civil society, we begin to move in a dangerous direction."

But the magic only lasted three days, until the Boston Police raided the house and put couple that had lived there back out on the street. Nobody lost any other possessions—including the station, whose gear is now packed away for another day. Noises Over Norwell flew completely under the FCC's radar.

Hulsey says mission accomplished: "One day there was an empty house on a street where most people are struggling to pay rent and regularly face eviction; the next day there was a big group of people occupying that house and celebrating one another’s presence with broad public support. It’s important right now just to remember that we have the power to do that."

Noises Over Norwell is a direct echo of the origin-story of modern microradio in the United States. Mbanna Kantako inspired the movement nearly 30 years ago by launching WTRA—a station to protest the closure of public housing in Springfield, Illinois. Despite eviction and repeated FCC enforcement actions, Kantako and his station (now named Human Rights Radio) remain on the air today.

Stephen Dunifer, the founder of Free Radio Berkeley, has long advocated pop-up microbroadcasting as an effective means of electronic civil disobedience. He told me in 2000 that "if you're concerned about the FCC coming knocking at your door, go out and set up your transmitter up at your local flea market, at a concert, or a rally, or whatever. Because the FCC, in the history of [microradio], has yet to hassle people doing it as a one-up event. First of all, they don't even know it's there, and secondly, there's a huge crowd, and we've found the FCC...prefer to work in the dark, so to speak. That is, they don't like to be exposed publicly for what they're doing."

Not only do pop-up stations amplify the impact of every event they're associated with, they also "educate people in the community [about microbroadcasting] and it tends to demystify the whole process....There's lots of creative ways to use this." I can personally vouch for that, having helped organize or participated in several event-broadcasts, ranging from house parties to disaster triage to mass airwave occupations of major metro markets.

Stations like Noises Over Norwell are the essence of tactical broadcasting. Let thousands more like it bloom.

After months of slagging each other, National Public Radio and HD Radio's commercial-broadcast backers came to a back-room compromise on an FM-HD power hike, and in 2010 the FCC approved it. FM-HD stations could raise their digital power to anywhere between 4% and 10% of their analog output. The FCC also implemented rules that made it nearly impossible for a broadcaster or listener to lodge complaints about any increased HD-related interference between stations.

Generally speaking, these slightly beefier signals are somewhat easier to lock and listen to, and they are somewhat more receivable in buildings. However, very few stations have actually applied for and implemented any digital power increase, which the FCC calls "disappointing." Additionally, increasing FM-HD power has indeed led to actual increased interference between stations—the FCC may be in denial, but examples abound on YouTube.

What do you do if your controversial solution to fix a design flaw in FM-HD doesn't work? Apparently, you double down.

In June, Clear Channel senior operations engineer Alan Jurison published a white paper about increasing FM-HD power, designed to "add to the technical record the tangible benefits of elevated digital power." After mouthing the standard industry-lines about the technology (HD is great, it has traction in the marketplace, and increasing FM-HD power has been painless and fruitful), Jurison provides a report on some listening-tests he's conducted on Clear Channel FM-HD stations in New York and Los Angeles.

In a nutshell, Jurison drove the major highways of the metropolitan areas with reception and logging equipment and compared FM-HD signal robustness at 1% of analog power and 4% of analog power. No real surprise that increased power leads to better digital reception—but it still falls short on many stretches of roads, especially in the more affluent suburbs of New Jersey and Connecticut.

In the LA metro, the terrain and density of stations on the FM dial means that most are limited to running at the minimum FM-HD power (1% of analog). But no two radio stations are exactly alike, so there's some variation in the amount of digital wattage Clear Channel's stations can put out. For example, both KBIG-FM and KIIS-FM are, in FCC parlance, "Class B" stations that run their FM-HD signals at 1% of analog output. But KBIG is licensed to broadcast with more power, and thus can broadcast a stronger FM-HD signal (650 watts) than KIIS (80 watts).

Again, no surprise that it's easier to receive KBIG's digital signal than KIIS', but the area's terrain exacerbates reception challenges for both stations. This problem is inherent to HD Radio's design, and reflects an early-held (and wrongheaded) belief that just because a signal is digital, it will outperform analog.

Jurison lays some blame for this at the feet of auto manufacturers, who have sacrificed antenna functionality for vehicle design aesthetics. Over the last two decades, stock radio antennas in automobiles have morphed from external whips mounted on the front of the vehicle to little nubs that can be located anywhere. In many newer cars, the antenna is now a small wire often buried in the rear window. Result: radio reception has been degraded in the car, and this is especially noticeable with digital radio.

