You want my little female doggy to give you proof?
cuhulin

BAD - Now Now Be Nice )

If - Clean Signals were an Individual Right :
Then IBOC would be Out-Lawed for
Impinging on the Rights of a Minority :
Those Radio Listeners who like to Hear
Long Distance (DX) Radio Signals [.]

The Tyranny of IBOC Will NOT Stand
Stop The Noisy Adjacent Channel Jamming Now !
The Tyranny of The Mass Media Shall Not Stand !

What Do We Want - No Noise !
- - - When Do We Want It - Now !

What Do We Want - No IBOC !
- - - When Do We Want It - Now !

What Do We Want - No QRM !
- - - When Do We Want It - Now !

oh well never mind ~ RHF

David Eduardo wrote:
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.

I really can't see how any compressed audio will be better than PCM.
Again, without hard facts on HD quality, I'll assume it isn't as good
as PCM until shown otherwise.

I can live with FM HD, but the reduced BW of the AM signal isn't a good
idea. KCBS post HD sounds like KFI. [Hey, if I sounded as bad as KFI,
I'd whisper my station ID too.] And the potential interference with
out of town stations (i.e. where the hash of one IBOC channel sits on
the analog signal of another station) is a real show stopper,
especially if at night.

You need to consider all those people who don't live in metropolitan
areas, or even those driving on I-5. I can see HD leading to XM sales
for those who do any rural travelling or live in the sticks.

Since when does the FCC adopt a standard that hands money to one
particular patent holder?

wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message


I can live with FM HD, but the reduced BW of the AM signal isn't a good
idea. KCBS post HD sounds like KFI. [Hey, if I sounded as bad as KFI,
I'd whisper my station ID too.]

KFI is the #3 radio station in LA, the worlds largest radio market in terms
of revenue. It is the 4th highest billing radio station in the US, and,
maybe, the world. YOur subjective judgement on the quality seems to be
unobserved by the 1.2 million Angelinos that listen each week.

And the potential interference with
out of town stations (i.e. where the hash of one IBOC channel sits on
the analog signal of another station) is a real show stopper,
especially if at night.

However, there is no evidence that there is any appreciable listening to out
of town AMs at night.

You need to consider all those people who don't live in metropolitan
areas, or even those driving on I-5. I can see HD leading to XM sales
for those who do any rural travelling or live in the sticks.

In most every part o fthe US, there are multiple FMs, even in western ND or
on the Navajo Nation in AZ, to name a few. Nobody listens to fady AM when
they have FM at hand, or other alternatives like satellite.

AM clears used to get lots of truckers at night. But daytime, they had to
dial from station to station to get music or talk they liked. Today, nearly
all truckers have satellite, which is a perfect application of that
technology. Local statins do not care a bit about losing out of town
truckers or out of town anyone, as they do not help sell local advertising.

Since when does the FCC adopt a standard that hands money to one
particular patent holder?

They did with C quam.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
.. .
Take your IBOC shilling somewhere else. I don't see where most of us
here want to hear about it.

I am trying to explain why htings must change if there is to be any kind
of free radio in the future... AM, FM, SW of any kind. If you want media
all controlled by Rupert Murdeoch and a few major companies that are
world-wide, then stick to your guns. You will be part of the death of
free radio.


WTF??? In case you hadn't noticed, a few major companies already DO
control media.. (or close enough to all of it that it's difficult to find
anyone else in any market that isn't either religious or public radio/TV
or tiny indy papers with a circulation of 200)

Oh my gosh. Somebody has done a real leftist whack job on you, sister.

In the US, no company owns more than 8% of all staitons, and the first 10
companies onw less than 20% of them. There are, in fact, about 3,000 owners
of the 13 thousand US radio staitons.

Newspapers are one of the least consolidated industries in the US, with no
company holding even 10% of US circulation. In fact, the biggies like Gannet
or McClatchy have just a few percent of total daily circulation. One of the
reasons is that newspapers are a bad investment, and are dying very slowly.
There are hundreds and hundreds of different newspaper owners.

There used to be 3 TV nets, with three owners. There are now over a hundred,
with about 30 owners, including multiple minority networks like BET and
Univision and Galavision.

