This Month's Stories
September 17, 2007
September 2007 Newsletter
SBE Chapter 48 / SMPTE Rocky Mountain Section
The webmaster apologizes for the late posting of the September newsletter
as I was out of the country working IBC... sorry folks!
August 2007 Meeting Report
No meeting was held in August due to late summer doldrums. Look for
a good meeting in September and followup reports.
Date Selected for Annual Holiday Luncheon
December 7th, 2007
Location: Park Hill Golf Club
Time: 11:30 to 1:00
Our annual holiday luncheon is now planned and will appear in the home page
meeting notice as details are finalized. Make note now of this fun event on
Return to table of contents
Random Radio Thoughts
Cris Alexander, CPBE, AMD
Crawford Broadcasting Company
At long last, on August 15, the new terrestrial digital rules were published
in the Federal Register. This starts the official clocks ticking on when
these new rules go into effect. I say “clocks” (plural) because
some parts of the new rules require Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Only those portions that require
the filing of some form or paperwork are subject to OMB review. My interpretation
of this is that it will affect the portions that have to do with FCC notification
of digital operation. OMB review will take another 60 to 120 days, so if
you have an STA or experimental authority related to digital broadcasting
that would need to be renewed before the year’s end and you were thinking
that the new rules would do away with the need for such renewal, you may
be out of luck this time around. My advice to you would be to consult with
your communications counsel. Personally, I can’t imagine that the
FCC would hammer someone for operating their HD multicast with an expired
experimental authority after September 14. That would be really “feather-legged.”
I’m sure many Front Range radio engineers have been reading the trade
press coverage of AM HD-R nighttime for the past few months. There are generally
two camps: the proponents (led by WOR’s Tom Ray) and the naysayers (led
by Canadian engineer Barry McLarnon). A third camp that hasn’t received
too much coverage is the “wait and see” group. You could probably
label this group as “cautious optimists.” I tend to be more in
this last group than the first. I’m definitely not part of McLarnon’s “the
sky is falling” group.
The naysayers evidently believe that on September 14, the date that the
new terrestrial rules go into effect, the AM nighttime band will end in a
mushroom cloud of interference. I saw one prediction that the night limit
for WJR in Detroit will rise to something like14 mV/m as the result of WBBM’s
digital carriers. I ran the numbers myself and came up with 2.5 mV (email
me if you want to see my math on this).
No doubt about it, there is going to be added interference. It’s inevitable.
If stations radiate more energy, there will be more interference. You can’t
get away from that physical law. The question, then, is, “How much and
I think most of the interference will be outside the present interference-free
contour. One case that has been cited in the trade press and on the message
boards is that of WYSL in Avon, NY. WYSL operates with 500W night on 1040
kHz. A good bit of its night revenue undoubtedly comes from nearby Rochester.
The owner of that station is worried that first-adjacent WBZ in Boston will
wipe out his night coverage with its night HD signal. I did the math on this
using worst-case values and I came up with a night limit from the WBZ HD carriers
of about 2.5 mV/m. The limit produced by WBZ alone is about 6.25 mV/m. So
the addition of the WBZ HD carriers raises the contribution of WBZ to 6.73
mV/m, a 7% increase. But the real story is that this small increase is lost
in the interference from the primary contributor, co-channel WHO in Des Moines.
That station produces a 50% RSS night limit of 13.87 mV/m. I just don’t
see how the 7% increase from WBZ is going to make a whit of difference with
all the hash coming from WHO!
Some folks urged the FCC to take a phased or stepped approach to AM nighttime
digital implementation. Their reasoning was to give the FCC and stations a
chance to assess the impact of the interference caused by nighttime HD Radio
before allowing everyone to run with it. I don’t necessarily disagree
with this reasoning, and I don’t think the FCC’s full authorization
will deprive us of this opportunity. Here’s why:
There are presently 227 AM stations operating in the digital mode. That’s
not a big number. Within Crawford Broadcasting Company, we have 15 AM stations.
