On Mar 5, 9:52*pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:08*pm, wrote:

- - You can buy brand new little cheap Analog
- - AM/FM radios for as little two or three dollars
- - in discount stores.
- - cuhulin, the Analog

- Are they in working condition ? *
- Sounds a little too cheap for a
- regular product , or are they being dumped ...

and they . . . t u n e . . . from here...
all-the-way-to-there . . .

On 3/6/2011 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC& HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.

I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.

Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.

With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

On 3/6/2011 1:02 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
~translation~ YOU LOSE !

Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite radio.

If that's the best that those opposed to digital radio can do, then
digital radio has a very bright future indeed.

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees. The lack of multipath interference is a plus, but the same
thing that sells satellite radio and Pandora is what's driving adoption
of digital radio, except that digital radio doesn't have a recurring
monthly charge.

If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station. Even if
the audio quality could technically be better on analog FM, in practice,
the sound quality and lack of interference, even at a lower bit rate on
the sub-channels, still provides a superior product in most cases than
analog FM.

If I see a HD-''radio'' at the Goodwill store, I will plug it into one
of the wall outlets there (just like I always do with plug em in the
wall thingys to try them out) and see what happens.If the sales clerk
says over a dollar, Forget It!
cuhulin

On 3/6/2011 1:34 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:

The conversion of stations has slowed dramatically because of this,

The conversion of stations has slowed because you can only convert once!
The majority of major market stations have already converted. Smaller
stations will take their time.

since it's less than a 1% penetration of the market. Compare this with
something over 500,000,000 analog radios currently in use. And those are
not going away.

The big increase in HD receivers will come as sales of vehicles with HD
receivers takes off. Toyota just announced, and Ford is in production,
along with a bunch of smaller manufacturers like VW and BMW. It's very
similar to how FM radio evolved--once FM receivers became standard
equipment, or a low cost option, FM radio took off.

The one fear is that what happened to FM will happen to HD, when it
becomes popular. I don't know how many people remember early FM radio,
but it was a home to less top-40 genres and more alternative formats,
and because of the low penetration of receivers there was not so much
advertising. That's where we are today with HD. My favorite HD2 station
runs no advertising at all, it's completely supported by the FM/HD1 station.

Clearly the broadcasters would like to monetize HD, but that's several
years out. The broadcasters that converted early did so with a long term
view of the advantages of digital radio. It doesn't cost much to add
digital at a 1% power level, so it's not like they were investing a huge
amount of money in the technology. The big question for broadcasters now
is this "what percentage of the listening public must have HD receivers
in order for it to make sense for us to increase digital power to 10%?"
A 10x power increase is going to cost some real money.

As an aside, it was figured that as prices dropped on flat panel
televisions that their market penetration would reach over 90% after
analog was shut off.

No, it was never expected that flat panels would quickly reach 90% of
the installed base. Anyone with digital cable or satellite had no need
to even get a converter. Flat panels did quickly reach nearly 100% of
new sales.

people I know personally, not those in some newgroup or another) I don't
know anyone with a flatscreen TV that isn't still watching more than 2/3
of what they watch in analog or digital 480i, mostly because the cable
companies are charging for anything HD that they make available, even
the OTA local channels.

I have Dish Network (much less expensive than cable or DirecTV) and they
do not charge for HD ("for life") if you agree to paperless billing (or
if you pay them a one-time $99 fee).
http://www.dishnetwork.com/packages/free-hdtv/default.aspx. Those that
are still on cable have more money than sense, or they want broadband
internet from the cable company so they also get their TV from them. I
did get a flat panel HDTV when my 1987 Toshiba 27" CRT television
stopped working last year (on/off relay controlled by remote control
stopped working). I could have repaired it (replaced the relay before
myself once), but I thought 23 years was a reasonable expectation of
service.

On Mar 6, 9:45*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

snip





SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... *BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC& *HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters..

I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.

Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.

With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously."

So glad that I bother you so much. Posting in newsgroups, as you and
FarceWatch are forced to do, has zero affect with such a small
audience. One has to have a site that sits on Google's Homepage for
searches on "hd radio". Even then, there is very little interest in HD
Radio. But, what counts are searches from the FCC, US Courts, Keefe
Bartels, law firms, the FTC, the GAO, Congress, Congressonal Quartly,
GM, Ford, Sanyo (daily regular), iBiquity investors, many foreign
broadcasters, and on and on and on - LMFAO!

SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 1:02 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
~translation~ YOU LOSE !

Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite radio.

If that's the best that those opposed to digital radio can do, then
digital radio has a very bright future indeed.

Now there's spin if ever I heard it.
I don't remember hearing about any legal suits against Woolworth's
stores here in the UK, so by your logic they also should have had a very
bright future indeed. And yet they still went Bankrupt.

Having no strong legal suits against a company, doesn't automatically
make them a success, that it just pure spin.

For digital radio to be a success, it needs to get the public interested
in buying receivers and in using them. So far (judging from what I've
ready here) the sales of HD-Radio receivers has been tiny. I accept that
sales might increase (as I can't prove otherwise), but that hasn't
happened yet. So you can't yet claim that digital radio has been a
success, and you can not assume that it is going to be a success, and
you can not claim that it has a bright future. At least not without some
strong evidence to back it up, and so far I've not seen any such strong
evidence, just a lot of spin from people like you.

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees. The lack of multipath interference is a plus, but the same
thing that sells satellite radio and Pandora is what's driving adoption
of digital radio, except that digital radio doesn't have a recurring
monthly charge.

They tried to see us DAB based upon content here in the UK, and that
approach hasn't worked. The forecasts for DAB listening figures keep on
having to be revised down, and it's actually got to the point where
sales grown of often negative. The sales of DAB receivers seems to have
levelled off, while only a small minority of people are listening to it.


If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station. Even if
the audio quality could technically be better on analog FM, in practice,
the sound quality and lack of interference, even at a lower bit rate on
the sub-channels, still provides a superior product in most cases than
analog FM.

Still more spin, but no sign of significant receiver sales.

Richard E.

On Mar 6, 10:00*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 1:02 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
~translation~ YOU LOSE !

Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite radio.

If that's the best that those opposed to digital radio can do, then
digital radio has a very bright future indeed.

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees. The lack of multipath interference is a plus, but the same
thing that sells satellite radio and Pandora is what's driving adoption
of digital radio, except that digital radio doesn't have a recurring
monthly charge.

If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station. Even if
the audio quality could technically be better on analog FM, in practice,
the sound quality and lack of interference, even at a lower bit rate on
the sub-channels, still provides a superior product in most cases than
analog FM.

According to the FCC database only 1800+ stations have converted, not
the 2100 iBiquity claims, and a number of them have turned off IBOC.

On Mar 6, 10:00*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 1:02 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
~translation~ YOU LOSE !

Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite radio.

If that's the best that those opposed to digital radio can do, then
digital radio has a very bright future indeed.

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees. The lack of multipath interference is a plus, but the same
thing that sells satellite radio and Pandora is what's driving adoption
of digital radio, except that digital radio doesn't have a recurring
monthly charge.

If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station. Even if
the audio quality could technically be better on analog FM, in practice,
the sound quality and lack of interference, even at a lower bit rate on
the sub-channels, still provides a superior product in most cases than
analog FM.

"Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver
manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and
clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with
an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite
radio."

You wouldn't be spending so much time bashing me and my blog, if you
weren't so worried. I see that you visit my blog obsessively from West
Virginia.

On Mar 6, 10:00*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 1:02 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
~translation~ YOU LOSE !

Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite radio.

If that's the best that those opposed to digital radio can do, then
digital radio has a very bright future indeed.

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees. The lack of multipath interference is a plus, but the same
thing that sells satellite radio and Pandora is what's driving adoption
of digital radio, except that digital radio doesn't have a recurring
monthly charge.

If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station. Even if
the audio quality could technically be better on analog FM, in practice,
the sound quality and lack of interference, even at a lower bit rate on
the sub-channels, still provides a superior product in most cases than
analog FM.

"If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station."

"HD Radio Increasing Format Diversity?"

"From there, we can derive that 15% - or a whopping 130 multicast
channels - exist right now that might actually offer up something new
to a listener lucky enough to be in that innovative market (and
equipped with the proper receiver, which in itself is an interesting
story), as opposed to a derivation on the same-old."

http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0809.htm#082509

Only 15% of HD channels, if they haven't been tuned off already, are
offering anything new.