On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't. Perceptuals are not reality. A number of
studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded trained
ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals, who detect a contrast
between two sources and declare improvement, by the way the question
is worded. Easy to do with passersby who have no interest in the
product, or who have neither experience nor expectation.


9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's
technological solutions to improving audio quality will be studies
that measure noise, distortion, and precision of reproduction,
comparing one technology to another, against a control--source
material.

Here, HD falls quite flat.




However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking. If HD
Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the
shelves. They're not.

Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to
have told. And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what
iBiquity is selling.




The public has shown disinterest in ALL radio.....hard to get anyone
interested in antyhing to do with radio these days.

Hence my comment: HD is a technological solution in search of a
problem. The public has shown little interest in the solutions IBOC
presents, just as they're showing little interest in broadcasting as
a whole. As I explained in the previous post.

It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.

Which, again, hasn't lived up to the claims made for it.

Works fine for me. I have it on all day in my office.


As I have FM on in my office, all day. My objection is that IBOC
not only doesn't produce the audio quality I'm getting now, but it's
also responsible for increased noise and distortion on my FM's,
reducing my available audio quality as a whole.

All based on the perceptuals of those who could care less about
audio quality.

Thanks, for nothing.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded
trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals,

This is not true.

9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's technological
solutions to improving audio quality will be studies that measure noise,
distortion, and precision of reproduction,
Here, HD falls quite flat.

I have not seen a study where people can tell a difference in any of the
attributes mentioned above.

However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.

If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves.
They're not.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. It's more niche.

I already addressed the fact that people are not moved by the argument of
quality.

Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to have
told.

Again, the whole story is that there is apathy about ALL radio, Ham, SWL,
Scanners, XM, HD, AM....

Does sales tell a story about that too?

And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is
selling.

No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"...

As has been said before...content and programming is what people go to radio
for.

There has been no effort made by iBiquity or stations themselves to sell HD
based on the additional formats streams available.

Thanks, for nothing.

Your welcome. Let me know if you need any more. ;-)

On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than
wideband AM.

I did a proof of performance on one AM HD system. It failed to meet
the audio performance requirements of NRSCII.

HD FM was better than HD AM, but failed to meet the noise and
distortion specs of FM

So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been
promised.

A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded
trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals,

This is not true.

It is. I was part of several of them.


9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?


It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war.
Based on a survey of physicians conducted by the Tobacco Institute. The
science, like your HD perceptuals, is somewhat questionable.

Pick up any copy of Look, or Life. It's there. Ronald Reagan was
a model in some of the ads.





The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's technological
solutions to improving audio quality will be studies that measure noise,
distortion, and precision of reproduction,
Here, HD falls quite flat.

I have not seen a study where people can tell a difference in any of the
attributes mentioned above.


Then read any article by Ken Pohlmann during the early days of CD.
He published dozens of them. If audible differences between the extant
technologies and CD were detectable, the audible differences between HD
Radio and FM are detectable.

Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between
MP3 and CD audio.

There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to
know the facts.

Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed
facts is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois.

However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.


Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own
words.



If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves.
They're not.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. It's more niche.


Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged
programming that's found elsewhere on the dial. Read the actual
playlists. On 8 of the HD subchannels in Chicago, this so-called
alternative programming, played the exact same tunes as baseband FM
stations elsewhere on the dial. Only the order was different. And the
patter. But even the patter didn't differ by much.

And why is this? Because the content is being developed by the same
people who are programming the baseband. The same mentality, the same
research, the same business model with the same goals. Why would doing
things the same way by the same people produce anything that was
actually different?

It wouldn't.

It doesn't.

And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's
audience is vanishingly small.

Even in a market the size of Chicago, there's no viable market for
genuinely alternative programming. The lifegroup size is simply too
small to attract advertisers.

And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD
subchannels are about the money.

Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to
monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire
landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite
Radio has failed to do that. Why?...probably because the same people who
programmed the radio stations that satellite users subscribed to escape
from, were programming satellite radio.

Same ****, different fee structure. Subscriptions are not increasing
as expected.

And where there was real alternative programming on Satellite radio,
there wasn't enough of a market to support the cost of providing it. So,
those channels were removed to give way to the simulcast commercial
stations...with their own commercial load.