Looking at our facilities, out of those I have only six that are ready to
go (or soon will be) with nighttime HD signals. The others will all require
some additional investment and work, either because the nighttime transmitter
has not yet been converted, the night antenna needs work or both. So 40% will
presumably be on the air with digital signals at night in the next couple
of months. Assuming that the facilities in my company are fairly representative
of the entire industry’s stable of AMs, we can apply that percentage
to the number of operating AM digital stations. Using that reasoning, you
can look for about 91 stations to go on the air with nighttime digital signals
in the short term. That’s less than 1% of the total number of AM stations.
That low number will give us the chance to evaluate the interference caused
by AM digital nighttime signals on a case-by-case basis. It does not represent
the “apocalypse” as some claim.
Certainly there are some out there that have held off converting their
AMs to digital pending resolution of the nighttime issue, and a few of those
may well now make that move. But I think that many more will take the more
reasoned “wait and see” approach before they sink $30,000 or more
into a digital conversion. And quite a few of the 227 may take the same approach.
Also keep in mind that some of the 227 are daytime only, which may further
reduce the number in the initial nighttime group.
The next few months will be interesting, and we should learn a lot during
that time. We should look at this as a grand experiment and take advantage
of the opportunity to gather data. Based on what we learn, we as an industry
will have to decide the viability of AM nighttime HD Radio.
But we have no reason to think the apocalypse is coming on September 14.
If you have news to share with the Rocky Mountain radio engineering
community, drop me an email at email@example.com.
Return to table of contents
AMATEUR RADIO NEWS
Compiled By Tom Weeden, WJ9H
From Chapter 24 - Madison
BPL FIGHT CONTINUES
On July 31, the American Radio Relay League filed its reply brief at the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This brief follows
the FCC’s brief that attempted to rebut the ARRL’s challenge
to the FCC’s Broadband over Power Line (BPL) rules enacted in late
2004 and affirmed by the agency in 2006. According to ARRL General Counsel
Chris Imlay, W3KD, "The FCC’s brief does not accurately describe
ARRL’s arguments concerning harmful interference." The ARRL,
in its reply brief, accuses the FCC of, "engaging in misdirection – rebutting
hyperbolic arguments ARRL never made, refusing to address the precedents
ARRL cited and attempting to rewrite the Orders as if they made factual
rather than legal determinations."
The ARRL’s reply brief looked at four main points:
The FCC’s failure to reconcile the Orders with the FCC’s decades-old
interpretation of Section 301.
The FCC’s failure to justify its nondisclosures of portions of the studies
on which the Orders were expressly based.
The FCC’s failure to justify its refusal to consider contrary evidence,
as well as a proposed alternative to its extrapolation factor for measuring
The FCC’s failure to justify its summary dismissal of an alternative
that could have accommodated BPL without causing the same harmful interference.
The ARRL’s brief states that this case "is about an unlicensed
operator’s legal duty to cease harmful interference once it arises,
not the standard for authorizing unlicensed transmissions."
For decades, the FCC has interpreted Section 301 to mandate two restrictions
on unlicensed operators: The proposed operations will not have a significant
potential for causing harmful interference, and; if harmful interference does
occur, the unlicensed operations are to cease immediately. For the first time
ever, the FCC excluded mobile operators from the second part of the mandate.
ARRL asked the Court in its brief "to enforce the FCC’s ‘duty
to consider responsible alternatives to its chosen policy and to give a reasoned
explanation for its rejection of such alternatives.’" Pointing
out the "multiple legal errors in the Orders," the ARRL stated in
the brief that the FCC "require[d] a remand.
When the Court remands the Orders, it should direct the FCC to give this
alternative the careful consideration required by law."
Excerpts from the American Radio Relay League’s Web site at arrl.org
Return to table of contents
The KE0VH Hamshack.doc
One of the things that I have wanted to do since moving to
Colorado and becoming aware of them was to climb a 14er. The term “fourteener” refers
to Colorados mountain peaks that are over 14,000 feet in height above sea
level. This is something that many people do each summer here in Colorado.
Some of the peaks you can even drive up to the top and hike the last 130
so, as in the case of Mount Evans just west of Denver, and of course we
are all probably familiar with Pikes Peak west of Colorado Springs.
