On Sep 5, 12:27 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message

ps.com...



Yes "HD" FM Radio does not deliever a good strong
signal beyond the 54-60 dBu Contour an many areas
with-in it too.

And metro area FMs get essentially no analog listening beyond the 64 dBu
contour.

Instead of posting here, you should be out trying to stop the loss of
your younger listeners that's been going on for a long time now. You
need to modernize!

On Sep 5, 12:35 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



So try again marketing hack. Explain the terms you use to express what
it takes for good reception.

"Good reception" is a perception of the listener, not a technical term.
However, based on an enormous amount of data over many many years it can be
seen that outside the 10 mv/m contours of an AM or outside the 64 dBu
contours of an FM, listeners are not interested in tuning in to any
station... there is very close to no reported listening, in fact.

A good example, which obviates "well, at the fringe of a metro, there are
less people to listen" is to take stations that do not fully cover the most
densely populated parts of a metro. On FM, we have looked at over 30 survey
periods in LA with a total sample of over 7000 persons per survey and
plotted the returns for KRCD and KRCV, which are class A FMs. There is
nearly no listening at home or at work outside the 64 dBu contours during
the last 8 years, despite the stations frequently being in the top 10
(simulcast) in LA... all the listening is in a very small area.

Years ago, we looked at the same thing for AMs in general, and found that
the 10 mv/m was the barrier to sustained listening, and, of recent, perhaps
the 15 mv/m is the limit where listeners consider a station listenable.

People listen if the signal is strong, easy to tune, and free of nose,
fading, etc. It's totally subjective, but can be easily quantified.

How can you expect us to follow your posts when we're running low on
colloidal silver and the amazing HGH.

David Eduardo wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 3, 3:55?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

oups.com...



The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !
Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty
of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust
beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM
curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.
"A Station Owner's View of HD Radio Industry"

"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be
equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding
out this is not the case, that the HD coverage is considerably less,
something like 60% of the analog coverage.

The HD signal is good in the same contours where about 96% to 97% of all AM
and FM listening occur... in fact, it is good beyond those contours.


Mr Eduardo:

I have been following your posts and see why Radio is in the state it is
in today.
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM and trying to turn FM into all talk
or info-mericials. Tell us that "Young only listens to FM" etc. It can
only be a recipe for future disaster.
Example the young don't listen to AM because nothing is programed to
their tastes. Talk in HD or Stereo is still talk, plus most young people
care little about the news unless it affect them. Back in 1980 the
number 1 station in my home town of Tucson was KT KT AM 990, until new
owners took over the station, and to get the young to move to FM, They
changed the format, fired the local DJ's and switched to satellite
programs, sure enough in about two months time KTKT was in the bottom of
the market. I remember reading their whinnying about no listers, they
thought they could save money by eliminating the local talent.
Now, AM is to old, demographics rares its head again, well radio as
industry made it that way in allot of markets following the KTKT example.
I know of very few listeners that carry a watt or decibel meter to
determine if the signal is worth listening to, but when you have crappy
programing, you lose the audience every time.

Ken I

PS You might want to point out to the Advertisers that due to the "BABY
BOOM" generation the median age of the population is predicted to be in
the mid-fifties in about five years, plus still have the most disposable
income.

On Sep 5, 9:34 am, K Isham wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 3, 3:55?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

egroups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !
Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty
of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust
beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM
curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.
"A Station Owner's View of HD Radio Industry"

"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be
equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding
out this is not the case, that the HD coverage is considerably less,
something like 60% of the analog coverage.

The HD signal is good in the same contours where about 96% to 97% of all AM
and FM listening occur... in fact, it is good beyond those contours.

Mr Eduardo:

I have been following your posts and see why Radio is in the state it is
in today.
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM and trying to turn FM into all talk
or info-mericials. Tell us that "Young only listens to FM" etc. It can
only be a recipe for future disaster.
Example the young don't listen to AM because nothing is programed to
their tastes. Talk in HD or Stereo is still talk, plus most young people
care little about the news unless it affect them. Back in 1980 the
number 1 station in my home town of Tucson was KT KT AM 990, until new
owners took over the station, and to get the young to move to FM, They
changed the format, fired the local DJ's and switched to satellite
programs, sure enough in about two months time KTKT was in the bottom of
the market. I remember reading their whinnying about no listers, they
thought they could save money by eliminating the local talent.
Now, AM is to old, demographics rares its head again, well radio as
industry made it that way in allot of markets following the KTKT example.
I know of very few listeners that carry a watt or decibel meter to
determine if the signal is worth listening to, but when you have crappy
programing, you lose the audience every time.

