RHF wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:14 am, John Higdon wrote:
In article
,

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

- Name a station making a dime off the HD-2 channel.
- Just name one.

HumDesi : South Asian Radio {WorldBand Media}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumDesi
New York Metro - WRKS FM via HD-2
Los Angeles Metro - KPWR FM via HD-3
Chicago Metro - WLUP FM via HD-3
SF-Bay Area {San Jose} - KEZR FM via HD-2
Washington DC Metro - WTOP FM via HD-2

Oops - That's More Than One and Someone
must be Paying these FM HD-Radio Stations
to run this HD-2/3 Programming.

-ps- hope these fm stations are making more
than a 'dime' for the air-time ;;--}} ~ RHF

-that-something-extra-
Dallas Cowboys Radio -via- The Fan [KRLD-FM]
with HD-2 and HD-3 Sports Channels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRLD-FM
.

- HD Radio has been around for seven years.
- Seven years!
- Where's the revolution?

Mostly Radio has been evolutionary in both
Programming and Technology.

- As I said, the public has spoken.

You Said What ? and who is listening . . .

Around 2015 the American Public will have "Spoken"
as to whether Radio Listeners have Adapted to FM
HD-Radio and it's HD-2 Channels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio
+ 1 Couple with the Fact that the FCC is United
behind the move to FM HD-Radio = Tax $$$
+ 2 Couple with the Fact that the Broadcast
Industry {Corporate Media} is also United
behind the move to FM HD-Radio = Income $$$

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

jh - remember it's 'radio' so just listen and enjoy ~ RHF
.

I've made a lot of money selling SCAs to ethnic groups. Great
penetration in Circle K markets.

On Oct 15, 6:02*am, dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:14 am, John Higdon wrote:
In article
,

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

- Name a station making a dime off the HD-2 channel.
- Just name one.

HumDesi : South Asian Radio {WorldBand Media}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumDesi
New York Metro - WRKS FM via HD-2
Los Angeles Metro - KPWR FM via HD-3
Chicago Metro - WLUP FM via HD-3
SF-Bay Area {San Jose} - KEZR FM via HD-2
Washington DC Metro - WTOP FM via HD-2

Oops - That's More Than One and Someone
must be Paying these FM HD-Radio Stations
to run this HD-2/3 Programming.

-ps- hope these fm stations are making more
than a 'dime' for the air-time ;;--}} ~ RHF

-that-something-extra-
Dallas Cowboys Radio -via- The Fan [KRLD-FM]
with HD-2 and HD-3 Sports Channels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRLD-FM
*.

- HD Radio has been around for seven years.
- Seven years!
- Where's the revolution?

Mostly Radio has been evolutionary in both
Programming and Technology.

- As I said, the public has spoken.

You Said What ? and who is listening . . .

Around 2015 the American Public will have "Spoken"
as to whether Radio Listeners have Adapted to FM
HD-Radio and it's HD-2 Channels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio
+ 1 Couple with the Fact that the FCC is United
behind the move to FM HD-Radio = Tax $$$
+ 2 Couple with the Fact that the Broadcast
Industry {Corporate Media} is also United
behind the move to FM HD-Radio = Income $$$

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

jh - remember it's 'radio' so just listen and enjoy ~ RHF
*.

- I've made a lot of money selling SCAs to ethnic groups.
-*Great penetration in Circle K markets.

SCA = Subsidiary Communications Authorization
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/subcarriers/
http://www.radiosca.com/sca-radio.html
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/radio/sca.html

Every HD-Radio is Second Audio Channel [HD-2]
'capable' for each and every FM HD-Radio Station
-and- Each and Every FM HD-Radio Station is
a 'potential' Second Audio Channel [HD-2] Broadcaster.
-plus- Each and Every Second Audio Channel
[HD-2] is a potential Second Income Stream for
FM HD-Radio Stations.

=IF= SCA was a good idea : Then HD-2 is a Better Idea.

idtars ~ RHF

RHF wrote:
=IF= SCA was a good idea : Then HD-2 is a Better Idea.

idtars ~ RHF
.

There's 2 completely different cost models there for the broadcaster.
An SCA generator can be had for less than $1500. That can be
recuperated in one month in a large market. But it doesn't matter.
Even then, until there's something compelling to listen to it won't
happen. I think about radioparadise and fatmusicradio on the web and
how fine their presentation and music mixes are, yet every time I try an
HD-2 channel for a while it's just boring. 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.

Dave B.

Dave Barnett wrote:

There's 2 completely different cost models there for the broadcaster. An
SCA generator can be had for less than $1500. That can be recuperated
in one month in a large market. But it doesn't matter. Even then, until
there's something compelling to listen to it won't happen. I think
about radioparadise and fatmusicradio on the web and how fine their
presentation and music mixes are, yet every time I try an HD-2 channel
for a while it's just boring. 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.

That would be a good model. The broadcasters need to understand that the
incremental cost of adding HD is quite small, they can't expect that HD
is going to provide revenue in proportion to the number of listeners, at
least not yet. We're four years away from HD becoming a standard feature
on all new car radios, and even then it'll be years before most cars on
the road have HD receivers.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

D. Peter Maus wrote:

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.