"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 13:48 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/15/09 17:35 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
news:4b2a08da.2108125@chupacabra...
If HD is really the loser some would have us believe, it will still
linger
because the stations that already have it won't have any incentive to
ditch the
gear they've acquired, because it wouldn't bring much beyond scrap
metal
value
in the used market.
Of course whenever I listen to the table radio in the other room it'll
probably
be an HD station.
...and any listener feedback from me will likely reflect my
satisfaction
with
the improvements that technology brings.
So what's a station GM to do, keep what some listeners (the ones that
respond)
say they like, or listen to a few querulous snivelers on usenet which
is
known
as a forum for whiners?


Neither. They'll look at the dismal sales curve for the receivers and
the
near zero Arbitron ratings for their IBOC streams and eventually
conclude
that it isn't worth the extra electricity to keep the IBOC running.




There's still the matter of investment. With well into 6 figures for
a
single station, manglement, investors, and corporate interests will not
simply let it die and go away. Like AM stereo, which actually worked, it
took nearly 20 years to go away.

But, UNlike AM stereo, which had a "marketplace based" approach and
competing standards all on the air at once....HD Radio standard has been
chosen. There is no battle among the formats on the air. Listeners can
enjoy it from the get go.

With AM Stereo, one had to decide which system to buy...and then could
only
listen to certain stations.

HD learned from that fiasco...and is avoinding the pitfalls.

The uptake is slow...

So? It's not in a race? Apathy is everywhere in radio, satelite, SW, AM,
FM, HD. Consumers aren't rushing to do anything with radio.

the technology is flawed

Debatable.

and the implementation is poor.

Implementation is pretty good! Consumers in most places can pick up an HD
radio and start enjoying it immediately. (Unlike the AM Stereo "marketplace
solution".)

But the investment has been spectacular.

In the scheme of things, not really.

On 12/16/09 14:26 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 13:48 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/15/09 17:35 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
news:4b2a08da.2108125@chupacabra...
If HD is really the loser some would have us believe, it will still
linger
because the stations that already have it won't have any incentive to
ditch the
gear they've acquired, because it wouldn't bring much beyond scrap
metal
value
in the used market.
Of course whenever I listen to the table radio in the other room it'll
probably
be an HD station.
...and any listener feedback from me will likely reflect my
satisfaction
with
the improvements that technology brings.
So what's a station GM to do, keep what some listeners (the ones that
respond)
say they like, or listen to a few querulous snivelers on usenet which
is
known
as a forum for whiners?


Neither. They'll look at the dismal sales curve for the receivers and
the
near zero Arbitron ratings for their IBOC streams and eventually
conclude
that it isn't worth the extra electricity to keep the IBOC running.




There's still the matter of investment. With well into 6 figures for
a
single station, manglement, investors, and corporate interests will not
simply let it die and go away. Like AM stereo, which actually worked, it
took nearly 20 years to go away.

But, UNlike AM stereo, which had a "marketplace based" approach and
competing standards all on the air at once....HD Radio standard has been
chosen. There is no battle among the formats on the air. Listeners can
enjoy it from the get go.

With AM Stereo, one had to decide which system to buy...and then could
only
listen to certain stations.

HD learned from that fiasco...and is avoinding the pitfalls.

The uptake is slow...

So? It's not in a race? Apathy is everywhere in radio, satelite, SW, AM,
FM, HD. Consumers aren't rushing to do anything with radio.

the technology is flawed

Debatable.

and the implementation is poor.

Implementation is pretty good! Consumers in most places can pick up an HD
radio and start enjoying it immediately. (Unlike the AM Stereo "marketplace
solution".)

But the investment has been spectacular.

In the scheme of things, not really.



As Mrs Iacocca said: Nice Dodge.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 14:26 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 13:48 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/15/09 17:35 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
news:4b2a08da.2108125@chupacabra...
If HD is really the loser some would have us believe, it will still
linger
because the stations that already have it won't have any incentive
to
ditch the
gear they've acquired, because it wouldn't bring much beyond scrap
metal
value
in the used market.
Of course whenever I listen to the table radio in the other room
it'll
probably
be an HD station.
...and any listener feedback from me will likely reflect my
satisfaction
with
the improvements that technology brings.
So what's a station GM to do, keep what some listeners (the ones
that
respond)
say they like, or listen to a few querulous snivelers on usenet
which
is
known
as a forum for whiners?


Neither. They'll look at the dismal sales curve for the receivers
and
the
near zero Arbitron ratings for their IBOC streams and eventually
conclude
that it isn't worth the extra electricity to keep the IBOC running.




There's still the matter of investment. With well into 6 figures
for
a
single station, manglement, investors, and corporate interests will
not
simply let it die and go away. Like AM stereo, which actually worked,
it
took nearly 20 years to go away.

But, UNlike AM stereo, which had a "marketplace based" approach and
competing standards all on the air at once....HD Radio standard has
been
chosen. There is no battle among the formats on the air. Listeners
can
enjoy it from the get go.

With AM Stereo, one had to decide which system to buy...and then could
only
listen to certain stations.

HD learned from that fiasco...and is avoinding the pitfalls.