Ken I

PS You might want to point out to the Advertisers that due to the "BABY
BOOM" generation the median age of the population is predicted to be in
the mid-fifties in about five years, plus still have the most disposable
income.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My theory: Tardo has developed a smokable, mind-altering form of
colloidal silver. He now spends most of his time posting on usenet and
smoking "silver" out of a glass pipe.

"K Isham" wrote in message news:46deb07a@kcnews01...
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM

"The buzzing noise" is heard on the channels adjacent to a local station
with HD. No "other station" is protected from adjacent channel interference
in the primary coverage are of the station using HD, and there is certainly,
other than DX, no listening to adjacent channels.

and trying to turn FM into all talk or info-mericials.

Radio is an entertainment medium. That entertainment may be talk, music, or
a combination. I see no evidence of extensive programming of infomercials on
FM, anyway.

Tell us that "Young only listens to FM" etc. It can only be a recipe for
future disaster.

This has been the case since the early 70's, where music listeners moved to
FM and abandoned AM, even when major AM music stations were trying to
compete. The difference in quality was a main reason for leaving; by 1977
half of all listening was to FM.

Were it not for the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, AM would be dead. As it
is, talk formats have made the larger coverage stations viable still
although much of the audience is old.

Example the young don't listen to AM because nothing is programed to their
tastes.

Many AMs have tried music formats, and failed. This is simply because there
are plenty of FM alternatives in most markets and nobody, today, wants to
hear AM quality analog if FM is avaialble. On the other hand, there are
plenty of viable small market music AMs that are doing well because there
are not as many station choices in such markets and listeners are obligated
to use AM for some formats.

Talk in HD or Stereo is still talk, plus most young people care little
about the news unless it affect them.

So? In most parts of the US there are plenty of stations to have both; your
statement about young people having no interest in news is, in a separate
arena, sad.

Back in 1980 the number 1 station in my home town of Tucson was KT KT AM
990, until new owners took over the station,

KTKT has been owned by Lotus since 1972. There was no new owner.

and to get the young to move to FM, They changed the format, fired the
local DJ's and switched to satellite programs, sure enough in about two
months time KTKT was in the bottom of the market.

It was already at the bottom of the market, having been beaten in its format
by an FM. The switch was to find a format that was viable.

Plus, there was no way of knowing in 1980 "in two months" the changes in a
station. There were ratings every Spring and Fall in Tucson then, and the
interval between them was 6 months.

I remember reading their whinnying about no listers, they thought they
could save money by eliminating the local talent.
Now, AM is to old, demographics rares its head again, well radio as
industry made it that way in allot of markets following the KTKT example.

Your example is fatally flawed.

I know of very few listeners that carry a watt or decibel meter to
determine if the signal is worth listening to, but when you have crappy
programing, you lose the audience every time.

Listeners know when a signal is "listenable" or not. When you look at
hundreds of thousands of incidents of listening, and find that they seldom
extend beyond a certain signal intensity, you can form pretty solid
conclusions.

PS You might want to point out to the Advertisers that due to the "BABY
BOOM" generation the median age of the population is predicted to be in
the mid-fifties in about five years, plus still have the most disposable
income.

But advertisers do not ask for 55+ listeners when they buy radio
advertising. It does not matter what the nature of 55+ persons are...
advertisers don't use radio to reach them.

David Eduardo wrote:
"K Isham" wrote in message news:46deb07a@kcnews01...
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM

"The buzzing noise" is heard on the channels adjacent to a local station
with HD. No "other station" is protected from adjacent channel interference
in the primary coverage are of the station using HD, and there is certainly,
other than DX, no listening to adjacent channels.


What you haven't addressed is when a local station is on someone
else's adjacent, and their digital sidebands interfere with the local
station's audio.

THAT"s what's got so many people around here in a lather. The noise
is everywhere. Keeps me from listening to WLS which is one of my locals.

The truth is, that this system is designed with certain assumptions
in mind. One is that there is no value to stations out of market. I'll
tell you hear and now when lightning, or a power surge takes down one of
the primary AM's here, and there's only digital hash from some out of
market station covering up nearby information alternatives, the phrase,
'licensed to serve the in the public interest as a public trustee' takes
on a laughable quality.

The other major assumption is that some listeners can be orphaned
without penalty.

