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

In article ,
SMS wrote:

Add an HD signal generator and an exciter that combines HD Radio and
analog FM and then concentrate on the more difficult task of actual
content, but as you stated hooking up with webcasters would be good
model. John says it would cost "six figures" to add HD, and I wonder
where that number came from. Is there some big up-front payment you have
to make to iBiquity, because the equipment certainly doesn't cost
anything close to $100K?

There certainly is a fee to be paid to iBiquity, and it is based on the
number of HD channels the station uses, plus a portion of the station's
gross revenue.

Adding IBOC to a station (and every station is different) amounts to a
helluva lot more than "adding an HD signal generator". If that were all
it was, I wouldn't even care about it. At lower powers, stations
typically buy new transmitters. At higher power levels, IBOC
transmitters are obtained, and combined at high level with the analog
transmitters. In this process, 90% of the IBOC power is burned off as
heat; 10% of the analog power is burned off. The bottom line is that
thousands of watts are thrown away as heat, 24/7. Really green, eh?

Sometimes, there isn't enough room and additional transmitter space must
be rented to house the additional IBOC transmitter, the rack of gear,
the combiner and the reject load. Sometimes, there is not enough power
available in the building and the entire building's electrical system
must me revamped.

And...with HD, there comes considerable upgrades to the
program-producing facilities, new digital STLs, and for HD-X, additional
program control facilities. Yes, the current players put a PC jukebox in
a closet and forget about it, but remember I work for a family that
takes serving its listeners seriously.

That is just scratching the surface.

You have the potential to add listeners with different formats on HD (or
not lose listeners when you change format by moving the old format to
HD). I.e. I'd love an oldies station, but the Bay Area market can't
support a regular FM oldies station the way other markets can, so if you
want that content you have to subscribe to satellite radio at rather
ridiculous prices.

What good does it do to move the listeners to HD-X channels? No
commercials = no revenue! All you have done is cannibalize your bread
and butter source.

Time for the broadcasters to realize that HD is here, and that fighting
it is rather hopeless. Closing your eyes and pretending it doesn't
exist, and hoping for a better digital radio standard to emerge is not
productive.

I have told the owners of my three stations that converting their three
stations will come to about a half-million dollars (not counting
iBiquity's cut), but including site modifications and equipment, STL
replacements, and studio upgrades. Tell me...how do I sell that kind of
capital investment with no clear ROI path in this economy? The last time
we talked, they saw no downside to spending that money on program
improvements instead.

Now when will the SAP actually have some content on my TV?

Another "solution" without a problem, do you think?

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

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

In article ,
SMS wrote:

No, actually it doesn't. Or at least it usually doesn't require a new
transmitter.

I beg your pardon. In most cases, it does. I do this for a living;
what's your source?

As long as the existing transmitter has an extra 10% of power headroom
to overcome combiner losses, you can do high-level combining and you do
not need a new transmitter (or tower).

Where do you think the IBOC signal comes from? It's called a
"transmitter". And for your information, a low-power transmitter running
in class A (necessary for IBOC) costs about as much as a much larger
class C transmitter. Remember, 90% of the IBOC power is thrown away, so
you need an IBOC transmitter capable of ten times the power you intend
to use.

If you have to buy a new transmitter then of course the cost goes way up
but you still don't need a new tower.

Most people don't have spare IBOC transmitter laying around.

They are not separate systems, either virtually or in reality. No
stations at all would be broadcasting HD if it required separate
transmitters and towers.

You have no idea, do you? Conglomerates **** away money all the time.
Millions of dollars have been spent just in the Bay Area to install IBOC
at the chain stations. The independents can't afford it, and that's part
of the game plan by the conglomerates.

John can answer the question as to how many stations have transmitters
with that 10% of headroom, but apparently many do.

And John will answer that such headroom is a very minor consideration.
The major cost is the IBOC transmitter, the combiner and reject load,
and the iBiquity gear. Don't forget the annual checks to iBiquity.

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

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

In article
,
RHF wrote:

Care to dispute any of the 'others' too . . .

No, just the made up ones that I personally know about. I do have to
wonder how many of the others are also fantasy, since you don't
personally have a clue.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

John Higdon wrote:

There certainly is a fee to be paid to iBiquity, and it is based on the
number of HD channels the station uses, plus a portion of the station's
gross revenue.

Well that doesn't sound fair if the fee is based on the revenue of the
analog side of the station.

heat; 10% of the analog power is burned off. The bottom line is that
thousands of watts are thrown away as heat, 24/7. Really green, eh?

How "green" it is is really a side issue.

