Sam Byrams wrote:
I don't see why we can't have DRM on a portion of the AM band and
also on frequencies at HF, VHF and UHF that aren't utilized now on a
local basis.
...
Clearly, the public interest demands that the number of
channels available exceed the number the five or s1x largest broadcast
companies can afford to buy up, because we need local radio.

DRM will actually *reduce* the number of channels available. Unless
someone can bankroll the instant wholesale replacement of analog
equipment (both transmitters **and receivers**) with DRM digital.
Because unlike IBOC, DRM cannot operate on the same frequency as the
associated analog broadcast.

I don't see any indication on http://www.drm.org that DRM supports
stereo. Not a big deal on AM but probably a dealbreaker for FM. DRM
really was never intended for VHF/UHF use.

If there's spare spectrum at UHF for digital broadcasts, then Eureka 147
is the way to go. The standard was specifically chosen for VHF/UHF use
and is (at least technically) proven in many countries.

(please do not take the above post as an endorsement of IBOC. IMHO it
will deprive millions of Americans of their sole nighttime AM service,
while providing an inferior digital service, justifiable for only
political reasons. We should be joining the rest of the world in
implementing Eureka at UHF.)
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

(does it drive anyone else crazy when the same acronym is used for two
completely different technologies in related fields? DRM=Digital Radio
Mondiale? Or DRM=Digital Rights Management? Remember when Asynchronous
Transfer Mode came along & you had to be sure they weren't talking about
cash machines?...)