David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
David Eduardo wrote:
The greater good is trying to preserve the existing free terrestrial
broadcast system, which will not endure unless a digital alternative
is
offered.
We got that through numerous posts you have made.
You may have. DXass certainly hasn't, nor has Steve and the now-absent
"IBOC_Sucks" guy.
And yet, you're the one who wrote, in post 173, that AM will never
become primarily digital and, in fact, you say you "have never heard it
discussed."

I think that most listening in the future will be to the digital signal, not
the analog. I have never heard anyone talk about turning analog off.




I've spoken with two GM's, now, who've said they can't wait to shut
the analog off, and save the cost of power. Especially with energy costs
about to skyrocket here, that can be quite a difference in the bottom line.

I know they talk amongst each other, and I know it's been discussed
for some future date. Nothing official, of course. And nothing from the
Commission. But it's being discussed. And like analog TV, when the
digital audience reaches a certain saturation, it would be fiscally
silly to continue to support a mode that's not being listened to.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
David Eduardo wrote:
The greater good is trying to preserve the existing free terrestrial
broadcast system, which will not endure unless a digital alternative
is
offered.
We got that through numerous posts you have made.
You may have. DXass certainly hasn't, nor has Steve and the now-absent
"IBOC_Sucks" guy.
And yet, you're the one who wrote, in post 173, that AM will never
become primarily digital and, in fact, you say you "have never heard it
discussed."

I think that most listening in the future will be to the digital signal,
not the analog. I have never heard anyone talk about turning analog off.




I've spoken with two GM's, now, who've said they can't wait to shut the
analog off, and save the cost of power. Especially with energy costs about
to skyrocket here, that can be quite a difference in the bottom line.

That is an interesting reason... spend $100 k at least to go HD, and then
shut off analog to save a couple of thousand.

I just do not think that there would be a win for at least a decade by being
only digital.

I know they talk amongst each other, and I know it's been discussed for
some future date. Nothing official, of course. And nothing from the
Commission. But it's being discussed. And like analog TV, when the digital
audience reaches a certain saturation, it would be fiscally silly to
continue to support a mode that's not being listened to.

This sounds more like the FCC, which is responsible for the sunset law on
analog TV. Hopefully, this was a lesson learned that you can not force
consumers to buy things they do not yet want.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:06:09 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:09:28 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



The only difference is in the improved audio quality. There is no such
thing
as "serious" radio listening... it is almost all done to accompany other
things, like working, driving, etc.


Aside from being quieter, it really doesn't sound any better.

It is much better fidelity and quality


I don't hear it. Just cleaner. MPEG4 sounds crappy to me.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
The greater good is trying to preserve the existing free terrestrial
broadcast system, which will not endure unless a digital alternative
is
offered.

We got that through numerous posts you have made.

You may have. DXass certainly hasn't, nor has Steve and the now-absent
"IBOC_Sucks" guy.


And yet, you're the one who wrote, in post 173, that AM will never
become primarily digital and, in fact, you say you "have never heard it
discussed."

I think that most listening in the future will be to the digital signal, not
the analog. I have never heard anyone talk about turning analog off.

Yep, it's nappy time for this thread.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
David Eduardo wrote:
The greater good is trying to preserve the existing free terrestrial
broadcast system, which will not endure unless a digital alternative
is
offered.
We got that through numerous posts you have made.
You may have. DXass certainly hasn't, nor has Steve and the now-absent
"IBOC_Sucks" guy.
And yet, you're the one who wrote, in post 173, that AM will never
become primarily digital and, in fact, you say you "have never heard it
discussed."
I think that most listening in the future will be to the digital signal,
not the analog. I have never heard anyone talk about turning analog off.



I've spoken with two GM's, now, who've said they can't wait to shut the
analog off, and save the cost of power. Especially with energy costs about
to skyrocket here, that can be quite a difference in the bottom line.

That is an interesting reason... spend $100 k at least to go HD, and then
shut off analog to save a couple of thousand.


