Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:
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.

But how is the extra programming being paid for?

Advertising of course. Plus the money they save because Digital does
not require as much power.



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).

Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.


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.

Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity
sound would matter. Not many.

Agreed. But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a
high bitrate to get FM quality. Only 24 is sufficient. At 64kbit/s
you get near-CD quality. It's a VERY efficient compression standard.

So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.




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.)

Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios
sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here.

Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.


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.


Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio"

I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial-
support.



In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore).....

Baltimore, huh? Got any friends at ibiquity?

Sorry. There are roughly 50 million people living in the Philly-
Wilmington-Baltimore-DC "megaopolis". The odds of me meeting someone
from iBiquity, by sheer random event, are about nil.





HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general, but
it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low
profit station.

My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing
alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3
separate programs.

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

On Oct 2, 7:52?am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:
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.

But how is the extra programming being paid for?

Advertising of course. Plus the money they save because Digital does
not require as much power.

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).

Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

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.

Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity
sound would matter. Not many.

Agreed. But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a
high bitrate to get FM quality. Only 24 is sufficient. At 64kbit/s
you get near-CD quality. It's a VERY efficient compression standard.

So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.

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.)

Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios
sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here.

Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.

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.

Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio"

I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial-
support.

In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore).....

Baltimore, huh? Got any friends at ibiquity?

Sorry. There are roughly 50 million people living in the Philly-
Wilmington-Baltimore-DC "megaopolis". The odds of me meeting someone
from iBiquity, by sheer random event, are about nil.

HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general, but
it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low
profit station.

My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing
alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3
separate programs.

For what they offer, digital radios are over-priced worthless toys:

http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/dabreceivers.html

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...
Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

For FM, it is about 30 to 50 times more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade; for AM it can be over $100 k if retuning the towers and modifying a
phasor is required.

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

On Oct 2, 7:52 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:
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.

But how is the extra programming being paid for?

Advertising of course. Plus the money they save because Digital does
not require as much power.

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).

Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

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.

Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity
sound would matter. Not many.

Agreed. But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a
high bitrate to get FM quality. Only 24 is sufficient. At 64kbit/s
you get near-CD quality. It's a VERY efficient compression standard.

So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.

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.)

Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios
sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here.

Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.

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.

Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio"

I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial-
support.

In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore).....

Baltimore, huh? Got any friends at ibiquity?

Sorry. There are roughly 50 million people living in the Philly-
Wilmington-Baltimore-DC "megaopolis". The odds of me meeting someone
from iBiquity, by sheer random event, are about nil.

HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general, but
it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low
profit station.

My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing
alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3
separate programs.

Compared to what it costs a radio station to stream audio over the
internet, the cost of HD is astronomical.

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...
Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:
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.

But how is the extra programming being paid for?

Advertising of course. Plus the money they save because Digital does
not require as much power.


The main channel is still analog and the digital channels require extra
power.

Anyway, I think most radio stations have far bigger expenses than thier
electric bill.





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).

Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple
programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

Sure it is. And if a station wants IBOC hardware, it's paying ibiquity's
price.



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.

Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity
sound would matter. Not many.

Agreed. But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a
high bitrate to get FM quality. Only 24 is sufficient. At 64kbit/s
you get near-CD quality. It's a VERY efficient compression standard.

So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.


And that station would risk dividing it's listeners across four channels.
That's OK for the listeners, but what's in it for the station?






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.)

Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios
sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here.

Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

There sure hasn't been alot of impetus to upgrade to AM stereo. By the way,
there's even less impetus to own radios which cover the European/Asian AM-FM
channel spacing and the Japanese FM band. But such radios are commonly sold
in the US. I even have a couple of them.



In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.

It's curious that so few of those "droves" of AM stereo radios make it over
here.


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.


Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio"

I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial-
support.


It's simple. If the audience the advertisers want was spread too thin
across too many channels to be profitable, the IBOC broadcasters have the
option of selling their product directly with subscription radio.

Of course, the subscription version of IBOC won't be called HD radio
because, as we've all been told a million times -- "There's never a
subscription fee with HD radio!"





In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore).....

Baltimore, huh? Got any friends at ibiquity?

Sorry. There are roughly 50 million people living in the Philly-
Wilmington-Baltimore-DC "megaopolis". The odds of me meeting someone
from iBiquity, by sheer random event, are about nil.

Given your interests, I thought any meetings would have been more than just
random.





HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general,
but
it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low
profit station.

My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing
alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3
separate programs.


How are they supporting themselves? Do they broker airtime to others? Are
they subsidized by a religious group? Do they ask for donations?

Frank Dresser

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...
Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

For FM, it is about 30 to 50 times more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade; for AM it can be over $100 k if retuning the towers and modifying a
phasor is required.



Didn't just a few days ago (sunday), YOU say that an HD radio upgrade
is a trivial expense?

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

Frank Dresser wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...
Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:
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.

But how is the extra programming being paid for?

Advertising of course. Plus the money they save because Digital does
not require as much power.


The main channel is still analog and the digital channels require extra
power.