The uptake is slow...

So? It's not in a race? Apathy is everywhere in radio, satelite, SW,
AM,
FM, HD. Consumers aren't rushing to do anything with radio.

the technology is flawed

Debatable.

and the implementation is poor.

Implementation is pretty good! Consumers in most places can pick up an
HD
radio and start enjoying it immediately. (Unlike the AM Stereo
"marketplace
solution".)

But the investment has been spectacular.

In the scheme of things, not really.



As Mrs Iacocca said: Nice Dodge.


Not a dodge, it was an answer to your points.

On 12/16/09 14:38 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 14:26 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 13:48 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/15/09 17:35 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
news:4b2a08da.2108125@chupacabra...
If HD is really the loser some would have us believe, it will still
linger
because the stations that already have it won't have any incentive
to
ditch the
gear they've acquired, because it wouldn't bring much beyond scrap
metal
value
in the used market.
Of course whenever I listen to the table radio in the other room
it'll
probably
be an HD station.
...and any listener feedback from me will likely reflect my
satisfaction
with
the improvements that technology brings.
So what's a station GM to do, keep what some listeners (the ones
that
respond)
say they like, or listen to a few querulous snivelers on usenet
which
is
known
as a forum for whiners?


Neither. They'll look at the dismal sales curve for the receivers
and
the
near zero Arbitron ratings for their IBOC streams and eventually
conclude
that it isn't worth the extra electricity to keep the IBOC running.




There's still the matter of investment. With well into 6 figures
for
a
single station, manglement, investors, and corporate interests will
not
simply let it die and go away. Like AM stereo, which actually worked,
it
took nearly 20 years to go away.

But, UNlike AM stereo, which had a "marketplace based" approach and
competing standards all on the air at once....HD Radio standard has
been
chosen. There is no battle among the formats on the air. Listeners
can
enjoy it from the get go.

With AM Stereo, one had to decide which system to buy...and then could
only
listen to certain stations.

HD learned from that fiasco...and is avoinding the pitfalls.

The uptake is slow...

So? It's not in a race? Apathy is everywhere in radio, satelite, SW,
AM,
FM, HD. Consumers aren't rushing to do anything with radio.

the technology is flawed

Debatable.

and the implementation is poor.

Implementation is pretty good! Consumers in most places can pick up an
HD
radio and start enjoying it immediately. (Unlike the AM Stereo
"marketplace
solution".)

But the investment has been spectacular.

In the scheme of things, not really.



As Mrs Iacocca said: Nice Dodge.


Not a dodge, it was an answer to your points.




No, it wasn't. You answered nothing. You simply dismissed the
ancillary AM Stereo comparisons. And then, deleted the point.

Like I said. Nice dodge.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 14:38 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 14:26 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 13:48 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/15/09 17:35 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
news:4b2a08da.2108125@chupacabra...
If HD is really the loser some would have us believe, it will
still
linger
because the stations that already have it won't have any incentive
to
ditch the
gear they've acquired, because it wouldn't bring much beyond scrap
metal
value
in the used market.
Of course whenever I listen to the table radio in the other room
it'll
probably
be an HD station.
...and any listener feedback from me will likely reflect my
satisfaction
with
the improvements that technology brings.
So what's a station GM to do, keep what some listeners (the ones
that
respond)
say they like, or listen to a few querulous snivelers on usenet
which
is
known
as a forum for whiners?


Neither. They'll look at the dismal sales curve for the receivers
and
the
near zero Arbitron ratings for their IBOC streams and eventually
conclude
that it isn't worth the extra electricity to keep the IBOC running.




There's still the matter of investment. With well into 6
figures
for
a
single station, manglement, investors, and corporate interests will
not
simply let it die and go away. Like AM stereo, which actually
worked,
it
took nearly 20 years to go away.

But, UNlike AM stereo, which had a "marketplace based" approach and
competing standards all on the air at once....HD Radio standard has
been
chosen. There is no battle among the formats on the air. Listeners
can
enjoy it from the get go.

With AM Stereo, one had to decide which system to buy...and then
could
only
listen to certain stations.

HD learned from that fiasco...and is avoinding the pitfalls.

The uptake is slow...

So? It's not in a race? Apathy is everywhere in radio, satelite, SW,
AM,
FM, HD. Consumers aren't rushing to do anything with radio.

the technology is flawed

Debatable.

and the implementation is poor.

Implementation is pretty good! Consumers in most places can pick up an
HD
radio and start enjoying it immediately. (Unlike the AM Stereo
"marketplace
solution".)

But the investment has been spectacular.

In the scheme of things, not really.



As Mrs Iacocca said: Nice Dodge.


Not a dodge, it was an answer to your points.

No, it wasn't. You answered nothing. You simply dismissed the ancillary
AM Stereo comparisons. And then, deleted the point.

Like I said. Nice dodge.

Not at all...if you open your mind and think a bit.

But then again, your reputation is to always want the last word and argue
meaningless points endlessly, so I should expect it.

