AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

"IBOC_sucks_!" wrote in message
ups.com...

D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

Whether or not the radios are available or whether or not most
people have heard
about HD radio is not the point, **** for brains.

The point is if the broadcasters are allowed to turn the crap on
at night it's
going to make one hell of a mess, regardless of any other
factors.




Which kind of underscores something that has been alluded to,
but
never really stated outright, until this past couple of weeks....


This past week, XM Canada entered into an agreement with a
cellphone
carrier to distribute XM on cellphones.

I hadn't thought about my cellphone much. I tend not to carry
it
unless I"m specifically expecting a call from someone I want to
hear
from. Otherwise it sits on my desk. But when I read about the XM
Canada
deal, I realized that my cellphone has not only an FM radio built
in,
but internet access.

See where this is going?

Eric Richards made a good, and rather vocal, point--that
currently,
there are alternatives to terrestrial radio. There's internet
radio. The
iPod is ubiquitous. And now handles everything from ripped CD
tracks to
network TV shows. More stations are podcasting. Thousands are
streaming.
XM and Sirius are carrying whole radio stations, now, with more in
negotiation.

Last month was announced the first standalone internet radio.
No PC
required. You can simply plug your broadband connection into the
back
and select from thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Internet
Radio
stations.

And commercial broadcasters are beginning to sign on to every
one of
these alternative methods of delivery. Which raises a real
interesting
question:

Who needs the headache and expense of maintaining a full
power
broadcast audio channel?


Now, I've heard IBOC. I'm not impressed. What I've heard has
not met
the expectations claimed for it. That may change. But then,
again,
maybe not. The real benefits of digital audio/broacast are not in
audio
quality--that's subjective and debatable till we all meet at
Milliways--the benefits of digital are in management and
distribution.
And THAT means profitabiltiy. Any audio can be put anywhere, sent
in
seconds, even pulled from an archive without a human attendant. In
precisely the quality with which it was put there. Regardless of
the
source, transmission, or end user hardware. For the one-time cost
of the
hardware.

What IBOC does, that no one has substantively addressed, is it
puts
into play a high tech solution for the ever increasing recurring
costs
of maintaining a transmitter. IBOC uses a fraction of the power of
a
broadcast transmitter to cover about the same area. Broadcast
Manglement comes at that thought. The idea of being able to put
their
signal out there, and cut the power bill by 50% makes GMs wet and
throbbing. Lower cost, higher profit. Local radio stays local. And
IBOC
becomes only ONE of an ever increasing number of ways for
listeners to
interact with the Radio Station. The transmitter becomes one
channel of
distribution.

And when you've got the ability to pull the station out of the
air
with your cell phone, a portable satellite receiver, or an IBOC
radio,
what really does that mean for IBOC generated interference on a
band
where most of us admit, the pickin's is so slim that we have to
tune out
of market to find something listenable.

Kind of renders the point moot. And there are more methods of
distribution being created every day. Meaning, that terrestrial
radio is
becoming less important as a source. One of many. One that's
rapidly
slipping from the most convenient and ubiquitous, to more
inconvenient,
and easy to overlook.


Now, for us, that blows. We enjoy the process of setting up,
and
capturing, with some anonymity, the content of our choosing, even
if it
is found across the country. And doing it for no more than the
cost of
our own ingenuity, and what hardware we build/buy.

Those days are coming to a close. At least with the toys we
currently
have.

And as for DRM.....I've heard DRM. It was, in a word,
impressive.
Still not FM quality. But close enough. Full bandwidth music, in
stereo, on shortwave. Hoodathunkit? And yet, there it was.

And again, requiring less energy to distribute to the same
target.

SW broadcasters have been on the internet, and satellite, now
for a
decade. The actual transmitters, as with MW transmitters, are
becoming
just another outlet. Just another method of distribution. DRM
interference, is just another minor annoyance for a service that's
lost
it's place in the pantheon of content distribution options.

