"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.