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

In article ,
"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 it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"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.

Yeah, that would be 5% truth and 95% BS coming from you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
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.

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate. He has, repeatedly, sad that my facts, which are the industry
facts, about where listening takes place, is not true.

Radio stations can not serve much beyond the primary coverage areas due to
many factors such as the inability to physically go out to outlying areas,
the fact that there are local stations in areas that are fringe to us, etc.
So we try to find what we can do to truly serve the audience in the area
where our signal is truly usable.

One of the things mentioned often in this and past exchanges is the usage of
radio stations way outside its primary service area. Even though the FCC
does not require we serve these listeners (and trying to serve their
different interests would cause us to serve less our primary area) there
seems to be a sense of entitlement by some.

Example: KPFK in LA, the Pacifica Foundation station, is grandfathered at
very high power at a very high Height Above Average Terrain. But by FCC
rules, they are only protected from interference to the extent of a
conforming class B FM, 50 kw at 500 feet. Yet they have 110,000 watts at
nearly 3000 feet HAAT. The coverage is many times that of a conforming
station, but only the conforming contour is protected.

A number of years ago, Mexico licensed a co-channel station in Tijuana. It
wiped out the actual useful coverage of KPFK in San Diego. But the Tijuana
station was totally legal since it did not affect the protected contour. Yet
there are posters on many web boards who talk about the Mexican station,
XHLNC, as being a jammer, a pirate, etc.

That's the difference between the facts (the way the FCC deals with
grandfathered facilities and the way XHLNC was licensed) and what some
listeners perceive as their right.

Closer to home, KLVE had a significant fringe audience in Santa Barbara, and
actually showed in the ratings because, at the time there was no FM Spanish
service in the market. But KLVE is also grandfathered, and had no protected
right to the coverage there. A new station was given the adjacent channel,
and wiped KLVE out up there. We had no right to be protected, and the local
community gained in format diversity. At the same time, with the outsider
out of the fight, a local station switched to Spanish, giving local service
to that group... so two groups gained local service while the outside
station no longer had coverage of the area. The listeners, though,
benefitted because KLVE did not serve Santa Barbara. There is no way we
could. It's a 2 hour drive to start. And anything musical the listeners
there might want would not be possible to implement if it meant sacrificing
the ability to satisfy LA listeners. Just putting in phone local service
would have cost thousands a month at the time.

So when it comes to metro stations serving distant or rural or fringe areas
outside their market, there are reasons why this can not be done.
Fortunately, with 14, 421 stations on the air, not including translators,
there is hardly a populated area without terrestrial service and there is
always cable and satellite and web radio, too.

This is why... to better serve the listeners who will listen... that
stations are not interested in fringe areas where the audience does not
generally contribute to local ratings and revenue. Considering that from the
mid-50's till the last study in the mid-90's half of all stations are not
profitable, wasting resources where there is no gain that helps a station
thrive or survive, is not possible and does not make good sense.

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"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 it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

I don't work in marketing.

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

"Bob Dobbs" wrote in message
news:4876f062.4582278@chupacabra...
David Eduardo wrote:

Irrespective of what you may think, the fact is that

You promised to killfile me, ya lying *******.

I don't killfile anyone. Never have. That does not prevent me from saying
that people who have to cuss in their posts are generally people who have
lost an argument and are swearing to divert attention from their feeble
posts.

How can I profit from my body?
 

David Eduardo, ye brainless unreal mock'ry, here comes those I have done
good to against my will, ye purled:

i have a rash for like over a year its is dark around my privates..
and leaves behind a weird colour on my underwere and it kind of smells
funny.. and i have not had sex yet or have been invloved in any sexual
activitys..please tell me what to do

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

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

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate.

Again, you've missed the point, making my point for me. You're so
determined to be right, you simply don't listen to what's being said to
you.

You asked why he refuses to believe....it's because you don't listen.
So, he doesn't, like the rest of us, believe that you're doing anything
but spewing the corporate line.

When someone asks you to listen, the correct response is 'okay.' Not
several paragraphs of liturgy.

Listen as much as you speak, and you may find that you're LISTENED TO
in return.