Both are tragically flawed. And if Radio doesn't pay heed, the
listener decline will be dramatic, as they move to alternative media.

I've been experimenting with a Wi-Fi radio, using one of the open
nets in Gurnee. I can't get WLS at home because of digital interference,
but I can over some wi-fi feed in the next suburb? What's wrong with
this picture?

And it's not a viable alternative for me. I do too much listening
that requires a portable. Which is why I got a MyFi for satellite radio.

And there's XM, of course. I also have an iPod adaptor in my Envoy
that lets me control the iPod through the databuss. No wires, nothing in
the way. But full selection without hassle to my entire music library.
And XM, there, too.

And with XM's new weekend schedule for XM Public Radio, I get my
favorite shows in the order I want them, just as they used to be on
WBEZ, without interference, without bull****...and without any over the
air radio.

So, I may soon, not miss WLS. I may find alternatives sufficient. And
then where do you go. I provide some of the longest TSL's radio has ever
seen. Meaning, advertisers get REAL value for what they spend when I'm
listening.

But, I'm 56. Who cares. Right? Let's see...in this post alone I've
got more than a kilobuck in discretionary spending represented, of no
value to anyone.

Quite a resource to be wasted. You think I'm the only one?

To quote a WWII Bugs Bunny cartoon, 'Wake up....it's later than you
think."

Now...I did speak to the PD at WLS...Kipper is a friend of mine, and
used to work for me when I was programming downstate. He suggested I
pick up the HD-2 stream on the FM. WLS is there.

Ironic, isn't it?

Not really a viable alternative, either...since I do a good deal of
my listening while outdoors.

ALL the money they spent attaching HD to WLS, and even on the inside,
they suggest listeners pick up the HD stream on the FM?

Trashing the AM band, Brother David, is not going to bring lower end
demos. Younger people are not listening to AM because it's AM....they're
not even GETTING to the sound quality, yet. Moving a viable AM to FM is
a good move. Younger demos are already listening there. But going
digital on AM isn't going to help. They're not going to go there. They
haven't been for more than a generation, now. All you're doing is
putting a digital alternative to the same programming they're not
listening to, on a band they institutionally have no interest in.

And you're doing it at the cost of those who DO listen. With
instutrionalized interference, that, in the end, will cost you all your
listeners. And all their revenue streams.

HD on the FM is marginal. It's not the boon to sound quality claimed
for it. On the average, it's not an improvement at all. But it does not
create the kind of interference that HD AM does. HD on FM is more or
less innoquous. HD-AM, however, is destructive. And does nothing but
line the pockets of iBiquity stockholders. And those who propagate their
propaganda. And it does so by depriving active, responsive listeners of
their personal choices in listening.

We may be comparitively few...but, as a whole we spend more. And when
the interference REALLY kicks in...we're not going to be as few as you
think.


I'm all for Profit, David. But I expect something in return. I don't
expect to see companies rewarded handsomely for depriving me of my
choices. Yes, I can listen to something else. But I can't do it where I
want, when I want.

Actually, in the long vision, that's your loss more than it is mine.

And I'm not alone.

On Sep 5, 10:07 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"K Isham" wrote in messagenews:46deb07a@kcnews01...
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM

"The buzzing noise" is heard on the channels adjacent to a local station
with HD. No "other station" is protected from adjacent channel interference
in the primary coverage are of the station using HD, and there is certainly,
other than DX, no listening to adjacent channels.

and trying to turn FM into all talk or info-mericials.

Radio is an entertainment medium. That entertainment may be talk, music, or
a combination. I see no evidence of extensive programming of infomercials on
FM, anyway.

Well, you're gonna have to do a lot better than human growth hormone
and colloidal silver. I'll tell you that much!



Tell us that "Young only listens to FM" etc. It can only be a recipe for
future disaster.

This has been the case since the early 70's, where music listeners moved to
FM and abandoned AM, even when major AM music stations were trying to
compete. The difference in quality was a main reason for leaving; by 1977
half of all listening was to FM.

Were it not for the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, AM would be dead. As it
is, talk formats have made the larger coverage stations viable still
although much of the audience is old.

I wish I could make young people throw away their ipods and develop a
burning interest in colloidal silver, but I can't. You just have to
face the fact that infomercials are not going to turn the tide for
you.


Example the young don't listen to AM because nothing is programed to their
tastes.

Many AMs have tried music formats, and failed. This is simply because there
are plenty of FM alternatives in most markets and nobody, today, wants to
hear AM quality analog if FM is avaialble. On the other hand, there are
plenty of viable small market music AMs that are doing well because there
are not as many station choices in such markets and listeners are obligated
to use AM for some formats.

