"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"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.

Why would another band cost more money for the listener?

The chances of a new band are non-existent, and would require totally new,
non-backwards-compatible radios.

Why would
partitioning the current band into HD and analog cost more money for the
listener? Why would other transmission schemes cost more money for the
listener?

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....

It wouldn't cost the listeners more but it would cost the broadcasters
more money.

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.

So your problem is selling IBOC to the listeners where the
benefit is small.

Digital sound, double the channels on FM is small benefit? Free is a small
benefit?

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.

IBOC will cause listeners to toss their
current radios for new ones that will not sound any better than analog
for local signals either. IBOC is money down the drain for the listener.

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

The result is a large cost to the listener for a new radio for little if
any benefit. The listener will not have the option of listening to "out
of market" signals limiting their choices.

In LA, with 9,8 million 12+ persons, the average listening to out of market
/ out of primary signal are stations is about 13,000. Much of this may be
from streaming, or while the listener themselves was out of the market. In
other words, there is essentially no listening now, so nothing is being
disrupted.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"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.

Why would another band cost more money for the listener?

The chances of a new band are non-existent, and would require totally
new, non-backwards-compatible radios.

The listener has to buy a new radio in any event.

Why would partitioning the current band into HD and analog cost
more money for the listener? Why would other transmission schemes
cost more money for the listener?

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.

It wouldn't cost the listeners more but it would cost the broadcasters
more money.

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.

So your problem is selling IBOC to the listeners where the
benefit is small.

Digital sound, double the channels on FM is small benefit? Free is a small
benefit?

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.

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.

IBOC will cause listeners to toss their current radios for new ones
that will not sound any better than analog for local signals
either. IBOC is money down the drain for the listener.

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.

The result is a large cost to the listener for a new radio for little if
any benefit. The listener will not have the option of listening to "out
of market" signals limiting their choices.

In LA, with 9,8 million 12+ persons, the average listening to out of market
/ out of primary signal are stations is about 13,000. Much of this may be
from streaming, or while the listener themselves was out of the market. In
other words, there is essentially no listening now, so nothing is being
disrupted.

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"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

"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.