IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Actually, you live in your own self created universe where you dictate
what people hear on their radios based on some imaginary or
misconstrued information.

Nope... every major broadcaster does the same analysis, generally to
determine where to do promotion and where not to. The source data comes from
Arbitron, so every significant broadcaster in the nation has it.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

Yet you deny the facts.


No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours.

I've heard that people have picked up WABC and WKBW in Europe.

Should their signals be protected there?

TWR used to broadcast out of Bonaire with 500KW's. How far should we
protect their coverage?

Should we have made CKLW sign off because it might interfere with someone
picking up TWR in Louisiana?

This is the defense you are submitting. How far should we take this?

This is the real world...taking your hypothesis to it's ridiculous
conclusion.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals
can be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one. Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show
you how we can compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market
and prove this fact that you want to deny.

Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the
very intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no
urban area listening.

Yet you deny the facts.


No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours. It really doesn't matter that you say 95% of all listening
happens within those contours.. if you do the math, that still means that
15 MILLION people do not listen inside those contours. That is NOT an
insignificant number, as you and the rest of your increasingly irrelevant
industry seem to believe.

In metro areas, the remaining 5% is generally inside the market, but outside
the 64 dbu or 10 mv/m signals of inferior technical facilities.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

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


"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Actually, you live in your own self created universe where you dictate
what people hear on their radios based on some imaginary or
misconstrued information.

Nope... every major broadcaster does the same analysis, generally to
determine where to do promotion and where not to. The source data comes
from
Arbitron, so every significant broadcaster in the nation has it.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by? Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
Actually, you live in your own self created universe where you dictate
what people hear on their radios based on some imaginary or
misconstrued information.
Nope... every major broadcaster does the same analysis, generally to
determine where to do promotion and where not to. The source data comes
from
Arbitron, so every significant broadcaster in the nation has it.
Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by? Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.




Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee,"
has an entitlement to a license based on investment in physical plant
and stockholders' expectations.

Because he, like the rest of us, believes an industry licensed "to
serve in the public interest as a public trustee" doesn't get to dismiss
complaints of active listeners as destructive and contemptous when
they're told as listeners they are immaterial and irrelevant.

Because he, like the rest of us, believes your industry's facts are
manufactured pursuant to goals that have nothing to do with the license
requirement that you "serve in the public interest as a public trustee."


That should provide the answer to your inquiry. The question is,
why do you refuse to listen to the the complaints of an entire body of
active and participating radio listeners who believe they have every
right to be heard?


You see...refusing seems to work both ways.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

A Brown wrote:
Yet you deny the facts.

No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours.

I've heard that people have picked up WABC and WKBW in Europe.

Should their signals be protected there?

TWR used to broadcast out of Bonaire with 500KW's. How far should we
protect their coverage?

Should we have made CKLW sign off because it might interfere with someone
picking up TWR in Louisiana?

This is the defense you are submitting. How far should we take this?

This is the real world...taking your hypothesis to it's ridiculous
conclusion.


The key word is 'ridiculous.' Which negates your claim to be 'real
world.'


"Argument based in the absurd is not incumbent upon Reality to comply."

--Lt. Cmdr D. L. Mandron.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.


Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.

The fact is that knowing where we might be able to get listeners, based on
acceptable signal strength (and thus clarity and ease of reception) is key
to being able to provide the people within that area which some kind of
format or programming that a group of listeners would actually like.

Only if we appeal to a group of listeners can we make the money needed to
sustain any kind of format.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee,"
has an entitlement to a license based on investment in physical plant and
stockholders' expectations.

And where does discussing the signal needed for listeners to be able to
satisfactorily receive a station have any relationship with serving the
listners who can receive us well enough to actually listen?

Because he, like the rest of us, believes an industry licensed "to
serve in the public interest as a public trustee" doesn't get to dismiss
complaints of active listeners as destructive and contemptous when they're
told as listeners they are immaterial and irrelevant.

Aside from fruitcakes, who are most of the complainers to radio stations
(people who object to callers saying "ain't" for example), stations as a
rule pay attention to valid complaints. But that does not have anything to
do with the subject, either.

