On Oct 6, 9:49*am, "Jo Jo Gunn" wrote:
"dave" wrote in message

...

John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
*"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

Will they listen online when they are in the care? *Or while they're
joggin?

- - -3G works for both.

- - 3G costs $2 a day.

- $60 a month! *$730 a year!

while . . . Free Over-the-Air Radio is FREE 24/7
and available just about anywhere be it Analog
or [HD] Digital - go free over-the-air radio ~ RHF

In article
,
"~ RHF" wrote:

- $60 a month! *$730 a year!

while . . . Free Over-the-Air Radio is FREE 24/7
and available just about anywhere be it Analog
or [HD] Digital - go free over-the-air radio ~ RHF
.

I pay one third of that. In any event, I have it for other reasons.
Streaming audio is just a side benefit, so for me (and many others) it
is effectively free. It sounds better. There is a vastly better
selection of programming. Why would I care about HD?

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

- $60 a month! $730 a year!

while . . . Free Over-the-Air Radio is FREE 24/7
and available just about anywhere be it Analog
or [HD] Digital - go free over-the-air radio ~ RHF
.

I pay one third of that. In any event, I have it for other reasons.
Streaming audio is just a side benefit, so for me (and many others) it
is effectively free. It sounds better. There is a vastly better
selection of programming. Why would I care about HD?

Convenience.

HD is just another option/choice.

Choices are a good thing.

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

"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Jo Jo Gunn wrote:
"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
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.

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.



Stereo destroys FM coverage. Those engineers were right.

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.

"dave" wrote in message
...
Jo Jo Gunn wrote:
"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
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.

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.



Stereo destroys FM coverage. Those engineers were right.


Stereo multiplexing in and of itself does no damage to the coverage area.
Listening on a monaural receiver or in mono mode with a stereo receiver
gives the same coverage as a monaural transmitter would.

"dave" wrote in message
...
Jo Jo Gunn wrote:
"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
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.

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.



Stereo destroys FM coverage. Those engineers were right.

And those that were purists and held to that belief....are all out of
business.

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.

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.