IBOC Article
 

There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street
Journal, Page B1, Column 5...

IBOC Article
 

"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street
Journal, Page B1, Column 5...

There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all.

IBOC, like DRM = QRM

And by the way, it's 2 March.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC Article
 

dxAce wrote:

"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street
Journal, Page B1, Column 5...

There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all.

IBOC, like DRM = QRM

And by the way, it's 2 March.

dxAce
Michigan
USA




You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing
distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system objectionable
precisely for it's noise. Secondarily, some hearing the AM system in all
of its digital glory, liken it to internet streaming...full of audible
artifacts, most of them objectionable. Occasionally, it sounds pretty
good. But that's not always the case. Depending on reception conditions
and the general state of station's engineering.

This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are
starting to speak out about it. Salem, at least here, is listening, and
has turned off their IBOC generators not only to curb local QRM, but to
protect listeners of their own signal in Milwaukee, who were having more
than a little difficulty receiving the local due to the QRM from
Chicago's signal.

IBOC Article
 

dxAce wrote:

"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall
Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5...

There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all.

IBOC, like DRM = QRM


D Peter Maus wrote:

You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing
distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system
objectionable precisely for it's noise.

and

This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are
starting to speak out about it.

Well, had anyone bothered to actually read the WSJ article I referenced,
they would have discovered that "listener distaste", listeners "speaking
out" and a discussion of "objectionable noise" were the main points of
the article.

However, in true "ace-wipe" fashion, he yet again fell into the trap
that Mr.Jensen pointed out just today:

bpnjensen wrote: [addressing the self-appointed "ace"]

You might want to read it before pronouncing the messenger
incompetent.

Heckuva job, Stevie...same trap, twice in one day

IBOC Article
 

U.S.fed govt doesn't want us listening to our choices of radio and our
choices of news via radio.U.S.fed govt is leading up to spoon feeding us
their U.S.Minstry of Propaganda Lies and BullS..T!!!
cuhulin

IBOC Article
 

David Eduardo wrote:
Salem, at least here, is listening, and has turned
off their IBOC generators not only to curb local QRM, but to protect
listeners of their own signal in Milwaukee, who were having more than a
little difficulty receiving the local due to the QRM from Chicago's
signal.

Actually, WIND had HD on when Salem traded it to Univsion Radio, and took it
off after the sale. Univision was very happy with the HD system.

Univision doesn't own a 540 station about 100 miles from the 560
transmitter. Salem does.

(I'm not sure exactly where the 560 transmitter is, but when I lived in
Milwaukee it sure had a great signal up there!)
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

IBOC Article
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are starting
to speak out about it. Salem, at least here, is listening, and has turned
off their IBOC generators not only to curb local QRM, but to protect
listeners of their own signal in Milwaukee, who were having more than a
little difficulty receiving the local due to the QRM from Chicago's
signal.

Actually, WIND had HD on when Salem traded it to Univsion Radio, and took it
off after the sale. Univision was very happy with the HD system.




Hello, David. Good to see you again. But to refine the point....WIND
had turned off the IBOC signal some considerable time after the
acquisition. And while Univision Radio was very happy with the HD
system, listeners of several stations, especially up here in Lake
County, were not. It was when the IBOC splatter objectionably intefered
with a co-owned signal in Milwaukee that they pulled the IBOC system.

IBOC doesn't just create objectionable interference for out of
market, or deep fringe listeners. Not every signal in this area has
uniform coverage in its ADI, and where signal levels flag, IBOC creates
quite the obstacle to quality listening.

IBOC Article
 

Kristoff Bonne wrote:
Gegroet,

Carter, K8VT wrote:
There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street
Journal, Page B1, Column 5...


I guess you mean this article?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...438087021.html



Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Yes, that's the article (and sorry for my date typo). I just read the
actual paper so I didn't know this particular article was available as
an electronic version.

IBOC Article
 

Carter, K8VT wrote:

dxAce wrote:

"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall
Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5...

There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all.

IBOC, like DRM = QRM


D Peter Maus wrote:

You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing
distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system
objectionable precisely for it's noise.

and

This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are
starting to speak out about it.

