|
DRM in the USA: a comment
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 |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com