On Mar 6, 12:47*pm, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article ,





*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.

I'm all for digital radio but Ibiquity will screw it up. *According to
their specification, the removal of analog bandwidth does not increase
the bandwidth for audio. *It goes to some other unspecified use that I
can only imagine isn't for free radio. *The current encoding, which is
barely good enough for interim use, remains.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The all-digital mode has never been tested - it may not even work. The
only thing iBiquity is interested in is an IPO, which now will never
happen.