Firstly, I hate IBOC as it will likely destroy skywave listening at
night, an 80-plus year heritage we have in the USA. Further, I don't
like Ibiquity's technology. This isn't a scientific issue, but rather
a personal one.


DRM is, in my opinion, the way to go, despite the fact the audio
isn't High End, because it's a world standard that can effectively use
different bandwidths as they are available.

I don't see why we can't have DRM on a portion of the AM band and
also on frequencies at HF, VHF and UHF that aren't utilized now on a
local basis. Clearly, the public interest demands that the number of
channels available exceed the number the five or s1x largest broadcast
companies can afford to buy up, because we need local radio.

Sam Byrams wrote:
I don't see why we can't have DRM on a portion of the AM band and
also on frequencies at HF, VHF and UHF that aren't utilized now on a
local basis.
...
Clearly, the public interest demands that the number of
channels available exceed the number the five or s1x largest broadcast
companies can afford to buy up, because we need local radio.

DRM will actually *reduce* the number of channels available. Unless
someone can bankroll the instant wholesale replacement of analog
equipment (both transmitters **and receivers**) with DRM digital.
Because unlike IBOC, DRM cannot operate on the same frequency as the
associated analog broadcast.

I don't see any indication on http://www.drm.org that DRM supports
stereo. Not a big deal on AM but probably a dealbreaker for FM. DRM
really was never intended for VHF/UHF use.

If there's spare spectrum at UHF for digital broadcasts, then Eureka 147
is the way to go. The standard was specifically chosen for VHF/UHF use
and is (at least technically) proven in many countries.

(please do not take the above post as an endorsement of IBOC. IMHO it
will deprive millions of Americans of their sole nighttime AM service,
while providing an inferior digital service, justifiable for only
political reasons. We should be joining the rest of the world in
implementing Eureka at UHF.)
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

(does it drive anyone else crazy when the same acronym is used for two
completely different technologies in related fields? DRM=Digital Radio
Mondiale? Or DRM=Digital Rights Management? Remember when Asynchronous
Transfer Mode came along & you had to be sure they weren't talking about
cash machines?...)

Sam Byrams wrote:
Firstly, I hate IBOC as it will likely destroy skywave listening at
night, an 80-plus year heritage we have in the USA. Further, I don't
like Ibiquity's technology. This isn't a scientific issue, but rather
a personal one.

This is the case for IBOC-AM. Skywave is pretty much what makes AM
useful and unique, and I think without it there is really no purpose to
the AM band any more. But we'll see.

For IBOC-FM, of course, there is no skywave issue but there may still
be adjacent channel interference issues.

DRM is, in my opinion, the way to go, despite the fact the audio
isn't High End, because it's a world standard that can effectively use
different bandwidths as they are available.

I agree, but it requires seperate channels. Likewise, I think the Eureka
stuff probably beats out FM-IBOC but we can't get the bandwidth for it.

I don't see why we can't have DRM on a portion of the AM band and
also on frequencies at HF, VHF and UHF that aren't utilized now on a
local basis. Clearly, the public interest demands that the number of
channels available exceed the number the five or s1x largest broadcast
companies can afford to buy up, because we need local radio.

The reason is because the public interest is no longer considered by
the FCC. The whole notion of radio serving the public went out with
the Reagan administration. There is no more public service, no more
Fairness Doctrine, no more enforcement of technical standards let alone
programming standards.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Sam Byrams wrote:

This is the case for IBOC-AM. Skywave is pretty much what makes AM
useful and unique, and I think without it there is really no purpose to
the AM band any more. But we'll see.

But as David Eduardo has pointed out, skywave is no longer a factor in calculating a
station's reach. So under the circumstances, your suggestion is quite the case. The
fact that skywave propagation also makes an adjacent station's local coverage
unusable is a bigger concern. At that point, not only is the AM band of questionable
value, it's actually a complete waste with IBOC.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

In article , Doug Smith W9WI
wrote:

(please do not take the above post as an endorsement of IBOC. IMHO it
will deprive millions of Americans of their sole nighttime AM service,

Why do those millions of Americans need a nighttime AM service, which is
probably pretty poor anyway, when there is ubiquitous nighttime FM service
available?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

In article , John Byrns wrote:
In article , Doug Smith W9WI
wrote:

(please do not take the above post as an endorsement of IBOC. IMHO it
will deprive millions of Americans of their sole nighttime AM service,

Why do those millions of Americans need a nighttime AM service, which is
probably pretty poor anyway, when there is ubiquitous nighttime FM service
available?

If nighttime AM propagation characteristics are no longer considered useful,
then indeed the whole AM band is basically not useful any longer, because
skip is what makes AM what it is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

John Byrns wrote:

Why do those millions of Americans need a nighttime AM service, which is
probably pretty poor anyway, when there is ubiquitous nighttime FM service
available?


Because I am in a typical area I will comment. The local AM stations
spend virtually all their time on sports or if not inane political talk.
The FM stations abound in country music and every variation of rock that
can be found except for the NPR stations which are either classical
music (not objectionable as far as I'm concerned) or jazz.

The intelligent talk comes from former class I-A clear channel stations
via sky wave from other markets. I particularly like Milt Rosenberg on
WGN in Chicago.

I've heard the tests of IBOC. I understand that the military will not
relinquish the 1500 mHz spectrum area that other countries are using for
Eureka, but there will be a lot of high UHF spectrum available with the
DTV conversion. It's been said that the NAB has killed the idea of
Eureka because it would give everyone an equal playing field whether
you are a 250 watt peashooter or a 50kw blowtorch. I'm not exactly sure
of the working of Eureka but possibly an antenna height difference could
be built in to give the present higher power stations an advantage.

Just my humble opinion.

Charlie

John Byrns wrote:
Why do those millions of Americans need a nighttime AM service, which is
probably pretty poor anyway, when there is ubiquitous nighttime FM service
available?

Is an American Family Radio all-religion-all-the-time station a suitable
substitute for a modern-rock outlet?

(yes, under FCC rules. No, for anyone who listens to either station...)
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

In article , lid says...


Sam Byrams wrote:

If there's spare spectrum at UHF for digital broadcasts, then Eureka 147
is the way to go. The standard was specifically chosen for VHF/UHF use
and is (at least technically) proven in many countries.

Eureka 147 has a very good RF transmission system combined with an
obsolete audio codec (MP2) that causes severe spectrum inefficiency (by a
factor of at least 2x) compared to what could be achieved with a state of
the art codec. OTOH, Eureka 147, modified with the AAC / AACPlus codec,
would be a killer system.