HD article from Radio World
 

"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'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.

Not only do people have more choices, but they have their own choices.
That's a powerful pull. And IBOC is just a band trashing form of the old
school mass media. IBOC adds little of merit.

Frank Dresser

HD article from Radio World
 

In article
,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"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'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.

Not only do people have more choices, but they have their own
choices. That's a powerful pull. And IBOC is just a band trashing
form of the old school mass media. IBOC adds little of merit.


We can find Edward Montgomery sunning himself by the tube filaments.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD article from Radio World
 

"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.

HD article from Radio World
 

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.

HD article from Radio World
 

"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.

HD article from Radio World
 

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

HD article from Radio World
 

In article t,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
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.

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? 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?

It wouldn't cost the listeners more but it would cost the broadcasters
more money. So your problem is selling IBOC to the listeners where the
benefit is small. 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. 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.

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD article from Radio World
 

"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.

HD article from Radio World
 

"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.

1. There is a marked improvement in AM quality on HD, making it comparable
to analog FM.
2. FM HD offers additional free channels.
3. The listener does not pay for HD.
4. The listener pays for satellite radio.
5. The lsitener pays for delivery for streaming, wifi, WiMax, etc.
6. There is no other band available for digital in the US.
7. Any change in delivery requires new radios, whether satellite, broadband
or whatever.
8. HD is just beginning its consumer marketing, so it is early to expect
reasonably priced radios.
9. All new consumer electronics start at high prices: CD, DVD, TV, Cellular,
etc.
10. There is hardly any listening to out of market signals.
11. AM will not survive without some "tonic" to revive its relevancy among
listeners advertisers want to reach.
12. AM for under-45 listeners is already dead.
13. The "Digital" term is very important to a large mass of consumers.

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

HD article from Radio World
 

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

HD article from Radio World
 

"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.

HD article from Radio World
 

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

HD article from Radio World
 

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.

HD article from Radio World
 

"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.

HD article from Radio World
 

"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.

HD article from Radio World
 

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.

HD article from Radio World
 

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

"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

HD article from Radio World
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

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

"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.

HD article from Radio World
 

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.

HD article from Radio World
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
.com...

"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 a half-truth and you know it. As consumers we DO have to buy a
great many things.

You know what I meant. To listen to the radio, you do not have to agree to
buy anything. You can buy or not buy at your option.

If the product is advertised on the the radio, then the cost of that
advertisement is factored into the bottom line, and therefor the cost of
the product to the consumer.

Any marketing costs are. So is shipping, spoiled goods, labor, raw
materials. That is not specific to radio however, and thus irrelevant here.
those who offer goods and services have to use some method of letting
consumers know of their existence. But this cost is not caused by raido,
but, instead, by the need to engage in marketing.

Quit trying to blow smoke up our asses.

Is there some reason you have to use vulgarities? That ususally means the
person so engaged has lost the argument.

Nothing in this world is ever free. Even so-called NCE stations receive
tax dollars either directly or indirectly, so we're all paying for those
as well.

But these costs are not a consequence of listening to the radio... they are
marketing costs that would be the same even if the advertiser never used
radio.

HD article from Radio World
 

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:23:30 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

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.

Really?

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/

The corporations and individuals get a tax break for contributing.
These funds must be made up elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big
supporter of publicly funded media (it's purer) but don't blow smoke
up my ass about who pays for it.

HD article from Radio World
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:23:30 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

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.

Really?

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/

The corporations and individuals get a tax break for contributing.
These funds must be made up elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big
supporter of publicly funded media (it's purer) but don't blow smoke
up my ass about who pays for it.


All costs of doing business are expenses and figure into the cost of all
goods and services. As to individuals, the tax codes are structured to
encourage private persons to engage in philanthropy. This, as I have said,
has nothing specific to do with radio.

HD article from Radio World
 

David wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:23:30 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

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.

Really?

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/

The corporations and individuals get a tax break for contributing.
These funds must be made up elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big
supporter of publicly funded media (it's purer) but don't blow smoke
up my ass about who pays for it.

David,

You mean to say that The Evil Corporations
who give Money to Non-Com Broadcasters
* and get Tax Breaks
* and Pay No Corporate Taxes
Are Ripping-Off The Public ? ? ?
- - - Especially the Public Who Does Not
Watch PBS or Listen to NPR ! ! !

it boggles the mind ~ RHF

HD article from Radio World
 

David wrote:
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.

