"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
s.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

Huh? We are trying to preserve the value of tens of billions of
dollars
worth of AM stations by keeping them viable for longer.

The truth is more along the lines of "We are trying to make a quick
buck while the opportunity still exists."

There is no way to make a quick buck in radio. If you know how, please
illuminate us. Otherwise, do what you keep telling me to do: stuff it.
Your
defense for soing nothing is based on a total lack of facts, no alternate
plan, no alternatives. You just criticize what is being done, yet have no
suggestions... just invective.

That's more than you have, Sunshine.

As I suspected. You have no solution, just criticism of those who are
willing to try something, anything, to save AM.

Since HD does not interfere with existing AM listening in analog, try
explaining this one, too.

It does interfere with existing AM listening, nutsack. Maybe you should
actually turn on a radio one of these days. You've apparently never
heard one.

It does not interfere with anythjing that is bieng listened to by a
measurable segment of the population.

If a supermarket puts licorice flavored ocoffee on the shelves, but it only
moves 2 jars a month, they will use that shelf space for something more
people come to buy.
..

The losers: an tiny handful of DXers on AM, and a very few listeners to
distant signals. The DXers will adapt (just as they did to 24/7 schedules
in
the 50's and 60's) and the distant "regulars" will have to go to
satellite,
streaming, etc.


A tiny handful of people who appear to have you worried enough to keep
coming back to this group again and again and again. You sure seem
preoccupied with this unimportant group.

Nope. It is just an interesting debate. HD is already on the air on 1000
stations, and another 1000 will come this next year. Nothing is stopping HD.
The real issue now is whether any thing, HD included, can save AM.