On Sep 30, 11:44 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon"

I'm sorry, I fail to see the logic of your argument. Try again.

Let's say in Anytown that there are 24 formats that could get over about a 1
share.... in other words, the percentage of listening that would get
advertisers results based on enough listeners hearing the message. But
Anytown has only 12 FM signals that do a decent job of covering the market.
So there are 12 viable formats that are not being done in Anytown, formats
that would be salable, listenable and useful.

So, a station puts one of the viable second tier of formats on

Eminently logical. I've already stated this elsewhere, but it's worth
repeating. The Baltimore station has split into 3 sub-channels:
- AOR
- Classic Rock
- Indie Rock


A puny set of choices indeed compared to what internet radio yields.


.....thus giving listeners more options, more variety, more music.
It's similar to what's been happening to Cable TV the last ten years,
slowly but surely expanding from ~50 channels to ~200 channels. (And
profiting.)

A mere hiccup compared to what internet radio offers.

On Sep 30, 11:35 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Steve wrote:

How has iBiquity destroyed the quality of FM? There is no degradation of the
FM analog signal to add HD, and saying so is an exaggeration or a lie.
Most people, as in 96% of them, are listening to the radio each week....
same as 1965 when Arbitron began.

Good luck stopping the internet, Tardo. You have a lot of work to do.

There's no need. The internet and tradional broadcast radio/tv can
coexist.

Internet radio will eliminate the need for outdated modes of
broadcasting. You can't fight progress.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...

Was there a downside to upgrading from Cassettes to CDs? No. Was
there a downside to upgrading from analog VHS to digital DVDs? No.
Was there a downside to upgrading from analog radio to Digital
satellite radio? No. (I could go on-and-on with other examples like
digital MP3s and Ipods and Internet radio and.....)


No downside? Ever hear of replacement costs? Ever hear of
unavailability of product? Ever hear of CHOICE?

Hi Brenda,

Yeah just 5 seconds ago when I read your post. ;-) Although it's
sometimes painful to have to abandon your old record player and
upgrade to CD, I think it's worthwhile. You get better sound. (Of
course, you don't have to abandon records; there are still turntables
out there.)

Me, I'm stuck in the middle of this HDTV transition. I'm recording
HDTV with a vcr, which is totally inadequate for the task, but I'm
still glad the transition was made, because HDTV looks much, much
better than analog. I have no desire to take a step backwards to
analog.


Those that think there is no downside to "upgrading" technology do not
take a myriad of factors into account, some small (like the DX hobby)

Yes true. By the way, DX isn't dead. It moved to the internet, where
you can hear stations as far away as London, Russia, Australia, et
cetera. I hear more distant stations now than I ever did as a
teenager.


some larger (orphaning millions of listeners that don't live inside city
grade contours of broadcast stations, and lose their ability to receive stations
that they were previously easily able to receive)

The analog FM is still there. So too are the websites, so rural
listeners can stream them off the internet. Heck, I listen to
stations in my hometown, and I'm currently 1000 miles away, just via
streaming.



to larger still (the obsoleting of
literally hundred of millions (possibly even billions) of
currently useful devices (analog TV's (especially portables),
analog radios, turntables, cassette decks, ad inf.).


Yes. Just like when we abandoned horse-drawn carriages, steam
engines, and riverboats. It's called progress... moving from old
technologies to new technologies. Movign from slow or inefficient
technologies to faster, economical technologies.

BTW analog TVs are not dead. I've got a digital tuner attached to
mine, which means the set will die a natural death of old age. It's
not been wasted.



And has anyone considered the long term
ecological repercussions of having to dispose
of all these millions of now useless devices?

Trivial compared to the amount of trash generated from food
packaging. By volume I'd estimate a thrown-away VCR or Cassette
player is less than 1% the volume generated by food boxes, plastic
wrap, and containers.



Digital radio is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist,
and is/will create(ing) more problems than it solves.

Actually there is a problem. Young adults and teens are demanding
more variety, and analog radio doesn't have room to grow to meet that
demand (no room to add stations).



You mention digital satellite radio. That's fine, and I wouldn't mind
giving it a try.. but hey, satellite radio doesn't affect my ability
to listen to any of hundreds or more terrestrial analog stations
whenever I choose. IBOC terrestrial radios DOES!