Posters to Usenet and forums are an exception... they are radio hobbyists or
groupies (not said negatively... as I was such at 12 or 13 myself) who have
more than the average listener's interest in the radio business.

Again, nothing to do with the subject of what signal strength is necessary
for over 95% of listening at home and at work takes place.

Because he, like the rest of us, believes your industry's facts are
manufactured pursuant to goals that have nothing to do with the license
requirement that you "serve in the public interest as a public trustee."

This case is exactly the opposite. We have a great deal of data on where
listening takes place, and we can use it to determine, at the individual
station level, where a station's listening is located so we can concentrate
our efforts on providing appealing programming to some of the people inside
the real listening area.

Since service can be of many kinds, ranging from a pleasant music blend to
get through the day by to active news coverage to being part of ethinc
communities. So knowing who is in the area we can serve is important... and
knowing what that area is is a combination of how far our useful signal goes
and who lives inside that signal.

The facts in this case are not manufactured. You map your listening, book
after book, and then look at what the signal contour is that encompasses
most of them. The contour is pure math (on AM, frequency, power, antenna
efficiency and conductivity) and the listenership comes out of (using LA as
an example) 30,000 annual diaries with several hundred thousand at home and
at work ZIP coded listening instances.

Again, knowing where we can be used determines a large part of how we can be
of service and use to listeners.

That should provide the answer to your inquiry. The question is, why
do you refuse to listen to the the complaints of an entire body of active
and participating radio listeners who believe they have every right to be
heard?

At stations I am involved with, we answer valid listener concerns.
Obviously, the kind of people on this Usenet group are not listeners to any
station I deal with, so this statement of yours is hardly appropriate.


You see...refusing seems to work both ways.

Not really, since your comments have nothing to do with the subject or are
just wrong.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.


Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.


And this is where we fundamentally differ. You don't listen.

Read it again, Pancho. See if you can find the hidden meaning. I'll
give you a hint...it's right in front of your face.


You want to know why he refuses to accept your 'facts?' Because he's
not sure you listened to him enough to really understand what his gripe
is.

So far, in the last two years, you've only quoted margins, stock
prices, statistics and agendae. You've argued with everything that's
been put before you, even when it agrees with what you've said.

What you've not done....not one time, is simply listen. And then
address what's been said. Instead of returning to script and quoting
your manufactured facts.

It's like I said a year ago, if you came down and actually
participate in a discussion as a member of the group, instead of
spitting pedantry every time you open your keyboard, you'd probably get
a lot more of your message heard.

But you don't seem to be able to discuss without the pedantic
reliance on corporate speak and what Eric Richards called (with some
accuracy) pseudo-statistical double talk.

Drop the pedantry and oblique insults and see if you don't get
somewhere.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Yet you deny the facts.

No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours.

I've heard that people have picked up WABC and WKBW in Europe.

Should their signals be protected there?

TWR used to broadcast out of Bonaire with 500KW's. How far should we
protect their coverage?

Should we have made CKLW sign off because it might interfere with someone
picking up TWR in Louisiana?

This is the defense you are submitting. How far should we take this?

This is the real world...taking your hypothesis to it's ridiculous
conclusion.


The key word is 'ridiculous.' Which negates your claim to be 'real
world.'

I think what he was showing was that the claim that signals should be
protected to infinity is ridiculous.

It has no practical place in the real world.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Yet you deny the facts.

No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours.
I've heard that people have picked up WABC and WKBW in Europe.

Should their signals be protected there?

TWR used to broadcast out of Bonaire with 500KW's. How far should we
protect their coverage?

Should we have made CKLW sign off because it might interfere with someone
picking up TWR in Louisiana?

This is the defense you are submitting. How far should we take this?

This is the real world...taking your hypothesis to it's ridiculous
conclusion.

The key word is 'ridiculous.' Which negates your claim to be 'real
world.'

I think what he was showing was that the claim that signals should be
protected to infinity is ridiculous.

It has no practical place in the real world.

No one was claiming protection to infinity. Which was my point. There
is no place in the real world for his argument. It was ridiculous in its
premise. On two fronts. There is no practical protection to infinity.
And no one was making that suggestion.

Strawman argument.

He's negated his own point.