Now, I have driven
with 3 of my sons to the top of Mt. Evans, but I have always wanted to
hike some of the other peaks and while I was at it, operate some sort of
Amateur Radio. So, this past July 19th, I finally had that opportunity.
in law, Bill, who was visiting from Indiana, and has been a runner for
years (his resting heart rate is an incredible 55 or less) was interested,
and I asked my sons Levi and William (William is KCØYPJ) to come along,
and we invited their cousin Michael too. So early on that morning, we left
Denver and arrived at the trailhead, up a 3.8 mile bone jarring dirt road
ride in our minivan off the “Bakerville” exit on I-70 just west
of Georgetown. Now, “Bakerville” may have been a location at one
time, but is now simply an exit.. We started out the hike about 8:30am,
going across the bridge that marks the beginning of the 3.75 or so miles
summit. The hike through the bush area along a well kept trail took a little
getting used to due to the altitude. We were all feeling it except Bill,
who set a pace and continued on, totally non-stop to the top. Myself, Michael,
Levi and William did stop to rest occasionally, drinking water to stay
and the higher we got the more beautiful the surrounding scenery became.
majesty” in the song was very apparent, the snowfields still there were
amazing, and the alpine flowers and tundra were simply breathtaking. As
we came to the place called “Rock Tower”, after traversing the
back side of a ridge facing Grays twin peak Torreys, we stopped and could
the way back down to the treeline area where the beginning of the trail
was. And, as we continued on the way to the top, I talked with my daughter
also a ham, KCØYYG on the Colorado Connection repeater which I could
hit then before we got to the summit.
By this time, myself, William, and Michael could see Bill
and Levi sitting on the summit! In just a little while and a couple of
stood on the summit at 14,270 Feet!
What a great feeling of accomplishment,
and after we took some pictures, I settled down for a few minutes of
hams on the Colorado Connection repeater. Of course Emily KCØYYG,
and also KCØKBP, KCØRPS, KCØQPJ, NØNKG, and KEØMT,
and I also worked Cris, W5WCA on the WA2YZT repeater, which I wasn’t
hitting great on the rubber duck. I also was able to talk to my wife third
Emily. I had brought along my Arrow 2m/440 beam antenna, but with the approaching
thunderstorms didn’t take the time to assemble it and work any simplex
as a lot of amateurs like to do that.
We thought, after about only 10 or
15 minutes we better start heading down. On the way down too William had
a QSO (chat) with
Emily back home. It took us a little longer coming down, but as we did the
views were absolutely incredible. And I got to work a little ham radio on
And speaking of which, I created a special “QSL” or confirmation
of contact card to mail out to those I worked from the top. In August of
each year too, there is a special “14’ner” ham radio event
where hams operate from as many of the peaks as possible. They hike up, and
up radios and antenna’s, or just the rubber duck off an HT, and away
they go. From my home on the NW side of Denver, I worked several of them
For more information on that you can go to www.14er.org.
73’ until next month de KE0VH!
Return to table of contents
FCC Issues White Spaces Study
By Tom Smith
From Madison SBE Chap. 24
The FCC has issued two reports on equipment tests concerning interference from proposed devices to allow broadband Internet transmissions in the so called white spaces in the TV band. One of the reports was on tests to measure interference from the broadband devices into TV’s connected to cable systems. The second was on tests of two prototype devices on their ability to detect off-the-air DTV signals and wireless mike transmissions.
In the test for interference to reception to cable TV reception, the report stated that the sets received interference for the test generator at both 2 and 10-meter distances. This interference varied depending on the orientation of the set in relation to the test generators antenna. The tests were very real world and were conducted in a single-family home and a townhouse with gypsum firewalls between the set and the generator. They used three different sets and a cable box to receive the cable signal. The generator emitted a 5 MHz wide ODFM carrier similar to that of a WIMAX transmitter. They also conducted a test outdoors with no structure between the set and the generator.