Stop thinking shortterm. Yes *right now* both tv and radio stations
are sending-out duplicate signals : Analog and Digital. ----- But
that's only temporary. The TV stations will shut-down their analog
and just broadcast digital at approximately 1/10th the power of
analog. Likewise, AM will eventually end, and it will just be digital
at 1/100th the power.

Thus reducing the monthly electric bill, and enabling the station to
operate on less money.


So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.

And that station would risk dividing it's listeners across four channels.
That's OK for the listeners, but what's in it for the station?


Good question. I don't know. But since the stations are embracing
multi-channels (both in TV and radio), apparently THEY think there's
something to be gained.



Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

There sure hasn't been alot of impetus to upgrade to AM stereo.

No, which is a shame. I was driving through Iowa and I happened to
stumble across an AM Stereo station. It was very pleasant to hear
such rich sound coming from an AM.

IMHO the FCC ought to mandate the all AM stations which play music
must be stereo. (Of course they already mandated that the 1610-1710
band must be all stereo, but the FCC's not enforcing it. Stupid
idiots.)


In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.

It's curious that so few of those "droves" of AM stereo
radios make it over here.

Uh.... probably for the same reason I can't import a 12-hour VHS tape
from japan. I *want* to, but amazon.jp.co won't let me do it, because
of export restrictions.

Also, there's really no need to import AM Stereos. Just buy an HD
Radio which already comes with AM Stereo (it's built into the chips).



Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio"

I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative
to commercial-support.

It's simple. If the audience the advertisers want was spread too thin
across too many channels to be profitable, the IBOC broadcasters
have the option of selling their product directly with subscription radio.

You mean like "pay per view" for radio. I'd be okay with that. I'd
ignore that channel (probably on HD4) the same way I ignore the "pay
per view" on television. Still lots of freebie stuff to hear.




Of course, the subscription version of IBOC won't be called HD radio
because, as we've all been told a million times -- "There's never a
subscription fee with HD radio!"

Please provide a weblink where this quote is stated. Thanks.




Sorry. There are roughly 50 million people living in the Wilmington-
Philly-Baltimore-DC "megaopolis". The odds of me meeting
someone from iBiquity, by sheer random event, are about nil.

Given your interests, I thought any meetings would have
been more than just random.

Nah. Most of the people I know work in the Defense industry. I don't
know anybody in the commercial world.




My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing
alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3
separate programs.

How are they supporting themselves? Do they broker airtime to others?
Are they subsidized by a religious group? Do they ask for donations?

They are commercialized just like everybody else. As for donations,
I've never heard them ask for money or say "sponsored by the Lutheran
Church".

The other Christian station does that quite frequently ("this hour
sponsored by..."), but then they are commercial-free. They rely
completely on monetary gifts. (No they have not upgraded to HD yet.)

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

On Oct 2, 3:13 pm, wrote:

Stop thinking shortterm. Yes *right now* both tv and radio stations
are sending-out duplicate signals : Analog and Digital. ----- But
that's only temporary. The TV stations will shut-down their analog
and just broadcast digital at approximately 1/10th the power of
analog. Likewise, AM will eventually end, and it will just be digital
at 1/100th the power.

And fairly soon after that HD will end and all will be consolidated in
the internet. You can hate progress, but it will still seek you out.

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

wrote in message
ps.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...
Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple
programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

For FM, it is about 30 to 50 times more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade; for AM it can be over $100 k if retuning the towers and
modifying a
phasor is required.



Didn't just a few days ago (sunday), YOU say that an HD radio upgrade
is a trivial expense?


Yes, but it is much more than a stereo exciter. You can get a stand-alone
exciter for a kilobuck or so, while a full HD install is maybe $50 k to $75
k for an FM. But, using LA as an example, a station that bills $60 million a
year is not going to be much affected by a capital expense of $75 k.

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

I got a liitle bit too much drunk and rolled over and peed the couch
again.
cuhulin

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

On Oct 2, 6:00 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:23 pm, Steve wrote:



And fairly soon after that HD will end and all will be consolidated in
the internet. You can hate progress, but it will still seek you out.

Jeez you really love your computer! Do you "interface" with the
female port on the back?

It's not that I love it. I just don't fear it.

Don't fight progress.

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

On Oct 2, 9:49?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

ps.com...

Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

For FM, it is about 30 to 50 times more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade; for AM it can be over $100 k if retuning the towers and modifying a
phasor is required.

"News/Talk/Sports:Radio's Last Bastion"

"Music FMs of any flavor are utterly screwed... Right now -- while FMs
are losing the music audience to new media -- satellite radio is
offering more News/Talk/Sports programming than we can fit on AM
radio..."

http://ftp.media.radcity.net/ZMST/daily/IS031005.htm

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

On Oct 2, 5:36 pm, Steve wrote:

It's not that I love it. I just don't fear it.




I don't fear technology. I told you that before. Do you have memory
problems? It's just that I'm tired of wasting thousands of dollars on
obsolete formats that FAIL like Betamax, DAT, minidisc, Digital
Cassette, SA-CD, and so on.

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

The main channel is still analog and the digital channels require extra
power.

