"A Browne" wrote in message
news
Yes a small percentage of markets like Boston have stepped out of
their comfort zone to introduce formats, like the Irish Channel. Will
the Irish Channel, playing 24/7 Irish hits deliver ratings?

Who says it has to be a ratings hit? It doesn't. It's an ancillary
service that offers added value and choices. (Like a stations web page)

All those so-called ancillary feeds on the HD2 and HD3 channels (which are
poor quality at best) will eventually HAVE to garner ratings and pay their
own way. The royalty boards are requiring radio stations to pay much higher
royalties and per-song play fees for all their digital formats (regardless
of whether anyone is even listening!!)

All that stuff and more is available online anyway, and nobody has to buy an
expensive radio to listen to whatever they want. Out of all the folks I know
personally, in RL, not online, nobody has any interest whatsoever in digital
radio, and very little even in regular radio that you can get on a 1 dollar
garage sale pocket radio.

On Oct 1, 10:16 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:

All those so-called ancillary feeds on the HD2 and HD3 channels (which are
poor quality at best) will eventually HAVE to garner ratings and pay their
own way. The royalty boards are requiring radio stations to pay much higher
royalties and per-song play fees for all their digital formats (regardless
of whether anyone is even listening!!)

Doesn't digital tv have the same problem - all those sub-channels have
to pay their own way? Yet here in Central California, we already have
one station, digital channel 44, broadcasting FIVE programs at one
time, 24/7.

The younger generation might not care about radio, but with all the
baby boomers now coming up for retirement, markets will change. I,
for one, don't give a hoot about ipods or internet radio or satellite
radio. I like my free over-the-air radio programming just fine.
Although I don't need digital radio, I welcome new technology. It
gives me more choices. As far as interference on analog radio, tv did
the same thing to me when they allowed all those low-powered
transmitters that caused me to lose many distant tv signals. And
digital tv, with it benefits, will also cause me to lose some of the
stations I now get in analog because of their distance from me. Where
I can watch a marginal signal on analog, the signal must be stronger
to get it on digital. That's technology.

On Oct 2, 9:39*am, wrote:
On Oct 1, 10:16 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:

All those so-called ancillary feeds on the HD2 and HD3 channels (which are
poor quality at best) will eventually HAVE to garner ratings and pay their
own way. The royalty boards are requiring radio stations to pay much higher
royalties and per-song play fees for all their digital formats (regardless
of whether anyone is even listening!!)

Doesn't digital tv have the same problem - all those sub-channels have
to pay their own way? *Yet here in Central California, we already have
one station, digital channel 44, broadcasting FIVE programs at one
time, 24/7.

The younger generation might not care about radio, but with all the
baby boomers now coming up for retirement, markets will change. *I,
for one, don't give a hoot about ipods or internet radio or satellite
radio. *I like my free over-the-air radio programming just fine.
Although I don't need digital radio, I welcome new technology. *It
gives me more choices. *As far as interference on analog radio, tv did
the same thing to me when they allowed all those low-powered
transmitters that caused me to lose many distant tv signals. *And
digital tv, with it benefits, will also cause me to lose some of the
stations I now get in analog because of their distance from me. *Where
I can watch a marginal signal on analog, the signal must be stronger
to get it on digital. *That's technology.

(OT) : Multi-Channel Over-the-Air HDTV Can Be Great for PBS Viewers

SF BAY AREA's KQED {Analog Channel 9} DTV Channels :

* KQED's Main HDTV Channel Digital 9.1
All high-definition and widescreen programs
http://www.kqed.org/tv/schedules/hd.jsp

* KQED's "Life" - Digital 54.3
Arts, food, how-to, gardening, travel
http://www.kqed.org/tv/schedules/life.jsp

* KQED's "World" - Digital 9.3
History, world events, news, science, nature
http://www.kqed.org/tv/schedules/world.jsp

* KQED's - "V-me" Digital 54.5
24-hour national Spanish-language network
http://www.kqed.org/tv/schedules/vme.jsp

* KQED's "Kids" Digital 54.4
Quality children's programming parents love too
http://www.kqed.org/tv/schedules/kids.jsp

* KQED's - KTEH TV Digital 9.2
from San Jose in Silicon Valley
http://www.kteh.org/tv/

On Oct 2, 4:04�pm, wrote:
The NEW HD Radio^3 is going to be 5.1 channel surround sound.

You heard it here first!

Right - good-luck picking up the elusive digital signals!

wrote in message
...
On Oct 1, 10:16 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:

All those so-called ancillary feeds on the HD2 and HD3 channels (which
are
poor quality at best) will eventually HAVE to garner ratings and pay
their
own way. The royalty boards are requiring radio stations to pay much
higher
royalties and per-song play fees for all their digital formats
(regardless
of whether anyone is even listening!!)

Doesn't digital tv have the same problem - all those sub-channels have
to pay their own way? Yet here in Central California, we already have
one station, digital channel 44, broadcasting FIVE programs at one
time, 24/7.

The younger generation might not care about radio, but with all the
baby boomers now coming up for retirement, markets will change. I,
for one, don't give a hoot about ipods or internet radio or satellite
radio. I like my free over-the-air radio programming just fine.
Although I don't need digital radio, I welcome new technology. It
gives me more choices. As far as interference on analog radio, tv did
the same thing to me when they allowed all those low-powered
transmitters that caused me to lose many distant tv signals. And
digital tv, with it benefits, will also cause me to lose some of the
stations I now get in analog because of their distance from me. Where
I can watch a marginal signal on analog, the signal must be stronger
to get it on digital. That's technology.

You have never read Eduardo's speil, have you? Us Boomers don't count.
Nobody markets to us.

Internet radio law music to some ears.
www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31289
cuhulin

wrote:
The NEW HD Radio^3 is going to be 5.1 channel surround sound.

You heard it here first!

Neural Networks and Fraunhofer have had compatible 5.1 protocols for
many years.

Yes a small percentage of markets like Boston have stepped out of
their comfort zone to introduce formats, like the Irish Channel. Will
the Irish Channel, playing 24/7 Irish hits deliver ratings?

Who says it has to be a ratings hit? It doesn't. It's an ancillary
service that offers added value and choices. (Like a stations web page)

All those so-called ancillary feeds on the HD2 and HD3 channels (which are
poor quality at best) will eventually HAVE to garner ratings and pay their
own way.

1.) It's relatively inexpensive to operate.

2.) There are nplenty of stations on the air with no ratings that make
money.

All that stuff and more is available online anyway, and nobody has to buy
an expensive radio to listen to whatever they want.

Sure, I'll just bring my computer on the next camping trip. I'll bring it
up on a ladder while I'm painting my house.

I'll bring the computer into the shower with me.

BTW...Is $79 an "expensive radio"?

Out of all the folks I know personally, in RL, not online, nobody has any
interest whatsoever in digital radio

As someone pointed out before...I dont recall anyone rushing out to by FM's
when that was new either.