David Frackelton Gleason, posing as 'Eduardo', fake Hispanic since c.2000
stopped digitally stimulating himself long enough to write:

"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...

David Eduardo wrote:


Every alternative costs more than an HD radio. Radio stays viable as a
free
medium, the listener gets more channels and the price of receivers will
come
down. And the analog signal will not be going away any time soon.

It will cost more to broadcasters. We would not do it if it did not
protect
the future and enhance revenue. It is a business.

You don't read these comments very closely, do you Tardo? At least half
a dozen posters have answered every one of the above points, but you
didn't even READ their posts.

No, no body has answered the points. They have complained and put out
information that is false.

False information? Say it ain't so, oh fake one.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Other systems, like WiMax, etc., have fees for the delivery technology,
and
the "receivers" would initially be as expensive as current HD ones. My
first
cellular phone was over $800....

There are non-proprietary systems that could be used.

Obviously, if a significant number of commujnities put in free WiFi, and
there are portable devices that are cheap, this is someting that will come
in the future. But as to current environments, it costs, directly or
indirectly, to get delivery of radio alternatives. AM and FM are free.

I suspect, eventually, all radio will be delivered with a new technology.
But if it took satellite, which is a good concept, 5 years to get to 10
million subscribers, I am waiting with caution for the "real" system to
emerge.

It woud cost the lsiteners, as what you suggest obsoletes every radio in
America. And for broadcasters, a new band would cost what HD currently
costs. A total reallocation on AM would simply hasten the death of the
band.
Imagine, there are about 1500 directional AMs and many would no longer
fit
on current land, or require zoning for new towers or moved ones...
probable
average cost of a half-million each!. The average US AM bills $300
thousand
a year.

The listener has to buy a new radio in any event so it would not be more
expensive. The old radio can be used to listen to the old band or format
and the new radio would provide additional choices. The industry is
trying to limit listener choices instead of expanding them.

Radio, unlike streaming and satellite (in most cases) is highly portable.
There are, by varying estimates, 800 million to one billion radios out
there. Replacing one per household will not make a new band viable.

And, as Peter said, ther eis no available specturm anyway.

I'm addressing AMBCB not FM but the same logic applies. FM use greater
bandwidth a channel and it is possible that there is enough for a
digital scheme to sound OK. However, if that bandwidth is further split
into more than one stream you are back to lower bit rate and poor
quality.

When split into two, the bandwidth is enough for two better-than-FM
channels.

The advantage to IBOC is for the broadcasters. IBOC
might be a way for broadcasters to cut their electric bill when analog
is dropped but that's about it.

Long time away on that.

Maybe, but this is the only reason I can see motivating broadcasters to
implement IBOC.

Peter says he has heard discussion, but I have never heard any discussion of
turning off analog until 100% of usable radios are digital. The power bill,
in a larger market, is so insignificant that it does not matter.

HD, on local signals, sounds much better, especially on AM... and FM
doubles
the channels at least-

This is impossible according to information theory. With less efficient
use of the same bandwidth digital must sound worse.

It sounds better. COmpression algorithims essentially fool the ear by
removing "irrelevant" data. AM HD sounds like FM analog.

The readers of this newsgroup understand the broadcaster/marketing
perspective but except for you we do not share the view of implementing
a scheme that maintains the broadcaster status quo over new choices or a
system that would be an actual improvement in quality and choice for the
listener.

Since the economics of radio are such that more stations reduces service
(proven by 80-90 all over America) there is no advantage in this unless you
want 1000 streams from personal iPods.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Snip

The listener has to buy a new radio in any event so it would not be
more expensive. The old radio can be used to listen to the old band
or format and the new radio would provide additional choices. The
industry is trying to limit listener choices instead of expanding
them.

Radio, unlike streaming and satellite (in most cases) is highly
portable. There are, by varying estimates, 800 million to one billion
radios out there. Replacing one per household will not make a new
band viable.

I don't see anybody carrying around a HD portable radio.

And, as Peter said, ther eis no available specturm anyway.

You take it over just like IBOC does to AMBCB.

I'm addressing AMBCB not FM but the same logic applies. FM use
greater bandwidth a channel and it is possible that there is enough
for a digital scheme to sound OK. However, if that bandwidth is
further split into more than one stream you are back to lower bit
rate and poor quality.

When split into two, the bandwidth is enough for two better-than-FM
channels.

Low bit rate audio sounds like crap. FM has enough bandwidth for one
stereo stream not two.

