|
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message oups.com... I'm actually wondering how this is going to turn out. Imagine two transmitters: WWRU-AM 1660 in Carlstadt, and WTTM 1680 out of Cherry Hill. One serves the New York metro, the other serves the Trenton metro. They're currently running regular AM. In certain parts of New Jersey, the signals overlap. Both are owned by MRBI (Multicultural Radio). I just wonder by how much their night-time range will be decreased should these co-owned stations fire up IBOC at night. Surely that's going to be some real hissy territory and there's going to be some really ****ed off analog listeners. I remember other MRBI-owned stations in the NYC metro testing out IBOC during the day - AM 1480 WZRC/New York and AM 93 WPAT/Paterson both tried it. If I recall, it didn't last long. They're back to standard analog-only AM. When Salem bought WIND 560 from us., the turned HD off. this was because they were concerned about the loss of ulltra fringe coverage to the 540 they own in the Milwaukee market. Since the 540 lives, apparently, from preaching and teaching paid programs, every listener with a donation insures renewal of the programs, so they were protecting a (rather tenuous) revenue stream. At some point, religious stations will find that, as HD radios (hopefully) arrive at the right price points, the texting ability will enhance the programming. Constant scrolling of the mail address or web address of the sponsor will enhance donations. Preachers can even scroll chapter and verse of Scripture! The mind boggles! |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
David Eduardo wrote: When Salem bought WIND 560 from us., the turned HD off. this was because From what I've read, Salem is holding off on implementing IBOC. They want to sit back and see how it all develops before they jump into it, so they say. I still have my "La Tremenda 560" coffee mug. Got it shortly before the station got sold off. You remeber the silly stuff that was being sold by HBC through Coffee-Press? ^_^ -- steph |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message ps.com... David Eduardo wrote: When Salem bought WIND 560 from us., the turned HD off. this was because From what I've read, Salem is holding off on implementing IBOC. They want to sit back and see how it all develops before they jump into it, so they say. I still have my "La Tremenda 560" coffee mug. Got it shortly before the station got sold off. You remeber the silly stuff that was being sold by HBC through Coffee-Press? ^_^ Yeah, I remember. Not the most elegant creations... |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
In article ,
David Eduardo wrote: At some point, religious stations will find that, as HD radios (hopefully) arrive at the right price points, the texting ability will enhance the programming. Constant scrolling of the mail address or web address of the sponsor will enhance donations. Preachers can even scroll chapter and verse of Scripture! The mind boggles! The sort of radio that audience (little old ladies on a pension) can afford probably won't have that feature available. Some bitty little plastic lump with a tiny display and buttons so small that they can't be programmed by anybody over 9 years old. Ergonomicly designed radios seem to be a high end niche. Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
Doug Smith W9WI wrote: David Eduardo wrote: At some point, religious stations will find that, as HD radios (hopefully) arrive at the right price points, the texting ability will enhance the programming. Constant scrolling of the mail address or web address of the That's an interesting point. The text data seems far more robust than the audio; I've received 'text IDs' from AM-IBOC stations 800 miles away, while digital audio from an 18-mile-distant station is difficult. Maybe AM-IBOC will prove useful as a text-broadcasting scheme? It has certainly succeeded as a QRM scheme. dxAce Michigan USA |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Stephanie Weil" wrote in message oups.com... I'm actually wondering how this is going to turn out. Imagine two transmitters: WWRU-AM 1660 in Carlstadt, and WTTM 1680 out of Cherry Hill. One serves the New York metro, the other serves the Trenton metro. They're currently running regular AM. In certain parts of New Jersey, the signals overlap. Both are owned by MRBI (Multicultural Radio). I just wonder by how much their night-time range will be decreased should these co-owned stations fire up IBOC at night. Surely that's going to be some real hissy territory and there's going to be some really ****ed off analog listeners. I remember other MRBI-owned stations in the NYC metro testing out IBOC during the day - AM 1480 WZRC/New York and AM 93 WPAT/Paterson both tried it. If I recall, it didn't last long. They're back to standard analog-only AM. When Salem bought WIND 560 from us., the turned HD off. this was because they were concerned about the loss of ulltra fringe coverage to the 540 they own in the Milwaukee market. Since the 540 lives, apparently, from preaching and teaching paid programs, every listener with a donation insures renewal of the programs, so they were protecting a (rather tenuous) revenue stream. At some point, religious stations will find that, as HD radios (hopefully) arrive at the right price points, the texting ability will enhance the programming. Constant scrolling of the mail address or web address of the sponsor will enhance donations. Preachers can even scroll chapter and verse of Scripture! The mind boggles! A better plan of frequencies to use IBOC on needs to be implemented than just having stations start turning it on across the band day or night. I think more people are going to be ****ed off about losing their long distance reception than you think. Just because such listening does not show up in the surveys and so has nothing to do with a stations revenue stream does not mean that there can not be a listener lash back when the general population can't hear stations other than local ones evenings. Because this change will affect many people and the equipment used at some point there has to be a more orderly transition of some sort. This is apparent from current night time interference complaints. Like any new technology as the number of manufactured units goes up the price will go down. The text ability could be a new revenue stream. Might end up being used for commercials. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
