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

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 just to get you up to speed, it's 3 March today.

LMFAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC Article
 

"Carter, K8VT" wrote:

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.

Had you REALLY been paying attention you'd have known that Gary, K4GPB had
brought that article to our attention right here, yesterday morning.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC Article
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...


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.



How does the IBOC power allocation work? Does the analog channel retain
it's original power with the IBOC channels added on or is the station's
total power output (analog + IBOC) held to the originally licensed limit?

Frank Dresser

IBOC Article
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...


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.



How does the IBOC power allocation work? Does the analog channel retain
it's original power with the IBOC channels added on or is the station's
total power output (analog + IBOC) held to the originally licensed limit?

It is a separate digital signal riding along on the analog signal. Separate
power.

IBOC Article
 

You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

Frank Dresser wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...


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.



How does the IBOC power allocation work? Does the analog channel retain
it's original power with the IBOC channels added on or is the station's
total power output (analog + IBOC) held to the originally licensed limit?

Frank Dresser

IBOC Article
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and
luddites, will just be SOL.

IBOC Article
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and
luddites, will just be SOL.

Overly harsh assessment. I listen to stations out of the area for
content. Other people also fall into this group. Some advertising is
regional and national not just local so distant advertising does work.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBOC Article
 

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:51:26 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and
luddites, will just be SOL.

Overly harsh assessment. I listen to stations out of the area for
content. Other people also fall into this group. Some advertising is
regional and national not just local so distant advertising does work.
Indeed. The only local I have is 1220, KHTS.

IBOC Article
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...

It is a separate digital signal riding along on the analog signal.
Separate
power.



"seperate power" might imply a radio station would have to seperate a
portion of power from the analog channel for the IBOC channels. So, a 50 kW
station would have to seperate, say, 20 kW for the digital channels and
leave 30 kW for the center analog channels. Is that how it works, or would
the analog channel retain it's original power with the digital channels
getting additional power?

Frank Dresser

IBOC Article
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one, I'll be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

However, to an Alex Jones SWL-type distrustful paranoid, Ibiquity's IBOC
looks hidden adgenda-ish. It's not about "CD quality sound" it's about
multicasting.

So, if I've got it wrong, please tell me. Is it impossible for the IBOC-AM
scheme to be used for multicasting?

Frank Dresser

IBOC Article
 

Wikipedia has a solid definition for IBOC

IBOC Article
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
In the SF Bay area, plenty of people listen to Sacramento stations. Bay
side stations are often weak in 680 corridoor, and would be trashed if
central valley powerhouses started daytime IBOC.

The SF Bay area is a market where AM does well because the terrain
isn't friendly to FM, or because many people live far south of San
Fransciso. I could see problems if Monterey AM stations went IBOC in
the SF "normal" AM could suffer.

Afer all, IBOC isn't something for nothing. They are stealing what used
to be guard bands. It is no different as if the FCC all of a sudden
allowed normal AM broadcast stations to fill the empty channels.

Sure it is... if it were normal AM stations, it would still be QRM, but at
least we could make heads or tails out of what it was that was interfering
with our favorite stations.

IBOC Article
 

IBOC Article
 

That fcc commissioner dude called them the what years??? Haw Haw Haw!
Hey,what does that make him?
cuhulin

IBOC Article
 

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one, I'll be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

However, to an Alex Jones SWL-type distrustful paranoid, Ibiquity's IBOC
looks hidden adgenda-ish. It's not about "CD quality sound" it's about
multicasting.

So, if I've got it wrong, please tell me. Is it impossible for the IBOC-AM
scheme to be used for multicasting?


It is about making money. If a station, equipment vendor or the two of
them together can get an advantage in the market over a competitor then
they will do it. If they can put a competitor at a disadvantage they
will do it. The entire conspiracy is to make money. That the whole story.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBOC Article
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one, I'll be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in radio,
whether formatically or technically, and are very negative towards the way
stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX organisaions as they
almost all seem to be out to change radio to the detriment of those of us
who work in the field.

Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is skywave
night listening, the other poings are moot.

However, to an Alex Jones SWL-type distrustful paranoid, Ibiquity's IBOC
looks hidden adgenda-ish. It's not about "CD quality sound" it's about
multicasting.