A little short sighted in some cases. Especially, as we learned
from
Galaxy 5, that distribution in the hands of 3rd parties can leave
broadcasters severely cut off. But short sightedness is the order
of the
day. Especially when there are budgets to be cut. And bonuses to
be
collected. And given that many of our international broadcasters
exist
to present sources of information alternative to domestic
media...well...trashing shortwave also allows political influence
on
content by controlling access. Something, we, as SWL's, have
understood
since WWII.

Timetables? Good question. Terrestrial radio companies needs to
find
ways to make alternative outlets profitable with advertising
support.
Believe me, they're working on it. When the model is finally
struck...and it won't come from the broadcasters...it will, as
always,
come from the advertisers, things will evolve pretty quickly.

Radio will survive. Not in a form we recognize, perhaps, but it
will
survive.

So, yeah, when IBOC goes full time, things will be a mess.

You see, Richards was right....we, as listeners have
alternatives.

So, actually, now, do the broadcasters.

As far as the interference goes...the broadcasters...the
FCC....


They don't care.

They don't have to.

There will be a slew of objections, from interfered stations, to the
FCC and lawsuits. The stations have the option of turning off IBOC,
which some of them already have. I have never heard that, dfor
example,
a 50K watt analog only stations, will be able to reduce its power
comsumption, by running IBOC. Also, it has been shown that IBOC
does
not have the coverage, or penetration, of analog.

Hmm. The flamethrowers locally (1530 and 700) like to
spout off how many watts they transmit with. It'll
take a pretty big change of attitude at those stations.

--Mike L.

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

dxAce wrote:
" wrote:


the point is you are lazy and want you dx handed to you whine jerk

The point, in your case, is that you're one screwed up individual.
hardly I am not the one demanding that the whiole make your hobby easy
for you

that is your lie

you are lazty afraid to work for what you want

Get help!

for?

telling the truth about you? oh lazy one
dxAce
Michigan
USA

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

Michael Lawson wrote:
"IBOC_sucks_!" wrote in message
ups.com...

D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

Whether or not the radios are available or whether or not most
people have heard
about HD radio is not the point, **** for brains.

The point is if the broadcasters are allowed to turn the crap on
at night it's
going to make one hell of a mess, regardless of any other
factors.




Which kind of underscores something that has been alluded to,
but
never really stated outright, until this past couple of weeks....


This past week, XM Canada entered into an agreement with a
cellphone
carrier to distribute XM on cellphones.

I hadn't thought about my cellphone much. I tend not to carry
it
unless I"m specifically expecting a call from someone I want to
hear
from. Otherwise it sits on my desk. But when I read about the XM
Canada
deal, I realized that my cellphone has not only an FM radio built
in,
but internet access.

See where this is going?

Eric Richards made a good, and rather vocal, point--that
currently,
there are alternatives to terrestrial radio. There's internet
radio. The
iPod is ubiquitous. And now handles everything from ripped CD
tracks to
network TV shows. More stations are podcasting. Thousands are
streaming.
XM and Sirius are carrying whole radio stations, now, with more in
negotiation.

Last month was announced the first standalone internet radio.
No PC
required. You can simply plug your broadband connection into the
back
and select from thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Internet
Radio
stations.

And commercial broadcasters are beginning to sign on to every
one of
these alternative methods of delivery. Which raises a real
interesting
question:

Who needs the headache and expense of maintaining a full
power
broadcast audio channel?


Now, I've heard IBOC. I'm not impressed. What I've heard has
not met
the expectations claimed for it. That may change. But then,
again,
maybe not. The real benefits of digital audio/broacast are not in
audio
quality--that's subjective and debatable till we all meet at
Milliways--the benefits of digital are in management and
distribution.
And THAT means profitabiltiy. Any audio can be put anywhere, sent
in
seconds, even pulled from an archive without a human attendant. In
precisely the quality with which it was put there. Regardless of
the
source, transmission, or end user hardware. For the one-time cost
of the
hardware.

What IBOC does, that no one has substantively addressed, is it
puts
into play a high tech solution for the ever increasing recurring
costs
of maintaining a transmitter. IBOC uses a fraction of the power of
a
broadcast transmitter to cover about the same area. Broadcast
Manglement comes at that thought. The idea of being able to put
their
signal out there, and cut the power bill by 50% makes GMs wet and
throbbing. Lower cost, higher profit. Local radio stays local. And
IBOC
becomes only ONE of an ever increasing number of ways for
listeners to
interact with the Radio Station. The transmitter becomes one
channel of
distribution.

