Mark Howell had written:
|
| IBOC may be a step to eliminating AM as an aural service, with the
| allocations eventually used only for datacasting. Whether or not that
| is the plan, it is the likely result. IMHO, IBOC will assure the end
| of AM radio as we know it. Why anyone in the broadcasting industry
| supports it as the "savior of AM" is utterly beyond my comprehension.
| I find every argument advanced for it to be fallacious. If this is
| what's supposed to save AM, then AM can't, and maybe shouldn't, be
| saved.
|
I would think that the "savior of AM" would be to provide
programming that people would want to listen to and that can be
received well in most of one's home market.

But aside from that, the FCC needs to do a little "birth control" --
or, more precisely, "euthanasia" -- by deleting operations who
facilities are clearly too marginal to provide aural service to a
majority of any given station's market area. The FCC, obviously,
would rather not crack this particular nut -- it's easier to focus
on boobies than it is on nuts-and-bolts infrastructure -- and has
backed off the few cases where it has tried to reduce interference
on the dial: for example, how many stations that "moved" to the
expanded band actually have given up their previous facilities? Not many.

--
"You're about to see a great sunset if you're in the right place."
-- KCBS morning traffic anchor, 6.58 am, February 9, 2004