Yes, FM is beating your sorry behind. And yet you refuse to do
anything about it.


Talk in HD or Stereo is still talk, plus most young people care little
about the news unless it affect them.

So? In most parts of the US there are plenty of stations to have both; your
statement about young people having no interest in news is, in a separate
arena, sad.

I guarantee you they're more interested in news than in your bizarro
informercials.


Back in 1980 the number 1 station in my home town of Tucson was KT KT AM
990, until new owners took over the station,

KTKT has been owned by Lotus since 1972. There was no new owner.

and to get the young to move to FM, They changed the format, fired the
local DJ's and switched to satellite programs, sure enough in about two
months time KTKT was in the bottom of the market.

It was already at the bottom of the market, having been beaten in its format
by an FM.


Yes, notice the operative phrase he "Beaten by an FM"


The switch was to find a format that was viable.

Plus, there was no way of knowing in 1980 "in two months" the changes in a
station. There were ratings every Spring and Fall in Tucson then, and the
interval between them was 6 months.

I remember reading their whinnying about no listers, they thought they
could save money by eliminating the local talent.
Now, AM is to old, demographics rares its head again, well radio as
industry made it that way in allot of markets following the KTKT example.

Your example is fatally flawed.

I know of very few listeners that carry a watt or decibel meter to
determine if the signal is worth listening to, but when you have crappy
programing, you lose the audience every time.

And when you add crappy programming to crappy audio, you're in a
pickle!


Listeners know when a signal is "listenable" or not. When you look at
hundreds of thousands of incidents of listening, and find that they seldom
extend beyond a certain signal intensity, you can form pretty solid
conclusions.

The conclusions are rock solid and they all indicate that you're in
deep trouble. And yet you refuse to do anything about it.





PS You might want to point out to the Advertisers that due to the "BABY
BOOM" generation the median age of the population is predicted to be in
the mid-fifties in about five years, plus still have the most disposable
income.

But advertisers do not ask for 55+ listeners when they buy radio
advertising. It does not matter what the nature of 55+ persons are...
advertisers don't use radio to reach them.

And that is precisely my point. You had better make some serious
changes going well beyond a digital paintjob. Otherwise your entire
industry is sunk.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"K Isham" wrote in message
news:46deb07a@kcnews01...
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM

"The buzzing noise" is heard on the channels adjacent to a local station
with HD. No "other station" is protected from adjacent channel
interference in the primary coverage are of the station using HD, and
there is certainly, other than DX, no listening to adjacent channels.


What you haven't addressed is when a local station is on someone else's
adjacent, and their digital sidebands interfere with the local station's
audio.

There are not many cases where the digital signal invades what is an
adjacent channel to the extent that protected contours of the adjacent
channel are interferred with someplace between the two stations.

THAT"s what's got so many people around here in a lather. The noise is
everywhere. Keeps me from listening to WLS which is one of my locals.

Are you in the protected contour of WLS?

The truth is, that this system is designed with certain assumptions in
mind. One is that there is no value to stations out of market.

The FCC's reasoning was that the US has so many stations now that listening
in non-protected contour coverage areas, as real as it might be in the realm
of possibility, did not deserve protection if the intent to transition radio
to digital was to be fulfilled. And the use of night skywave coverage was
similarly considered to be of marginal value, and of benefit to only a
handful... around 1% of all AMs... of stations if used at all.

I'll tell you hear and now when lightning, or a power surge takes down one
of the primary AM's here, and there's only digital hash from some out of
market station covering up nearby information alternatives, the phrase,
'licensed to serve the in the public interest as a public trustee' takes on
a laughable quality.

The FCC, since the 40's, has stressed localism... the primary reason why the
clear channels were denied increases to 500 to 750 kw despite appeals ending
around 1967. The FCC's focus is on service to the city or community of
licence, not distant areas, and they have frequently denied protection at
greater distances to grandfathered FMs even though many showed considerable
listening in areas that were later granted local stations on adjacents.

The other major assumption is that some listeners can be orphaned
without penalty.

Correct. This was considered in the deliberations and decided to be a
justifiable tradeoff.

Both are tragically flawed. And if Radio doesn't pay heed, the listener
decline will be dramatic, as they move to alternative media.

Listeners outside the local area or metro are of no value to stations, and
this is why you don't see any type of significant broadcaster protest. The
loss is not, to them, a loss.