I own two Waterford Crystal coffee cups.(some other Waterford Crystal
thingys too) I never use them though,they just sit there on the shelf and look pretty. cuhulin |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
I done told y'all before,,,, U.S.fed govt does not like it that we can
pick up real news on Shortwave Radio.We will see if I am right. cuhulin |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
|
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"RHF" wrote in message oups.com... Telamon, The old Road Trip where you could may be travel 75 to 150 Miles while 'listening' to the same AM Radio Station will be a thing of the past with IBOC. Most listening is NOT to AM anymore. Why not accept tha tthis may be an opportunity to make AM move viable for the future? Every 35-50 Miles will require a the selection of a new AM Radio Station and tuning in the locals as you go. This jus tis not true, as listening to the HD stations in LA and San Diego will prove. . IBOC should greatly benefit local AM Radio Stations and actually cut into the Coverage Area of the old time 50KW Clear Channels due to all the Adjacent Channel Noise that IBOC will generate across the Band. Since none of the clear channel stations (with all caps, it is a company, not a class) really cares about covedring much else than the local metro area and immediate fringe area, this will not affect anyone. Probably 95% of the revenue of these, and all AMs, is generated in the daylight hours and inside the primary groundwave contour. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"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? Frank Dresser |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Telamon" wrote in message ... [snip] The text ability could be a new revenue stream. Might end up being used for commercials. Just to be complete, IBOC isn't necessary to send radio text. FMers have been able to send text in a limited form with RDS. It's kinda nifty, but RDS text hasn't set the world on fire. It is necessary to send on AM, though. And RDS was created to do something which is almost unknown in the US... skip from transmitter to transmitter of national simulcast networks. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"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. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
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. And QRM the adjacent channels to boot. Such a deal for you bean counters. dxAce Michigan USA |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... "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. Where will these new found listeners come from? I've gotten the impression just about nobody is listening to the radio during the night. Frank Dresser |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
"David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Telamon" wrote in message ... [snip] The text ability could be a new revenue stream. Might end up being used for commercials. Just to be complete, IBOC isn't necessary to send radio text. FMers have been able to send text in a limited form with RDS. It's kinda nifty, but RDS text hasn't set the world on fire. It is necessary to send on AM, though. And RDS was created to do something which is almost unknown in the US... skip from transmitter to transmitter of national simulcast networks. Right, but RDS would make a good low cost starting point for an expanded FM text service. And we'd have it, if somebody thought there was real money in it. Frank Dresser |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"dxAce" wrote in message ... 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. And QRM the adjacent channels to boot. Such a deal for you bean counters. 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. The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... "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. Where will these new found listeners come from? I've gotten the impression just about nobody is listening to the radio during the night. AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of night listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference coming from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out about 75% of all AMs anyway. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
On Sat, 27 May 2006 16:42:58 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote: "David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... [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? Frank Dresser Can't happen unless everybody has the digital receivers. Otherwise they'll be covering each other up. |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Right, but RDS would make a good low cost starting point for an expanded FM text service. And we'd have it, if somebody thought there was real money in it. Nobody wants to fight for RDS as it has no competitive advantage and is not applicable to AM. As I said, it was developed for European simulcasts to allow automatic signal seeking, which is not an issue in the USA. |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
