Frank Dresser wrote:


I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.

And more expenses for the broadcaster.

They doesn't seem to be stopping them from adding second and third
channels Like WIYY in Baltimore, which has *voluntarily* added
Classic Rock and Indie Rock to their AOR primary station. Now
listeners of that style have three times as much content to enjoy.

Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they
don't need to do anything. They can just limit themselves to 1 high-
quality channel (300 kbps).



Just because you have 5.1, doesn't mean you'd have
a large dynamic range. One does not imply the other.

Certainly not. And just because the frequency response of AM radio can go
from 20 to 15kHz, or better doesn't mean it does. And FM radio is also
capable of excellent fidelity but it doesn't really happen either.
5.1 would be compromised in similar ways.


And then the listeners of that Classic Music station would complain,
and the manager would have to decide between (a) increasing bitrate or
(b) losing customers.



I would hardly call having 4 incompatible methods a "good attempt".
More like a "bass backwards" attempt. Had the FCC selected a single
standard, AM stereo would be as popular in the U.S., as it currently
is in Canada, Japan, and Australia. In those nations, virtually every
station is broadcast in AM Stereo.


Sure it was. The radios were available, but people didn't buy them.


People in Canada, Japan, and Australia bought AM Stereo radio in
droves. Why? Because there was a single standard, not the 4-way mess
the FCC left behind. (It's similar to today's HD DVD versus Blu-ray
battle; most people are just waiting to see who wins.)

If the FCC had picked just ONE standard, then u.s. citizens would have
acted like canadians, japanese, and australians, and bought the radio
upgrade.

But with a 4-way race.... well u.s. citizens were left confused. And
it was the FCC's fault.

NOTE: This situation doesn't exist today. FCC has selected HDR, and
thus people know what they need to buy to get double or triple the #
of stations on the dial.



If public had a robust interest in high fidelity radio, then presumed poor
handling would not be an issue.

I already agreed with you that HQ is not going to motivate people to
upgrade. It will be seeing their favorite FM stations split into 3 or
4 programs, thus tripling their options, that will motive people to
buy.



your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 to 4

So? In most markets, most listeners are listening to a
few stations. The bulk of the stations get by with less.

Got a citation to back-up this opinion? You stated it as a fact, so
I'd like to see what study you are using to back up that fact.

In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the
listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there
are a number of stations which don't even make the list.


Hmm, interesting. In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg,
Baltimore), the listeners are fairly evenly divided bwtween the
stations. They all get a piece of the pie. See:
http://www1.arbitron.com/tlr/public/report.do

Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't
support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly
divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to
5% of the listeners, per station).

That seems to suggest listeners do what I do:

- jump from station to station
- looking for variety across multiple channels
- and that they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM
dial.