Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|