So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative
programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing
misleading information. Urban, with a playlist expanded by one tier and
different disc jockeys isn't alternative programming, when you've got 4
or five other urban stations playing the same tunes. Simulcasting your
AM on an HD FM subchannel isn't alternative programming when the AM is
still on the air.

And the great Oldies 104 experiment in Chicago, when WJMK, Chicago,
went to Jack-FM and put the WJMK format on the HD subchannel, because of
the huge public outcry when Oldies 104 was removed from the dial,
produced insufficient revenue to support itself, and it's disc jockeys'
salaries, because no one was going out to buy an HD radio to hear Dick
Biondi and Fred Winston play the same music that could be heard could be
heard on the 'new' WLS-FM Oldies format.

Now, there's nothing to say that what you claim CAN'T happen with HD
Radio...it can. Provided someone is willing to make the commitment to
offer genuinely alternative programming, and stick with it, come what
may. But this is Radio. Research, corporate and local business goals,
and a headspace dominated by P&L statements, are going to erase the
intents of creatives, in order to monetize the product to meet revenue
goals.

That means more of the same.

Hell, at CBS, Hollander even went so far as to take the Free-For-All
alternative concept of Jack-FM, and put it on a computerized playlist.
Why? Because he needed it to fit into the corporate business model.

HD radio is no different than what's currently being offered, because
it's RADIO. Alternative in name, but not in content. Lower audio quality
claiming to be CD quality...all in the name of, God love 'em, profits. A
lot of marketing. A lot of license fees for iBiquity. Not a lot of
substance to the claims.

It's still a business, after all. And if alternative programming
could produce the revenue, it wouldn't be alternative.





I already addressed the fact that people are not moved by the argument of
quality.

Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to have
told.

Again, the whole story is that there is apathy about ALL radio, Ham, SWL,
Scanners, XM, HD, AM....

Does sales tell a story about that too?


You're making my point for me.



And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is
selling.

No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"...

You're saying that there's a business model without goals?

Horse****.



As has been said before...content and programming is what people go to radio
for.

There has been no effort made by iBiquity or stations themselves to sell HD
based on the additional formats streams available.


And that, speaks louder than anything.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than
wideband AM.

If you hear AM HD as worse...then you are in the minority.

So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been
promised.

Yes it does.

A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded
trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely
uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals,

This is not true.

It is. I was part of several of them.

No, it is not true.

9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war.

Yes, it was an advertising hook...not a study of any serious basis. (Can't
you tell the difference?)

Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between MP3
and CD audio.

However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it.

There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to know
the facts.

And for those who want to minipulate them.

Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed facts
is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois.

However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.


Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own
words.

There is apathy about ALL radio. Getting anyone interested in anything
about radio is a challenge.


If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and
the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves.
They're not.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. It's more niche.

Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged programming
that's found elsewhere on the dial.

I have looked at the playlists. No, it is not programming that is found
elsewhere on the dial.

And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's
audience is vanishingly small.

As stated earlier. It's niche.

And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD
subchannels are about the money.

True.

Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to
monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire
landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite
Radio has failed to do that. Why?...

Because (again) there is apathy about ALL radio....

So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative
programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading
information.

Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...

Youa re baisically repeating sound bites and things you've heard others
espouse without ahving any real understanding of reality.

However, you are entitled.

And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is
selling.

No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"...

You're saying that there's a business model without goals?

Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and
purchase an HD radio".

On Jan 14, 12:47*pm, "FarsWatch4" wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in ...





On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter *wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.

* *Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. *Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

* Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than
wideband AM.

If you hear AM HD as worse...then you are in the minority.

* So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been
promised.

Yes it does.

A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded
trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely
uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals,

This is not true.

* It is. I was part of several of them.

No, it is not true.

* *9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

* * * It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war.

Yes, it was an advertising hook...not a study of any serious basis. *(Can't
you tell the difference?)

* * Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between MP3
and CD audio.

However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it.

* * There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to know
the facts.

And for those who want to minipulate them.

* * Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed facts
is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois.

However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

* *"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.

* Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own
words.

There is apathy about ALL radio. *Getting anyone interested in anything
about radio is a challenge.

