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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?