The second report was on the test of the two prototype WIMAX transmitters and receiving devices. These tests were to test sensing systems to be used to detect over-the-air NTSC and DTV signals and wireless mike operation. Neither prototype was able to reliably detect transmissions from TV stations, even when there was a nearby set receiving the station reliably. Neither device meets the minimum threshold level that the FCC has specified even though one box was somewhat better than the other. In detection of wireless mikes, one device was unable to detect wireless mikes and the second device, while able to detect wireless mikes, it was not able to do so reliably. Both devices were examples of something in early development and rather crude. Considering the resources of the companies interested in getting the devices to market and the pressure they have been exerting to get the TV white spaces open, they do not seem to be very far along in their research and development. The writers of the report stated that there should not be any further consideration and testing of these devices for the time being.
With the earlier FCC report concerning interference susceptibility to DTV sets not showing great improvement over NTSC sets, it would seem that the move to open the TV white spaces to unlicensed devices should be slowed down or put on hold. We should know by the end of October, as that is when the FCC had proposed to issue the rules on unlicensed devices. The FCC is asking for comments on these reports by August 15, with replies by August 27.
—Links to the reports are available on the FCC’s home page.
From FCC Releases (www.fcc.gov)
Return to table of contents
FCC Seeks More Information on Ownership Rules
by Tom Smith
In the last month, the FCC has announced a number of actions concerning the broadcast ownership rules. On July19, the FCC announced that it would hold the sixth on a series of hearings on broadcast ownership rules and localism in broadcast program in Chicago on September 20. The FCC has not given the time and location of the hearing or the agenda and the speaker’s list. The commission usually doesn’t announce the final plans until a few days before the event. The FCC had planned on six of these hearings, so this should be the last one until the next required review of the ownership rules.
On July 31, the FCC announced that it would seek comment on 10 studies on ownership and localism in broadcasting. The titles of the studies are:
1. How People Get News and Information
2. Ownership Structure and Robustness of Media
3. Television Station OwnershipStructure and Quantity and Quality of TV Programming
4. News Operations
5. Station Ownership and Programming in Radio
6. The Effects of Cross-Ownership on Local Content and Political Slant of Local Television News
7. Minority and Female Ownership in Media Enterprises
8. The Impact of the FCC’s TV Duopoly Rule Relaxation on Minority and Women Owned Broadcast Stations 1999-2006
9. Vertical Integration and the Market for Broadcast and Cable Television Programming
10. Review of the Radio Industry, 2007
Comments are due on October 1 with replies due on October 16. Democratic FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathon Adelstein issued statements objecting to the length of the comment period. They stated the more time should be allowed for those wishing to comment to prepare their comments due to the volume of the studies.
In one final action concerning ownership rules, the Commission issued a Second Further Notice of Rulemaking at the request of the Diversity and Competition Supporters (MMTC), which filed a motion of withdrawal of an earlier Further Notice of Proposed rulemaking and for a revised issuance of the Notice of Rulemaking. The FCC did not rescind the earlier notice, but will seek comments on 13 proposals that the group has filed with the FCC. MMTC consists of 18 groups that represent minority media and policy organizations. These groups represent Latinos, Native Americans, African-Americans and women. The comment period is the same as that for comments on the 10 studies.
Further information can be obtained from links to the various notices and studies on the home page of the FCC’s Web site.
From FCC Releases (www.fcc.gov)
Return to table of contents
Clay’s Corner for September 2007
Featuring News, Rumors and Views
From Usually Reliable and Irrefutable Sources
By Clay Freinwald
SBE Seattle Chapter 16
Hard to believe that I am sitting in front of this
computer writing this column for the September issue – where has this year gone?
Some interesting items in my life of late –
First of all I received a call the other day from Paul McLane, editor
of Radio World Magazine. He started off the call by saying congratulations – I
immediately said (being suspicious) ‘for what?’…he went
on to explain that I was receiving an award from their magazine. In reading
their press release I am happy to know that one of the reasons I was selected
was for my work with EAS. Considering that this is my volunteer work, and
the pay is terrible, It’s nice to have recognition. It’s my
understanding that I will receive a plaque, possibly at the SBE Annual Meeting
in Pittsburg on Oct 11th.