"David Eduardo" wrote in message . net... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Right, but RDS would make a good low cost starting point for an expanded FM text service. And we'd have it, if somebody thought there was real money in it. Nobody wants to fight for RDS as it has no competitive advantage and is not applicable to AM. As I said, it was developed for European simulcasts to allow automatic signal seeking, which is not an issue in the USA. So, radio text needs every potential reader to eke out a profit? 60% of the audience would not have been enough? Frank Dresser |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic from Cleveland wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... 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. And QRM the adjacent channels to boot. Such a deal for you bean counters. Actually, I am a programmer and a pretty good one. That's debatable. If I recall correctly, I've heard some of the stuff you claim to be responsible for and it sucks. I am in favor of anything that extends the life of AM radio or terrestrial radio in general. The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges. There's nothing 'free' about the IBOC QRM destroying two adjacent channels. dxAce Michigan USA |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"David Eduardo" wrote in message et... "dxAce" wrote in message ... 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. And QRM the adjacent channels to boot. Such a deal for you bean counters. 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? If you mean "die as we know it", well, that's always happening. The radio of 1966 is dead, as is the radio of 1926. Big deal. If nighttime IBOC AM somehow timecapsules the radio of 2006, it's hardly worth it. The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges. Most podcasting is free, unless you count the cost of the internet connection. However, downloaders would have the internet connection anyway, so there's no additional cost. I can see how the internet might cut into the radio establishment's profits. Frank Dresser |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"David Eduardo" wrote in message et... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... "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. Where will these new found listeners come from? I've gotten the impression just about nobody is listening to the radio during the night. AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of night listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference coming from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out about 75% of all AMs anyway. But FM loses most of thier listeners at night. AM underindexes that. So, at best, AM might lose only the same percentage of audience as FM. 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? But, if the entire radio industry is really, really facing an impending doom, redistributing the audience is little different than rearranging the deck chairs on the ... Frank Dresser |
IBOC at night and the local/regiona AMs
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message . net... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Right, but RDS would make a good low cost starting point for an expanded FM text service. And we'd have it, if somebody thought there was real money in it. Nobody wants to fight for RDS as it has no competitive advantage and is not applicable to AM. As I said, it was developed for European simulcasts to allow automatic signal seeking, which is not an issue in the USA. So, radio text needs every potential reader to eke out a profit? 60% of the audience would not have been enough? 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. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"dxAce" wrote in message ... There's nothing 'free' about the IBOC QRM destroying two adjacent channels. .... that nobody listens to. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"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. If you mean "die as we know it", well, that's always happening. The radio of 1966 is dead, as is the radio of 1926. Big deal. If nighttime IBOC AM somehow timecapsules the radio of 2006, it's hardly worth it. Radio will become a content driven industry, rather than a delivery system model. Radio companies that move desirable content through new delivery methods will survive. Others will not. For 84 years, radio has been the same model. Get listeners, sell ads to reach them. As long as that model is viable, radio will not be changed at all. The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges. Most podcasting is free, unless you count the cost of the internet connection. However, downloaders would have the internet connection anyway, so there's no additional cost. Many of the more desirable podcasts are radio content, available for listening on demand. It is just like TV wiht a TiVo. I can see how the internet might cut into the radio establishment's profits. It has not so far, and probably the model that will work will be WiMax once there is adequate bandwidth, low cost and an easy way to find content. A radio dial is easy. A computer is less easy. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic from Cleveland once again made no sense when he wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... There's nothing 'free' about the IBOC QRM destroying two adjacent channels. ... that nobody listens to. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of night listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference coming from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out about 75% of all AMs anyway. But FM loses most of thier listeners at night. AM underindexes that. So, at best, AM might lose only the same percentage of audience as FM. No, if AM has 30% of all radio listening in the day, it has 15% at night. 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. But, if the entire radio industry is really, really facing an impending doom, redistributing the audience is little different than rearranging the deck chairs on the ... there is no short term danger. Radio is pretty resilient. HD is one example of how we come up with ways of protecting our franchises. I have seen 45's, cassettes, 8-tracks, CDs, VHS, BetaMax, CATV, HDTV, Video games, pay per view, DVDs, computers, the Internet, and plenty more come, and some go. I think I can survive one or two more attacks before going to live among the pine trees in Arizona. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"dxAce" wrote in message ... David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic from Cleveland once again made no sense when he wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... There's nothing 'free' about the IBOC QRM destroying two adjacent channels. ... that nobody listens to. Nobody listens to the adjacent channels that are next to local stations. So there is no loss if there is nobody there anyway. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic from Cleveland once again failed to make any sense when he wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic from Cleveland once again made no sense when he wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... There's nothing 'free' about the IBOC QRM destroying two adjacent channels. ... that nobody listens to. Nobody listens to the adjacent channels that are next to local stations. So there is no loss if there is nobody there anyway. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