It is about all of this. It is about giving radio the digital buzzword, more
channels, and improved AM quality.

So, if I've got it wrong, please tell me. Is it impossible for the
IBOC-AM
scheme to be used for multicasting?

Pretty much so. Not enough bandwidth unless analog is dropped and all the
signal is devoted to digital.

IBOC Article
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
In the SF Bay area, plenty of people listen to Sacramento stations. Bay
side stations are often weak in 680 corridoor, and would be trashed if
central valley powerhouses started daytime IBOC.

There is no ratings evidence of any listening in the SF market to Sacramento
stations in the Bay Area. There is some in the area nearer Sacto than SF,
however.

IBOC Article
 

David "La Gringa" Gleason wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one, I'll be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in radio,
whether formatically or technically, and are very negative towards the way
stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX organisaions as they
almost all seem to be out to change radio to the detriment of those of us
who work in the field.

Or was it a case of the DX organizations disassociating themselves from you?
Seems to me like you got your ass handed to you in most any discussion you
entered into.

Remember: IBOC = QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC Article
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David "La Gringa" Gleason wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio
and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one, I'll
be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in radio,
whether formatically or technically, and are very negative towards the
way
stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX organisaions as they
almost all seem to be out to change radio to the detriment of those of us
who work in the field.

Or was it a case of the DX organizations disassociating themselves from
you?

Both the NRC, of which I was a member going back to the 50's and the IRCA,
which I helped found, are increasingly populated by anti-radio people who
are antagonistic towards the stations and the industry they DX. Add that to
the fact that all I seem to see at our AMs are faked DX reports (last one
was a "definite" ID for a name KTNQ has not used for 13 years) and I am
quite down on AM DXers as a group.

Clarification: except for you and a couple of Brother Stari kooks, SW DXers
are as a whole a really interesting group, and have a much less insular view
of things.

Seems to me like you got your ass handed to you in most any discussion you
entered into.

Hardly. The fact that a bunch of radio haters is against the progress of
radio actually supports my argument against the majority of AM (MW) DXers.

Remember: IBOC = QRM

HD = radio's best bet for the future.

IBOC Article
 

I prefer Analog Radio and Analog TV and the old fashioned tried and true
CRT TV sets and CRT computer monitors.I dont care for that new fangled
digital crap.
cuhulin

IBOC Article
 

I am switching away from AM DXing, to exclusive SW Dxing, although I
must say , it is in a sad concession to the digital age.it's inevitable
that IBOC will be included during skywave, and this will benefit casual
listeners in urban areas, and terminate AM DXing.I won't be getting MY
way, so it's time to adapt.

IBOC Article
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be
history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are
anti-radio and luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one,
I'll be sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his
internet connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in
radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative
towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX
organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio to the
detriment of those of us who work in the field.

Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is
skywave night listening, the other poings are moot.

Two things:

1. I question the wisdom of dismissing the hobby of dx'ing in this news
group. Sounds to me like you are trolling for trouble.

2. Like I already posted there is plenty of regional and national
commercials on radio so the long distance reception of stations does pay
off. Now you can go ahead and ignore that to continue to support your
wrongheaded assumptions.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBOC Article
 

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be
history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are
anti-radio and luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one,
I'll be sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his
internet connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in
radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative
towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX
organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio to the
detriment of those of us who work in the field.

Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is
skywave night listening, the other poings are moot.

Two things:

1. I question the wisdom of dismissing the hobby of dx'ing in this news
group. Sounds to me like you are trolling for trouble.

He's a well known troll in other hobbie venues.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC Article
 

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be
history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are
anti-radio and luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one,
I'll be sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his
internet connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in
radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative
towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX
organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio to the
detriment of those of us who work in the field.

Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is
skywave night listening, the other poings are moot.

Two things:

1. I question the wisdom of dismissing the hobby of dx'ing in this news
group. Sounds to me like you are trolling for trouble.

He's a well known troll in other hobbie venues.

I haven't checked on him in other news groups. He seems to be reasonable
in this news group in the past but lately he has gone down hill a little
in my opinion.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBOC Article
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one,
I'll be sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his
internet connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in
radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative
towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX
organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio to the
detriment of those of us who work in the field.

Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is
skywave night listening, the other poings are moot.

Two things:

1. I question the wisdom of dismissing the hobby of dx'ing in this news
group. Sounds to me like you are trolling for trouble.

I sepcifically clarified that it was domestic (NRC and IRCA) MW DXers. For
some reason, they have chosen to attack broadcasting as an industry and
profession. Some even write letters to the FCC questioning the
qualifications of licensees who are doing exactly what the FCC wants:
improving local service.

2. Like I already posted there is plenty of regional and national
commercials on radio so the long distance reception of stations does pay
off. Now you can go ahead and ignore that to continue to support your
wrongheaded assumptions.

I know of less than a dozen stations today that make any money off skywave,
and out of 13,500 US AM and FM stations, less than 200 show up in ratings
outside their own market area (MSA and embedded metros).

IBOC Article
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

1. I question the wisdom of dismissing the hobby of dx'ing in this news
group. Sounds to me like you are trolling for trouble.

He's a well known troll in other hobbie venues.

The only hobby venue I visit is this one.

IBOC Article
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

I haven't checked on him in other news groups. He seems to be reasonable
in this news group in the past but lately he has gone down hill a little
in my opinion.

It is tough to have a high regard for AM DXers these days when they complain
about your management, programming and technical operation, and then send
one after another of false DX reports. As mentioned, the last one (on
Thursday) reported listening to KTNQ with a slogan that has not been used
for 13 or 14 years ("Radio Fiesta") and had a log of musical selections
(KTNQ is talk).

IBOC Article
 

David "HFBPO" Gleason wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

1. I question the wisdom of dismissing the hobby of dx'ing in this news
group. Sounds to me like you are trolling for trouble.

He's a well known troll in other hobbie venues.

The only hobby venue I visit is this one.

Now perhaps.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC Article
 

On 5 Mar 2006 18:58:22 -0800, "cainbryan" wrote:

I am switching away from AM DXing, to exclusive SW Dxing, although I
must say , it is in a sad concession to the digital age.it's inevitable
that IBOC will be included during skywave, and this will benefit casual
listeners in urban areas, and terminate AM DXing.I won't be getting MY
way, so it's time to adapt.

I wouldn't be so sure. Half the population lives beyond the suburbs
and distant night time signals are fairly vital. Besides, the IBOC
makes the AM sound pretty bad.

IBOC Article
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio
and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one, I'll
be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in radio,
whether formatically or technically, and are very negative towards the way
stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX organisaions as they
almost all seem to be out to change radio to the detriment of those of us
who work in the field.

OK, but couldn't much the same be said of building preservationists? They
don't like the changes and want to keep some things the way they love,
despite the fact they have no ownership interest. I wouldn't call building
preservationists anti-architecture, however.



Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is skywave
night listening, the other poings are moot.

However, to an Alex Jones SWL-type distrustful paranoid, Ibiquity's IBOC
looks hidden adgenda-ish. It's not about "CD quality sound" it's about
multicasting.

It is about all of this. It is about giving radio the digital buzzword,
more
channels, and improved AM quality.

Well, it's only my opinion, but the digital buzzword will soon be worth
about as much as the shopworn "turbo" buzzword of a few years ago. Already,
digital is being associated with pixellated video and cellphone audio. By
the time affordable IBOC recievers become available, the term digital may be
a negative.

If there is really much demand for improved AM quality, there would be more
demand for improved AM radios. Better skirt selectivity, lower distortion
dectectors and real noise blankers would be installed in everyday radios.
Such things are available in hobbyist radios. Most people don't want to pay
even a little extra money for a radio.

I think the multichannel capability might attract the most consumer
interest, if such interest develops.



So, if I've got it wrong, please tell me. Is it impossible for the
IBOC-AM
scheme to be used for multicasting?

Pretty much so. Not enough bandwidth unless analog is dropped and all the
signal is devoted to digital.



Yes, but ibiquity anticipates digital radio will replace analog. Then what?
Will the former analog channel be replaced with digital channels?

And might some of these replacement digital channels be pay channels?

Paranoid minds want to know!

Frank Dresser