I've been experimenting with a Wi-Fi radio, using one of the open nets
in Gurnee. I can't get WLS at home because of digital interference, but I
can over some wi-fi feed in the next suburb? What's wrong with this
picture?

Are you in the Chicago MSA? (Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, kendall, Lake,
McHenry, Will, Lake and Porter counties in IL and Kenosha in WI)? Otherwise,
the station itself probably does not care.

So, I may soon, not miss WLS. I may find alternatives sufficient. And
then where do you go. I provide some of the longest TSL's radio has ever
seen. Meaning, advertisers get REAL value for what they spend when I'm
listening.

But, I'm 56. Who cares. Right? Let's see...in this post alone I've got
more than a kilobuck in discretionary spending represented, of no value to
anyone.

Longer time spent listening listeners to AM talk tend to be over 55, and
that is a demo that is essentially useless for revenue, although it looks
nice on paper. there are just about zero agencie buys (and that drives the
bigger stations in the larger markets) are for over 55.

Now...I did speak to the PD at WLS...Kipper is a friend of mine, and
used to work for me when I was programming downstate. He suggested I pick
up the HD-2 stream on the FM. WLS is there.

Ironic, isn't it?

Not really a viable alternative, either...since I do a good deal of my
listening while outdoors.

HD portables are coming next year, when several low-battery consumption 9mm
form factor chips are coming out that will enable portable devices.

Trashing the AM band, Brother David, is not going to bring lower end
demos. Younger people are not listening to AM because it's AM....they're
not even GETTING to the sound quality, yet.

The key 35-54 demos will listen to the AM formats if the quality is better;
the staitons that have moved or started FM simulcasts have proven this. HD
has a chance of making the existing formats on the very few viable AM
stations in major markets more appealing to 35-54.

Moving a viable AM to FM is a good move. Younger demos are already
listening there. But going digital on AM isn't going to help. They're not
going to go there. They haven't been for more than a generation, now. All
you're doing is putting a digital alternative to the same programming
they're not listening to, on a band they institutionally have no interest
in.

This is definitly one scenario. But to not try is simply to condemn AM to
death in another decade when nearly all the listeners are over 55... the
reason the FCC insisted, and was backed by the NAB in this, on an AM and FM
solution was because the only way to help AM was to make it ride on a
two-band system that all new receivers might have in the future.

And you're doing it at the cost of those who DO listen. With
instutrionalized interference, that, in the end, will cost you all your
listeners. And all their revenue streams.

As I have mentioned before, in LA we have, frequently, two of the top 5
stations in the Riverside San Bernardino market, which is separate from the
LA market. We don't get any extra revenue from this, because radio is not
bought by "adding" contiguous markets together. Out of market listening is
not of much value.

We may be comparitively few...but, as a whole we spend more. And when
the interference REALLY kicks in...we're not going to be as few as you
think.

If the only loss is out of market or in 55+, there is no revenue loss.

On Sep 5, 12:05 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

David Eduardo wrote:
"K Isham" wrote in message
news:46deb07a@kcnews01...
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM

"The buzzing noise" is heard on the channels adjacent to a local station
with HD. No "other station" is protected from adjacent channel
interference in the primary coverage are of the station using HD, and
there is certainly, other than DX, no listening to adjacent channels.

What you haven't addressed is when a local station is on someone else's
adjacent, and their digital sidebands interfere with the local station's
audio.

There are not many cases where the digital signal invades what is an
adjacent channel to the extent that protected contours of the adjacent
channel are interferred with someplace between the two stations.



THAT"s what's got so many people around here in a lather. The noise is
everywhere. Keeps me from listening to WLS which is one of my locals.

Are you in the protected contour of WLS?

The truth is, that this system is designed with certain assumptions in
mind. One is that there is no value to stations out of market.

The FCC's reasoning was that the US has so many stations now that listening
in non-protected contour coverage areas, as real as it might be in the realm
of possibility, did not deserve protection if the intent to transition radio
to digital was to be fulfilled. And the use of night skywave coverage was
similarly considered to be of marginal value, and of benefit to only a
handful... around 1% of all AMs... of stations if used at all.

I'll tell you hear and now when lightning, or a power surge takes down one
of the primary AM's here, and there's only digital hash from some out of
market station covering up nearby information alternatives, the phrase,
'licensed to serve the in the public interest as a public trustee' takes on
a laughable quality.

