On Oct 12, 4:24�pm, Telamon
wrote:
Create a new band that is high enough in frequency that nigh time skip
is not an issue and daytime skip does not happen very often.

This new band can have enough channel bandwidth for high quality sound
and hight quality of service. The encoding/decoding start to finish
should employ open standards uncontrolled by special interests. The
public is not going to have this Ibiquity crap shoved down their throat.

The currently employed digital radio old technology RF modulation scheme
should not be used. It does not work well for vehicles in motion.

The new band might also consider using several lower power transmitters
instead one high powered transmitter for a station. This together with
low audio compression rates will reduce receiver DSP workload helping to
make portables a reality.

Using stable open standards will remove the reluctance of semiconductor
manufactures committing to making chips that operate on the new band.

Another aspect of the new radios is that they should be software
upgradable by the consumer like most computer appliances.

Larger radios and units in car dashboards should have screens for
traffic conditions, weather, album covers and the like.

This new service could be a mix of free commercial sponsored and
subscription services catering to what an individual wants.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081010/tc_nm/us_fcc_airwaves_1

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Could EXB Band Be Your New Home?"

"The group says most AMs should move to the new band, where they would
operate as FMs on channels of 100 kHz width, enjoy more parity with
current FM stations in terms of audio fidelity and gain the ability to
go all-digital. AMs could transition to 100 channels and operate in
the all-digital mode. In this way, AMs 'can solve the current digital
problems they are experiencing, especially at night', the group
states. But while most would move, the existing band could, under
their plan, also remain populated with clear-channel stations that
would enjoy more elbow room. Under the proposal, filed with the FCC in
its diversity proceeding (Docket 07-294), the old AM band would be 're-
packed.'"

http://radioworld.com/pages/s.0052/t.15575.html

"Radio: This Old Frequency"

"Brilliant. Create a new frequency for what already exists on AM and
to the left of the FM dial. Render every existing AM radio extinct. I
can visualize hundreds of thousands of consumers rushing out to buy
those 'new frequency' radios. Did I already mention HD Radio and how
well those sold?"

http://tinyurl.com/3vq6u9

It's called hijacking our airways - good-luck selling these new radios.

In article
,
KaitoWRX911 wrote:

On Oct 12, 4:24?pm, Telamon
wrote:
Create a new band that is high enough in frequency that nigh time skip
is not an issue and daytime skip does not happen very often.

This new band can have enough channel bandwidth for high quality sound
and hight quality of service. The encoding/decoding start to finish
should employ open standards uncontrolled by special interests. The
public is not going to have this Ibiquity crap shoved down their throat.

The currently employed digital radio old technology RF modulation scheme
should not be used. It does not work well for vehicles in motion.

The new band might also consider using several lower power transmitters
instead one high powered transmitter for a station. This together with
low audio compression rates will reduce receiver DSP workload helping to
make portables a reality.

Using stable open standards will remove the reluctance of semiconductor
manufactures committing to making chips that operate on the new band.

Another aspect of the new radios is that they should be software
upgradable by the consumer like most computer appliances.

Larger radios and units in car dashboards should have screens for
traffic conditions, weather, album covers and the like.

This new service could be a mix of free commercial sponsored and
subscription services catering to what an individual wants.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081010/tc_nm/us_fcc_airwaves_1


"Could EXB Band Be Your New Home?"

"The group says most AMs should move to the new band, where they would
operate as FMs on channels of 100 kHz width, enjoy more parity with
current FM stations in terms of audio fidelity and gain the ability to
go all-digital. AMs could transition to 100 channels and operate in
the all-digital mode. In this way, AMs 'can solve the current digital
problems they are experiencing, especially at night', the group
states. But while most would move, the existing band could, under
their plan, also remain populated with clear-channel stations that
would enjoy more elbow room. Under the proposal, filed with the FCC in
its diversity proceeding (Docket 07-294), the old AM band would be 're-
packed.'"

http://radioworld.com/pages/s.0052/t.15575.html

"Radio: This Old Frequency"

"Brilliant. Create a new frequency for what already exists on AM and
to the left of the FM dial. Render every existing AM radio extinct. I
can visualize hundreds of thousands of consumers rushing out to buy
those 'new frequency' radios. Did I already mention HD Radio and how
well those sold?"

http://tinyurl.com/3vq6u9

It's called hijacking our airways - good-luck selling these new radios.