The primary takeaway of Jurison's paper is that the 2010 FM-HD power hike from 1% to 4% of analog power has not been a meaningful solution to HD's listenability problems, "almost always fall[ing] short in replicating a station's analog coverage." Considering that radio faces increased competition in a networked world, this is an existential threat, and something must be done:

Many complaints are logged by people regarding the underperformance of their digital radios. Those complaints and the dissatisfaction of listeners will only increase as millions of additional digital radios are sold each year. If current trends continue, by the end of the decade, digital radios will reach critical mass. I feel the industry is woefully underprepared for how inadequate [4% FM-HD power] coverage can be.

Jurison then suggests that the industry work to renew research in broadcasting FM-HD signals at 10% of analog power. The FCC's digital radio rules limit many stations from adopting the full FM-HD power increase, in order to reduce the chances of interfering with their neighbors on the dial, especially in crowded markets. But Jurison says these concerns are overblown, and points to the lack of official complaints about FM-HD interference.

"Why should we hold back and harm the entire industry from having a successful digital transition based on concerns that still, to this date, have not materialized?," he writes. "Let us ensure there are safeguards in place to mitigate any interference on a case-by-case basis." But "the time has come" to push for a full-on, broad-spectrum 10% FM-HD power level for all stations.

Of course, Jurison ignores the fact that the FCC's rules set the bar so high for making a complaint about digital radio interference that you really can't file one—the regulatory equivalent of plugging your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you." This, too, was done by design. It's not an honest rationale.

I expect we'll see increased presentations on this subject at industry conferences, including the annual NAB Radio Show in September, and in the broadcast engineering trades over the next year. Clear Channel will work with iBiquity and the National Association of Broadcasters to produce the necessary "science" to justify the change, and a plethora of broadcast-investors in HD Radio will endorse the results without qualification. Then it's on to the FCC to press for a blanket 10% FM-HD power increase (at a minimum), with little oversight or recourse.

Although other avenues exist to improve FM-HD reception without dramatically raising broadcast power, it appears HD proponents prefer the brute-force option.

The interesting thing to watch will be whether the industry splits again over the idea. The driving force behind NPR Labs, public radio's primary HD innovator, has since retired, his replacement was just canned, and financing and oversight of the Labs have been folded into NPR's Technology and Operations division. Thus there will likely be fewer thoughtfully critical voices engaged in these future projects and policymaking. More's the pity.

Shirking the duty to process public comment simply because it is overwhelming could open up any future network neutrality rulings to appeal. Then again, it's not like there's formal ground-rules at the FCC to engage with such comments: such processing is left up to staff, who apparently have great latitude to ignore or dismiss them as they wish.

Since Chairman Wheeler both personally invited comments on this network neutrality proceeding and committed the agency to seriously consider them—and he would also like to have some rule in place by the end of the year—any shirking will have to be creative. That's not the type of "innovation" the Internet nor a democracy in austerity-mode needs.

Arias is represented by an NYC-based law firm that specializes in labor and employment law and is making a name for itself in unpaid internship litigation, spearheading a similar complaint against SiriusXM satellite radio. This is just the latest in a series of lawsuits filed by former interns against media companies in the last few years: the floodgates opened in 2012 when unpaid interns for PBS' Charlie Rose Show settled a class-action lawsuit. Then, in June of 2013, a judge ruled that the Fox Searchlight movie studio violated labor law in its use of unpaid interns.

Since then, suits have been filed against Condé Nast (which promptly closed its internship program), Gawker Media (still in court) NBC Universal (still in court), and Viacom (still in court), among many others. Clear Channel is the first terrestrial radio broadcaster to be hit with an unpaid internship lawsuit.

It's no secret that corporate America has slashed jobs and attempted to make up the difference with automation, outsourcing, and in many cases, the labor of unpaid interns. These practices are especially prevalent in the media industries, where the "glamour" and "access" they ostensibly offer means much more labor supply than demand.

Thus many unpaid internships are nothing more than glorified gopher-jobs with a potentially valuable brand name. Such practices are found even in the "liberal" or "progressive" media, who fall far short of the values they espouse in their own workplaces.