The FCC, since the 40's, has stressed localism... the primary reason why the
clear channels were denied increases to 500 to 750 kw despite appeals ending
around 1967. The FCC's focus is on service to the city or community of
licence, not distant areas, and they have frequently denied protection at
greater distances to grandfathered FMs even though many showed considerable
listening in areas that were later granted local stations on adjacents.



The other major assumption is that some listeners can be orphaned
without penalty.

Correct. This was considered in the deliberations and decided to be a
justifiable tradeoff.



Both are tragically flawed. And if Radio doesn't pay heed, the listener
decline will be dramatic, as they move to alternative media.

Listeners outside the local area or metro are of no value to stations, and
this is why you don't see any type of significant broadcaster protest. The
loss is not, to them, a loss.



I've been experimenting with a Wi-Fi radio, using one of the open nets
in Gurnee. I can't get WLS at home because of digital interference, but I
can over some wi-fi feed in the next suburb? What's wrong with this
picture?

Are you in the Chicago MSA? (Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, kendall, Lake,
McHenry, Will, Lake and Porter counties in IL and Kenosha in WI)? Otherwise,
the station itself probably does not care.



So, I may soon, not miss WLS. I may find alternatives sufficient. And
then where do you go. I provide some of the longest TSL's radio has ever
seen. Meaning, advertisers get REAL value for what they spend when I'm
listening.
But, I'm 56. Who cares. Right? Let's see...in this post alone I've got
more than a kilobuck in discretionary spending represented, of no value to
anyone.

Longer time spent listening listeners to AM talk tend to be over 55, and
that is a demo that is essentially useless for revenue, although it looks
nice on paper. there are just about zero agencie buys (and that drives the
bigger stations in the larger markets) are for over 55.



Now...I did speak to the PD at WLS...Kipper is a friend of mine, and
used to work for me when I was programming downstate. He suggested I pick
up the HD-2 stream on the FM. WLS is there.

Ironic, isn't it?

Not really a viable alternative, either...since I do a good deal of my
listening while outdoors.

HD portables are coming next year, when several low-battery consumption 9mm
form factor chips are coming out that will enable portable devices.



Trashing the AM band, Brother David, is not going to bring lower end
demos. Younger people are not listening to AM because it's AM....they're
not even GETTING to the sound quality, yet.

The key 35-54 demos will listen to the AM formats if the quality is better;
the staitons that have moved or started FM simulcasts have proven this. HD
has a chance of making the existing formats on the very few viable AM
stations in major markets more appealing to 35-54.

Moving a viable AM to FM is a good move. Younger demos are already
listening there. But going digital on AM isn't going to help. They're not
going to go there. They haven't been for more than a generation, now. All
you're doing is putting a digital alternative to the same programming
they're not listening to, on a band they institutionally have no interest
in.

This is definitly one scenario. But to not try is simply to condemn AM to
death in another decade when nearly all the listeners are over 55... the
reason the FCC insisted, and was backed by the NAB in this, on an AM and FM
solution was because the only way to help AM was to make it ride on a
two-band system that all new receivers might have in the future.



And you're doing it at the cost of those who DO listen. With
instutrionalized interference, that, in the end, will cost you all your
listeners. And all their revenue streams.

As I have mentioned before, in LA we have, frequently, two of the top 5
stations in the Riverside San Bernardino market, which is separate from the
LA market. We don't get any extra revenue from this, because radio is not
bought by "adding" contiguous markets together. Out of market listening is
not of much value.



We may be comparitively few...but, as a whole we spend more. And when
the interference REALLY kicks in...we're not going to be as few as you
think.

If the only loss is out of market or in 55+, there is no revenue loss.

Yes, but what you have to realize is that the AM audience is aging and
you are gradually bleeding off younger listeners. Unless you do
something to correct this problem, there won't be a market.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"K Isham" wrote in message
news:46deb07a@kcnews01...
I realize that radio must make a profit, but, when you drive listeners
away with this buzzing noise on AM
"The buzzing noise" is heard on the channels adjacent to a local station
with HD. No "other station" is protected from adjacent channel
interference in the primary coverage are of the station using HD, and
there is certainly, other than DX, no listening to adjacent channels.

What you haven't addressed is when a local station is on someone else's
adjacent, and their digital sidebands interfere with the local station's
audio.

There are not many cases where the digital signal invades what is an
adjacent channel to the extent that protected contours of the adjacent
channel are interferred with someplace between the two stations.
THAT"s what's got so many people around here in a lather. The noise is
everywhere. Keeps me from listening to WLS which is one of my locals.