But you're not listening, so, I'll conclude, here.

Try reading it again. This time, pay attention to what's actually
being said, instead of what opens the door for more pedantry.

You asked why...now I've told you three times. So far, you've not
even so much as acknowledged what I've said.

Have a good morning, Pancho.

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.

'Eduardo', as the other poster stated, quite correctly in fact, you are not a
broadcaster just a master fabricator.

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

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

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.

Then to what point then?

Just enough so you can DX the stations you want?

The FCC has already decided to what point stations deserve protection....

And no one was making that suggestion.

Strawman argument.

Again, taking your "iboc interference" argument to it's ilogical confusion.

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

Rrrado Rn wrote:
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.

Then to what point then?

Just enough so you can DX the stations you want?


Another absurdity.



The FCC has already decided to what point stations deserve protection....

And no one was making that suggestion.

Strawman argument.

Again, taking your "iboc interference" argument to it's ilogical confusion.



Making my point...You're taking the argument to absurdity and then
claiming no real value. No ****. That's part of the definition of absurdity.

The truth is, that protection from interference has been happening
for nearly 3/4's of a century. Both within the borders and internationally.

FCC policy had always been such that new stations may be inserted
into the bandplan by specifying and guaranteeing protection from
interference of co-and adjacent channel operators in other markets. And
modifications may be made to a pattern by guaranteeing additional
protection to co and adjacent operators in other markets. Protection,
however, may not be taken away, ie, there may not be a relaxation of
interference protection.

Internationally, frequency assignments are also made to minimize
interference, ie., offer protection from interference of stations in
other locations.

In the US, some frequencies have been protected by international treaty.

So, protection IS afforded to international lengths. And has been for
decades.

IBOC, however, introduces interference. Not just for co and adjacent
channels, but for second and sometimes third adjacents. Interference for
stations in other markets. To the degree that a station may interfere
with local listening in another market.

An example is Salem Communications WIND. They turned off their IBOC
because it was interfering with local listening in Milwaukee of their
own facility there. So there's no misunderstanding, let me be
clear...Salem turned off their IBOC because their IBOC sidebands from
the Chicago station were interfering with Milwaukee listeners' ability
to enjoy Salem's Milwaukee station.

That's not a DX ing experience.

At my own location, I have had trouble for the past two years
listening to WLS, a LOCAL station, because of IBOC sideband interference
from an out of market station.

No DXing, there, either.

Now, there have been stations sharing frequencies for decades. And
doing so without interfering with each other. IBOC, however, creates
interference, and has been given the green light to remove interference
protection for stations across the country on first second and third
adjacents. Limiting choice. Limiting listening. Even in one's local market.

DXing is a separate issue.

Radio World, a couple of years ago, told the story of a small station
in near Washington, DC, wiped out in it's local market by the second
adjacent sideband of a Washington station. Out of market station,
interfering with a LOCAL station in it's own, protected, market.

The same article illuminated other stations suffering loss of local
coverage within it's own market from IBOC interference.

The industry says, tough ****. Too few listeners to worry about.

For an industry licensed to serve the public interest as a public
trustee, that's a direct abrogation of its responsibilities.

An arrogance that's not been earned.

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

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
In the US, some frequencies have been protected by international treaty.

All AM frequencies are / were protected by NARBA, and FM is protected within
specified distances of the US border by Canada and Mexico in a mutual
agreement; Bahamas protects the NARBA AM assignments, but not FM.

So, protection IS afforded to international lengths. And has been for
decades.

NARBA was implemented in March of 1942. Many nearby countries, starting with
Cuba, do not observe it any longer, and ones like Haiti, the Caymans, etc.
never did.

An example is Salem Communications WIND. They turned off their IBOC
because it was interfering with local listening in Milwaukee of their own
facility there. [/quote]

No, they turned it off because the fringe listening to the 540 facility was
supposedly impacted. Since preaching and teaching depends on donations, this
seemed to be a factor to them... besides the fact that Salem does not put HD
on it's AMs.

So there's no misunderstanding, let me be clear...Salem turned off their
IBOC because their IBOC sidebands from the Chicago station were interfering
with Milwaukee listeners' ability to enjoy Salem's Milwaukee station.