No it doesn't. Just type in your favorite radio station's call
letters.com, and you can hear them over the internet. (If you can't
find your station, I'd be happy to help you locate its dot-com
location.)

Oh and you can try free XM by going he radioaol.com - That's
what I listen to during work (sometimes).



If you want to listen to digital radio, then get yourself
an XM or Sirius radio and listen to your heart's content

I don't want to pay $150 a year for radio. I like the free over-the-
air kind, but I want more stations.

On Sep 30, 11:23 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Steve wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

David Eduardo wrote:

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the success of
terrestrial radio against alternatives.

But I do not claim that. Radio is in slow revenue growth mode, and this year
may be no-growth (although due to automotive and mortgage / housing crisis
situations) so it is critical to keep the existing audience base, which the
PPPM shows to be a 96% reach of all 6+ Americans.

No, radio isn't in slow growth mode. You're just in talk trash mode.

I sense a lot of animosity against Eduardo, but I think he has a valid
point about the viability of multiple formats. The Baltimore AOR
station has added sub-channels for Classic Rock and Indie Rock, which
is just great for fans of the "rock" genre. Now they can hear music
that they might otherwise not be able to hear. They have more choice.

I know.

You're going to say, "But it's not profitable". Okay well apparently
the station manager disagree with you (which is why he's now
programming 3 channels for his station). BUT even if we assume you're
correct and it's not profitable..... so what?

A station can just as easily broadcast *1* channel at high-quality 300
kbps.

The HD Radio standard is flexible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Three channels? Have you ever looked into what's available on the
internet. This isn't 1950 anymore.

On Sep 30, 12:34 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Was there a downside to upgrading from Cassettes to CDs? No. Was
there a downside to upgrading from analog VHS to digital DVDs? No.
Was there a downside to upgrading from analog radio to Digital
satellite radio? No. (I could go on-and-on with other examples like
digital MP3s and Ipods and Internet radio and.....)

No downside? Ever hear of replacement costs? Ever hear of
unavailability of product? Ever hear of CHOICE?

Yes, It's what has driven me to internet radio.



Hi Brenda,

Yeah just 5 seconds ago when I read your post. ;-) Although it's
sometimes painful to have to abandon your old record player and
upgrade to CD, I think it's worthwhile. You get better sound. (Of
course, you don't have to abandon records; there are still turntables
out there.)

Yes, but better sound is of little value when combined with **** poor
programming.


Me, I'm stuck in the middle of this HDTV transition. I'm recording
HDTV with a vcr, which is totally inadequate for the task, but I'm
still glad the transition was made, because HDTV looks much, much
better than analog. I have no desire to take a step backwards to
analog.

Those that think there is no downside to "upgrading" technology do not
take a myriad of factors into account, some small (like the DX hobby)

Yes true. By the way, DX isn't dead. It moved to the internet, where
you can hear stations as far away as London, Russia, Australia, et
cetera. I hear more distant stations now than I ever did as a
teenager.

That's right, you can hear it all on the internet. But wait, what do
we need all of these HD radios for then?


some larger (orphaning millions of listeners that don't live inside city
grade contours of broadcast stations, and lose their ability to receive stations
that they were previously easily able to receive)

The analog FM is still there. So too are the websites, so rural
listeners can stream them off the internet. Heck, I listen to
stations in my hometown, and I'm currently 1000 miles away, just via
streaming.

to larger still (the obsoleting of
literally hundred of millions (possibly even billions) of
currently useful devices (analog TV's (especially portables),
analog radios, turntables, cassette decks, ad inf.).

Yes. Just like when we abandoned horse-drawn carriages, steam
engines, and riverboats. It's called progress... moving from old
technologies to new technologies. Movign from slow or inefficient
technologies to faster, economical technologies.

That's what I keep telling all the HD radio proponents, but they just
clink to their little digital horse drawn carriages. Time to let go of
the past and drive on the internet autobahn.

BTW analog TVs are not dead. I've got a digital tuner attached to
mine, which means the set will die a natural death of old age. It's
not been wasted.