Are you in the protected contour of WLS?


Yes.



The truth is, that this system is designed with certain assumptions in
mind. One is that there is no value to stations out of market.

The FCC's reasoning was that the US has so many stations now that listening
in non-protected contour coverage areas, as real as it might be in the realm
of possibility, did not deserve protection if the intent to transition radio
to digital was to be fulfilled. And the use of night skywave coverage was
similarly considered to be of marginal value, and of benefit to only a
handful... around 1% of all AMs... of stations if used at all.


The FCC's reasoning is flawed. Assuptions that so many stations
make all choices available to anyone through local outlets is tragically
flawed. Some content is simply not available locally in many areas.
Removing choices in the effort to convert medium to digital modulation
is not what Freedom of Choice and Serving in the Public Interest is
about. It's about the commercial value of a broadcast property. Not that
I'm opposed to making money in Radio, Lord knows I did ok...but I didn't
do it by removing options to listening through intentional interference.



I'll tell you hear and now when lightning, or a power surge takes down one
of the primary AM's here, and there's only digital hash from some out of
market station covering up nearby information alternatives, the phrase,
'licensed to serve the in the public interest as a public trustee' takes on
a laughable quality.

The FCC, since the 40's, has stressed localism... the primary reason why the
clear channels were denied increases to 500 to 750 kw despite appeals ending
around 1967. The FCC's focus is on service to the city or community of
licence, not distant areas, and they have frequently denied protection at
greater distances to grandfathered FMs even though many showed considerable
listening in areas that were later granted local stations on adjacents.



Which gets back to the point....denying listeners their choice, in
favor of some arbitrary coverage map. Local listeners not interested in
local offerings are denied their choice.

Smaller markets where Rush may not be availble locally for
instance, may be served by nearby larger markets. Denying the smaller
market that choice is a grave disservice to the listeners of the smaller
market.

At some point, expendability begins to show dividends in the
bottom line, if you're priorities are money....if not, expendability
orphans significant numbers of listeners who may not be served. Which is
contrary to the stated intent of the broadcast service.



The other major assumption is that some listeners can be orphaned
without penalty.

Correct. This was considered in the deliberations and decided to be a
justifiable tradeoff.


Forgive me for saying this...but that thinking is bull****.

That's as cavalier as denying phone service, gas, or electric
service to rural customers because the lines are not profitable.

At it's core, Broadcast is a utility. And every citizen has a
right to be served. Information that's not available locally is not to
be restricted for corporate profit.

That would be like providing electric to a customer with
operational limitations pursuant to a local agenda. Providing during
specified hours, or at frequencies determined by profitability at the
utilities discretion.


Both are tragically flawed. And if Radio doesn't pay heed, the listener
decline will be dramatic, as they move to alternative media.

Listeners outside the local area or metro are of no value to stations, and
this is why you don't see any type of significant broadcaster protest. The
loss is not, to them, a loss.


No, it's a loss to their listeners. Who are getting vocal as they
get more directly shafted.

What Radio has traditionally done is taken the position that
Broadcasting is about Radio. Advertisers believe that radio is about
Commerce. But no one is looking out for the listeners, who are the
backbone of Radio. We carry the freight, David. Declaring listeners of
'no value to the station,' is a dangerous position to take. And with
rising popularity of alternatives, and slowing revenue growth, or in
some cases, declining growth, taking a self-serving position is
precisely the wrong position for Radio to take.

Things may be good now. But they will not stay that way.



I've been experimenting with a Wi-Fi radio, using one of the open nets
in Gurnee. I can't get WLS at home because of digital interference, but I
can over some wi-fi feed in the next suburb? What's wrong with this
picture?

Are you in the Chicago MSA? (Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, kendall, Lake,
McHenry, Will, Lake and Porter counties in IL and Kenosha in WI)? Otherwise,
the station itself probably does not care.


Lake County, Actually. Yes. As are a couple of members of this
Newsgroup.



So, I may soon, not miss WLS. I may find alternatives sufficient. And
then where do you go. I provide some of the longest TSL's radio has ever
seen. Meaning, advertisers get REAL value for what they spend when I'm
listening.

But, I'm 56. Who cares. Right? Let's see...in this post alone I've got
more than a kilobuck in discretionary spending represented, of no value to
anyone.

