If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

On Sep 2, 4:05*pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:
DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off
using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.



A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.

Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.

Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.

ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.

It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.

But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.

In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.

That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.

If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.

So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold.
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.

By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.

What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.

Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.

On Sep 2, 5:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:





DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off
using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

* *A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.

* *Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.

* *Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.

* *ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.

* *It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.

* *But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.

* *In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.

* *That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.

* *If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.

* *So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold.
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.

* *By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.

* *What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.

* *Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

RIP, iBiquity. These lawyers are going to tear Struble and the
automakers new assholes. Broadcasters are already contacting the law
firm, so this could potentially blow up into something much larger. No
automaker will come near iBiquity, now. iBiquity has had no comment
for once - LOL!

On Sep 2, 4:12*pm, DigitalRadioScams
wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:



On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:

DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off
using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

* *A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.

* *Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.

* *Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.

* *ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.

* *It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.

* *But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.

* *In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.

* *That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.

* *If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.

* *So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold..
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.

* *By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.

* *What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.

* *Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

- RIP, iBiquity. These lawyers are going to tear Struble and the
- automakers new assholes. Broadcasters are already contacting the law
- firm, so this could potentially blow up into something much larger.
No
- automaker will come near iBiquity, now. iBiquity has had no comment
- for once - LOL!

DigitalRadioScams - more wishful thinking on your part

IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation
-ROTFL- by RHF
Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.br...b5d6149534c9ae

On 9/3/2010 12:48 AM, RHF wrote:

Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere

LOL, talk about a clueless law firm trying to extort a settlement out of
someone. Who's the braniac that came up with this idea? Are they suing
the semiconductor manufacturer who made the decoder chip, the radio
manufacturer, the auto manufacturer, the radio stations that failed to
add HD service, the radio stations that have HD but that didn't increase
their power to the legal limit, the FCC for approving the HD system, or
the company that licenses the technology to both the stations and the
equipment manufacturers? Maybe add in the transmitter and antenna
manufacturers for good measure. This just too funny.

There is one _big_ problem that HD Radio has been causing all over the
country, but no one can sue anyone about it. Hardly a week goes by where
you don't read of a format change where a station moves its classical or
jazz or other niche format over to HD2, and changes their main format to
something that they believe will increase their market share and let
them charge more for advertising. Of course there's nothing to say that
in the absence of HD that they would not simply abandon the niche format
entirely.

On the surface, this sounds like a bad thing, but for those listeners
willing to make the small one time investment in an HD Radio, it's
actually a big positive for several reasons. First, they'll have a lot
fewer commercials. Second, they'll have far better audio quality. Third,
they'll experience no multipath interference. But for those unwilling to
upgrade to HD Radio, they lose their favorite station and usually there
is no competing analog station with which they can replace it. They
either switch to CDs, an iPod or other portable music player, or listen
to some other format.

HD Radio is not the perfect digital radio technology. It is a compromise
solution for digital radio that required no additional spectrum or
licenses. Adoption was fast by urban radio stations, but slow by
consumers, mainly because of the free-fall in new car sales, caused by
the recession. As Neil Glassman wrote at RBR.com, "...the introduction
of HD Radio in the US met the perfect storm of roadblocks — the decline
of radio advertising, the recession and the failure of consumers to
consider broadcast radio as an element to be included in their digital
entertainment toy box." The recession will eventually end, advertising
will pick up, and the "digital entertainment toy box" was dealt a major
blow by AT&T with the elimination of unlimited data on the iPhone.

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:48:21 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.

A well-known story in the microwave field is that in the mid-1980s a
major manufacturer (name withheld to protect the guilty) could not
produce bandpass filters in time to meet the deadline of a military
contract so they shipped identical cans filled with sand. Of course
the system did not work and the filters were sent back (from Saudi
Arabia, the story went) and exchanged for real filters which by that
time had been manufactured. The warranty exchange cost, eaten by the
manufacturer, was far less than the penalty payment would have been
for missing the deadline.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

On Sep 2, 2:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:



DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off
using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

* *A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.

* *Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.

* *Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.

* *ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.

* *It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.

* *But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.

* *In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.

* *That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.

* *If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.

* *So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold.
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.

* *By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.

* *What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.

* *Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.

Beat the Competition to the Market Place and
Define the Market : Becoming the Identified
Market Leader ! - That's "APPLE !" ~ RHF

"Richard Evans" wrote in message
...
DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using
DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

I couldn't agree more especially since 76-88MHz may be opening up in the US
for radio broadcasting due to these frequencies proving poor for HDTV.