The advantage to IBOC is for the broadcasters. IBOC might be a
way for broadcasters to cut their electric bill when analog is
dropped but that's about it.

Long time away on that.

Maybe, but this is the only reason I can see motivating
broadcasters to implement IBOC.

Peter says he has heard discussion, but I have never heard any
discussion of turning off analog until 100% of usable radios are
digital. The power bill, in a larger market, is so insignificant that
it does not matter.

If Peter said that then I think he is wrong about it. Anyone running a
business wants to reduce costs that add directly to the bottom line.

HD, on local signals, sounds much better, especially on AM... and
FM doubles the channels at least-

This is impossible according to information theory. With less
efficient use of the same bandwidth digital must sound worse.

It sounds better. COmpression algorithims essentially fool the ear by
removing "irrelevant" data. AM HD sounds like FM analog.

Your ears must be more easily "fooled" than mine. I don't think most
people will be "fooled."

The readers of this newsgroup understand the broadcaster/marketing
perspective but except for you we do not share the view of
implementing a scheme that maintains the broadcaster status quo
over new choices or a system that would be an actual improvement in
quality and choice for the listener.

Since the economics of radio are such that more stations reduces
service (proven by 80-90 all over America) there is no advantage in
this unless you want 1000 streams from personal iPods.

I think you have this subject all wrong. Your assertion that AMBCB must
go digital to improve the resultant sound quality or fail as a
commercial medium is a house of cards.

1. IBOC can not sound better than analog on local signals for technical
reasons so the argument of "ear fooling" is totally unconvincing.

2. Even if IBOC would make an actual improvement on local signals it
will limit "out of market" listening. And yeah, we know you don't care
about that since it is not part of the stations revenue stream but it
does result on a limiting listener choices.

3. It their is a problem with the AMBCB marketing it is programming
related not the technical delivery.

So where are we at? The industry does not address the real issue of
programming and instead screws with the technical delivery to limit
listener choices.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:50:35 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message

3. The listener does not pay for HD.
4. The listener pays for satellite radio.
Don't be absurd. You pay for so-called free radio every time you buy
one of the bull**** consumer products or services advertised thereon.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Radio, unlike streaming and satellite (in most cases) is highly
portable. There are, by varying estimates, 800 million to one billion
radios out there. Replacing one per household will not make a new
band viable.

I don't see anybody carrying around a HD portable radio.

And you won't for some time. The Intel-iBiquity deal announced a few months
ago is intended to develop portable chipsets with good battery life.

And, as Peter said, ther eis no available specturm anyway.

You take it over just like IBOC does to AMBCB.

HD shares the AM spectrum with a minimal, if any, disruption to it.

When split into two, the bandwidth is enough for two better-than-FM
channels.

Low bit rate audio sounds like crap. FM has enough bandwidth for one
stereo stream not two.

I have listened with our engineers and we agree that the difference between
1 channel and 2 is not perceptable to the human ear. In fact, split in
three, the audio is as good as a present day analog FM, if not better (no
preemphasis, for example)

Peter says he has heard discussion, but I have never heard any
discussion of turning off analog until 100% of usable radios are
digital. The power bill, in a larger market, is so insignificant that
it does not matter.

If Peter said that then I think he is wrong about it. Anyone running a
business wants to reduce costs that add directly to the bottom line.

Peter siad he _had_ heard discussion. I have not. Electricity to a major
market AM is petty cash. In many cases, the tower lights draw more power
than the transmitter.

It sounds better. COmpression algorithims essentially fool the ear by
removing "irrelevant" data. AM HD sounds like FM analog.

Your ears must be more easily "fooled" than mine. I don't think most
people will be "fooled."

I have never heard anyone who thought the current AM HD sounded worse than
analog. the only itme it sounds bad is with cascading codecs ahead of the
transmitter.

Since the economics of radio are such that more stations reduces
service (proven by 80-90 all over America) there is no advantage in
this unless you want 1000 streams from personal iPods.

I think you have this subject all wrong. Your assertion that AMBCB must
go digital to improve the resultant sound quality or fail as a
commercial medium is a house of cards.

I tis already failing, if about 90% of the listening is age 45 and older,
and about 60% is in unsalable demos. It needs a fix, now.

1. IBOC can not sound better than analog on local signals for technical
reasons so the argument of "ear fooling" is totally unconvincing.

All codecs are ear fooling. they remove non-necessary data to compress.

2. Even if IBOC would make an actual improvement on local signals it
will limit "out of market" listening. And yeah, we know you don't care
about that since it is not part of the stations revenue stream but it
does result on a limiting listener choices.

