View Single Post
  #18   Report Post  
Old July 19th 06, 10:16 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
Frank Dresser Frank Dresser is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 156
Default HD article from Radio World


"David Eduardo" wrote in message
news

"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.


And the IBOC proponents totally dismiss the primary advantage of the
heritage delivery system, that is long distance propagation.

Oh, I know. There is no longer any economic advantage to long distance
propagation. But, for most of us, the debate goes beyond money.

The other night I was tuning around and caught a WBZ talkshow about the
tunnel collapse. It was interesting to hear Bostonians give thier opinions
in their own voices. And I know my listening gave no economic benefit to
WBZ or the economy in general or even to myself in particular.
Nevertheless, it was worthwhile.

The radio spectrum is one of our natural resources and ought to be managed
as such. Should every old growth tree in the national forests be chopped
down, even if it benefits some people? There are some national parks in
which hardly anybody visits. Should they be strip mined?

What's the economic value of a clear, starry night? None, really. But we
do make modest restrictions on light pollution despite thier economic costs.

Long distance radio propagation on the AM band is a natural resource which
also deserves some protection.



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.


I don't have any problem with fee based radio and I don't know anybody who
is much bothered by the concept. If some stations want to try to make a go
of it as pay channels, that's fine as long as they aren't interfering with
other stations.

I do find the latest "free radio" campaign disingenous. And that strikes my
conspiranoiac nerve.



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

substitutes.

Yes, but the substitues have only been around for a few years and they're
growing fast. I find these things interesting, at least conceptually. If I
were not so set in my ways, I'm sure I'd be really into them.



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.


And there will soon be mp3 players which can be loaded direct from a wifi
connection. Personalized music services exist and I have no doubt they will
quickly get better and easier to use.


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.



Let's not forget censorship. Alot of popular stuff won't pass FCC muster.

I have the impression that radio just isn't very important to the people I
know who are in their late teens and early twenties. Of course, that's a
subjective impression of a small, possibly non representive, sample but I
don't think my impression is totally invalid. Today's young people just
don't have the radio habit as young people did in the 60s and 70s. And this
is radio in general, not just AM radio.

I'll start telling the kids the radio stations are no longer playing
Freebird and Stairway to Heaven every hour.

Frank Dresser