IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2Channels
 

On Oct 16, 1:52�pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 10/16/09 12:08 , SMS wrote:

Dave Barnett wrote:
Is there some big up-front payment you have
to make to iBiquity, because the equipment certainly doesn't cost
anything close to $100K?

� �Yeah, actually, it does. The digital system is virtually a
separate system, requiring separate transmitters and towers.

� �Followed by the ongoing licensing fee to iBiquity for the right
to use the encoding algorithms, which are proprietary.

"I-Bust or H-Doomed"

"In these trying times, it should be pointed out that in most cases
adding IBOC dramatically increases electric bills. I did three build-
outs in Indianapolis and it almost doubled the power bills for the
transmitter sites. Multiply this across the board and it is untold
thousands of dollars a day going up in heat. If IBOC carriers were
turned off, a lot of jobs could be saved with that money."

http://www.radiodaily.net/article.asp?id=1402439

Don't forget the costs of running this junk technology.

IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2 Channels
 

In article ,
SMS wrote:

No one ever said that you aren't allowed to sell advertising on the HD-X
channels. Granted, until the installed base of HD receivers is much
greater it will be a hard sell.

Once the commercials start, then it is just another commercial-laden
ho-hum competitor in a sea of commercial programs. Most of the stations
that are adopting IBOC are having one helluva time getting listeners on
their main channel. Why will they do better attracting listeners to a
grungy HD-X channel? And if they can, why don't they put that killer
program on their main channel and make some real money?

It depends on how much of those costs are real. You don't necessarily
need any studio upgrades if you're doing "jukebox in a closet." You've
got to look at the long term and the big picture. At least ensure that
new equipment that's purchased is "HD ready" so when HD reaches critical
mass in a few years the time and money to bring it up will be minimal.

First, we don't do jukebox in a closet formats at our stations. That
isn't what we do. We serve listeners. We do need to have real
program-production facilities. Second, I don't personally believe that
"long term" and iBiquity are compatible concepts. Third, going HD Radio
means trashing audio quality both in the analog channel and in the
multitude of HD-X channels. That's a "no sale" to us and at least a hard
sell to most quality-conscious broadcasters. Fourth, the current crop of
HD equipment is egregiously unreliable, and there is no expectation that
the condition will improve in the foreseeable future. Don't take my
word...ask any radio engineer who is responsible for a cluster of
stations employing iBiquity's scheme. I personally know one engineer who
got national attention for tossing all of the IBOC from his stations, AM
and FM.

[regarding SAP]

It could have worked if done properly.

Gee, I've never hear that before in my career!

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

IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2Channels
 

On Oct 16, 2:12*pm, John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
*"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

in the scheme of things...hd radio is very inexpensive

Obviously, you have never done an HD conversion. It amounts to basically
building a new transmitter plant from scratch. And that's just the
transmitter end. Oh, and don't forget the ongoing iBiquity fees based
upon the station's gross revenues, with additional royalties on each
HD-X channel.

most stations hav echosen not to air any commericals...so as to be able to
"sell it" to the public as commercial free.

Where does the revenue come from when it is "commercial free"?

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

"Upping HD Radio signal strengths"

"The short math given what we know today is that it will cost roughly
double on the transmission end to increase HD Radio FM power tenfold.
There are likely to be additional costs for cooling and air handling
as well, in order to dissipate the excess energy required to get out
another 10 dB in HD Radio signal. And, for some higher powered
stations, existing HD Radio configurations may not be able to handle
the power load, which could add to the cost and complexity of
increasing HD Radio beyond its current power level... Also worth
considering is existing transmitter combiner technology and whether or
not it can support the added demands of increasing HD Radio broadcasts
another 10 dB. If not, then it’s very likely that stations at the
higher power levels will need to factor in a new antenna system that
can support HD Radio, rather than piggyback onto their existing FM
antenna system. At the higher powers, especially, an immediate 10 dB
increase in HD Radio signal may be cost prohibitive... This will
typically mean the addition of another similarly rated transmitter
(using a combining technique) or the purchase of a new transmitter of
roughly twice today’s power level."

http://tinyurl.com/cfbrtq

Yup, take a look at the costs for the FM-HD power increase - with the
major radio groups facing bankruptcy most won't be able to do it.

IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2 Channels
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Reality paints a much different picture than the public perceives.

Your reality isn't reality at all.

First, there is only a 100 share in any market. New listeners are not
printed up like $100 bills in Washington. They have to be taken from
some pre-existing program source.

Nope. According to the NAB chairman, Apple will be adding an HD FM tuner
to an upcoming iPod Nano. Microsoft has already added it to the Zune
(though that may only bring in one or two new listeners!). The
additional market is not coming just from listeners that would otherwise
be listening to analog FM on their car radios. It's coming from
listeners that would otherwise be listening to their iPod, CDs, or
digital media (in the car or not in the car) because there's nothing on
analog AM or FM that they want to listen to. HD radio is much more
likely to be stealing customers from satellite radio than from analog FM.

Any new programming outlet steals it's
listeners from the existing 100 share. So, literally, stations are
hoping to steal their own listeners to put them on the HD streams.