There is essentially no out of primary coverage listening. Primary signal
zones are not affected.

3. It their is a problem with the AMBCB marketing it is programming
related not the technical delivery.

Nope. The issue is that under-45's just will not put up with the audio. many
formats have moved from AM to FM, and found huge increases in 25-44
listening. Bonneville is right now movcin g news talk to FM in DC, Phoenix,
Salt Lake... to get younger isteners who will not use WTOP, KTAR, and KSL
(all of which are the best AM signals in each market) and onters, like Clear
Channel, are following suit.

So where are we at? The industry does not address the real issue of
programming and instead screws with the technical delivery to limit
listener choices.

In the case of AM, this is a pure technology vs. age issue. Not a
programming one.

"David" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:50:35 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message

3. The listener does not pay for HD.
4. The listener pays for satellite radio.
Don't be absurd. You pay for so-called free radio every time you buy
one of the bull**** consumer products or services advertised thereon.

That is a real load. You do not have to buy anything to use terrestrial
radio.

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:35:43 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:50:35 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message

3. The listener does not pay for HD.
4. The listener pays for satellite radio.
Don't be absurd. You pay for so-called free radio every time you buy
one of the bull**** consumer products or services advertised thereon.

That is a real load. You do not have to buy anything to use terrestrial
radio.



That's not what you said (and I quote)

''3. The listener does not pay for HD.''

You pay hidden costs for advertising when you buy ''brand name''
products (whether you listen to the radio or not). That's worse than
taxation without representation.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
news

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...
Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change
Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6

by Edward Montgomery

[long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped]

IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates

I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the
present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons
for
change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content,
without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system.

And the IBOC proponents totally dismiss the primary advantage of the
heritage delivery system, that is long distance propagation.

Oh, I know. There is no longer any economic advantage to long distance
propagation. But, for most of us, the debate goes beyond money.

The other night I was tuning around and caught a WBZ talkshow about the
tunnel collapse. It was interesting to hear Bostonians give thier opinions
in their own voices. And I know my listening gave no economic benefit to
WBZ or the economy in general or even to myself in particular.
Nevertheless, it was worthwhile.

The radio spectrum is one of our natural resources and ought to be managed
as such. Should every old growth tree in the national forests be chopped
down, even if it benefits some people? There are some national parks in
which hardly anybody visits. Should they be strip mined?

What's the economic value of a clear, starry night? None, really. But we
do make modest restrictions on light pollution despite thier economic costs.

Long distance radio propagation on the AM band is a natural resource which
also deserves some protection.



I'd say most of us are keeping
pace with the digital revolution. And I'd also say the digital threat
to
radio is from the individualized media now possible, rather than from
the
quality of the audio.

HD brings not just an improvement in perceived quality, but, with HD 2 and
even HD 3, many more free options.

Most other alternatives that can be called "new radio" are fee based in
some way, whether the fee is for the content or the delivery method.

I don't have any problem with fee based radio and I don't know anybody who
is much bothered by the concept. If some stations want to try to make a go
of it as pay channels, that's fine as long as they aren't interfering with
other stations.

I do find the latest "free radio" campaign disingenous. And that strikes my
conspiranoiac nerve.



The biggest threats are not these IMHO. They are gaming and other options
for leisure time activities, not alternative radio staitons or
substitutes.

Yes, but the substitues have only been around for a few years and they're
growing fast. I find these things interesting, at least conceptually. If I
were not so set in my ways, I'm sure I'd be really into them.



Not only do people have more choices, but they have their own choices.

A majority of adults do not want to spend time on such choices, at least
yet. Part has to do with the complexity of delivery. There is an
opportunity
for radio to adapt, and I think this is HD.

And there will soon be mp3 players which can be loaded direct from a wifi
connection. Personalized music services exist and I have no doubt they will
quickly get better and easier to use.


That's a powerful pull. And IBOC is just a band trashing form of the
old
school mass media. IBOC adds little of merit.

The band is only trashed if something anyone is listening to is no longer
listenable. The issue for AM, for example, is that the audience is getting
older and no younger listeners are coming in. This is based on a
combination
of quality and content... but the content can not be made appealing to
under-45's without a commensurate quality gain.



Let's not forget censorship. Alot of popular stuff won't pass FCC muster.

I have the impression that radio just isn't very important to the people I
know who are in their late teens and early twenties. Of course, that's a
subjective impression of a small, possibly non representive, sample but I
don't think my impression is totally invalid. Today's young people just
don't have the radio habit as young people did in the 60s and 70s. And this
is radio in general, not just AM radio.

