"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

David Eduardo wrote:
"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

If you have your way, AM radio will soon be a thing of the past. IBOC
will be the stake through its heart.

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


If you have your way, AM radio will soon be a thing of the past. IBOC
will be the stake through its heart

It is already dying. HD is an effort to see if it can be saved.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"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.

Snip

1. Money invested in receiving equipment.
2. Going to a more complex transmission scheme.
3. Control over who can listen.
4. Using a proprietary scheme over one in the public domain.
5. Only somewhat compatible with existing spectrum usage.
6. The change is advantageous for the broadcasters in reducing costs and
possibly creating additional revenue where the listener just gets
additional costs. A deal for the listener...not.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"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.

David Eduardo wrote:
"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.

DE,

435 Congress Persons 'each' with a Local AM Radio Station
in their Home District that is Adding to and Building the
Local Economy are Clearly More Important then 25-50
'select' Congress Persons with one Clear Channel AM Radio
Station monopolizing the marketing for an entire region.

~ RHF

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

"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.

Who was leading who on this? That is did the FCC decide out of the blue to
deemphasize the clear channels or was it other stations who wanted to
operate at night?

And why would they want to operate at night, anyway?


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.

Is the Canadian phase out voluentary?

By the way, I happen to like listening to the brokered /ethnic stations. If
that's all that's someday left on AM, AM will still be quite lively.



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?

I wouldn't have known what was on if I was a web listener. That night I had
some free time and I was checking propagation. KDKA was audible, but
uninteresting. WBZ was clear. WHO was in the noise. WBZ was interesting
enough so I stopped there.

I suppose I could something like that on the web, but I find net congestion
less charming than fading.


You are not being deprived of
the message, just one medium.

Exactly. And the medium is fascinating. It's a fascination I've had since
I was 10, tuning into cities I was newly learning about. I had no
references to stations and frequencies and I puzzled out which cities were
coming in by ads, weather and traffic reports and the local news.

I'm sure I developed my passion for radio at that age. A guy I once knew
told me about a road trip he took when he was about 20. He was amazed that
he could hear WLS pretty well all the way out to St. George, Utah. Yeah, I
explained, radio's like that. And sometimes reception will be lousy. But
mostly it's magical. He tried to repeat the magic on his next road trip a
few years later. Too much interference, too many stations. Needless to
say, he'll never develop the same passion for radio. Ahh, he was probably
to old at the time, anyway.

I know I'm not the only person with the passion for radio, this group's full
of 'em. But I also know we aren't numerous enough to have an economic
impact on the broadcast industry. I suppose we're mostly a pain in the ass
to you guys, acting like we get a sharp stick in the ear every time we hear
the Din of Ibiquity.

To take away radio's long distance propagation is diminishing a national
resource. It turns radio into a mere conduit for the broadcast industry.
It takes the magic out of radio.

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 see. It's all the FCC's fault. I suppose that's another one of their
silly decisions like when they were forcing stations to do "editorials".
So, how long has the broadcast industry been fighting them on this?



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."


Oh, that's really a reach. I really doubt most of the stations would go the
pay route, even if they were offered the chance. But a few might, just as a
few TV stations had a fling with pay TV about 25 years ago.

But let's pretend the unimaginable happened. All the stations went
subscription. All the network stations, all the independents, all the
brokered stations, all the college stations ... well, you get the idea.
Then I guess poorer people -- that is those poor people who hadn't moved to
alternative sources and actually wanted to listen to the radio -- well, I
suppose they'd have to pay to listen to the radio.

Gee, I suppose some of those poor people might have to decide between pay TV
and pay radio:

"62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. "

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

It would be interesting to see how this turns out, if radio ever goes
completely to subscription. But, for some reason, I really, really doubt it
will ever put itself to that test.

But maybe there's teeming masses of impoverished Americans who are now
barely able to afford radio. Are they able to buy batteries? If you start
a charity drive to collect batteries for destitute radio listeners, I'll
contribute some new AAs.




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.

Could it be because they don't think there's enough money in pay radio?


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).

And mp3 players. And wifi radios. Not to mention old-fashioned CD-Rs.


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.



Actually, I was thinking about rap. It's summertime, and I drive with my
windows down. I hear alot of stuff which is, to put it mildly, unfit for
mass radio. I'm guessing I'm hearing recordings.

Frank Dresser

David Eduardo wrote:
"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.

This would naturally mean that many Canadians driving around
in their Cars and Trucks with older AM/FM Radio's in them; and
at home late at night with an older AM/FM Radio; will find them
selves Listening to American AM/MW Radio Broadcasts from
across the border in the USA. - consider the possibility ~ RHF


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.

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...

This would naturally mean that many Canadians driving around
in their Cars and Trucks with older AM/FM Radio's in them; and
at home late at night with an older AM/FM Radio; will find them
selves Listening to American AM/MW Radio Broadcasts from
across the border in the USA. - consider the possibility ~ RHF

Considering that what is available on any signal that would get into most
Canadian cities would be very American talk, I doubt this would have much
appeal. The CBC has FM repeaters all over Canada, and there is no lack of
big FMs, either. Listening to US AM stations is something that is unlikely.