No, they turned it off because the company does not support HD and the
Chicago HD was impacting 540 in its deep fringe areas. And I can see the
Salem engineering office from where I sit.

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

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
In the US, some frequencies have been protected by international treaty.

All AM frequencies are / were protected by NARBA, and FM is protected within
specified distances of the US border by Canada and Mexico in a mutual
agreement; Bahamas protects the NARBA AM assignments, but not FM.
So, protection IS afforded to international lengths. And has been for
decades.

NARBA was implemented in March of 1942. Many nearby countries, starting with
Cuba, do not observe it any longer, and ones like Haiti, the Caymans, etc.
never did.

An example is Salem Communications WIND. They turned off their IBOC
because it was interfering with local listening in Milwaukee of their own
facility there. [/quote]

No, they turned it off because the fringe listening to the 540 facility was
supposedly impacted. Since preaching and teaching depends on donations, this
seemed to be a factor to them... besides the fact that Salem does not put HD
on it's AMs.

So there's no misunderstanding, let me be clear...Salem turned off their
IBOC because their IBOC sidebands from the Chicago station were interfering
with Milwaukee listeners' ability to enjoy Salem's Milwaukee station.

No, they turned it off because the company does not support HD and the
Chicago HD was impacting 540 in its deep fringe areas. And I can see the
Salem engineering office from where I sit.



I knew I could on you to provide the necessary pedantry to further
your agenda.

But, again, you're not listening.

So, have a nice sermon.

And, good evening.


p

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

Making my point...You're taking the argument to absurdity and then
claiming no real value. No ****.

That's what happens when you take your argument to it's (il)logical
conclusion!

IBOC, however, introduces interference. Not just for co and adjacent
channels, but for second and sometimes third adjacents. Interference for
stations in other markets. To the degree that a station may interfere
with local listening in another market.

Who decides what contours are for "local listening"? The FCC does.

They have not found this to be a problem.

An example is Salem Communications WIND. They turned off their IBOC
because it was interfering with local listening in Milwaukee of their own
facility there. So there's no misunderstanding, let me be clear...Salem
turned off their IBOC because their IBOC sidebands from the Chicago
station were interfering with Milwaukee listeners' ability to enjoy
Salem's Milwaukee station.

Again, what is local? 5 miles? 10? 25? 75? 175?

That's not a DX ing experience.

If it's outside of the city-grade contour, then it's DX...maybe not
skip...but still DX (distance)

At my own location, I have had trouble for the past two years listening
to WLS, a LOCAL station, because of IBOC sideband interference from an out
of market station.

No DXing, there, either.

What is your zip code....and what station interferes with WLS?

The industry says, tough ****. Too few listeners to worry about.

Just like the listeners that would ask stations to turn off their stereo
generators...becuuse it made it hard for them to pick up.

For an industry licensed to serve the public interest as a public
trustee, that's a direct abrogation of its responsibilities.

They serve the masses...not individuals.

BROADcasting....not individualcasting.

An arrogance that's not been earned.

Nor by listeners who believe "it's all about me".

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

Rrrado Rn wrote:
Making my point...You're taking the argument to absurdity and then
claiming no real value. No ****.

That's what happens when you take your argument to it's (il)logical
conclusion!



You have "Pancho Syndrome." You argue regardless of what's being said.

Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.

Stay within the real. That's where the discussion is. Or not. Your
choice.

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

Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.

He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the test....which
shows the shallowness of your argument.

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

On Jul 11, 7:27*am, Dave wrote:
wrote:

Except there are some stations that are programming for the baby
boomer generation. *So, why would they bother doing that if radio is a
dying medium??

What stations would those be?

There are at least 2 FM stations in the Chicago market that are
programmed for the baby boomer generation. I don't know about the am
side as I don't listen to am.

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

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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

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


"Telamon" wrote in message

om.
..

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 it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

I don't work in marketing.

Good thing as you can't sell anytime here.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
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.

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate. He has, repeatedly, sad that my facts, which are the industry
facts, about where listening takes place, is not true.

SNIP

Yes, what you claim to be facts are pretty sad. Good call for once.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.

