Carter, K8VT wrote:

dxAce wrote:

"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall
Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5...

There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all.

IBOC, like DRM = QRM


D Peter Maus wrote:

You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing
distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system
objectionable precisely for it's noise.

and

This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are
starting to speak out about it.

Well, had anyone bothered to actually read the WSJ article I referenced,
they would have discovered that "listener distaste", listeners "speaking
out" and a discussion of "objectionable noise" were the main points of
the article.


Actually, I did read the article, Carter. I was in the act of posting
something about it, myself, when I read your comments.

My point was not just that there's now obvious and ongoing objection
to IBOC's noise, but that listener objection has begun to have an
impact, and at least one not insignificant company has changed it's IBOC
strategy as a result. WSJ hasn't addressed that point.

This underscores the fact that despite the enormous investment, and
the closed nature of the IBOC ownership through iBiquity by companies
widely believed to be intractable, change can be, and has been effected
by looking at local interference.

It can be done. It has been done. At least on a small scale. Perhaps
if more listeners voiced their objections....More likely they'd be
****ing in the wind.

The ongoing thinking is that radio is essentially local, and that
beyond a city-grade contour there is no need for concern about either
interference, or listener interest. From a pure business model, this is
pretty rational thinking. So, IBOC's limited reach and widespread noise
are not really practical issues for broadcasters, because surveyable,
revenue influencing listeners, it is believed for most practical
purposes, do not exist outside of the city grade contour. And in many
cases, that's true. But in huge megalopolitan areas like
Chicago/Milwaukee, there are a significant number of local signals that
do not blanket the market with uniform city grade strength, leaving some
blocks of listeners in less desireable, and already noisy listening
conditions. And out of luck. Here in Chicago, there are several major
signals that don't have the kind of blanket coverage that WGN enjoys.
From my location in Lake County, as well as my apartment downtown,
there are times I even have trouble receiving even WLS clearly, due to
low signal strength and just local electrical noise, and I have quite
the reception infrastructure. Real Oldies at 1690, is a tough catch
north of Cook County, day or night, even without IBOC interference, as
well. WIND is also a tough catch sometimes. But most signals could at
least be listenable, and relatively quiet, before IBOC. Caught here
halfway between Milwaukee and Chicago (but still within Chicago's ADI),
much of what I get is fringe listening on AM from either city, as with
the rest of the people living between Libertyville and South Milwaukee.
IBOC has made AM difficult at times for a substantial, and measurable,
audience in both ADI's.

And other, larger areas of population will display this interference
problem for many otherwise listenable, and local, signals, as pointed
out in the WSJ article. Especially smaller, but profitable, niche format
radio stations, are getting chewed up with IBOC noise. Even on their
home, revenue producing turf. So, while IBOC does create problems for
listeners trying to hear Imus from an out of market signal, and
complaints are made, they're largely ignored, due to the limited sales
area/limited range IBOC, and, for that matter, broadcast mentality.
However, there are local ADI regions where IBOC interference is of
concern to in-market listeners. And as more IBOC systems are deployed,
this will only get worse. Finally, these listeners are making
complaints, as the WSJ article points out. My point is that they're
finally being heard, and may have impact on some IBOC deployment.

The underlying point would then be, for those experiencing IBOC
interference with a local signal, to make some noise of one's own.
Because, if a complaint is going to be heard, it will be on the grounds
of local interference.

I'm sure David Eduardo will disagree. But that's ok. He and I have
disagreed on a number of points.

But that's his job. He's a consultant.