As you know, from reading this column, and a recent presentation I did
at the Chapter meeting, big changes are coming to EAS. The SBE EAS Committee
I chair has been busy working on this project. The Committee recently posted
on the SBE Web-Site – www.sbe.org - A summary of the FCC Report and
Order as well as a list of FAQ’s. I highly recommend that you go there
and check it out. As a vehicle to exchange information about EAS, the Society
has a Remailer dedicated to EAS. We call it the SBE-EAS Exchange. You are
more than welcome to participate. Information on how to subscribe is also
on the SBE Web-Site.
In doing research on the changes in EAS that will be impacting us all
I spoke with folks at the FCC as well as DHS/FEMA. My quest for information
turned into a job. SBE will be working with NASBA and NAB representing our
industry and meeting with DHS, NWS and others, in mid October in WDC, to
determine requirements and assign working groups to look at issues that
need to be addressed to implement the transition from the EAS we know today
to the new CAP based EAS. The thought of chairing this meeting is a bit
The changes to EAS will have an impact here as well as it will require
re-writing many of our EAS Plans, both at the state and local levels. The
question I get asked the most often is – will this mean that stations
will have to purchase new EAS Equipment. At this point I can’t say
for sure, but the odds are yes. I would hope that more SBE members would
volunteer to get involved with EAS for there is going to be much to be done.
The next State EAS Meeting will be on Sept 12th, come join us in person
at Camp Murray or via the conference bridge. Instructions are always on
the Washington State EAS Remailer. Kudos to Phil Johnson the Central Puget
(LECC) EAS Chairman for holding interesting and topical meetings for the
local EAS group. One problem however, lack of Broadcaster participation.
The new rules are going to require Broadcasters to carry certain messages
that now are voluntary. It seems to me to be a no-brainer that increased
broadcaster participation in EAS is going to become very much in our best
interest.. I don’t mean just Engineers….I’m talking program
and news directors and management. For more details, drop Phil or I a note
or give me a call
The latest radio-ratings are out – Couple of observations –
KMPS just barely squeaked out a first place. KCMS continues to climb,
now #2. This must be the highest they’ve ever been for the Christian
station. Proving that this format is indeed viable. KOMO continues to benefit
from the Mariners MoJo. None of the traditional talk stations, conservative
or liberal, appear to be doing all that well. Will be interesting to see
how the changes Bonneville has made to KIRO and KBSG play out.
The winner for the Latino listener appears to be going to KDDS edging
out KKMO that was not on the list.
Hats off to the FCC for their recent study of whether or not to let unlicensed
devices operate in what’s called ‘white-spaces’ without
causing QRM to DTV viewers. We all held our breath, and….Surprise
! – The technical side prevailed.
Marty Hadfield and Entercom are heading in different directions. Marty
has been VP of Engineering for the company for a number of years. Marty
has formed the Hadfield Group and is turning his attention to other clients.
Meanwhile, Entercom is reportedly looking for his replacement.
Where are all the RF guys going to come from? I’m not the only one
that is nearing retirement time. In the next few years a number of local
Radio and TV RF guys are going to be joining the rocking chair crowd. Granted
the old NTSC rigs will all be gone in TV and but, as anyone knows, there
is plenty to go wrong still. Seems to me we have a couple of choices here – 1)
New folks getting into the biz are mainly in I.T. Perhaps it’s time
to start cross training these folks? 2) Turn the RF plants over to contractors
that specialize in the ‘heavy-hardware’. 3) Start recruiting.
One of the biggest problems is the fact that many in management fail to
understand the necessity of keeping the RF plan running and what’s
involved in doing so. My crystal ball is telling me that there are going
to be some rude awakenings in the future.
Did you follow that copter crash recently in Phoenix? A tragic situation,
to say the least. Is it just me, but would it not make sense to have these
stations get together and agree to work cooperatively? What I have in mind
is rather than having 3 stations, each with choppers covering the same chase….Rotate
the duty. It would work this way. The first news story of the day would
mean that station A would send their copter out to cover the story and they
would feed B and C. The next event, could happen at the same time, station
B would go out and feed A and C and so on. Not only would this reduce the
amount of air-traffic in a given area, but would have the benefit to all
co-op stations of being able to get chopper video from 3 different events
at the same time. Probably too logical.
