"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...
Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change
Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6

by Edward Montgomery

[long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped]

IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates

I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the
present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons for
change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content,
without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system.

I'd say most of us are keeping
pace with the digital revolution. And I'd also say the digital threat to
radio is from the individualized media now possible, rather than from the
quality of the audio.

HD brings not just an improvement in perceived quality, but, with HD 2 and
even HD 3, many more free options.

Most other alternatives that can be called "new radio" are fee based in
some way, whether the fee is for the content or the delivery method.

The biggest threats are not these IMHO. They are gaming and other options
for leisure time activities, not alternative radio staitons or substitutes.

Not only do people have more choices, but they have their own choices.

A majority of adults do not want to spend time on such choices, at least
yet. Part has to do with the complexity of delivery. There is an opportunity
for radio to adapt, and I think this is HD.

That's a powerful pull. And IBOC is just a band trashing form of the old
school mass media. IBOC adds little of merit.

The band is only trashed if something anyone is listening to is no longer
listenable. The issue for AM, for example, is that the audience is getting
older and no younger listeners are coming in. This is based on a combination
of quality and content... but the content can not be made appealing to
under-45's without a commensurate quality gain.