And...with HD, there comes considerable upgrades to the
program-producing facilities, new digital STLs, and for HD-X, additional
program control facilities. Yes, the current players put a PC jukebox in
a closet and forget about it, but remember I work for a family that
takes serving its listeners seriously.

Yet there is some programming where the jukebox in a closet suits the
listeners just fine, and it has nothing to do with treating listeners
seriously or not.

What good does it do to move the listeners to HD-X channels? No
commercials = no revenue! All you have done is cannibalize your bread
and butter source.

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.

I have told the owners of my three stations that converting their three
stations will come to about a half-million dollars (not counting
iBiquity's cut), but including site modifications and equipment, STL
replacements, and studio upgrades. Tell me...how do I sell that kind of
capital investment with no clear ROI path in this economy? The last time
we talked, they saw no downside to spending that money on program
improvements instead.

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.

Another "solution" without a problem, do you think?

It could have worked if done properly.

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

On 10/16/09 14:33 , SMS wrote:
John Higdon wrote:

There certainly is a fee to be paid to iBiquity, and it is based on
the number of HD channels the station uses, plus a portion of the
station's gross revenue.

Well that doesn't sound fair if the fee is based on the revenue of the
analog side of the station.


That's a time honored way of doing fees. BMI and ASCAP fees are
based on a percentage of gross, and before divestiture, the Bell
companies even based business phone rates on gross revenues. They
went so far as to ask for gross and net revenues on the order form
so rates can be calculated. Their thinking was that there is no
business without a phone, so they deserve a cut.

iBiquity is no different. The HD 1 stream is a simulcast of the
analog channel, there is no HD audio without iBiquity, so they take
a cut of revenues.



heat; 10% of the analog power is burned off. The bottom line is that
thousands of watts are thrown away as heat, 24/7. Really green, eh?

How "green" it is is really a side issue.


Not in today's business environment.

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

On Oct 16, 4:52�am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
HD Radio Farce wrote:

"Are you waiting in line for your HD radio?"

Nope, already got it.
but if HD takes off well enough
I might consider getting a second.
Tough call as I don't listen to broadcast media that much and I'd have
to weigh the expense against a similar investment in other hobbies.

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

"Tech Q? Whither HD Radio"

"New York Times technology columnist David Pogue published a great
article on HD Radio last week. He's got 100,000 Twitter followers and
asked them who was using HD Radio. Sixteen people replied. Three of
them worked in the radio industry. Of the latter, all were concerned
for the future of the platform."

http://tinyurl.com/kuaprn

There is virtualy notconsumer interest in HD Radio, after five years.

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

On Oct 16, 9:37�am, SMS wrote:
John Higdon wrote:
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.

No, including HD capability as standard equipment is starting with
higher end vehicle brands, and will eventually filter down.

For example, Jaguar, Volvo and Mercedes now include HD radio on all of
its models. In 2011 Audi will be including HD as standard on most, if
not all, U.S. models. For BMW, only the 5 series and the X3 have HD as
an option, it's standard on all other models (kind of strange that the
lower cost 3 series, and higher cost 7 series gets it as standard, but
the mid-range 5 series does not).

It's very similar to how the adoption of FM occurred back in the 20th
century. There was little content so there was no reason for automakers
to add the extra expense of an FM capable radio. When there was a small,
but sufficient amount of content you started seeing after-market radios
with FM, and eventually it became standard equipment. The experts
predict that by 2013, HD radio will be standard equipment on virtually
all vehicles sold in the U.S. (which incidentally is the same year other
analyst predict DAB will be standard on vehicles sold in Europe).

As long as adding HD broadcast capability to a radio station can be done
quickly then there's no real rush for you to convince the station
management to add it. You mentioned "six figures" to add HD capability.
That's a pretty wide range. Is it $100K or is it $999,999? $100K might
be a bargain considering the additional revenue potential. Plus, the
purchasers of the vehicles that now include HD as standard equipment are
exactly the people that many advertisers want to reach (well maybe not
the type of advertisers you get on KSFO like Cash4Gold).

You're a purist, you care about the sound quality of analog FM, and how
HD affects that quality, but few consumers are sophisticated enough to
care, and since most radio is listened to in a vehicle with relatively
low quality audio equipment the degredation of analog that HD causes is
less of a problem than you believe.

The biggest reason to fight HD radio is that if it becomes successful
then we'll be unlikely to see a better digital radio standard adopted in
the U.S.. We'll end up, as often happens, with an inferior system to the
rest of the world.

"U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"

"The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install, or each
of the three carmakers about $150 million to $200 million annually,
automotive industry sources said."

http://tinyurl.com/o8zaau

HD Radio is too expensive for most automakers, and it simply doesn't
work, and never will:

"BMW HD Radio Troubleshooting Guide"

http://tinyurl.com/ygbspcb

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

On Oct 16, 12:10�pm, "Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:
"HD Radio Farce" wrote in ...
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.

