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

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.

Obviously, if a significant number of commujnities put in free WiFi, and
there are portable devices that are cheap, this is someting that will come
in the future. But as to current environments, it costs, directly or
indirectly, to get delivery of radio alternatives. AM and FM are free.

I suspect, eventually, all radio will be delivered with a new technology.
But if it took satellite, which is a good concept, 5 years to get to 10
million subscribers, I am waiting with caution for the "real" system to
emerge.

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.

Radio, unlike streaming and satellite (in most cases) is highly portable.
There are, by varying estimates, 800 million to one billion radios out
there. Replacing one per household will not make a new band viable.

And, as Peter said, ther eis no available specturm anyway.

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.

When split into two, the bandwidth is enough for two better-than-FM
channels.

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.

Peter says he has heard discussion, but I have never heard any discussion of
turning off analog until 100% of usable radios are digital. The power bill,
in a larger market, is so insignificant that it does not matter.

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.

It sounds better. COmpression algorithims essentially fool the ear by
removing "irrelevant" data. AM HD sounds like FM analog.

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.

Since the economics of radio are such that more stations reduces service
(proven by 80-90 all over America) there is no advantage in this unless you
want 1000 streams from personal iPods.