SBE recently filed a request with the Feds to standardize the NAD’s,
if adopted coordinates would all be based on the same parameters ending
the confusing process of changing coordinates to fit the other guys system.
Long long overdue.
It seems that I all to frequently write about the passing of a friend
and engineer. In this case it’s to note someone that most of you don’t
know, but a few in this area learned to know and appreciate. Jim Kemman
passed on July 25th at the age of 70. I first got to know Jim in his role
as an engineer with ERI back in about 1986 as we were planning for the areas
first FM station combiner for the then new transmitter site at W.Tiger.
Jim came out and made a presentation. I recall asking him how their proposed
antenna would work in heavy icing conditions that West Tiger was famous
for. He said that he did not know, but would find out. A few months later
my phone rang…it was Jim reporting that the antenna would be just
fine. The weather at the ERI plant had turned cold and a prototype bay was
setting outside with a sprinkler spraying water on it and it was a block
of ice and the network analyzer was displaying a happy Smith display. ERI
won the contract to build the antenna and Jim watched that combiner grow
from 4 to 10 stations over the years. My last chat with Jim was about 3
years ago when we were working together figuring out how to back-feed the
array for HD Radio. Jim was a true gentle man with a wry wit and a razor
sharp mind, I was proud to call him a friend. To this day you will find
Jim’s name on the computer that monitors the FM combiner at that site
as we have a parameter measured in Kemmans. We miss you gentle Jim, you
left your mark in the Seattle area on that little mountain East of Issaquah
and many of us that have worked up there have many fond memories.
I spoze you have heard, the FAA has a new reporting number for tower
light issues etc. Its 1-877-487-6867. While you are at it, it’s a
good time to change all those signs, notes and rolodex cards.
Could the FCC permit AM’s to use FM translators? Sounds strange, but
it’s being seriously considered. Not going to happen in Western Washington
as the FM band is crammed.
And from the - just what we needed department – A South Korean study
suggest that children who live near AM transmitter sites have an increased
risk of getting leukemia. Like most studies, they concluded that more research
Let me leave you with this one – How can you tell if a person is – really – a
psychologist? ………… He’s the fellow that watches
everyone else when a beautiful girl walks into a room.
Have a great, what’s left of, pretty cool and wet summer – The ‘wet’ is
surely on its way.
Clay, CPBE, K7CR
Return to table of contents
Web Site of the Month
What is CAP? For those wanting more info on the Common Alerting Protocol to be used with the new EAS system, the most reliable and authoritative site, is www.incident.com. It is run by "The Father of CAP", Art Botterell, and he calls it the CAP Cookbook. You can even get CAP caps, and other CAP-wear there!
(thanks Gary Timm) (Thanks SBE Chapter 80)
Return to table of contents
SBE Certification News
SBE to Offer New Specialist Certification
Following recent changes in the FCC rules recognizing the viability of
digital radio and the official endorsement of multicasting, the National
Certification Committee of the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) is
proud to announce its next specialist certification, Digital Radio Broadcast
This specialist certification will qualify an individual's knowledge
of digital radio broadcasting including audio processing, studio-to-transmitter
links and transmission of multi-channel digital program streams. The
roll-out of this specialist certification will be during the SBE National
Meeting, held in conjunction with SBE Chapter 20’s, Pittsburgh Regional
Convention, October 10-11, 2007, in Monroeville, PA.
SBE President, Chriss Scherer, CPBE CBNT remarked that, “while broadcast
and media engineering continues to evolve to cover a broad range of technologies,
certain aspects of broadcast engineering have a specific and specialized knowledge
base. This is why the Specialist Certifications were developed.”
The specialist will include knowledge of importers, exporters, the various
methods of combining analog and digital transmitters to antenna systems, delivery
of digital audio signals and data to transmitter sites, transmitter emission
mask measurements, AM and FM FCC rules, monitoring of digital signals and
bandwidth requirements for AM antenna systems.
Digital audio broadcasting (DAB) enhances a broadcast licensee’s ability
to not only better serve the public, but to provide means of additional revenue
in this highly competitive industry. Station owners will rely on the knowledge
and expertise of station technicians and engineers to implement this service
for their companies. With this specialist certification, the engineer or technician
carries the credentials needed for successful installation of digital radio
transmission systems. The specialist certification will focus on the current
in-band, on-channel transmission system being deployed in the U.S., and will
be called the SBE Digital Radio Broadcasting Specialist.
