In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Every alternative costs more than an HD radio. Radio stays viable
as a free medium, the listener gets more channels and the price of
receivers will come down. And the analog signal will not be going
away any time soon.

It will cost more to broadcasters. We would not do it if it did
not protect the future and enhance revenue. It is a business.

Why would another band cost more money for the listener?

The chances of a new band are non-existent, and would require totally
new, non-backwards-compatible radios.

The listener has to buy a new radio in any event.

Why would partitioning the current band into HD and analog cost
more money for the listener? Why would other transmission schemes
cost more money for the listener?

Other systems, like WiMax, etc., have fees for the delivery technology, and
the "receivers" would initially be as expensive as current HD ones. My first
cellular phone was over $800....

There are non-proprietary systems that could be used.

It wouldn't cost the listeners more but it would cost the broadcasters
more money.

It woud cost the lsiteners, as what you suggest obsoletes every radio in
America. And for broadcasters, a new band would cost what HD currently
costs. A total reallocation on AM would simply hasten the death of the band.
Imagine, there are about 1500 directional AMs and many would no longer fit
on current land, or require zoning for new towers or moved ones... probable
average cost of a half-million each!. The average US AM bills $300 thousand
a year.

The listener has to buy a new radio in any event so it would not be more
expensive. The old radio can be used to listen to the old band or format
and the new radio would provide additional choices. The industry is
trying to limit listener choices instead of expanding them.

So your problem is selling IBOC to the listeners where the
benefit is small.

Digital sound, double the channels on FM is small benefit? Free is a small
benefit?

I'm addressing AMBCB not FM but the same logic applies. FM use greater
bandwidth a channel and it is possible that there is enough for a
digital scheme to sound OK. However, if that bandwidth is further split
into more than one stream you are back to lower bit rate and poor
quality.

The advantage to IBOC is for the broadcasters. IBOC
might be a way for broadcasters to cut their electric bill when analog
is dropped but that's about it.

Long time away on that.

Maybe, but this is the only reason I can see motivating broadcasters to
implement IBOC.

IBOC will cause listeners to toss their current radios for new ones
that will not sound any better than analog for local signals
either. IBOC is money down the drain for the listener.

HD, on local signals, sounds much better, especially on AM... and FM doubles
the channels at least-

This is impossible according to information theory. With less efficient
use of the same bandwidth digital must sound worse.

The result is a large cost to the listener for a new radio for little if
any benefit. The listener will not have the option of listening to "out
of market" signals limiting their choices.

In LA, with 9,8 million 12+ persons, the average listening to out of market
/ out of primary signal are stations is about 13,000. Much of this may be
from streaming, or while the listener themselves was out of the market. In
other words, there is essentially no listening now, so nothing is being
disrupted.

The readers of this newsgroup understand the broadcaster/marketing
perspective but except for you we do not share the view of implementing
a scheme that maintains the broadcaster status quo over new choices or a
system that would be an actual improvement in quality and choice for the
listener.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California