Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

Yes, and WLW isn't 500KW's anymore. Life goes on. ANd the clear-channels
don't have the entire frequency to themselves nationwide anymore.

Duh. I'm talking about something much stronger, more local, and more
reliable than skywave.

The answer is that with DX-ing, since the broadcasters don't care about it,
and the FCC doesn't care about it...it's table scraps.

What does DXing have to do with the design of an HD receiver? Please
re-read the post that you responded to.

I have another example too - the 98.9 and 99.1 pair here in the Bay
Area. Each one interferes with the other, and by your definition I live
in the "fringe" area of one, and barely within the coverage area of
another. Both run HD, neither one locks reliably, and neither one
provides static-free reception driving around. In the pre-HD days both
of them provided perfect reception. This is a bit unique, because these
two are simulcasted. They're killing themselves. But I strongly
suspect that the coverage map being used by the salespeople at KSOL/KSQL
doesn't exclude the zone of poor reception in between the 2
transmitters. They do quite well in the ratings, but I bet some
non-technical beancounter is wondering why their shares in Fremont and
Mountain View are so low.

I can appreciate the fact that people have poured lots of money into HD
radio and they're desperate to protect their investment, hence all of
the upstart attempts to convince the public to make the switch - like
"team branded HD2's". But I still can't see how it'll take off with
limited programming, compromised audio quality, and a myriad of
competing program delivery systems, all of which are much less costly
and far superior. It just doesn't make sense. The public today is
pretty well educated, and even my friends who are gadget freaks and
"first adopters" are not interested in HD Radio. Meanwhile, the noise
in the existing radio bands drives listeners like me - people who really
enjoy radio - to the web. I'm just hopeful this whole thing shakes out
soon.

Dave B.