M... IBOC should be good for XM and Sirius Sales ~ RHF

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

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

I'm not clear on what I'm wrong about. Doesn't FM also lose most of
their
listeners, in absolute numbers (not percentage) during the night? What
are
those numbers?

The difference is that FM actually increases share of available listeners
at
night, while AM decreases. All radio has different listening levels at
differnt times. From 6 Am to 7 PM, it is around 22%, while at night it is
more like 7%... keeping in mind that 7 PM is "daytime level" and 11 PM
most
people are asleep and it is around 3% of the universe.

Whaterver the listening level, FM takes more of it at night.



Yes, proprotionally, but I'm interested in how many listeners AM might keep
if they went to IBOC at night. That's what I meant with "absolute numbers".

A further speculative comparision would concern the total number of
listeners with and without IBOC. And not the total for any given station,
but the total for the radio industry. After all, if IBOC doesn't draw a
larger number of dollars from the advertisers, it's expenses will be a loss.

Frank Dresser

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

"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.

How precise would the tracking need to be? Isn't polling good enough? A
good general sense of what people are doing should be much better than
guesswork. Moment to moment tracking seems well into the area of
diminishing returns.

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.

Yeah, back when I was more progressive, anything "space age" was better.
Well, actually I was a sarcastic youngster, and I thought mundane products
wrapped with pictures of stars and a rocket ship were pretty funny. The
regressives didn't take long to catch up.


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)



The question seems to be -- what do people want? The mass market didn't
support FM back when it was the new and improved radio. I think there's a
good case to be made that increased interference is driving people away from
AM, and a reasonable first estimate might suggest that AM IBOC numbers might
more or less balance FM's, with similiar programming. So, maybe it improves
AM fringe reception, and a few listeners switch from a FMer to an AMer.

Frank Dresser

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

"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.



And that's "very few stations that are otherwise viable being affected."?

Frank Dresser

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

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

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

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

Actually, I am a programmer and a pretty good one. I am in favor of
anything that extends the life of AM radio or terrestrial radio in
general.

Is AM radio or terresterial radio really going to die? If so, how?

It is, in business terms, in full matruation and in slow decline. It
will
not grwo in usership, and will only grow slightly ahead of inflation in
revenues. At some point in time, the deliver system will be obsolete,
but
HD
can extend that somewhat.

What's the timeframe? When might the delivery system become obselete?

We don't even know if we are going to be useing towers and transmitters 10
or 15 years from now. technology is moving radpidly enough to consider
that
the current bands and distruibution systems will become obsolete, while
content may be moved on other carriers.

The broadcasting establishment concievably could get out of radio someday,
but I can't imagine any way radio itself could go away. If the price of the
equipment goes down enough, there will always be some dreamer who will try
to make a go of it.

And the evangalists don't expect to turn a profit.


However, we weredall told that the
Internet and streaming would kill radio back in the late 90's, and that
never happened.

But there are reasons streaming audio didn't have many advangages over
radio. "Net congestion" audio. Streaming wasn't portable or availble on a
car radio. Podcasting fixes those and offeres it's own advantages.

Nobody has any basis for making a prediction as the device that will move
us
from towers and transmitters probbly does not exist yet

Sure. It's easy to imagine Pandora like programs autoloading
individualized
net programming into portable players and car radios in the near future.

So, who needs IBOC?

There is no system with adequate bandwidth to satisfy the needs of a
quarter
billion people at present. There is also no system that can do it free,
like
radio is today. The major impediment to satellite and other systems is the
cost of delivery on an ongoing basis.



At present, no. But I don't think it would take a technological
breakthrough for somebody to do it right now. That's "somebody" not
"everybody". And, if there's a limitation on internet bandwidth, we're
nowhere near it. Bandwidth will continue doubling and doubling again into
the forseeable future.

Radio, however, is stuck. It might get a bit more bandwidth at the fringes,
but it won't double.

I also suspect IBOC is fixed in it's currrent incarnation. The newest IBOC
AM might sound good even with it's limited bandwidth, but I can't see any
reason why similiar bandwidth conserving plans can't be used across the
internet. And the internet has the advantage of being able to continually
update it's decoders.

Although I sitll figure ibiquity has the pay radio card up it's sleeve.

I wouldn't blame the ipod generation if they thought IBOC just another
dinosaur media attempt to sell them something like a more sharply pixellated
newspaper.

Frank Dresser