Well, had anyone bothered to actually read the WSJ article I referenced,
they would have discovered that "listener distaste", listeners "speaking
out" and a discussion of "objectionable noise" were the main points of
the article.


Actually, I did read the article, Carter. I was in the act of posting
something about it, myself, when I read your comments.

My point was not just that there's now obvious and ongoing objection
to IBOC's noise, but that listener objection has begun to have an
impact, and at least one not insignificant company has changed it's IBOC
strategy as a result. WSJ hasn't addressed that point.

This underscores the fact that despite the enormous investment, and
the closed nature of the IBOC ownership through iBiquity by companies
widely believed to be intractable, change can be, and has been effected
by looking at local interference.

It can be done. It has been done. At least on a small scale. Perhaps
if more listeners voiced their objections....More likely they'd be
****ing in the wind.

The ongoing thinking is that radio is essentially local, and that
beyond a city-grade contour there is no need for concern about either
interference, or listener interest. From a pure business model, this is
pretty rational thinking. So, IBOC's limited reach and widespread noise
are not really practical issues for broadcasters, because surveyable,
revenue influencing listeners, it is believed for most practical
purposes, do not exist outside of the city grade contour. And in many
cases, that's true. But in huge megalopolitan areas like
Chicago/Milwaukee, there are a significant number of local signals that
do not blanket the market with uniform city grade strength, leaving some
blocks of listeners in less desireable, and already noisy listening
conditions. And out of luck. Here in Chicago, there are several major
signals that don't have the kind of blanket coverage that WGN enjoys.
From my location in Lake County, as well as my apartment downtown,
there are times I even have trouble receiving even WLS clearly, due to
low signal strength and just local electrical noise, and I have quite
the reception infrastructure. Real Oldies at 1690, is a tough catch
north of Cook County, day or night, even without IBOC interference, as
well. WIND is also a tough catch sometimes. But most signals could at
least be listenable, and relatively quiet, before IBOC. Caught here
halfway between Milwaukee and Chicago (but still within Chicago's ADI),
much of what I get is fringe listening on AM from either city, as with
the rest of the people living between Libertyville and South Milwaukee.
IBOC has made AM difficult at times for a substantial, and measurable,
audience in both ADI's.

And other, larger areas of population will display this interference
problem for many otherwise listenable, and local, signals, as pointed
out in the WSJ article. Especially smaller, but profitable, niche format
radio stations, are getting chewed up with IBOC noise. Even on their
home, revenue producing turf. So, while IBOC does create problems for
listeners trying to hear Imus from an out of market signal, and
complaints are made, they're largely ignored, due to the limited sales
area/limited range IBOC, and, for that matter, broadcast mentality.
However, there are local ADI regions where IBOC interference is of
concern to in-market listeners. And as more IBOC systems are deployed,
this will only get worse. Finally, these listeners are making
complaints, as the WSJ article points out. My point is that they're
finally being heard, and may have impact on some IBOC deployment.

The underlying point would then be, for those experiencing IBOC
interference with a local signal, to make some noise of one's own.
Because, if a complaint is going to be heard, it will be on the grounds
of local interference.

I'm sure David Eduardo will disagree. But that's ok. He and I have
disagreed on a number of points.

But that's his job. He's a consultant. :)

IBOC Article
 

"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

dxAce wrote:

"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall
Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5...

There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all.

IBOC, like DRM = QRM

D Peter Maus wrote:

You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing
distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system
objectionable precisely for it's noise.

and

This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are
starting to speak out about it.

Well, had anyone bothered to actually read the WSJ article I referenced,
they would have discovered that "listener distaste", listeners "speaking
out" and a discussion of "objectionable noise" were the main points of
the article.

However, in true "ace-wipe" fashion, he yet again fell into the trap
that Mr.Jensen pointed out just today:

bpnjensen wrote: [addressing the self-appointed "ace"]

You might want to read it before pronouncing the messenger
incompetent.

Heckuva job, Stevie...same trap, twice in one day

And you know somehow that I didn't read it? Did you read some 'expert' opinion?

Hilarious

dxAce
Michigan
USA