$100k is a Cap item. The couple of thousand is recurring. When we
bought into the new combiner on the top of the Hancock and upgraded our
antenna, we dropped more than $1.3M and no one batted an eye. But we
were still reusing the toner in the copy machine, and bitching about the
airconditioning bill in the summer. No one blinks at the Cap item when
it can result in recurring savings.

Especially when use of the analog stream falls below the use of the
HD stream, and with as many distribution outlets many stations are
investigating, a GM will get a real itch to shut down the analog stream,
and save that outflow for something more profitable.





I just do not think that there would be a win for at least a decade by being
only digital.


I think that may be a bit optimistic. Given the rate at which radio
use in general is declining, (and this has been a fairly recently
documented phenomenon...even as late as last year, the numbers suggested
that things were only off slightly...Bridge has been reporting sizeable
erosion for the last two quarters, now) and given the difficulty, at
least from where I sit, in listening to AM signals, and the lack of
options for retrieving some content once the IBOC hash blots out the
available signals, I don't expect things to remain viable for analog AM
for anything near a decade.

Let me give you an example...where I am, far north suburbs of
Chicago, about a 3 wood from Waukegan...I've got two AM's, one
Milwaukee, one in Chicago, that carry Rush Limbaugh. If I want to
consume that content, those are my choices. There is no local station
offering that content. As the IBOC rash spreads, those stations, WISN
and WLS will become closed to me. They're nearly impossible to catch
some days, anyway, due to noise. The Din of iBiquity would close them
entirely, as it has a number of other stations formerly available here.
And you know I'm no slouch when I want a signal. But even I can't pull
content out of the noise where IBOC is concerned.

Now, I'm part of Chicago metro. So is Pete Gianakopoulos. But we're
going to be under served when the IBOC rash spreads to the rest of the
dial. And there is no alternative, no local frequency, offering what's
available from the Chicago and Milwaukee AM's. Rush isn't on FM around
here. And he's not on XM or Sirius.

Air America, where I am, is no longer listenable.

So, there's content put off limits by the laws of physics, where the
FCC's model says we should be enjoying AM reception from the market to
which we belong.

In that light, keeping the analog stream alive for a decade is more
or less, just silly.

Now, I realize that my mileage may vary...but I can't be the only one
experiencing this. Nor can this be the only area it's happening.

Eventually, the conversation about terminating analog AM will extend
beyond the coffee bars between GM's and into much higher places where
things get decided in earnest.









I know they talk amongst each other, and I know it's been discussed for
some future date. Nothing official, of course. And nothing from the
Commission. But it's being discussed. And like analog TV, when the digital
audience reaches a certain saturation, it would be fiscally silly to
continue to support a mode that's not being listened to.

This sounds more like the FCC, which is responsible for the sunset law on
analog TV. Hopefully, this was a lesson learned that you can not force
consumers to buy things they do not yet want.


Apparently, a lesson not yet learned. At least not judging by this
newsgroup.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news

$100k is a Cap item. The couple of thousand is recurring.

But the cap item depreciation hits each year and quarter. Granted, it does
not impact EBITDA, but if you are a non-public corporation, that would not
matter... it is money out of pocket.

When we bought into the new combiner on the top of the Hancock and
upgraded our antenna, we dropped more than $1.3M and no one batted an eye.
But we were still reusing the toner in the copy machine, and bitching
about the airconditioning bill in the summer. No one blinks at the Cap
item when it can result in recurring savings.

I guess some companies look at it that way. I wish I had a huge capex budget
like that!

Especially when use of the analog stream falls below the use of the HD
stream, and with as many distribution outlets many stations are
investigating, a GM will get a real itch to shut down the analog stream,
and save that outflow for something more profitable.

I am an HD supporter, but I can nrealistically see this tipping point int he
next 5 to 7 years. Can you? I don't even know if AM will survive.


I think that may be a bit optimistic. Given the rate at which radio use
in general is declining, (and this has been a fairly recently documented
phenomenon...even as late as last year, the numbers suggested that things
were only off slightly..