Colleges and universities have fed into these schemes by uncritically embracing unpaid internships as some vaguely-defined rite of passage. In many instances, that doubly screws students: they don't get paid at their intern-job and have to pay for the college credit they receive for working. If it's a "prestigious" internship in a big city, students are also expected to front the travel and housing costs for the duration.

Only recently has there been any move in higher education to critically evaluate internship opportunities, spurred in part by an ongoing ProPublica investigation into the nature and scope of unpaid internships. This ambitious inquiry seeks data on internships across economic sectors, including self-reporting from interns directly. The reports from arts and entertainment interns catalog such exciting and educational work as lunch-delivery and dog-walking.

Of course, not all internship experience is exploitative and valueless, and not all schools are mindlessly feeding students into the internship mill. In broadcasting and journalism, there's a long history of pre- or paraprofessional experience as part of the educational process. But it's incumbent upon educators to make sure that theses experiences are meaningful.

When we revised the Broadcast Journalism degree program at Brooklyn College last year, we instituted a requirement that all students must complete an internship or an independent study. This allows students to avoid internships altogether, though they still must spend at least a semester engaged in some intensive, specialized study. Our department also evaluates internship opportunities to weed out the meaningless and we encourage our students to look beyond the traditional corporate media for internships.

Sometimes the value of an internship is that it teaches you what you don't want to do with your career. For example, I've had students intern at several local television channels and the unvarnished look they got at the vapid pack mentality taught them more about that business than me and my colleagues ever could.

Of course, my experiences are colored by being based in the #1 U.S. media market, where decent internship opportunities abound, and at an institution where internship stipends are available. Similarly, the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism provides stipends for students on summer internships—still not enough to live meaningfully on in Manhattan, but tons better than nothing.

In a perfect world, everyone would get paid what they (and the work they do) are actually worth. Labor is money, and inculcating students with the notion that their labor is worthless sets a depressing career precedent. If the change won't come from the educator or "employer," then keep those lawsuits coming.

The dispute began in 2012, when Continental's initial licensing agreement with iBiquity came up for renewal. It centers around how the HD receiver royalty fee is calculated: iBiquity claims it is due a percentage of the sale-price for each infotainment system sold, while Continental argues its royalty payments should be based on the value of iBiquity's proprietary components alone.

Continental accuses iBiquity of "improperly attempting to expand the scope of its patent monopoly to include unpatented articles through its demands that Continental pay royalties on the value of non-patented features," and alleges it has overpaid iBiquity more than $1 million over the years they've been doing business. According to Continental's lawyers, "iBiquity's royalty demand rivals the cost of the underlying HD Radio circuit itself," which they consider a commercially-unreasonable price.

According to the terms of the iBiquity/Continental agreement, iBiquity is paid at least $1 for every HD receiver Continental sells, though dependent on volume it can make as much as $6 per receiver; Continental claims it has been paying the higher rate all along.

iBiquity formally revoked Continental's license to manufacture HD Radio-compatible infotainment systems last November, when Continental suspended royalty payments, though the agreement between the two companies would have technically expired on June 28th of this year.

In a May 19th response to Continental's complaint, iBiquity came out swinging. It revealed that, "[m]ore than a month before Continental filed its federal complaint, iBiquity filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Continental in Maryland state court over the same license interpretation issue." Having sued first in the venue dictated in the terms of its license agreements (and where its headquarters is based), iBiquity moved for dismissal of Continental's federal case.

It also savaged Continental's patent arguments, declaring that HD Radio's business model has no "anticompetitive effect in a properly defined market," and asserted that legal precedent exists to base royalty payments for proprietary technology on an entire product and not just its parts. On June 12th, Continental replied, seeming most concerned about its potential liability for patent infringement should it keep manufacturing HD Radio receivers; iBiquity has called such a threat hypothetical.

Then last week, Continental filed a motion to withdraw elements of its lawsuit, which was granted on the first of July. Press coverage is surprisingly sparse, but the move suggests that both companies are focusing on iBiquity's lawsuit in Maryland. That case is in the discovery phase, with pretrial maneuverings scheduled to continue until the end of the year. Meanwhile, iBiquity still lists Continental on its web site as a licensed manufacturer "on the Receive Side of HD Radio Technology."

Continental Automotive Systems, a multi-billion dollar subsidiary of a German conglomerate, apparently thought it might be able to squeeze iBiquity, a corporate pipsqueak, on the licensing-payments for manufacturing HD Radio receivers. It's not an unusual gambit in the corporate obsession with cost minimization, and it might have saved Continental millions of dollars in future costs.

