"SMS" wrote in message
...
John Higdon wrote:
In article
,
RHF wrote:

HD-2 FM Radio Channels and a 2nd Income Stream
for FM Radio Stations.

Name a station making a dime off the HD-2 channel. Just name one. HD
Radio has been around for seven years. Seven years! Where's the
revolution?

As I said, the public has spoken.

Not really. Few consumers were willing to pay extra for the HD equipment
but now HD radio is becoming more and more common as a standard feature on
factory audio systems and even on low-end after-market systems. Once the
installed base reaches critical mass then more stations will add HD.

I just got a replacement receiver for my SUV. It has HD built in (as well
as iPod controls and Bluetooth built in) and there was no version without
HD available, and was very inexpensive. There are still many receivers
where HD is "optional" but more and more it's just being thrown in as a
standard feature because the added cost is trivial (and because the
equipment manufacturers are giving up on their original model of requiring
a relatively expensive add-on kit because almost no one bought it because
there was so little content available).


Ford is SUPPOSED to be an iBiquity partner. Our brand new 2009 Ford Flex has
optional Sirius, no HD. And again, this is a brand new car.

In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

Ford is SUPPOSED to be an iBiquity partner. Our brand new 2009 Ford Flex has
optional Sirius, no HD. And again, this is a brand new car.

In the past year, I have purchased two new Fords, neither of which came
with an "HD Radio". Both have Sirius, CD changer, and "Sync". I let the
Sirius lapse in both (who cares?), and HD Radio would never be listened
to, since there isn't a single station I listen to that is doing.

Maybe Ford woke up.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On Oct 8, 7:23�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:33�am, John Higdon wrote:





In article ,
�"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

HD is just another option/choice.

Choices are a good thing.

Not when they cause interference on the band and harm reception on other
stations.

I suggest you get up to speed on some of the tests that have been done
and are currently in progress.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

FM HD-Radio and the HD-2 Channels are
about Expanding the FM Radio Business
and the minor technical issues are simply
the cost of doing more business. ~ RHF
�.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, it's about jamming and putting the smaller broadcasters out of
business.

On Oct 9, 1:41�am, "Jo Jo Gunn" wrote:
"John Higdon" wrote in message

...

In article
,
"~ RHF" wrote:

FM HD-Radio and the HD-2 Channels are
about Expanding the FM Radio Business
and the minor technical issues are simply
the cost of doing more business.

The broadcasters being interfered with don't consider such interference
a "minor technical issue".

Can you state a broadcaster that is being interfered with in their protected
contours?

Again, if this is so prevailent, why isn't there a pile of listeners
complaints at the FCC?

Bob Savage WYSL for one.

On Oct 9, 4:28�pm, "Jo Jo Gunn" wrote:
"~ RHF" wrote in message

...
On Oct 7, 9:59 pm, "~ RHF" wrote:



On Oct 7, 9:45 pm, John Higdon wrote: In article
,
"~ RHF" wrote:

As i have said before FM HD-2 Radio Broadcasts
are the only clear business reason for HD Radio
because it takes the same local FM Radio
'Franchise' {Radio License} and creates a
Second Income Stream from it at a low cost
multiple. � � � $ $ $ ~ RHF
.

- Where is the "income" if there are no spots? What advertiser would
waste
- a dime on the pathetically low penetration of all HD-2 combined?
-
- --
- John Higdon
- +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
- AT&T-Free At Last

- NFL Team Branded HD-2 is a 24/7 InfoMercial
- for every NFL Team in it's 'Local' Market Media
- Area - b r i l l i a n t ! ~ RHF
- .

Local Advertisers who wish to be 'identified'
with the Team and reach the Team's Fans
will be lining-up to support the Team Channel.
more money + More Money + MORE MONEY !


There are people like Higdon that live in the past and can't see the new
models of making money and reaching the target.

�.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"We Might Want to Keep an Eye on ION"

"If the commission embraces the notion that secondary digital streams
really do constitute separate licenses that can be separately
assigned, one could easily argue that radio stations that have opted
to transmit digital streams (i.e., 'HD Radio') should also be
permitted to sell those streams as separately licensed stations... For
one, the number of radio stations could theoretically double or triple
overnight. This might not have the cataclysmic effect of, say, the
injection of nearly 700 new FM allotments through the notorious Docket
No. 80-90 a quarter century ago, but you never know. At a minimum, if
the law of supply and demand were to hold true, the overnight doubling/
tripling of stations would likely depress each station's value. And
such a rapid increase in the number of stations would logically lead
to a similarly rapid increase in competition for audiences and
revenues. Are we all ready for that?"

http://www.rwonline.com/article.aspx...6922&mnu_id=14

You mean like this? iBiquity's business-model is based on replacing/
destroying community radio stations by replacing their signals with
the HDs/HD3 signals of lthe larger broadcasters who are all iBiquity
investors. I alerted Paragon Media Strategies to this, and they wanted
to know who I was - they are huge iBiquity shills. My blog has alerted
most of the Government agencies, including the DOJ, Congress, the FCC,
US Courts, and many others. You have no clue whom you are dealing
with, here.

On Oct 13, 1:35�am, "Jo Jo Gunn" wrote:
Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. �It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour.