#1...he is not a listener.

#2....why is he the only example that gets brought up when someone asks
about the so-called intereference.

#3.....WYSL is a badly designed facility that is attempting to service a
market from 25 miles out of town with, what, 500 watts?

but dont let the truth get in the way.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"No End in Sight in IBOC Interference Dispute Between Two AMs"

"Midwest Television, licensee of KFMB(AM), a Class B in San Diego, has
submitted a second interference complaint to the commission about
Kiertron, licensee of KBRT(AM), a Class D in Avalon, Calif., and has
asked the agency to suspend KBRT's authority to transmit in digital...
Midwest says it's receiving interference complaints from listeners and
asked Kiertron to take part in more joint testing, but says Kiertron
won't, believing further testing isn't needed... Kiertron says the
earlier FCC ruling is not final and it has a pending request that the
earlier decision be reconsidered; it finds Midwest's proposed remedy
drastic. Showing that it is cooperating, Kiertron says it has reduced
its IBOC power a full 75% of authorized power, or 6 dB."

http://radioworld.com/article/86140

Here's another - these complaints are not available to the General
Public - I wonder, why?

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.

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

My Ionic Breeze thangy that I bought for five dollars at the Goodwill
store, it started making a scratching noise, like that mouse trying to
get out of that plastic Mouse Cube mouse trap I bought at the Wal Mart
Gestapo store.I cleaned the Ionic Breeze three metal bars thingy and I
used my electric blower and I blew the dust out of the Ionic Breeze.Then
I put the three bars thingy back in and I turned it on.It started making
that scratching noise again and I saw thin looking flames arching around
in there between the wires and the bars.I turned the damn thing off and
I unplugged it.That gadget is Dangerous!
cuhulin

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

"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
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"?

Most have agreed to forgo advertising in order to highlight the HD as an
alternative, another choice.

Some have leased time to ethnic groups for cash, some have leased time to
infomercials, some to religious outlets.....for cash.

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
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


Wow...another cut/paste job by another HD nutcake.

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

yet every time I try an HD-2 channel for a while it's just boring.

Well, that's a problem that's easily corrected...put better programming on.
;-)

Maybe some broadcaster ought to try to hook up with some of the better
webcasters. The programming is already there, and I wouldn't think they'd
charge too much to put it on the radio.

They have. Usually they are the webcasters as well.

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

"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
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?

As someone who used to work in Classical radio, you realize that those
formats are dropping like flies.

Classical could find a nice home on HD-2 channels....and some NPR outlets
are doing news/talk on their HD1....and doing classical on their HD2.

The formats available on HD2 (and 3) are going to be niche programming.
Enough listeners to sustain it, but not enough to warrant an $70 million
dollar signal.

One of the biggest problems classical formats have had is balancing the
listeners who like choral & opera....with those who don't!

This one of the great uses of secondary streams. HD2 can be all choral &
opera.

COuntry formats that feature 90's and todays music...can put 60's/70's on
the decondary HD2 channel.

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
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 \

Another cut/paste by the HD nut.

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
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.

"HD radio is much more likely to be stealing customers from satellite
radio than from analog FM. "

"Tech Q? Whither HD Radio"

"New York Times technology columnist David

Another cut/paste by the HD nut.

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
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

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

"FMeXtra: Another On-Channel Solution"

"Eventually DRE asked the NRSC to reactivate \\\


Another cut/paste by the HD nut.

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
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


Another cut/paste by the HD nut.

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

I am more up-to date than you could imagine.

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

Reminds me of the engineers who didn't want to turn on the stereo
pilot...because they were afraid to give up any coverage area.

No, I'M much more up-to-date than YOU could ever imagine:

There are still people in this newsgroup that bemoan stereo.!!

Let's ask the 25,000 visitors that I have gotten from around the
world.

The visitors don't all agree with you. Most of them are bots.

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 12:10?pm, "Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:
"HD Radio Farce" wrote in
...
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.

#1...he is not a listener.

#2....why is he the only example that gets brought up when someone asks
about the so-called intereference.

#3.....WYSL is a badly designed facility that is attempting to service a
market from 25 miles out of town with, what, 500 watts?

but dont let the truth get in the way.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -




"Midwest Television, licensee of KFMB(AM), a Class B in San Diego, has
submitted a second interference complaint to the commission about
Kiertron, licensee of KBRT(AM), a Class D in



More cut/paste nonsense that no one is going to read.

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
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


More cut and past....and whats this a REPEAT cut/paste (that no one is going
to read.)