I'll start telling the kids the radio stations are no longer playing
Freebird and Stairway to Heaven every hour.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
news

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...
Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change
Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6

by Edward Montgomery

[long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped]

IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates

I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the
present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons
for
change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content,
without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system.

And the IBOC proponents totally dismiss the primary advantage of the
heritage delivery system, that is long distance propagation.

When the FCC dismissed the final attempts to get the 1 A clears upgraded to
500 to 750 kw each in the late 60's, they began an effort towards extreme
localism that resulted, in the next decade, in the allocation and licencing
of at least on 1 B on every clear channel in the US. At the seme time,
lesser classes were allowed on the clears, including daytimers and lower
powered fulltimers.

The FCC was showing a policy that virtually eliminated the usage of even the
clears for long distance propagation in favor of local, groundwave reception
for AMs. A look at any of the clears in 1960 vs. 1990 or today will show how
this has populated those channels. The other classes, such as regional and
local channels were never guaranteed skywave coverage and were, in fact,
only protected form local skywave interference in the primary coverge area
at night (known as the interference free zone...).

It has been three decades since the FCC has considered night skywave
coverage important. It has been that long or longer since stations
themselves considered skywave coverage to be much more than a curiosity.
Much of this has to do with the change int he radio model in the mid-50s
from having the heaviest AM usage at night (before TV was universal) to
today, when AM listening at night is vastly less than any other daypart.

Oh, I know. There is no longer any economic advantage to long distance
propagation. But, for most of us, the debate goes beyond money.

That is only part of the matter. Would any station be interested in
consistent, listenable night audiences, there is declining usage of radio at
night, the decline in use of AM by younger listeners and the FCC's own
policies that come in the way. Add to that the fact that in may areas,
storng international Am interference ruins AM anyway.

Canada is phasing out AM rapidly in all but the biggest cities. This is
because they believe there that AM is not the way of the future. AMs are
left in big cit9ies to serve niche and minority audiences, like the Chinese
stations in Vancouver or the standards station in Toronto.

The other night I was tuning around and caught a WBZ talkshow about the
tunnel collapse. It was interesting to hear Bostonians give thier
opinions
in their own voices. And I know my listening gave no economic benefit to
WBZ or the economy in general or even to myself in particular.
Nevertheless, it was worthwhile.

But you could also get WBZ on the web, right? You are not being deprived of
the message, just one medium.

The radio spectrum is one of our natural resources and ought to be managed
as such. Should every old growth tree in the national forests be chopped
down, even if it benefits some people? There are some national parks in
which hardly anybody visits. Should they be strip mined?

As I said, the FCC policies going back nearly 40 years have brought us to
this point, and, coupled with the "sound" of AM, we have a fait acomplit.

What's the economic value of a clear, starry night? None, really. But we
do make modest restrictions on light pollution despite thier economic
costs.

Long distance radio propagation on the AM band is a natural resource which
also deserves some protection.

The FCC has chosen long ago to discard this as less meaningful than more
local service that is relible and consistent.

I don't have any problem with fee based radio and I don't know anybody who
is much bothered by the concept.

Try talking to people who make below the US median household income...
families that live on $15,000 a year, or, for whatever reason, are on
subsistence programs. Tell them to spend $12 a month for each radio. Free
radio has many benefits, or there would not be 94% of the population using
it each week... and any other alternative further segregates the priviledges
of the "haves" and thes leftovers of the "have nots."

If some stations want to try to make a go
of it as pay channels, that's fine as long as they aren't interfering with
other stations.

There is no talk of this. The model is advertising support, not
subscription.

Yes, but the substitues have only been around for a few years and they're
growing fast. I find these things interesting, at least conceptually. If
I
were not so set in my ways, I'm sure I'd be really into them.

Satellite has spent 5 years getting to about a half-share of listening. And
it is cooling (withness XM's failure to meet projections and the loss of 60%
f its market capitalization).

Let's not forget censorship. Alot of popular stuff won't pass FCC muster.

I think you overestimate the number of people who want to hear DJs cuss. And
that is what satellite can serve.

Brenda Ann wrote:


Even so-called NCE stations receive tax
dollars either directly or indirectly, so we're all paying for those as
well.





Surprisingly few, these days, actually. Most Non-Coms exist by
listener support, corporate grant, and CPB funding.

But very little actual tax money.

That's one reason why Non-Coms frequently have such fine facilties.
They don't have to survive on ratings based advertising revenue streams.