If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and
the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves.
They're not.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. *It's more niche.

* Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged programming
that's found elsewhere on the dial.

I have looked at the playlists. *No, it is not programming that is found
elsewhere on the dial.

* And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's
audience is vanishingly small.

As stated earlier. *It's niche.

* And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD
subchannels are about the money.

True.

* Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to
monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire
landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite
Radio has failed to do that. Why?...

Because (again) there is apathy about ALL radio....

* So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative
programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading
information.

Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...

Youa re baisically repeating sound bites and things you've heard others
espouse without ahving any real understanding of reality.

However, you are entitled.

And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is
selling.

No, it doesn't. *There is no "sales finish line"...
* You're saying that there's a business model without goals?

Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and
purchase an HD radio".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Struble: Radio Is the Last Analog Medium Standing"

"Insignia HD — I think this will be a nice little interim step for
jogging or working out. It proves the viability of the technology and
hopefully we'll get sales; but no, this is not going to sell in the
hundreds of thousands... Radio alone — the sad reality of where it is
— as a standalone device, it just doesn't exist anymore as a category.
Nobody goes into Best Buy and says 'Where's the radio department?'"

http://www.rwonline.com/article/87370

None, according to Struble!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Yea, HD Radio is now "mainstream"!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Struble: Radio Is the Last Analog Medium Standing"

"Insignia HD — I think this will be a nice little interim step for
jogging or working out. It proves the viability of the technology and
hopefully we'll get sales; but no, this is not going to sell in the
hundreds of thousands... Radio alone — the sad reality of where it is
— as a standalone device, it just doesn't exist anymore as a category.
Nobody goes into Best Buy and says 'Where's the radio department?'"

http://www.rwonline.com/article/87370

None, according to Struble!

That's right. Nor are they asking for Shortwave, police scanners, etc.,
etc.

You're saying that there's a business model without goals?

Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and
purchase an HD radio".-

As was stated elsewhere..people only buy radios when they buy cars. ANd HD
is in more and more cars!

Yea, HD Radio is now "mainstream"!

Amen!

On 1/14/12 11:47 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than
wideband AM.

If you hear AM HD as worse...then you are in the minority.


So what. Truth is not a consensus.




So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been
promised.

Yes it does.

A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded
trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely
uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals,

This is not true.

It is. I was part of several of them.

No, it is not true.


Actually, it is. I've been part of several studies. Selecting
candidates. Testing. And evaluating results. In all of the studies
I've been part of, musicians, sound technicians, producers, and
audiophiles were specifically excluded.



9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war.

Yes, it was an advertising hook...not a study of any serious basis. (Can't
you tell the difference?)

Yes, I can. But the point that you removed from the quote was
that it was a survey. Of doctors. No different than the surveys used
to support the conclusions regarding HD radio. Same methodology.
Same intent.

And, as you conveniently ignored, the results, and the sources of
the survey material were to be found in the pages of Look. Or Life.

Your selective rebuttal is getting obvious, there, my friend.



Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between MP3
and CD audio.

However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it.

What people embrace and accept has nothing to do with audio
quality. That's why mp3 is not widely accepted in audiophilia. Nor
is it acceptable as source material in studios anymore.

My audio clients won't even accept an mp3 for audition, anymore.

MP3 may be on iPods from sea to shining sea, but its limits have
clearly defined where and under what circumstances mp3 is
applicable. Which returns to the point that it's the content that
drives listening. "People" put mp3's on their iPods so they can cram
more content onto a single drive.

Audiophiles using iPod, use .aif or .wav, or a lossless codec
rather than mp3, because the audio quality is not acceptable.



There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to know
the facts.

And for those who want to minipulate them.


"The problem with science is that it can be corrupted."

-- Number 6.

the prisoner, 1968

That data and facts can be manipulated is evidenced by the very
subject matter of this discussion.



Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed facts
is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois.

However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.


Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own
words.

There is apathy about ALL radio. Getting anyone interested in anything
about radio is a challenge.


If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and
the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves.
They're not.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. It's more niche.

Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged programming
that's found elsewhere on the dial.

I have looked at the playlists. No, it is not programming that is found
elsewhere on the dial.

