dxAce wrote:

IBOCcrock wrote:

Got these responses yesterday from a newpaper reporter in Florida, for
an article they just ran on HD Radio:

******,

Glad to peruse your blog. Thanks for the technical lesson. I
appreciate it. HD Radio smelled of smoke and mirrors when I first
began researching the article, and I didn't change my mind when I
finished writing it. I have XM satellite and it is more than I need,
AND I enjoy the choices. Perhaps HD stands for Humpty-Dumpty; who
knows? In the long run, market always has a way of "rewarding" such
chicanery.

It seems as though the FCC is turning a deaf ear to the interference
problem. Of course, that's not so rare for Cabinet-level agencies. Be
well, and keep up the valuable service you've been doing, and thank
you for the feedback. My editor was very happy with the article for
helping her sort out the bull**** from the bourbon.

Or, in the case of 'Eduardo', it would be a question of separating the bull****
from the tequila.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



I've never been convinced that what he posts here is actually a
bone-deep belief. Lately, I've been more aware of the sense that he's as
much trying to convince himself of the veracity of his positions as he
is trying to convince us.

As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement I've
worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune HD
until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it finally
becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's not going
to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has been
invested. Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate.

Till then, the shills will continue to hawk, demean, and argue.

And contrary to their own assertions, they neither hear, nor will
listen to anything that conflicts their chosen stance.