And when you've got the ability to pull the station out of the
air
with your cell phone, a portable satellite receiver, or an IBOC
radio,
what really does that mean for IBOC generated interference on a
band
where most of us admit, the pickin's is so slim that we have to
tune out
of market to find something listenable.

Kind of renders the point moot. And there are more methods of
distribution being created every day. Meaning, that terrestrial
radio is
becoming less important as a source. One of many. One that's
rapidly
slipping from the most convenient and ubiquitous, to more
inconvenient,
and easy to overlook.


Now, for us, that blows. We enjoy the process of setting up,
and
capturing, with some anonymity, the content of our choosing, even
if it
is found across the country. And doing it for no more than the
cost of
our own ingenuity, and what hardware we build/buy.

Those days are coming to a close. At least with the toys we
currently
have.

And as for DRM.....I've heard DRM. It was, in a word,
impressive.
Still not FM quality. But close enough. Full bandwidth music, in
stereo, on shortwave. Hoodathunkit? And yet, there it was.

And again, requiring less energy to distribute to the same
target.

SW broadcasters have been on the internet, and satellite, now
for a
decade. The actual transmitters, as with MW transmitters, are
becoming
just another outlet. Just another method of distribution. DRM
interference, is just another minor annoyance for a service that's
lost
it's place in the pantheon of content distribution options.

A little short sighted in some cases. Especially, as we learned
from
Galaxy 5, that distribution in the hands of 3rd parties can leave
broadcasters severely cut off. But short sightedness is the order
of the
day. Especially when there are budgets to be cut. And bonuses to
be
collected. And given that many of our international broadcasters
exist
to present sources of information alternative to domestic
media...well...trashing shortwave also allows political influence
on
content by controlling access. Something, we, as SWL's, have
understood
since WWII.

Timetables? Good question. Terrestrial radio companies needs to
find
ways to make alternative outlets profitable with advertising
support.
Believe me, they're working on it. When the model is finally
struck...and it won't come from the broadcasters...it will, as
always,
come from the advertisers, things will evolve pretty quickly.

Radio will survive. Not in a form we recognize, perhaps, but it
will
survive.

So, yeah, when IBOC goes full time, things will be a mess.

You see, Richards was right....we, as listeners have
alternatives.

So, actually, now, do the broadcasters.

As far as the interference goes...the broadcasters...the
FCC....


They don't care.

They don't have to.

There will be a slew of objections, from interfered stations, to the
FCC and lawsuits. The stations have the option of turning off IBOC,
which some of them already have. I have never heard that, dfor
example,
a 50K watt analog only stations, will be able to reduce its power
comsumption, by running IBOC. Also, it has been shown that IBOC
does
not have the coverage, or penetration, of analog.

Hmm. The flamethrowers locally (1530 and 700) like to
spout off how many watts they transmit with. It'll
take a pretty big change of attitude at those stations.

--Mike L.

I agree - have you heard that running IBOC would reduce the wattage of
the broadcaster ? I have never heard of that, and I doubt it. I know
that IBOC sidebands are only transmitted at 1/100 of the wattage of the
analog main lobe...

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

Whether or not the radios are available or whether or not most people have heard
about HD radio is not the point, **** for brains.

The point is if the broadcasters are allowed to turn the crap on at night it's
going to make one hell of a mess, regardless of any other factors.




Which kind of underscores something that has been alluded to, but
never really stated outright, until this past couple of weeks....


This past week, XM Canada entered into an agreement with a cellphone
carrier to distribute XM on cellphones.

I hadn't thought about my cellphone much. I tend not to carry it
unless I"m specifically expecting a call from someone I want to hear
from. Otherwise it sits on my desk. But when I read about the XM Canada
deal, I realized that my cellphone has not only an FM radio built in,
but internet access.

See where this is going?