And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's
audience is vanishingly small.

As stated earlier. It's niche.

And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD
subchannels are about the money.

True.

Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to
monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire
landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite
Radio has failed to do that. Why?...

Because (again) there is apathy about ALL radio....

It's actually more fundamental than that. Satellite Radio
hasn't embraced many niche formats because there isn't ENOUGH money
to be made, compared to more 'mainstream' programming. It's about
the money. And the same people who ****ed up Radio, are programming
Sirius/XM.

Why? Because they see more money in that.



So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative
programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading
information.

Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...


I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was
6. And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.



And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is
selling.

No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"...

You're saying that there's a business model without goals?

Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and
purchase an HD radio".


If you think there are no sales goals, you are unaware of how
business works.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ...

A whole lot of stuff about sales and IBOC (by the way, HD does NOT stand
for High Definition, as many here seem to believe. It stands for Hybrid
Digital)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or
selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed TO) are
sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at the radio
stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the recording
industry. The few that actually WANT alternative programming do not
constitute (and never will) a sales pool that will be profitable.

With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect regarding
pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped significantly. The
recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds it by requiring stations
(ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as internet streams) to pay
exhorbatant fees for content.

On 1/14/12 13:59 , Brenda Ann wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ...

A whole lot of stuff about sales and IBOC (by the way, HD does NOT
stand for High Definition, as many here seem to believe. It stands
for Hybrid Digital)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or
selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed
TO) are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at
the radio stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the
recording industry.


LOL! Yeah, that's pretty much it.


The few that actually WANT alternative
programming do not constitute (and never will) a sales pool that
will be profitable.


Which is why it's called 'alternative.'



With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect
regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped
significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds
it by requiring stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as
internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content.

There will come a point, and it will be well too late, that the
recording industry recognizes this.

But the damage they do in the meantime will be significant.

On 1/14/2012 11:59 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:

I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or
selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed TO)
are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at the radio
stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the recording
industry. The few that actually WANT alternative programming do not
constitute (and never will) a sales pool that will be profitable.

It's amusing to see proclamations that since the digital radio system in
the U.S. is not of a quality that audiophiles would accept that somehow
it needs to be scrapped in favor of something with a much higher bit
rate so those listening to concerts in their car can do so from the
radio rather than from a CD. The reason that every double blind test of
audio quality has shown that listeners prefer digital radio over analog
has much more to do with interference resulting from impaired conditions
than from the raw bit rate. Every compression scheme is a compromise,
and the key is to find a scheme that is of acceptable quality, not one
that is lossless and that is as good as the original uncompressed
content (though of course CDs are also compressed content).

The question that digital radio answered was "what is a spectrally
efficient method of using existing bandwidth to increase content choices
and audio quality _and_ that has a clear path to an all digital system.
If there had been any competition, it would have been another IBOC system.

With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect
regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped
significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds it
by requirirng stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as
internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content.

Broadcasters should be thrilled about the costs being incurred by
streaming companies like Pandora, as well as the costs incurred by
satellite radio, since terrestrial broadcasters are not paying content
royalty fees like streamers and satellite radio are. Unless of course
the station also streams, but they only pay the content royalties based
on the number of on-line listeners.

The Performance Rights Act (never passed) would have imposed content
royalty fees on radio stations but they are much lower fees than are
currently paid by satellite or streaming. There will probably be future
attempts to pass this sort of legislation. One problem is that there is
no way of knowing how many listeners are listening to a specific station
in order to charge royalties per listener. With Arbitron ratings so
inaccurate, broadcasters would not agree to paying royalties based on
those ratings, so royalties per song would be based on some other
metric, such as total station revenue (in order to avoid destroying
small stations).

It is true that HD Radio sub-channels are charged royalty fees to
artists (through SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI) because they are essentially
separate station. I don't know how the issue of HD1 versus analog is
handled. Since it's the same content on both, do the stations have to
pay only once? But HD sub-channels aren't charged content royalty fees
(unless of course they are also streaming, and then it's just for the
number of people streaming).

If you care about the financial health of a radio station, and have a
choice between streaming an OTA listening, choose OTA.