By becoming a certified specialist, a radio broadcast engineer can assure
his or her manager that he or she is up to date on the latest technology.
Digital audio broadcasting is different than traditional analog services.
An individual's ability to certify his or her knowledge of the entire system
rather than just a single part will bring confidence to both the individual
and station management.
To apply for the SBE Digital Radio Broadcast specialist certification,
applicants must currently hold SBE certification at the Broadcast Engineer,
Senior Broadcast Engineer, or Professional Broadcast Engineer certification
level. The exam will consist of 50 multiple-choice questions and one essay
question. Following the roll-out of the specialist certification, the SBE
will release an update to its CertPreview software of practice tests. To obtain
an application for the Digital Radio Broadcast specialist certification, go
to www.sbe.org/Specialist_Cert.php on the SBE website or contact the SBE National
College Credit for Your SBE Certification:
College Credit for Your SBE Certification
The Society of Broadcast Engineers and Excelsior College have teamed up! Your current SBE Certification may qualify for credit towards a degree from Excelsior College or could help you finish that degree you’ve been working on at another institution. If you’re interested, contact Excelsior College by calling toll-free at (888) 647-2388 to learn about the details.
When you are ready to submit your SBE Certification for credit to Excelsior College,
download the SBE transcript request form at www.sbe.org or www.excelsior.edu,
or contact the SBE National Office for a copy. When you’ve completed the form,
e-mail, fax or mail it to Megan Clappe, Certification Director at the SBE National
Office, who will prepare your transcript and send it to Excelsior College.
Megan Clappe Certification
Society of Broadcast Engineers
9102 N. Meridian Street, Suite 150
Indianapolis, IN 46260
SBE CertPreview Software
SBE CertPreview sample certification test software is now available.
It’s Microsoft Windows-based and replaces the previous DOS-based software.
New sample tests are available for Broadcast Technologist, Audio Engineer,
Video Engineer, Broadcast Networking Technologist, Broadcast Engineer and Senior
Broadcast Engineer in both radio and television. Sample tests include 50 to
100 questions and indicate when an incorrect answer has been given. It provides
a list of resources from which to learn more about a subject. Cost for each
SBE CERTpreview practice test is $27 plus $3 shipping. Contact the National
Office to order a copy.
Certification Exam Session Dates:
The SBE National Certification Committee certification exam session
dates for 2007 are listed below. Check the list below for the exam period
that is best for you. For more information about SBE Certification, see your
Chapter Certification Chair or
contact Megan Clappe,
Certification Director at the SBE National Office at (317) 846-9000, or firstname.lastname@example.org
|Aug 10-20, 2007
June 8, 2007
|Nov 9-19, 2007
||September 21, 2007
Fees are as Follows:
|Broadcast Networking Technologist
|Senior Broadcast Engineer
|Professional Broadcast Engineer
|AM Directional Specialist
note: SBE Certification exams are administered only by SBE and are proctored
in-person by qualified and approved representatives of SBE. No other organization
is authorized to administer SBE exams.
Click here for
more information about SBE Certification.
Return to table of contents
Bill Harris - Editor In Chief
Garneth M. Harris
Tom Goldberg - On Line Editor
We encourage your feedback and submissions, please contact us through our
web form and select "Newsletter Feedback" from the reason pop-up menu.
Newsletter archives are available online. Visit our Newsletter
Archive for an index of newsletter back issues.
Note: Old newsletters may contain outdated information, web links or email
addresses. News archives are not updated when relevant information changes.
Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the
Societies, its officers, or its members. We regret, but are not liable for, any
omissions or errors. The Denver SBE and SMPTE Newsletter is published approximately
twelve times per year. It is prepared with a combination of text and graphic
data. Submission deadline is 10 days before the last day of each month. Other
SBE or SMPTE chapters are permitted to use excerpts if attributed to the original
authors, sources, and the Denver SBE/SMPTE Newsletter.