Eric Richards made a good, and rather vocal, point--that currently,
there are alternatives to terrestrial radio. There's internet radio. The
iPod is ubiquitous. And now handles everything from ripped CD tracks to
network TV shows. More stations are podcasting. Thousands are streaming.
XM and Sirius are carrying whole radio stations, now, with more in
negotiation.

Last month was announced the first standalone internet radio. No PC
required. You can simply plug your broadband connection into the back
and select from thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Internet Radio
stations.

And commercial broadcasters are beginning to sign on to every one of
these alternative methods of delivery. Which raises a real interesting
question:

Who needs the headache and expense of maintaining a full power
broadcast audio channel?


Now, I've heard IBOC. I'm not impressed. What I've heard has not met
the expectations claimed for it. That may change. But then, again,
maybe not. The real benefits of digital audio/broacast are not in audio
quality--that's subjective and debatable till we all meet at
Milliways--the benefits of digital are in management and distribution.
And THAT means profitabiltiy. Any audio can be put anywhere, sent in
seconds, even pulled from an archive without a human attendant. In
precisely the quality with which it was put there. Regardless of the
source, transmission, or end user hardware. For the one-time cost of the
hardware.

What IBOC does, that no one has substantively addressed, is it puts
into play a high tech solution for the ever increasing recurring costs
of maintaining a transmitter. IBOC uses a fraction of the power of a
broadcast transmitter to cover about the same area. Broadcast
Manglement comes at that thought. The idea of being able to put their
signal out there, and cut the power bill by 50% makes GMs wet and
throbbing. Lower cost, higher profit. Local radio stays local. And IBOC
becomes only ONE of an ever increasing number of ways for listeners to
interact with the Radio Station. The transmitter becomes one channel of
distribution.

And when you've got the ability to pull the station out of the air
with your cell phone, a portable satellite receiver, or an IBOC radio,
what really does that mean for IBOC generated interference on a band
where most of us admit, the pickin's is so slim that we have to tune out
of market to find something listenable.

Kind of renders the point moot. And there are more methods of
distribution being created every day. Meaning, that terrestrial radio is
becoming less important as a source. One of many. One that's rapidly
slipping from the most convenient and ubiquitous, to more inconvenient,
and easy to overlook.


Now, for us, that blows. We enjoy the process of setting up, and
capturing, with some anonymity, the content of our choosing, even if it
is found across the country. And doing it for no more than the cost of
our own ingenuity, and what hardware we build/buy.

Those days are coming to a close. At least with the toys we currently
have.

And as for DRM.....I've heard DRM. It was, in a word, impressive.
Still not FM quality. But close enough. Full bandwidth music, in
stereo, on shortwave. Hoodathunkit? And yet, there it was.

And again, requiring less energy to distribute to the same target.

SW broadcasters have been on the internet, and satellite, now for a
decade. The actual transmitters, as with MW transmitters, are becoming
just another outlet. Just another method of distribution. DRM
interference, is just another minor annoyance for a service that's lost
it's place in the pantheon of content distribution options.

A little short sighted in some cases. Especially, as we learned from
Galaxy 5, that distribution in the hands of 3rd parties can leave
broadcasters severely cut off. But short sightedness is the order of the
day. Especially when there are budgets to be cut. And bonuses to be
collected. And given that many of our international broadcasters exist
to present sources of information alternative to domestic
media...well...trashing shortwave also allows political influence on
content by controlling access. Something, we, as SWL's, have understood
since WWII.

Timetables? Good question. Terrestrial radio companies needs to find
ways to make alternative outlets profitable with advertising support.
Believe me, they're working on it. When the model is finally
struck...and it won't come from the broadcasters...it will, as always,
come from the advertisers, things will evolve pretty quickly.

Radio will survive. Not in a form we recognize, perhaps, but it will
survive.

So, yeah, when IBOC goes full time, things will be a mess.

You see, Richards was right....we, as listeners have alternatives.

So, actually, now, do the broadcasters.

As far as the interference goes...the broadcasters...the FCC....


They don't care.

They don't have to.