The new band would offer different content from AM and FM. The content
would be local or metro area specific. This would be in sync with the
service area coverage, which is local. They would not carry syndicated
programming. They would carry free commercial supported and for pay
services.

As written above the AM band would become less congested and the
stations can then be more effective as regional stations especially at
night.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The new band would offer different content from AM and FM. The content
would be local or metro area specific. This would be in sync with the
service area coverage, which is local. They would not carry syndicated
programming. They would carry free commercial supported and for pay
services.

Who is this "different content" going to be aimed at? Virtually no one
under 25 listens regularly to AM radio, and very few listen to FM.
Everyone has the music/programs/whatever they want on their MP3 players and
cell phones. Radio just isn't even on the radar for these people.

That leaves the existing, aging AM/FM audience. So you end up splitting
that audience, or that audience does not embrace the new
content/frequency/radios. The former will kill both, the latter will just
kill the new medium.

If this was done 10 years ago, it MIGHT have made a difference. I just
think it's too late to save AM radio, and FM is not far behind. As the
quote goes, "Listening to radio is like listening to someone else's Ipod,
with commercials". It is simply irrelevant to the current generation.

Of course, it's entirely possible that as these kids get older and get
interested in other things besides the latest Pop Tarts and Boy Bands (like
sports/politics/news/talk), they may start listening. Or they may just
download the shows and listen commercial free on their MP3 players and cell
phones.

In article ,
"Dan" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The new band would offer different content from AM and FM. The content
would be local or metro area specific. This would be in sync with the
service area coverage, which is local. They would not carry syndicated
programming. They would carry free commercial supported and for pay
services.

Who is this "different content" going to be aimed at?

Less then 9 month old fetuses. None has marketed to them yet.

Virtually no one under 25 listens regularly to AM radio, and very few
listen to FM. Everyone has the music/programs/whatever they want on
their MP3 players and cell phones. Radio just isn't even on the
radar for these people.

This would not be "AM radio". Not everyone listens to players they
program all the time. How else are people to find new music? How about
being surprised? I have plenty of CD's and MP3 recordings and I still
listen to the radio.

That leaves the existing, aging AM/FM audience. So you end up
splitting that audience, or that audience does not embrace the new
content/frequency/radios. The former will kill both, the latter
will just kill the new medium.

Different content creates a different audience. This is no a zero sum
game.

If this was done 10 years ago, it MIGHT have made a difference. I just
think it's too late to save AM radio, and FM is not far behind. As the
quote goes, "Listening to radio is like listening to someone else's Ipod,
with commercials". It is simply irrelevant to the current generation.

It would make a difference today and it is not to late for AM. I don't
think FM would remain viable though. FM as it is programed today is
mostly dead.

Of course, it's entirely possible that as these kids get older and get
interested in other things besides the latest Pop Tarts and Boy Bands (like
sports/politics/news/talk), they may start listening. Or they may just
download the shows and listen commercial free on their MP3 players and cell
phones.

I don't see why tastes would have to change for it to work. Like I said
the new band would be a collection of free radio and subscription. The
new band would broadcast up to the moment content news, traffic,
weather, just released music. This is where the short attention mode
material would be broadcast.

The new band will offer different up to the moment localized content.
The existing AM will cater more toward regional audiences with
syndicated programs of general interest, long interviews, discussions,
news magazines and the like. This where the long attention mode material
would be broadcast.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California