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?