But the fine print is a bitch, and iBiquity needs those millions to survive. HD Radio's only real play is in the automotive realm, and had it been intimidated into accepting lower payments from a major receiver manufacturer, it sets a precedent that jeopardizes iBiquity's entire business model. More than anything, this case illustrates the continued reticence there is among receiver manufacturers to fully embrace HD Radio, while they rush headlong into the arms of those that compete with it in the glass dashboard.

The second federal court action involves a patent troll on the prowl. Late last year, this troll targeted broadcast and automotive licensees of HD Radio, claiming that the technology infringed on its intellectual property. Most notably, the troll did not sue iBiquity itself. The defendants in these suits managed to postpone action on the troll's claim three times—until July second.

One day before the deadline, iBiquity swooped into Delaware District Court and countersued for dismissal. The claim is simple: patent trolls are parasites with no meaningful claims to intellectual property. Most importantly, iBiquity claims to have ample evidence of the ambiguity and invalidity of the troll's patents (legally called "prior art"). Should iBiquity prevail, it will cut this particular patent troll off at the knees. Not surprisingly, the broadcaster-defendants, which now reads like a Who's Who of radio conglomerates, have emphatically endorsed iBiquity's play.

But truth be told, it's a surprise it took iBiquity so long to set up this smackdown. Its countersuit notes that "iBiquity has a contractual obligation" through its licensing agreements "to indemnify the Broadcasters and suppliers to the Car Manufacturers against any losses incurred as a result of being sued over their use of HD technology." This makes iBiquity an intervenor in 32 HD Radio-related cases filed so far by this particular patent troll.

In hindsight, it's easy to see how iBiquity might have been preoccupied by the Continental dispute. But now, it's willing to take this particular patent fight all the way to a jury if necessary.

These are not the first legal skirmishes for iBiquity when it comes to defending its business model. In 2007, iBiquity filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the structure of patent and licensing agreements. iBiquity's multi-level licensing process means everyone (broadcasters, receiver chip manufacturers, and receiver-makers) pays a licensing fee to sell or use the technology; iBiquity claimed then that its business model was successful because it allows the risk inherent in developing and adopting a new technology to be spread around to various players. Ultimately, iBiquity was on the losing side of that case, but its business model has remained intact.

HD Radio's enclosure has already stifled both innovation and uptake of the technology, and these legal maneuverings suggest that iBiquity's business model remains a significant drag on HD Radio's evolution. Money spent fending off patent-infringement claims and royalty disputes means fewer funds to invest in research, development, or promotion. Can the system afford such distractions?

I'm kind of surprised at broadcasters' reticence to experiment in old-Jelli fashion. We've already seen journalism (and especially broadcast journalism) open its doors to "non-professionals" and "citizen journalists," and it has not decimated the "industry" (such as it is). Then again, it might potentially decimate the formulaic and segmentary nature of how commercial radio programming works. Heaven forbid broadcasters shift paradigms.

WBAI is not the only Pacifica station with big problems: WPFW in Washington, D.C. is also seeking a new home, in hopes of lightening its own fiscal burdens, while KPFT in Houston is still operating at reduced power after a lightning strike damaged its transmitter in 2012 and has not been able to raise the money to buy a new one.

Less than three months into the job (which began with his predecessor occupying the offices in protest), Bernard Duncan announced he'll be stepping down from Pacifica's ED position on July 5th to move back to New Zealand. With no replacement on the horizon, nobody seems to know just how Pacifica will cope with its crises.

Unfortunately, those who see WKRP episodes in syndication today are not getting the authentic experience. That's because the music licensing agreements for the songs used on the faux station have lapsed. Therefore, many WKRP episodes are heavily edited: actual songs have been replaced with generic session-tracks and related character dialogue has been overdubbed with sound-alike actors. In some cases, entire scenes involving copyrighted music have been removed.

This is why there's been no DVD release of WKRP in Cincinnati. 20th Century Fox did release a DVD collection of the show's first season in 2007, but these were music-sanitized episodes and thus did not sell well. However, the pop-culture archival company Shout Factory has now acquired the rights to WKRP, and word is they are confident they can secure the permission to restore the program's original music and release its entire corpus. Interestingly, the principals behind Shout Factory are also the founders of of Rhino Records, which is well-known for its compilations, remasterings, and reissues of older music and TV shows.