"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

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

[snip]


Would the new, improved nighttime IBOC AM stations be luring listeners
from
other distractions such as TV and the internet, or would they just be
stealing audience from the non-IBOC AM stations and FM stations?

I have no idea, as we don ot know where they go. But if the big AMs get
decent daytime numbers, it is possible they will keep thse shares at
night.

[snip]

You don't know where the listeners are going when they aren't listening to
the radio? It sounds like the industry has no idea what it's competing
against. Yet they seem to think IBOC is going to fix -- ahhhhhhh --
something.

Syndicated radio research is almost totally about what people do while
listening to the radio. The cost of tracking what else they do would be
enormous. We are rolling out the portable people meter, which measures
radio, TV, cable, satellite, storecasts, etc. all together with one
device... and it will cost 66% more than the current costly research. A
small broadcaster that pays $7 million a year will now pay nearly $12
million.

Yet even this can not tell us when someone went to an iPod or whatever.
Radio measurement is intended to help sell advertising, by quantifying
listeners. There are studies that show leisured time activities, but not in
a tracking of moment to moment usage. The cost would be more than radio
makes.

HD is highly researched. But no new product, without trial, can be well
research as consumers can not visualize the unknown until it is totally
tangible. HD still is not on anything but top market stations,a nd the HD 2
rollout is just starting. we know more progressive consumers think analog
is stale and that anything digital is better. We also know that HD 2 doubles
the programming choices, which is good. But radio is part creativity, and
that can not be measured, any more than TV can measure which shows will be
hits or record companies which songs (less than 5% of music releases make
money)

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...


Yes. The model is free for listener, paid by advertiser. There are nearly
a
billion analog radios out there, so there is no effective way to do pay
radio, and the entire licensing system would have to change, something I
doubt the FCC and the folks on the Hill would stand for.



As I understand, the FCC already allows SCA channels to be subscription.
I'm sure the FCC allowed some TV channels to go subscription about 25
years
ago.

But SCA was always designed for narrowcasting, such as stock quotes,
telemetry, and such. HD has not been approved for a subscription model, and
the receiver specs are open access.

The government has already allowed pay broadcasting.

Radio's main defense is being free and ad supported. The relative lack of
success of satellite (many think it will not make money before another
technology supersedes it) is certainly enough to keep us away from that.

In fact, the current authorization is for simulcasting of the analog
content. the only new content is on FM, with the second (and maybe third,
fourth) channels... like HDTV, which is not pay either.

FD,

DE - So Tell Us All - What Are : "Docket 80-90 Drop-Ins"

All I have found so far is :

The Docket 80-90 "Drop-Ins" (new FM stations) were, by definition,
Local Stations that mostly served "Targeted" Community Needs.

I.E. - Broadcasting in Languages 'other' than English to underserved
Groups within a Community (City/Town/Region/State).

FWIW - May also apply to underserved "Religious" Groups within a
Community (City/Town/Region/State).

Docket 80-90 was supposed to be a chance to open Radio Station
Ownership to many new players; turned into a chance for existing
Owners to buy-out-competition and Grow from 1 AM/1 FM to up to
Eight Radio Stations in a Broadcast Area "Media Market".


i want to know ~ RHF

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

texting alone is not a salable benefit. I can't think of a way to make it
so. It is, however, an added benefit, especially to HD digital audio.



Seems like the benefits of texting would be the same regardless of the
method of audio modulation.

RDS is nowhere nearly as robust as HD for texting. It is pretty slow, and
scrolls, rather than sending entire screens of data at once.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
news

he real issue is that most AMs in the US do not serve
today's metro areas, and in more rural areas, most AMs were killed
already
by docket 80-90 drop ins.



I might be familiar to the issue, but I don't know what "docket 80-90 drop
ins" is.

Late 90's, following the Bonita Springs case (station lost its license when
it applied to upgrade, as it opened up, then, competitive bidding) the FCC
added over a thousand new FMs and allowed Class A's to become B's or C's,
and allowed routine major changes, including changes in city of license. End
result... Traverse City, MI, market, with one time 2 AMs, now has about 15
stations city grading a county of 40,000. Lake City, FL. 3 AMs and two FMs
grew to 7 FMs, and nobody makes money... the AMs are useless now, as the
local ground coverage is so poor that the FMs took it all.

In most of this type of market, there is nearly no AM listening, and the
coverage of the local small market AMs is so vastly inferior to the many new
local FMs as to also discourage listening. There are very few decent overage
AMs in America.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
news


Since it only affects Am significantly, and does not affect AMs with good
signals, we are talking about very few stations that are otherwise viable
being affected.

I take it that electromagnatic interference from home electronics isn't
significantly reducing the radio audience even though they are listening
to
analog radios.

This one has been proven. A look at ratings from the 70's and even 80's show
listening ZIP codes to include significant listening in those in the 5 mv/m
to 10 mv/m range. Today, in most large cities, the listening is almost
entirely in the 10/mvm or better... in LA, it is mostly in the 15 mv/m, for
example. The difference is not new stations, as most larger markets have had
no new stations in that period, but the difficulty in listening... and
listener expectations of better signals and less noise.

Blueberry doggy,she is making them ooom ooom noises and slurpin out my
right ear again.That means she needs to take me out in the front
yard,for whatever.
cuhulin

She took a squirt.When she gets done with takin a dump,she kicks her
hind legs (and sometimes,her right front leg too) backward half a dozen
times.I kick my legs right in concert with her too.
cuhulin

I assume you have proof of better than CD sound quality. So you are
saying HD FM is PCM? If not, please retract your statement.

I really have no problem with digital radio schemes, but can't tolerate
anything that screws up the current analog system.

David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

Most listening is NOT to AM anymore. Why not accept tha tthis may be
an
opportunity to make AM move viable for the future?


[snip]

So, how does the future of AM radio differ if nighttime IBOC is
approved
or
not?

The quality is vastly better and can attract listeners for a change.

People tune for content first, then comes quality. I hear HD isn't as
good as XM, which makes is not as good as standardm FM.

The quality of HD on FM is higher than CDs. On AM, it is slightly less. On
XM, it is like a 128 kbs MP3. You choose. To me, satellite sounds the worst
of all.

Improving the signal to noise ratio or bandwidth of Gene Scott or
Brother Stair would not make me listen.

It is about the fidelity, and openness on AM. It is close to current FM
analog quality.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I assume you have proof of better than CD sound quality. So you are
saying HD FM is PCM? If not, please retract your statement.

It is higher quality than analog FM, which is limited in badwith. It is
capable of being "better than CD" quality if only one digital stream is used
on FM. The problem is that there is no material, other than live, to
broadcast that way, so most staitons are doing two HD FM channels.

Also, keep in mind most CDs do not sound very good, as the original
recording was significantly compressed and distorted before the pressing.

I really have no problem with digital radio schemes, but can't tolerate
anything that screws up the current analog system.

FM HD does not affect the quality of the analog signal. It may, in some
cases, cause the inability to hear ultra fringe stations from other markets.
But there is essentially no listening to such stations in such areas, so
there is no loss if nothing existed before.

AM analog has to be backed off to a 5 kHz to 7 kHz upper limit, but since
most analog radios don't go that far even, there is no loss and actually the
more limited bandwidth sounds better on many of today's radios. It certainly
sounds no worse.