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. Improving the signal to noise ratio or bandwidth of Gene Scott or Brother Stair would not make me listen. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
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. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message . net... "dxAce" wrote in message ... There's nothing 'free' about the IBOC QRM destroying two adjacent channels. ... that nobody listens to. You know, I take great umbrage at your continued assertion that myself and 4 million others are "nobody". We are real, we don't conform to your narrow view of the world, and we form a significant part of the economy. You got that figure from me. 2% of the population 12+ ( of about 220 million) is the number of people who listen to AM at night (7 to midnight is night), and they do listen, but to local stations. There is no discernable listening to skywave out of market signals at night. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"David Eduardo" wrote in message et... 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. The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges. So, digital modulation is an attempt to extend the life of commericial radio. Will digital modulation always remain free? Frank Dresser |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"David Eduardo" wrote in message et... AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of night listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference coming from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out about 75% of all AMs anyway. Has the radio establishment lobbied as hard for a reduction of electromagnetic pollution from home electronics as it has for IBOC? Frank Dresser |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message et... 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. The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges. So, digital modulation is an attempt to extend the life of commericial radio. Will digital modulation always remain free? 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. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message et... AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of night listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference coming from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out about 75% of all AMs anyway. Has the radio establishment lobbied as hard for a reduction of electromagnetic pollution from home electronics as it has for IBOC? 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. 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. |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"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? If you mean "die as we know it", well, that's always happening. The radio of 1966 is dead, as is the radio of 1926. Big deal. If nighttime IBOC AM somehow timecapsules the radio of 2006, it's hardly worth it. Radio will become a content driven industry, rather than a delivery system model. Radio companies that move desirable content through new delivery methods will survive. Others will not. For 84 years, radio has been the same model. Get listeners, sell ads to reach them. As long as that model is viable, radio will not be changed at all. The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges. Most podcasting is free, unless you count the cost of the internet connection. However, downloaders would have the internet connection anyway, so there's no additional cost. Many of the more desirable podcasts are radio content, available for listening on demand. It is just like TV wiht a TiVo. But there's no additional costs with most netcasts. Is there any guarantee that IBOC won't have a pay radio angle? I can see how the internet might cut into the radio establishment's profits. It has not so far, and probably the model that will work will be WiMax once there is adequate bandwidth, low cost and an easy way to find content. A radio dial is easy. A computer is less easy. 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? Frank Dresser |
IBOC at Night and the Local/Regional AMs
"David Eduardo" wrote in message . net... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of night listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference coming from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out about 75% of all AMs anyway. But FM loses most of thier listeners at night. AM underindexes that. So, at best, AM might lose only the same percentage of audience as FM. No, if AM has 30% of all radio listening in the day, it has 15% at night. 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? 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. But, if the entire radio industry is really, really facing an impending doom, redistributing the audience is little different than rearranging the deck chairs on the ... there is no short term danger. Radio is pretty resilient. HD is one example of how we come up with ways of protecting our franchises. I have seen 45's, cassettes, 8-tracks, CDs, VHS, BetaMax, CATV, HDTV, Video games, pay per view, DVDs, computers, the Internet, and plenty more come, and some go. I think I can survive one or two more attacks before going to live among the pine trees in Arizona. Agreed. Radio is pretty resilent. And there will always somebody who wants to get on the air, even if there isn't big money in it anymore. Frank Dresser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com