On Sep 2, 2:08*pm, 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.

DigitalRadioScams are you 'buing' yourself too much ?

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

On Sep 2, 2:17*pm, 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 $300~$450 Option on a Car is NOT a
Decent HD Radio System !?!

Yes better HD-Radios are needed . . .

=BUT= FM HD-Radio has done this with 1%
of the Analog's 100% Power; and Analog
still has 99% EFP.

What Happens : When FM HD-Radio has 10%
of the Analog's 100% Power; and Analog is
then down to 90% ?

-by- 2015~2020 most FM HD-Radio Stations
will be at 15%~20% of the former Analog 100%
and will be considering treminating the remaining
80% of the Analog Output because the Radio
Listeners will no-longer be there . . .

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

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 Sep 2, 8:49*pm, "Drewdove" wrote:
"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.

yes, Yes. YES ! - Expand the FM Radio Band
-by- Moving AM's to Old TV Channels 5 & 6 !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...403d27fe07c27f
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...eec9db49629a49
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...56e4adae3ab587
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...ba020aff11f5f0
"Expanded" FM Radio Band to cover 76 MHz to
88 MHz to create and additional 60 FM Channels.

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 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
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.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels. Stop repeating
these commercials.

gr, hwh

On 9/3/2010 8:30 AM, hwh wrote:
On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
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.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels.

Clearly you've never listened to HD.

On Sep 3, 11:35*am, SMS wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:30 AM, hwh wrote:

On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
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.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels.

Clearly you've never listened to HD.

Broadcasters that got duped by false promises from iBiquity and that
have lost revenue from IBLOCK interference are already getting
involved. Sprint/Nextel had a direct link to my blog, yesterday. I
have posted links to the law firm in most of the auto forums that had
complaints about HD Radio. No more automakers will go near iBiquity,
now, and I bet some drop their HD Radio offerings. Consumers are now
becoming aware of this huge scam, and will not order HD Radio in
automobiles. If you check these auto forums, delearships are getting
bring-backs for "defective" HD radios. I see this potentially blowing
up into a huge investigation and class-action suit from broadcasters
and consumers. This will be the death of iBiquity. Here is what
iBiquity promised the broadcasters:

"A Station Owner's View of HD Radio Industry"

"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be
equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding
out this is not the case... We've also found that even in a strong HD
signal area, a dipole antenna is required... We were also told that
the HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals. That
also appears not to be the case. This is really very discouraging and
is leading us to wonder why we should bother to promote HD. To do so
will only disappoint, and, perhaps, antagonize a significant segment
of the audience who finds that the system doesn't deliver."

http://www.audiographics.com/agd/061206-1.htm

On 9/3/10 10:35 , SMS wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:30 AM, hwh wrote:
On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
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.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels.

Clearly you've never listened to HD.


Actually, I have. And I agree with him.



It's not what's been claimed for it.

On 9/3/10 5:35 PM, SMS wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:30 AM, hwh wrote:
On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
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.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels.

Clearly you've never listened to HD.

I have. And didn't like it. Trouble is you keep referring to sound
quality while you're talking about reception issues like multipath.

Reception can be better, while sound quality will not be better as long
as second channels are being broadcast on HD.

gr, hwh