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
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?

Is this directed at me?

Nope. None of them. I have no allegiances. I just get a kick out of
playing rope-a-dope with the HD haters like you. ;-)

Now a question for you:

-Do you have a job?

-Do you have a life?

-Do you have a family...or a spouse...or are you simply obsessivbely
compulsively living in the wake of iBiquity and Struble? ;-)

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

"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote in message
...

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
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...

but you left out the important element....where!

if this is dx...then please realioze that the fcc and owner/operators does
not care about dx-ers and hobbyists.

you are trying to hang onto the past.

I notice he didn't respond.

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

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 1:00 pm, "Jo Jo Gunn" wrote:
"John Higdon" wrote in message

...

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.

CBS is running infomercials on some of their HD-3 streams....making not a
lot of money...but some.

There are HD-2's in NY that are leased to foreign language broadcasters.

Many small constituancy groups would lease an HD-2 channel if they could.

Most stations ahve chosen NOT to have comemrcials on their HD2 stream.

I know a local group that would raise funds to lease an HD2 channel so
they
can put EWTN on it (This I don't understand!)

But there are people a few dimes off their HD2 channels.

"REGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC."

"We are currently broadcasting 24 FM stations and two AM stations in
digital, or high definition radio (HD Radio)... The economic benefit,
if any, to our stations that have converted to HD Radio currently
cannot be measured. Any future economic benefit to our stations as a
result of digital conversion is not known at this time."

http://tinyurl.com/nw9ts6

"Saga Communications, Inc."

"We also continue the rollout of HD Radio™... It is unclear what
impact HD Radio will have on the industry and our revenue as the
availability of HD receivers, particularly in automobiles, is not
widely available."

http://tinyurl.com/m5cs7l

"EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION"

"We currently utilize HD Radio® digital technology on most of our FM
stations. It is unclear what impact HD Radio® will have on the markets
in which we operate."

http://tinyurl.com/kkgd7j



So what? Most of these companies have decided (as a group) not to put any
commercials on their HD streams.

BTW....another great/cut/paste job.

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

John Higdon wrote:

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!

I'm wondering about something. SCA is not considered broadcasting, and
therefore SCA programming was not subject to the same FCC content rules as
main channel programming. Likewise XM and Sirius.

So, the question is, could some station put Pirate Cat on its HD channel or
would the station be subject to FCC obscenity fines? Is it broadcasting or
narrowcasting? When is HD broadcasting and Sirius not?






--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"

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

"David Kaye" wrote in message
...
John Higdon wrote:

I'm wondering about something. SCA is not considered broadcasting, and
therefore SCA programming was not subject to the same FCC content rules as
main channel programming. Likewise XM and Sirius.

So, the question is, could some station put Pirate Cat on its HD channel
or
would the station be subject to FCC obscenity fines? Is it broadcasting
or
narrowcasting? When is HD broadcasting and Sirius not?

SCA is not only not broadcasting, it is a subscription service and reception
of SCA by unauthorized users is technically illegal.

With IBOC it is not the same. Anyone who buys an IBOC receiver is de facto
authorized to receive any signal broadcast by any IBOC equipped station. It
is, therefor, for the time being, a free radio service that anyone can
listen to, and so covered by FCC rules dealing with content. I'm not sure
how that would work for the ability of the stations to sell time to
freelancers (e.g. pirates). Someone would have to be responsible for paying
royalties, etc., as well.

Satellite is a different case. It's like SCA in some ways. In particular, it
is a subscription service that is not available to everyone for free, and is
therefor restricted access. This is why normal FCC content rules do not
apply.

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

Authorized? Everybody in the World has the Right to Receive and Listen
to Any and All Electronic Transmissions.The Universe is Radius, the
Universe is a Radio.
Radio = Radius.
Radius = Radio.
cuhulin

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

www.devilfinder.com
HD Radio Stations in Mississippi

Good Gawd almighty! No wonder there is so much hash around here! That
sh.t just wont do, that sh.t just wont do atall!!!
cuhulin

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

On Oct 17, 2:39�am, "Jo Jo Gunn" wrote:
"HD Radio Farce" wrote in ...
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?

Is this directed at me?

Nope. �None of them. �I have no allegiances. �I just get a kick out of
playing rope-a-dope with the HD haters like you. �;-)

Now a question for you:

-Do you have a job?

-Do you have a life?

-Do you have a family...or a spouse...or are you simply obsessivbely
compulsively living in the wake of iBiquity and Struble? �;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I love all of this attention! Typical of IBOC boosters to launch a
series of personal attacks, when they have no counter-arguments. I've
heard it all - LOL!