On 12/17/09 24:15 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 14:38 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 14:26 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 13:48 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/15/09 17:35 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
news:4b2a08da.2108125@chupacabra...
If HD is really the loser some would have us believe, it will
still
linger
because the stations that already have it won't have any incentive
to
ditch the
gear they've acquired, because it wouldn't bring much beyond scrap
metal
value
in the used market.
Of course whenever I listen to the table radio in the other room
it'll
probably
be an HD station.
...and any listener feedback from me will likely reflect my
satisfaction
with
the improvements that technology brings.
So what's a station GM to do, keep what some listeners (the ones
that
respond)
say they like, or listen to a few querulous snivelers on usenet
which
is
known
as a forum for whiners?


Neither. They'll look at the dismal sales curve for the receivers
and
the
near zero Arbitron ratings for their IBOC streams and eventually
conclude
that it isn't worth the extra electricity to keep the IBOC running.




There's still the matter of investment. With well into 6
figures
for
a
single station, manglement, investors, and corporate interests will
not
simply let it die and go away. Like AM stereo, which actually
worked,
it
took nearly 20 years to go away.

But, UNlike AM stereo, which had a "marketplace based" approach and
competing standards all on the air at once....HD Radio standard has
been
chosen. There is no battle among the formats on the air. Listeners
can
enjoy it from the get go.

With AM Stereo, one had to decide which system to buy...and then
could
only
listen to certain stations.

HD learned from that fiasco...and is avoinding the pitfalls.

The uptake is slow...

So? It's not in a race? Apathy is everywhere in radio, satelite, SW,
AM,
FM, HD. Consumers aren't rushing to do anything with radio.

the technology is flawed

Debatable.

and the implementation is poor.

Implementation is pretty good! Consumers in most places can pick up an
HD
radio and start enjoying it immediately. (Unlike the AM Stereo
"marketplace
solution".)

But the investment has been spectacular.

In the scheme of things, not really.



As Mrs Iacocca said: Nice Dodge.


Not a dodge, it was an answer to your points.

No, it wasn't. You answered nothing. You simply dismissed the ancillary
AM Stereo comparisons. And then, deleted the point.

Like I said. Nice dodge.

Not at all...if you open your mind and think a bit.


Oh, yeah,...you're right. I'll get some fox entrails so I can
divine your meaning. Since you deleted the actual point of my message,

But then again, your reputation is to always want the last word and argue
meaningless points endlessly, so I should expect it.


When you delete the point and argue the trivia, you should expect
to get called on it, yes.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 12/17/09 24:15 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 14:38 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 14:26 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/16/09 13:48 , fdgdfgfdg wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 12/15/09 17:35 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
news:4b2a08da.2108125@chupacabra...
If HD is really the loser some would have us believe, it will
still
linger
because the stations that already have it won't have any
incentive
to
ditch the
gear they've acquired, because it wouldn't bring much beyond
scrap
metal
value
in the used market.
Of course whenever I listen to the table radio in the other room
it'll
probably
be an HD station.
...and any listener feedback from me will likely reflect my
satisfaction
with
the improvements that technology brings.
So what's a station GM to do, keep what some listeners (the ones
that
respond)
say they like, or listen to a few querulous snivelers on usenet
which
is
known
as a forum for whiners?


Neither. They'll look at the dismal sales curve for the
receivers
and
the
near zero Arbitron ratings for their IBOC streams and eventually
conclude
that it isn't worth the extra electricity to keep the IBOC
running.




There's still the matter of investment. With well into 6
figures
for
a
single station, manglement, investors, and corporate interests
will
not
simply let it die and go away. Like AM stereo, which actually
worked,
it
took nearly 20 years to go away.

But, UNlike AM stereo, which had a "marketplace based" approach and
competing standards all on the air at once....HD Radio standard has
been
chosen. There is no battle among the formats on the air.
Listeners
can
enjoy it from the get go.

With AM Stereo, one had to decide which system to buy...and then
could
only
listen to certain stations.

HD learned from that fiasco...and is avoinding the pitfalls.

The uptake is slow...

So? It's not in a race? Apathy is everywhere in radio, satelite,
SW,
AM,
FM, HD. Consumers aren't rushing to do anything with radio.

the technology is flawed

Debatable.

and the implementation is poor.

Implementation is pretty good! Consumers in most places can pick up
an
HD
radio and start enjoying it immediately. (Unlike the AM Stereo
"marketplace
solution".)

But the investment has been spectacular.

In the scheme of things, not really.



As Mrs Iacocca said: Nice Dodge.


Not a dodge, it was an answer to your points.

No, it wasn't. You answered nothing. You simply dismissed the
ancillary
AM Stereo comparisons. And then, deleted the point.

Like I said. Nice dodge.

Not at all...if you open your mind and think a bit.


Oh, yeah,...you're right. I'll get some fox entrails so I can divine
your meaning. Since you deleted the actual point of my message,

But then again, your reputation is to always want the last word and argue
meaningless points endlessly, so I should expect it.


When you delete the point and argue the trivia, you should expect to get
called on it, yes.


When there is no point, and people ignore the diatribe....you should expect
to get called on it.

But feel free to try to get in the last word, and argue meaningless points
endlessly. ;-)