Richard Evans wrote:
Drewdove wrote:

IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers
would
cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same
adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD
useless in
certain (many?) situations.

As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a
frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going
to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional
antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It
ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies
already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK,
obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t
about the consequences.

Richard E.


The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they
could to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They
feared that such a new band would level the playing field so the
small broadcaster would have just as good coverage as they did. That
was an intolerable and frightening idea to them.

See

http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009...rom-the-start/

for more information.


With all good wishes,



Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

On 9/5/2010 9:50 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could
to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that
such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster
would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable
and frightening idea to them.

That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the
additional spectrum on a new band.

For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the
fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few
complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were,
were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside
the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was
granted).

I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is
doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They are
trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and other
automakers.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the
fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few
complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were,
were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside
the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was
granted).

Do you feel that if you repeat this often enough it will become true? I
have repeatedly told you that KKDV, Walnut Creek, whose primary 60dbu
contour encompasses Berkeley and part of Oakland is unlistenable due to
interference from the IBOC signal from KSJO, San Jose. I have
documentation an inch thick on this issue. I have mentioned it here a
dozen times. Your response is to wait a few weeks saying nothing, and
then repeat your canned, unsupported nonsense above.

Trolls are one thing; broadcast engineers such as Dave Barnett, Patty
Winter, and others including myself are real people with real experience
with regard to IBOC. How glib of you to include all of us with the
trolls.

I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is
doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They are
trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and other
automakers.

I have most of the trolls killfiled, so I wouldn't know about whom you
are speaking. But to dismiss real, working radio engineers (who have
absolutely no vested interest in the failure of IBOC, and even have much
to gain by its success) claiming incompetence or devious intent is
intellectually dishonest and reflects more upon yourself than on us.

Please do let us know when you are ready to address the issues we have
repeatedly brought up regarding IBOC in some worthy manner rather than
waiting a few weeks and then dismissing it in general with your usual
unsupported generalization.

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

On Sep 5, 11:56*am, SMS wrote:
On 9/5/2010 9:50 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could
to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that
such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster
would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable
and frightening idea to them.

That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the
additional spectrum on a new band.

- For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here,
the
- fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very
few
- complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there
were,
- were found to have no merit because the interference occurred
outside
- the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was
- granted).

That is because FM Radio has a well defined and
'limited' Broadcast Service Area unlike AM Radio;
which can go far farther then authorized on a nightly
basis each and every night.

Plus FM Radio has NO large legacy culture of DXers
and DXing like the AM/MW Radio Band has/had for
many decades.

few search for distant voices . . .
on the fm radio band ~ RHF

On Sep 5, 11:56*am, SMS wrote:
On 9/5/2010 9:50 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could
to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that
such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster
would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable
and frightening idea to them.

That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the
additional spectrum on a new band.

For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the
fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few
complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were,
were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside
the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was
granted).

I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is
doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They are
trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and other
automakers.

Once these auto companies pay out to the lawyers, they sure as hell
are not going to install HD radios again since there is no chance in
hell to make this stinker of a system work.

On Sep 5, 9:50*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
Richard Evans wrote:
Drewdove wrote:

IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers
would
cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same
adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD
useless in
certain (many?) situations.

As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a
frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going
to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional
antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It
ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies
already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK,
obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t
about the consequences.

Richard E.

The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they
could to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They
feared that such a new band would level the playing field so the
small broadcaster would have just as good coverage as they did. That
was an intolerable and frightening idea to them.

See

http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009...rom-the-start/

for more information.

With all good wishes,

Kevin, WB4AIO.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Follow the Money . . .

Follow the Politicians Following The Money . . .

Watch the FCC : jump,,, Jump... J U M P ! ! !

Drewdove wrote:
m wrote in message
...
Haven't checked much, but other automakers seem liable, too. Here's
hype from Volvo:

http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-...echnology.html

Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable,
too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they
are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in
most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio!

THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!!

IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would
cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same
adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in
certain (many?) situations.



KFI interferes with itself.