The decline in cume is very small. 2% since '65. The listening time is off 2
hours off a base of 21 for the average listener, and that is since 1988. So
we have nearly 10% or a rate of nearly a percent a year. However, the
erosion is mostly in non-servable demos, teens and 55+ with some 18-24, but
far less. There are so many reasons for all this that it is not easily
analyzed.

.Bridge has been reporting sizeable erosion for the last two quarters, now)
and given the difficulty, at least from where I sit, in listening to AM
signals, and the lack of options for retrieving some content once the IBOC
hash blots out the available signals, I don't expect things to remain
viable for analog AM for anything near a decade.

Bridge really lacks credibility to me. They use a marketing model of
Awareness - Trial _ Usage and not a broad sample nor much ethnic sample
(they apparently have no Hisanic interviewers, as far as I know) and the
data is suspect. Arbittron has a lot of data on the website, with immense
samples over a million a year.

Let me give you an example...where I am, far north suburbs of Chicago,
about a 3 wood from Waukegan...I've got two AM's, one Milwaukee, one in
Chicago, that carry Rush Limbaugh. If I want to consume that content,
those are my choices. There is no local station offering that content. As
the IBOC rash spreads, those stations, WISN and WLS will become closed to
me. They're nearly impossible to catch some days, anyway, due to noise.
The Din of iBiquity would close them entirely, as it has a number of other
stations formerly available here. And you know I'm no slouch when I want a
signal. But even I can't pull content out of the noise where IBOC is
concerned.

This is more an AM probem in current noise level environments. we find we
can not get diaries in LA with under 15 mv/m, and 20 is better.

Agfian, Am may not make it. News talk is migrating to FM now, including DC,
tallahassee, Phoenix, Salt Lake, etc. This may be inevitable. AM analog
sucks.

Eventually, the conversation about terminating analog AM will extend
beyond the coffee bars between GM's and into much higher places where
things get decided in earnest.

Maybe if nobody is making money, we will go all digital. I see this as a
beyond 5 year issue.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
The digital alternative may well be the doom of AM radio. No one
will
pay to listen to a slightly inferior version of FM.

Pay? there is no fee.

Buy the radio, no further fee. Get the radio, get far improved
quality.

I will bet you have not listened to HD AM either ever or recently,
especially with codec ver. 2.2.5.

No one will be attracted to it under any circumstances if its chief
selling point is that it's "almost as good as the alternatives"

FM HD is better than any other current distribution system, plus it is
free.

AM HD is as good as any alternative system, and is free. It is much
better
than Analog AM.

"as good as" isn't what you've said previously, but it's also not good
enough to cut the mustard.

AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

Unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant.

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...


AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the
that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

Unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant.

Nope. It is relevant since the issue with radio usage has to do wtith usage
of other entertainment and audio sources.

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


AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the
that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

Unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant.

Nope. It is relevant since the issue with radio usage has to do wtith usage
of other entertainment and audio sources.


Nope. We are discussing no such issue.

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

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


AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio,
and the
that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than
analog AM.

Unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant.

Nope. It is relevant since the issue with radio usage has to do
wtith usage
of other entertainment and audio sources.


Nope. We are discussing no such issue.

It has to do with how people use radio now. If
other things are displacing radio in areas that
radio has traditionally dominated, maybe it has
something to do with what is put on the radio,
rather than the reception of the radio or the
quality of sound of the radio. For pete's sake,
128 MB MP3s are no better than cassette quality
(or from what I can judge), but because people
can mix their own playlists that they believe are
better than what you find on the radio (with less
commercials or inane chatter or bathroom jokes),
people will continue to use those 128 MB MP3's.

There are people (I am one) who used to mix
tapes for friends just because I liked doing it
(also did a stint at a college radio station as
a DJ, so I'm also well aware of how little input
I had in the playlist). It was usually a PITA,
and it would take a couple of hours to get a
tape together. Fast forward 15 years, and
right before we went on vacation this summer,
I spent 1/2 hour putting 3-4 CDs together of
a mix of music off of my personal collection
that I've ripped. I know I could have chosen
to listen to the radio on the trip (it was a two
day trip to a certain location in Orlando, FL),
but the kids outvoted me and wanted to listen
to their stuff.

--Mike L.