No, the FCC has made a judgement on how far and how long a stations signal
would be protected.

That's the established standard. �The days of clear-channels being protected
nationwide are over.

Plus, to the average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise & they
think it's weak signal. �Nobody thinks to complain about interference.
They just move on to something else.

The large broadcast companies do engineering research and audience research.
There has been no widespread complaints (if any at all), and there is no
indication that people "move onto something else".

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be, but
all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed.

THe formats on HD are quiite similar to what was on FM in the early to mid
60's. �Music intensive, non-commercial, some simulcasting to improve
coverage, and mostly automated.

The audio quality is nothing to write home about either.

The public has had no complaints about HD audio quality. �And like the
qualities of MP3's, which is "nothing to write home about" either, it's
"good enough" and the public isn't complaining.

But HD radio has caused us to adapt. �My wife & I listen to web radio more
than terrestrial radio now, since there are fewer choices on the dial.

I'd be interested in knowing where you are, and what station(s) you can no
longer listen too due to HD radio.

"Dave Barnett" wrote in message

...



Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. �It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour. �Plus, to the
average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise & they think it's
weak signal. �Nobody thinks to complain about interference. �They just
move on to something else.

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be, but
all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed. �The audio quality is nothing to write home
about either. �But HD radio has caused us to adapt. �My wife & I listen to
web radio more than terrestrial radio now, since there are fewer choices
on the dial.

Dave B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you work for iBiquity, the NAB, or the HD Radio Alliance? You sound
just as foolish as Bob "The Scammer Booble" Struble. Struble is
nothing but a glorified con-artist.

On Oct 13, 1:35�am, "Jo Jo Gunn" wrote:
Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. �It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour.

No, the FCC has made a judgement on how far and how long a stations signal
would be protected.

That's the established standard. �The days of clear-channels being protected
nationwide are over.

Plus, to the average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise & they
think it's weak signal. �Nobody thinks to complain about interference.
They just move on to something else.

The large broadcast companies do engineering research and audience research.
There has been no widespread complaints (if any at all), and there is no
indication that people "move onto something else".

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be, but
all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed.

THe formats on HD are quiite similar to what was on FM in the early to mid
60's. �Music intensive, non-commercial, some simulcasting to improve
coverage, and mostly automated.

The audio quality is nothing to write home about either.

The public has had no complaints about HD audio quality. �And like the
qualities of MP3's, which is "nothing to write home about" either, it's
"good enough" and the public isn't complaining.

But HD radio has caused us to adapt. �My wife & I listen to web radio more
than terrestrial radio now, since there are fewer choices on the dial.

I'd be interested in knowing where you are, and what station(s) you can no
longer listen too due to HD radio.

"Dave Barnett" wrote in message

...



Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. �It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour. �Plus, to the
average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise & they think it's
weak signal. �Nobody thinks to complain about interference. �They just
move on to something else.

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be, but
all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed. �The audio quality is nothing to write home
about either. �But HD radio has caused us to adapt. �My wife & I listen to
web radio more than terrestrial radio now, since there are fewer choices
on the dial.

Dave B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

WOR clobbers WLW, WLW clobbers WOR, WBZ clobbers WHO, WCBS clobbers
WWL, WBBM clobbers WABC, etc...

On Oct 13, 3:50�pm, SMS wrote:
John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
�dave wrote:

Stereo destroys FM coverage. �Those engineers were right.

IBOC destroys coverage (of other stations) even more.

People don't complain as much as they just find other things to listen
to. �Digital sidebands increase analog channel noise. �That is a fact.
Now if they were to quit trying to do stereo in the analog channel, that
might work.

Analog is still the bread and butter of all stations. Crippling it for
the sake of promoting iBiquity's financial health is done at every
station's peril.

iBiquity just wants to make its system the digital radio standard so the
company has value when they sell it. As analog radio goes the way of
analog television they want to be like Qualcomm is with 3G. They aren't
making any money now.

There are revenue opportunities in HD for the broadcasters that go
beyond simple advertising spots. Stations that don't take advantage of
these opportunities aren't too bright.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are virtually no radios in listeners' hands, after five years -
no radios, no listeners, no revenue. IBOC is a malignant tumor eating
away at stations' revenues.

On Oct 13, 4:54�pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
SMS wrote:
the HD is standard on most new mobile
audio systems,

When I hear some saying HD is dead and no one is buying it,
why would it be so ubiquitous in new gear?

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

It's not even included:

"HD Radio: Still low in priority at stores"

"I visited a Best Buy the other day, and while I was there I stopped
in the auto sound department. He took me to the display wall and
showed me the one unit that had HD Radio built in. It was a model from
JVC. He said that others were HD Radio ready, but they all required an
expensive interface to add HD Radio."

http://tinyurl.com/chb3rg

Almost all are just HD Radio Ready.

On Oct 13, 6:37�pm, dave wrote:
Bob Dobbs wrote:
SMS wrote:
the HD is standard on most new mobile
audio systems,

When I hear some saying HD is dead and no one is buying it,
why would it be so ubiquitous in new gear?

Isn't Ford an ibiquity partner? �Car radios are a dying phenomenon.