And has anyone considered the long term
ecological repercussions of having to dispose
of all these millions of now useless devices?

Trivial compared to the amount of trash generated from food
packaging. By volume I'd estimate a thrown-away VCR or Cassette
player is less than 1% the volume generated by food boxes, plastic
wrap, and containers.

Digital radio is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist,
and is/will create(ing) more problems than it solves.

Actually there is a problem. Young adults and teens are demanding
more variety, and analog radio doesn't have room to grow to meet that
demand (no room to add stations).

Yes, this is also driving people to internet radio.


You mention digital satellite radio. That's fine, and I wouldn't mind
giving it a try.. but hey, satellite radio doesn't affect my ability
to listen to any of hundreds or more terrestrial analog stations
whenever I choose. IBOC terrestrial radios DOES!

No it doesn't. Just type in your favorite radio station's call
letters.com, and you can hear them over the internet. (If you can't
find your station, I'd be happy to help you locate its dot-com
location.)

Precisely! Looks like you're catching on!


Oh and you can try free XM by going he radioaol.com - That's
what I listen to during work (sometimes).

If you want to listen to digital radio, then get yourself
an XM or Sirius radio and listen to your heart's content

I don't want to pay $150 a year for radio. I like the free over-the-
air kind, but I want more stations.

Yeah, that's why internet radio is the future. Cheaper than satellite,
thousands of more choices than HD.

Progress feels good. Real good.

SFTV_troy wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...

Was there a downside to upgrading from Cassettes to CDs? No. Was
there a downside to upgrading from analog VHS to digital DVDs? No.
Was there a downside to upgrading from analog radio to Digital
satellite radio? No. (I could go on-and-on with other examples like
digital MP3s and Ipods and Internet radio and.....)


No downside? Ever hear of replacement costs? Ever hear of
unavailability of product? Ever hear of CHOICE?

Hi Brenda,

Yeah just 5 seconds ago when I read your post. ;-) Although it's
sometimes painful to have to abandon your old record player and
upgrade to CD, I think it's worthwhile. You get better sound. (Of
course, you don't have to abandon records; there are still turntables
out there.)

Me, I'm stuck in the middle of this HDTV transition. I'm recording
HDTV with a vcr, which is totally inadequate for the task, but I'm
still glad the transition was made, because HDTV looks much, much
better than analog. I have no desire to take a step backwards to
analog.

Those that think there is no downside to "upgrading" technology do not
take a myriad of factors into account, some small (like the DX hobby)

Yes true. By the way, DX isn't dead. It moved to the internet, where
you can hear stations as far away as London, Russia, Australia, et
cetera. I hear more distant stations now than I ever did as a
teenager.

Uh, that's NOT DX'ing, no matter what the pathological David F. Gleason might have you
believe.

RHF wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:31 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
wrote:
SFTV_troy wrote:

With digital the FM band would effectively triple or even quadruple
the number of channels on the dial. (Alternatively Classical FM
stations could boost the sound from 2 channel stereo to 5.1
surround.)

Do you understand the consequences of what
you propose? Apparently you do not.

- No, because I can not read your mind.
- Please explain the consequences.

That's An Evasive Answer - Please Answer The Question.


Ahhh, you're taking the "arrogant position" where you presume, "Troy
is a ****ing idiot" and "I'm smarter than Troy", therefore "I'll talk
down to him like he's a worthless worm."

How rude and unfriendly.


Turn in an Analog AM/MW Radio and tune every 10 kHz
from 530 kHz to 1710 kHz and Listen to what you hear
on each and every 10 kHz Radio Station Channel :
That Buzz Noise Hash that was not

Yes I am aware of that problem. (Although I'm still able to hear
Radio Disney just fine on the AM.) The solution is simple for someone
like yourself who has an internet connection:

call letters.com - listen online.

RHF wrote:

I want to see FM upgraded with three to four times more programs to
choose from.

SFTV_troy are you on d'Eduardo's Pay Roll ?
-or- Work for any of the Companies that Employ Him ?
-or- Work for a Radio Station using his Programming ?


Nope. I'm an electrical engineer who designs computer boards and
circuits.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

You have a mistaken impression of radio audience measurement.