Not true at all.

What's that, you say? They stay in the family? Really? Well, while a
listener shift from the baseband channel to the HD2 stream DOES keep
that listener within the company, it takes that listener from the
programs of high advertising rates, and puts them on the programs of LOW
advertising rates.

Versus putting them on the programs of another station.

So, what HD is really doing is robbing the analog channels of it's
revenues while putting the ratings points on HD streams that can't begin
to replace the lost revenue from the baseband.

You're not looking at the big picture.

How the hell the bean counters at these stations let that go is beyond
me.

It's because they have more information than you have.

IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2 Channels
 

On 10/16/09 16:05 , SMS wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Reality paints a much different picture than the public perceives.

Your reality isn't reality at all.

First, there is only a 100 share in any market. New listeners are not
printed up like $100 bills in Washington. They have to be taken from
some pre-existing program source.



So there's going to be more than 100 share in a market? Interesting.

That's really going to **** off Arbitron.


Then, again, what doesn't.

IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2 Channels
 

In article ,
SMS wrote:

D. Peter Maus wrote:

First, there is only a 100 share in any market. New listeners are not
printed up like $100 bills in Washington. They have to be taken from
some pre-existing program source.

It's coming from
listeners that would otherwise be listening to their iPod, CDs, or
digital media (in the car or not in the car) because there's nothing on
analog AM or FM that they want to listen to. HD radio is much more
likely to be stealing customers from satellite radio than from analog FM.

If "killer programming" is going to be available on HD, why not put it
on analog FM now? Stations are languishing trying to gain market share
because no one wants to listen to them. Why? Because they're not doing
anything worth listening to. You don't need HD to put decent programming
on the air!

Any new programming outlet steals it's
listeners from the existing 100 share. So, literally, stations are
hoping to steal their own listeners to put them on the HD streams.

Not true at all.

Actually, most veterans of this industry agree that is the case.

So, what HD is really doing is robbing the analog channels of it's
revenues while putting the ratings points on HD streams that can't begin
to replace the lost revenue from the baseband.

You're not looking at the big picture.

I hate to tell you this, but that IS the big picture. Boiled down to
residue, what we have here is some looney theory that broadcasters who
can't lure listeners to a single channel will be able to lure listeners
to many channels. What magic programming is going to cause this to
happen? If such magical programming exists, why aren't they using it NOW?

How the hell the bean counters at these stations let that go is beyond
me.

It's because they have more information than you have.

No, actually it is because too many stations are more governed by
emotion rather than sound business sense. I give the recent failure of
KGNY as a prime example.

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

IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2Channels
 

On Oct 16, 3:07*pm, John Higdon wrote:
In article ,

*dave wrote:
There's no need for a separate tower. *Depending on the linearity and
headroom of the transmitter plant you could conceivably get by with just
a new exciter and new monitor.

That's a misconception. All pre-IBOC analog transmitters are non-linear
by design for efficiency reasons. They cannot pass an IBOC digital
signal, which consists of multiple carriers. A specially-designed linear
transmitter must be used.

I can see from reading these threads that many people are under the
impression that IBOC is nothing more than some sort of subcarrier
superimposed on the main channel. Unless the station is using a combo
analog/IBOC transmitter, the outputs of both analog and IBOC transmitter
must be combined by a device that discards 90% of the IBOC signal and
10% of the analog signal. All of that stuff costs money, as does the
increased air conditioning requirement, and power (particularly that
which is burned off as heat). In many installations (and I've seen
dozens...I wonder how many of our pontificators have even seen one), the
IBOC and analog transmitter sit side by side...and they're about the
same physical size.

My point is, adding IBOC to a station is far more complex and costly
than putting some 4-unit device in the rack and hooking it up. A "new
exciter" doesn't do it.

Oh, and don't forget the studio, the new digital STL, monitoring
equipment, and the fact that HD equipment currently in the field is
notoriously unreliable. Fortunately, most stations don't care that much
because their three HD listeners don't phone in to complain.

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

"Road-Testing the FMeXtra"

"In summary, FMeXtra is an economical and quick way for an FM station
to add additional programming channels and to begin digital
broadcasting. The system, which caught the attention of many
attendees, requires the purchase of an $8,900 encoder that can be
installed in less than an hour’s time, on average. There are no
licensing fees to use the FMeXtra system."

http://www.rwonline.com/article/276

"FMeXtra: Another On-Channel Solution"

"Eventually DRE asked the NRSC to reactivate the DAB subcommittee.
Early on, we saw that IBOC was going nowhere as long as there were
multiple proponents, and even in the best estimates, it would be many
years before there would be any return on investment. So we decided to
license our patent portfolio for use in IBOC to USA Digital Radio,
which eventually merged with Lucent’s IBOC group to form Ibiquity. We
are an Ibiquity shareholder... There is no significant difference in
spectrum occupancy between the 'extended hybrid' mode of IBOC today
and these earlier systems, which were deemed by the NRSC and others to
be incompatible with the host analog FM signal."

http://www.bext.com/RW/RWFMeXtraDec05.pdf

Makes one wonder, why FMeXtra was never used, but there seems to be
some illegal, anti-competitive issues with the iBiquity/DRE/Vucast
relationships.

IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2Channels
 

On Oct 16, 3:22�pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 10/16/09 14:07 , John Higdon wrote:

Oh, and don't forget the studio, the new digital STL, monitoring
equipment, and the fact that HD equipment currently in the field is
notoriously unreliable. Fortunately, most stations don't care that much
because their three HD listeners don't phone in to complain.

� �You know what's really interesting about that whole HD Listener
thing,...is that people see this as an opportunity for a station to
garner new revenues by attracting new listeners.

� �Reality paints a much different picture than the public perceives.

� �First, there is only a 100 share in any market. New listeners are
not printed up like $100 bills in Washington. They have to be taken
from some pre-existing program source. Any new programming outlet
steals it's listeners from the existing 100 share. So, literally,
stations are hoping to steal their own listeners to put them on the
HD streams.

� �What's that, you say? They stay in the family? Really? Well,
while a listener shift from the baseband channel to the HD2 stream
DOES keep that listener within the company, it takes that listener
from the programs of high advertising rates, and puts them on the
programs of LOW advertising rates. Enough listeners make that shift,
and the baseband channel's advertising rates fall. Meanwhile the HD
stream's rates are abysmally low mostly because there is virtually
no listenership. Most advertising on HD at the moment is value added
to the baseband's sales packages. That which isn't, is low rated.
And the advertising revenues per spot are dramatically less than the
revenues per spot on the baseband.

� �So, what HD is really doing is robbing the analog channels of
it's revenues while putting the ratings points on HD streams that
can't begin to replace the lost revenue from the baseband.

� �How the hell the bean counters at these stations let that go is
beyond me. Hell, when I was at CBS, we reused the toner in the copy
machine, for cryin' out loud. Drop $100,000 + on HD and then let it
siphon off the ad rates?

� �C'mon.

Exactly, as there is something called ION!

IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2Channels
 

On Oct 16, 5:05*pm, SMS wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
* Reality paints a much different picture than the public perceives.

Your reality isn't reality at all.

* First, there is only a 100 share in any market. New listeners are not
printed up like $100 bills in Washington. They have to be taken from
some pre-existing program source.

Nope. According to the NAB chairman, Apple will be adding an HD FM tuner
to an upcoming iPod Nano. Microsoft has already added it to the Zune
(though that may only bring in one or two new listeners!). The
additional market is not coming just from listeners that would otherwise
be listening to analog FM on their car radios. It's coming from
listeners that would otherwise be listening to their iPod, CDs, or
digital media (in the car or not in the car) because there's nothing on
analog AM or FM that they want to listen to. HD radio is much more
likely to be stealing customers from satellite radio than from analog FM.

Any new programming outlet steals it's
listeners from the existing 100 share. So, literally, stations are
hoping to steal their own listeners to put them on the HD streams.

Not true at all.

* What's that, you say? They stay in the family? Really? Well, while a
listener shift from the baseband channel to the HD2 stream DOES keep
that listener within the company, it takes that listener from the
programs of high advertising rates, and puts them on the programs of LOW
advertising rates.

Versus putting them on the programs of another station.

* So, what HD is really doing is robbing the analog channels of it's
revenues while putting the ratings points on HD streams that can't begin
to replace the lost revenue from the baseband.

You're not looking at the big picture.

* How the hell the bean counters at these stations let that go is beyond
me.

It's because they have more information than you have.

"Nope. According to the NAB chairman, Apple will be adding an HD FM
tuner
to an upcoming iPod Nano."

"HD's Killer App Goes Poof!"

"You’ve probably heard that Apple’s new iPod Nano will have an FM
tuner with iTunes tagging built in. Lost in radio’s coverage of the
announcement was its impact on HD Radio... Apple’s deal with iBiquity
was just a test. They wanted a system that could sell more downloads
and trump Rhapsody, and HD was the perfect guinea pig. They already
had tagging on the entire iPod line. With the kinks worked out, now
all they had to do was add an FM tuner to the iPod. Which they did
with the new Nano... Make no mistake. This move was not designed to
help radio. It was designed to give iTunes a revenue boost... And HD?
Apple knows how many downloads HD generated for iTunes. Maybe that’s
why they didn’t bother adding an HD tuner to any of the new iPods."

http://tinyurl.com/yklsvt6

Didn't happen, and never will.

HD Radio - Trend to watch: Team-branded HD2s !!
 

On Oct 16, 8:41�pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
Watchin & Waitin' wrote:

"RHF" wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 12:54 am, HD Radio Farce wrote:
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.

�HDRF - i (we) bow before your greatness ~ rhf

lol!

i think we have a clue....HDRF is someone without a job who has time to keep
a blog, web sites, post to usenet newsgroups. (all anonymously?)

disgnosis: �hd radio nutcake
.

If the economy recovers to a degree that even he can find work,
maybe he can drop the sour grapes and get an HD unit of his own.

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You need to come up with a new personal attack - this one has been
tried many times.