Longer time spent listening listeners to AM talk tend to be over 55, and
that is a demo that is essentially useless for revenue, although it looks
nice on paper. there are just about zero agencie buys (and that drives the
bigger stations in the larger markets) are for over 55.
Now...I did speak to the PD at WLS...Kipper is a friend of mine, and
used to work for me when I was programming downstate. He suggested I pick
up the HD-2 stream on the FM. WLS is there.

Ironic, isn't it?

Not really a viable alternative, either...since I do a good deal of my
listening while outdoors.

HD portables are coming next year, when several low-battery consumption 9mm
form factor chips are coming out that will enable portable devices.
Trashing the AM band, Brother David, is not going to bring lower end
demos. Younger people are not listening to AM because it's AM....they're
not even GETTING to the sound quality, yet.

The key 35-54 demos will listen to the AM formats if the quality is better;
the staitons that have moved or started FM simulcasts have proven this.



No, they haven't. They've proven that they will listen to FM,
where they already are. Many won't listen to AM because it's AM. It's
old. It's dark, it's history. They haven't even gotten to the issue of
audio quality. They're not even going to sample it.


HD
has a chance of making the existing formats on the very few viable AM
stations in major markets more appealing to 35-54.


No, it won't. Because quality is not driving the listening.
Content is. And if they're not going to AM because it's not AM, then
they won't even give AMHD a serious audition. Especially when they have
FM....and everybody listens to FM.

Perception may not be reality, but it does influence most of
consumer behaviour. And AM is perceived as a dinosaur. FM is percieved
as "Radio." Moving to HD on AM will not produce significant listening
behaviour change in lower demos.




Moving a viable AM to FM is a good move. Younger demos are already
listening there. But going digital on AM isn't going to help. They're not
going to go there. They haven't been for more than a generation, now. All
you're doing is putting a digital alternative to the same programming
they're not listening to, on a band they institutionally have no interest
in.

This is definitly one scenario. But to not try is simply to condemn AM to
death in another decade when nearly all the listeners are over 55... the
reason the FCC insisted, and was backed by the NAB in this, on an AM and FM
solution was because the only way to help AM was to make it ride on a
two-band system that all new receivers might have in the future.


Implementing any system that creates audible interference, is not
the way. Not only is AM HD doomed, but current AM's demise is being
hastened by the shortsighted implementation of IBOC.

You can't build traffic where consumers have, for cause,
historically not gone by changing internal workings.


They're never going to know...because they're not going there.



And you're doing it at the cost of those who DO listen. With
instutrionalized interference, that, in the end, will cost you all your
listeners. And all their revenue streams.

As I have mentioned before, in LA we have, frequently, two of the top 5
stations in the Riverside San Bernardino market, which is separate from the
LA market. We don't get any extra revenue from this, because radio is not
bought by "adding" contiguous markets together. Out of market listening is
not of much value.


To Radio, perhaps.

But what about the listeners who commute from LA to San
Bernardino? You going to orphan them, too? Now, those are YOUR
listeners. But they're moving out of prime contours every day. They're
going to want to take their favorite station with them. You don't care
about them?

Then you deserve to fail.



We may be comparitively few...but, as a whole we spend more. And when
the interference REALLY kicks in...we're not going to be as few as you
think.

If the only loss is out of market or in 55+, there is no revenue loss.


Someone made a killing off me in technology sales in this post
alone. How is that not a loss?

You're seeing this from the position that advertisers tell you to
take. I drop a huge sum every week in discretionary. And according to
the census, I"m far from alone.

How is not marketing to me and my kind not a loss? Just the list
of participants in this newsgroup alone, TODAY, represents 6 figures in
consumer electronics.

How is ignoring that not a loss?

Inside Radio it's all a numbers game. Because it works.

Those of us outside the radio station are not numbers. And we
represent awesome commercial actitivy. Right now, the numbers may be in
your favor. But that's changing. And as the economy settles, and
population reconstitutes, it can and will change dramatically, and
suddenly.

Take off the corporate suit, step away from your numbers, and walk
as a listener for a week. See if your numbers take into account where
you go that takes you out of contour, but where you still want your
radio station with you.

And then when that's taken away....see if you don't begin to see
what we're saying here.

The Clears were not just about coast to coast radio. And as you
yourself have pointed out, 50 gallons isn't enough to cover most large
metros anymore. We're a mobile society. What the big watt blowtorches
need to keep is that fringe coverage, so their loyal listeners in town,
can take them where they go on evenings and weekends out of
contour....in suburbs. In near weeds. Cutting off loyal listeners who
want to take you along gives them exposure to other options.

From which, many do not return.

See what I'm saying?