Some people have streamed radio stations over their WIndows based
phones. I haven't figured out how or if this can be done on my
blackberry. :-(

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

AM radio, as we know it is fading away - just like so many other things
we grew up with. Those days of listening to some distant radio signal
coming via the ionosphere - fading in and out like the surf on the sea
are slipping fast.

Out-of-control technology is reducing the quality of life - not
improving it. If you don't believe this just consider the fact that
you have absolutely no privacy anymore. Everything about you is in
some database somewhere. In addition to that, you can't go very many
places where you're not on camera either.

Hi Tech isn't all that great when you consider what it has become. The
demand for it isn't always there but we get it anyway. Funny thing -
most users don't really understand it, they just know they want it.

Slick marketing creates the demand and the dollar rules.

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

Rfburns wrote:
AM radio, as we know it is fading away - just like so many other things
we grew up with. Those days of listening to some distant radio signal
coming via the ionosphere - fading in and out like the surf on the sea
are slipping fast.

Out-of-control technology is reducing the quality of life - not
improving it. If you don't believe this just consider the fact that
you have absolutely no privacy anymore. Everything about you is in
some database somewhere. In addition to that, you can't go very many
places where you're not on camera either.
when did we have have any real privacy I live near prett antitech folks
and yet they insit in poking thier noss into my busness constantly

with one the local preacher preaching that I am eveil etc I see and all
but endless prade of galkers who in front of the house and watch and
these people don't own a cell phone or pc or in most cases a tv set

what we have lost is th eilusion of privacy some have enjoyed. there
has not been privacy at least in y lifetime for anyone preceieved as
different

Hi Tech isn't all that great when you consider what it has become.
how so?

it allows me to live 15 miles from the nearest town and still know what
is going everywhere I want to know most of the news I don't even have
to go looking anymore I hve told the PC to look and find it

I have my job that used to require tolive in a major urban area with a
much higher costof liveing in both money and having to deal with crime

The
demand for it isn't always there but we get it anyway. Funny thing -
most users don't really understand it, they just know they want it.

Slick marketing creates the demand and the dollar rules.

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

an_old_friend wrote:

Rfburns wrote:
AM radio, as we know it is fading away - just like so many other things
we grew up with. Those days of listening to some distant radio signal
coming via the ionosphere - fading in and out like the surf on the sea
are slipping fast.

Out-of-control technology is reducing the quality of life - not
improving it. If you don't believe this just consider the fact that
you have absolutely no privacy anymore. Everything about you is in
some database somewhere. In addition to that, you can't go very many
places where you're not on camera either.
when did we have have any real privacy I live near prett antitech folks
and yet they insit in poking thier noss into my busness constantly

with one the local preacher preaching that I am eveil etc I see and all
but endless prade of galkers who in front of the house and watch and
these people don't own a cell phone or pc or in most cases a tv set

what we have lost is th eilusion of privacy some have enjoyed. there
has not been privacy at least in y lifetime for anyone preceieved as
different

Hi Tech isn't all that great when you consider what it has become.
how so?

it allows me to live 15 miles from the nearest town and still know what
is going everywhere I want to know most of the news I don't even have
to go looking anymore I hve told the PC to look and find it

I have my job that used to require tolive in a major urban area with a
much higher costof liveing in both money and having to deal with crime

Anyone care to translate? My Tard-English dictionary seems to have gone missing.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

David,

If you Build It ! -and- Educate the Public to Want It
They will over time : Demand It -and- Buy It !

what ever 'it' is ~ RHF

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

D Peter Maus wrote:


Eric Richards made a good, and rather vocal, point--that currently,
there are alternatives to terrestrial radio.

Laugh. Still fuming over that conversation?


You see, Richards was right....we, as listeners have alternatives.


Unfortunately, one thing we will lose is the ability to listen to
information sources that cannot be shut down on demand. All
broadband, satellite, cell phone go through a massive infrastructure
with built-in choke points. HF/AM do not. What we will lose is more
important than the political implications; it has emergency
implications as well.


--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric Richards made a good, and rather vocal, point--that currently,
there are alternatives to terrestrial radio.

Laugh. Still fuming over that conversation?


LOL. That's what I like about you, Eric: the ability to find trouble
where it doesn't exist.