He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the test....which
shows the shallowness of your argument.




Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
Rendering his point pointless.

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

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.

He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the test....which
shows the shallowness of your argument.

Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.

He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

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

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the test....which
shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.

He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.



No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.

And then arguing the absurdity.

He's not actually addressed the point. Only the absurdity of his
extrapolation, which by definition is not based in any reality.

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

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.

He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.

He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.

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

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.

He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.




Which, by definition, are not my points.

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

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.

He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.




Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

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

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.



Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.


So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.



Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.



Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

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

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.



Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.


Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!

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

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!



There are a LOT of them out there.

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

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.



Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.


So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.


Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.



Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.

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

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.






Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.

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

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!



Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD
to take off for all its promise.

And there are those, even members of the group--like Pancho
himself--who believe not only that SW is dead, but it's actively
standing in the way of more revolutionary technical developments.

So, guys like this are no surprise.

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

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context
to absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it
takes someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the
statement isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven
flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.






Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.


....and apparently you are!

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

Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some seminar
groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing up now that
it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the wrong side of the
public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.

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

A Brown wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context
to absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it
takes someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the
statement isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven
flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.
...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.





Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.


...and apparently you are!



LOL!

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

A Brown wrote:
Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some seminar
groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing up now that
it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the wrong side of the
public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.




Nor, apparently, does the public care about HD radio.

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

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.


Nor, apparently, does the public care about HD radio.

They don't care about the technology that brings them the content they want.

Only radio geeks care about the technology.

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

A Brown wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.
Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.


Nor, apparently, does the public care about HD radio.

They don't care about the technology that brings them the content they want.

Only radio geeks care about the technology.





Which is precisely the point. So far, only the technology has been
promoted. And the diverse 'out of the box' programming offerings have
not materialized as promised.

The public is not interested in the technology. And so far, HD has
only been about the technology.


Sales figures show no public interest. Both Radio Shaft and Best Buy
have pulled most of their HD offerings off the shelves.

There's no interest in the product.

Now, Radio being Radio, and iBiquity having have made the enormous
investment in HD hardware and licensing fees, it's not like HD will
simply go away. After all, AM stereo had a more publicly interested pre
launch. But, as discussed here, delays due to legal wrangling and FCC's
mishandling of the technology and implementation allowed public interest
to wane before a practical launch. Even so, it took more than 20 years
for AM Stereo to die. With some 100 or so stations still using their
C-Quam encoders, despite the fact that there hasn't been a new AM Stereo
receiver built in the last 5 years and AM Stereo came off the standard
equipment list of GM And Chrysler almost a decade ago.

There is no reason to believe Radio will be any quicker to give up HD.

But, right now, as it stands, HD is a solution in search of a problem.

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

On Jul 14, 3:19*pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
* Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
* Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
* No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.

* Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.
* *So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

* *Nice spider hole you live in.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

* *Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

* *But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

* *Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

* *Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!

* *Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

* *Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD
to take off for all its promise.

-*And there are those, even members of the group--like
- Pancho himself--who believe not only that SW is dead,
- but it's actively standing in the way of more revolutionary
- technical developments.
-
- * *So, guys like this are no surprise.

Revolutionary Technical Developments . . .
The Sound of Silence on the AM Radio Band as the
last AM Radio Broadcaster goes off the Air. ~ RHF

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

On Jul 14, 4:06*pm, "A Brown" wrote:
* Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some seminar
groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing up now that
it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the wrong side of the
public's interest.

* Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

- The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.

"Geeks" is more of an 'Internetish' slang term and
the Internet came long after Radio as a Hobby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek

Back in the Days of Radio being a 'cool' Hobby
the slang term would have been "Nerd"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

spastically yours ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic

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

RHF wrote:

"Geeks" is more of an 'Internetish' slang term and
the Internet came long after Radio as a Hobby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek

Back in the Days of Radio being a 'cool' Hobby
the slang term would have been "Nerd"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

Nerd? 'Squares' is more like it. With pocket protectors...and six inch
Sun-Hemmi bamboo slide rules.



mike

--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail or Google Groups address.

http://improve-usenet.org/