Snip

You misrepresent the facts to support your arguments as needed. You tell
me I don't hear the stations I listen to because they are so weak as to
be DX and nobody would spend time listening to them. You are full of it.

You are, as I mentioned previously, the kind of listener radio stations are
hard put to serve. You mentioned already that you are not satisfied with
your local stations (and your local stations are those licensed to Ventura
County) and prefer to listen to ones from locations at some distance.

Radio sales and programming are focused on the local radio market. Even the
LA stations, some of which get listening by Ventura County residents, don't
have an interest in residents in your county as, simply put, there is no
money to be made off such listening. Your local stations don't seem to serve
you, and the more distant ones do not care to serve you as there is no gain.
You are one of a tiny percentage of bona fide radio listeners that simply
can't be satisfied... in Ventura, probably the econommics of a small, low
revenue market are the determining factor... so to broadcasting, you are
"unservable."

You find listenable stations that the average person neither knows exists or
can not pick up well. Most DXers have a bit more tolerance for noise,
hisses, buzzes and static than the average listener... who today uses CDs or
iPod digital files as the standard; AM as a band can not satisfy the
listener expectations of the last two generations.

You equate being able to pick up a station with being able to listen to it.
These are not the same things, and you should understand that the normal
listener to radio has a higher standard of reception than you do. For
example, 780 in Reno is not 100% every night; most listeners would never
return after the first time they hear nose, static, fading or interference.

And you equate listenablity to receivability. The fact is that listenership
of AM radio is at its lowest at night, likely due to, first, the greater use
of TV by the AM 45+ listener core and, second, by the fact that nearly every
AM in the US has less coverage at night than in the daytime, so choices are
reduced.

Countless studies have been made over the years of where a station gets its
audience. The purpose is to not waste money marketing and promoting where
there is no potential. For AMs, where we can identify at home and at work
listening by ZIP code (and that is 70% of listening) nearly all the
listening to any particular station takes place inside a very strong signal
contour. Most radio stations do their promotion in what we call Hot Zips, or
areas where we get lots of listening. All of these are inside, to use LA as
an example, the 70 dbu for FM and the 10 mvm for AM. And it's the same for
our competitors.

The average radio listener does not listen to weaker signals. They
definitely do not listen to noisy ones.

Add to that the fact that nearly all AM listeners are over 45, and the
majority over 55 and you have, as I said, two generations of Americans who
don't use AM much or at all.

You don't seem to know what reception on the west coast is like so
either you don't listen to AM at all or you don't live on the west
coast. Which is it?

I know what reception is like for DX, but that is irrelevant to a discussion
of why a decision was made to implement HD and then extend its use to nights
on AM. That decision is based on how radio is used as much as on the
technical issues.

My DX interest is stations from Mexico, and, to some extent, Central
America. I really have no interest in domestic DX and do what I can to null
those stations. Ask about when you can get La Voz de Centroamerica in SPS,
Honduras, and that I can tell you. When is XEW silent so the "hidden relay"
can be heard? The difference is that I know when I am DXing and when I am
listening for content.... something the average listener is really clear
about.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I think he believes his own noise and no he can't provide the link
because what he claims doesn't exist. At least not yet.

The info provided to iBiquity's owners is not public, so I am not giving
you
a link. You will simply have to hold your water until Samsung ships low
power, lower cost chips in 2008.

You are full of it. The development was announced and then news about it
went to zero. That's not a good sign.

We are aware of what is going on. That's all that matters; the idea is to
keep expanding the station count so more and more manufacturers will buy the
new chips and get the radios out in the stores.

Most lies have a kernel of truth in them so they are believable. All I
know is every time a take a poke at what he posts the stick goes right
through the one layer of the "story" he tells. All that he posts seem
very illusionary in nature.

Nothing is like your insistence that listeners will put up with a bad AM
signal and listen, despite radio audience measurements that are
universally
accepted showing no such thing occurs.

This shows you are a sham. You don't know what reception is like around
here AM or FM. You are full of it.

How does the fact that listeners measured by the ratings services show no
interest in skywave reception at all related to whether I know what
reception is like of not? They DON'T listen to distant signals, so there is
no need to protect distant signals.