Stop thinking shortterm. Yes *right now* both tv and radio stations
are sending-out duplicate signals : Analog and Digital. ----- But
that's only temporary. The TV stations will shut-down their analog
and just broadcast digital at approximately 1/10th the power of
analog. Likewise, AM will eventually end, and it will just be digital
at 1/100th the power.

Thus reducing the monthly electric bill, and enabling the station to
operate on less money.

The broadcasters will resist a digital changeover unless almost everybody
has a digital radio. Otherwise they'd be throwing away part of their
audience.

And it's not like the FCC would be able to auction spectrum for big bucks
like they plan to do with the TV band. The spectrum available on AM is a
sliver compared to TV, and what little there is has more noise and weird
propagation. And efficent antennas are huge at AM radio frequencies.

Neither the FCC nor the broadcasters have much incentive to eliminate AM.


And that station would risk dividing it's listeners across four
channels.
That's OK for the listeners, but what's in it for the station?


Good question. I don't know. But since the stations are embracing
multi-channels (both in TV and radio), apparently THEY think there's
something to be gained.

Many of the radio broadcasters are supporting the digital format, just as
many supported AM stereo. HD radio might become a competitive advantage
against the non HD stations, but there's no certainty just as there was no
certainty with AM stereo.

Anyway, the broadcasters are limiting their risks with HD radio. They
aren't yet running the sort of "A material" on the secondary channels which
would attract sizeable audiences and sell radios. Why should they?




Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

There sure hasn't been alot of impetus to upgrade to AM stereo.

No, which is a shame. I was driving through Iowa and I happened to
stumble across an AM Stereo station. It was very pleasant to hear
such rich sound coming from an AM.

IMHO the FCC ought to mandate the all AM stations which play music
must be stereo. (Of course they already mandated that the 1610-1710
band must be all stereo, but the FCC's not enforcing it. Stupid
idiots.)

Why? If the people running the station think AM stereo will help attract an
audience they'll install the stereo modulator.

The people running the stations have concluded that it's not worth it.




In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.

It's curious that so few of those "droves" of AM stereo
radios make it over here.

Uh.... probably for the same reason I can't import a 12-hour VHS tape
from japan. I *want* to, but amazon.jp.co won't let me do it, because
of export restrictions.

Export restrictions keeping old American technology away from Americans?
What will those fiends do next?!?!



Also, there's really no need to import AM Stereos. Just buy an HD
Radio which already comes with AM Stereo (it's built into the chips).

You're right, there's no need to import a AM stereo receiver. All the
locals have stopped broadcasting.

Nobody cared.


It's simple. If the audience the advertisers want was spread too thin
across too many channels to be profitable, the IBOC broadcasters
have the option of selling their product directly with subscription
radio.

You mean like "pay per view" for radio. I'd be okay with that. I'd
ignore that channel (probably on HD4) the same way I ignore the "pay
per view" on television. Still lots of freebie stuff to hear.


Yeah, I don't have any real problem with pay radio. After all, stations
have bills to pay and advertisers are attracted to the young and credulous.

I do have a problem with the disingenuous HD radio hype campaign which
implied that there would never be a subscription fee for the "radio of
tomorrow".

I didn't buy it for a minute.





Of course, the subscription version of IBOC won't be called HD radio
because, as we've all been told a million times -- "There's never a
subscription fee with HD radio!"

Please provide a weblink where this quote is stated. Thanks.

You hadn't heard a radio informertial and you also missed out on the HD
radio campaign?

The links are easy to find. Try a google search with "HD radio never
subscription fee"

I remember the audio from the ads were linked on a HD radio web page. Dick
Orkin did some.

If you're interested, try a search for "HD radio Dick Orkin"



[snip]


Frank Dresser

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Neither the FCC nor the broadcasters have much incentive to eliminate AM.


As long as someone can, or thinks they can, make money from a station, it
will remain on the air.

A good example is 1070 / 1080 in Miami. The old WVCG was a competitive
beautiful music station 40 or so years ago... as FM took over, it tried
numerous other formats and ended up a while back as a Black talk station. It
could not make money, so now it has been sold and will be paid religion.

Except for a couple of viable or semi-viable AMs, like 560, 610, 710, 940
and 1140, (1140 and 710 really only viable in Spanish) the rest of the AMs
in Miami have become niche stations with Kreyol, Radio Disney, brokered
Spanish and brokered religion on them. Some make a little money, some change
owners when the last one runs out of cash.

Most AMs have been outgrown by their markets. And all are being out-aged by
the audience. News talk is migrating to FM. This week we saw a sports talker
go to FM. Eventually, the talk formats will also be on FM, and AM will be a
bunch of brokered, niche and ethnic plays that will bring station values
down and make the band irrelevant to most.

Digital Radio is not that expensive
 

On Oct 4, 4:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

Most AMs have been outgrown by their markets. And all are being out-aged by
the audience. News talk is migrating to FM. This week we saw a sports talker
go to FM. Eventually, the talk formats will also be on FM, and AM will be a
bunch of brokered, niche and ethnic plays that will bring station values
down and make the band irrelevant to most.

That's better than its being utterly irrelevant, which is the goal
with HD.