"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

Most listening is NOT to AM anymore. Why not accept tha tthis may be
an
opportunity to make AM move viable for the future?


[snip]

So, how does the future of AM radio differ if nighttime IBOC is
approved
or
not?

The quality is vastly better and can attract listeners for a change.

And QRM the adjacent channels to boot. Such a deal for you bean
counters.

Actually, I am a programmer and a pretty good one. I am in favor of
anything that extends the life of AM radio or terrestrial radio in
general.

Is AM radio or terresterial radio really going to die? If so, how?

If you mean "die as we know it", well, that's always happening. The radio
of 1966 is dead, as is the radio of 1926. Big deal. If nighttime IBOC AM
somehow timecapsules the radio of 2006, it's hardly worth it.


The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is
free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges.



Most podcasting is free, unless you count the cost of the internet
connection. However, downloaders would have the internet connection anyway,
so there's no additional cost.

I can see how the internet might cut into the radio establishment's profits.

Frank Dresser