DaviD - Yes I Do Gladly - GLADY ! ~ RHF
{ Advertising Makes Me An Informed Consumer }

OBTW - Count-Up the Square Inches of Ads in a
local Newspaper against the Number of Square
Inches of Actual News in that same local Newspaper.
- - - The same local Newspaper that you pay-cash-money-for {buy}.

Commercial Radio and TV are practically AD Free in-comparison - IMHO

HD article from Radio World
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

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

"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

HD article from Radio World
 

On 20 Jul 2006 01:53:10 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:



You mean to say that The Evil Corporations
who give Money to Non-Com Broadcasters
* and get Tax Breaks
* and Pay No Corporate Taxes
Are Ripping-Off The Public ? ? ?
- - - Especially the Public Who Does Not
Watch PBS or Listen to NPR ! ! !

it boggles the mind ~ RHF
.
.
No. I don't mean to say that at all. Corporations are non-living
entities and are not capable of being evil.

The benefits of public broadcasting are enjoyed by everyone.

HD article from Radio World
 

On 20 Jul 2006 02:01:11 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:


OBTW - Count-Up the Square Inches of Ads in a
local Newspaper against the Number of Square
Inches of Actual News in that same local Newspaper.
- - - The same local Newspaper that you pay-cash-money-for {buy}.

Commercial Radio and TV are practically AD Free in-comparison - IMHO
.
That's an invalid comparison. Newspapers are parallel, radio is
serial.

HD article from Radio World
 

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

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

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

"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

HD article from Radio World
 

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:08:48 GMT, John Barnard wrote:

Steve wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"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.

HD is a pathetic and misguided effort to see if it can be saved.


And your alternative is?????

JB

I'd make it hi-fi again.

HD article from Radio World
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

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?

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?



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

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.


And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.



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?

The CBC has moved nearly all operatins to FM from AM, and commercial AM
operators are encouraged to trade an FM for the AM, with the AM going
silent. This has been going on for over a decade.

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.

Certainly there will be limited viability. Many stations that are on SCA's
will possibly become AMs... we have Radio Tehran on our 107.5 in LA!

That's OK. That's hardly death. AM would be no deader than FM was in the
50s.



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.

I am curious to see if HD can be DXed. No good receiver has HD, and it
would
be nice if we had an R-75 (this Bud's for you, Ace) with an HD module!

I expect DXing IBOC will be all equipment rather than the mental aspects of
DXing. It won't be like listening for ID clues between a couple of stations
fighting it out in the noise.


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?

The congestion of the bands is definitely due to the FCC seeking increased
grey area and local service from the 50's through the 90's.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?



The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however. And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness doctrine.



The FCC, buy restricting to low FM powers (100kw and under) and very low
AM
powers (nothing over 50 kw) has always encouraged localism. As the clears
went form one fulltime signal to a dozen or so, the FCC was sayking that
they preferred a new local station in St George, UT., to extended coverage
for WLS:

This was the very loudly stated opinion of the FCC for years: local
service,
local ascretainment, local ownership, etc.

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.

I do not think any terrestrial stations will go to pay subscriptions.

Maybe not. But in a free market, nearly every idea gets tried.


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.

Whatever. But radio will simply die before this happens

Ah. We will always have the poor. And the poor will always have 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. "

And 42% do not.

Not all that different from the general population.



But maybe there's teeming masses of impoverished Americans who are now
barely able to afford radio.

I did not say this. They can afford radio, but would not pay $150
discretionary dollars for what is also available for free. In case yu did
not notice, XM and Sirius have hit brick walls. XM stock is off 60% since
the end of last year due to slowdown in subscriptions; Stern is a
band-aid-.

Nope. I didn't notice. I don't pay much attention to satellite radio.




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.

The Ivy League white guys at the FCC can not understand it!

I don't even picture them listening to the radio.



P.s. Today, it is hip hop, not rap, mostly.



Either way, I hear alot of stuff unfit for broadcast.

Frank Dresser

HD article from Radio World
 

David wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:08:48 GMT, John Barnard wrote:

Steve wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"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.
HD is a pathetic and misguided effort to see if it can be saved.


And your alternative is?????

JB

I'd make it hi-fi again.


Good point. The following site has a pretty good intro on the topic:
http://www.icycolors.com/nu9n/am.html

JB

HD article from Radio World
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the
late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?

Yes. The FCC had a policy of localism. Local applicants had a huge advantage
over companies or distant applicants for new TV and FMs as well as AMs in
that period, and localism was required in the license renewal process via
ascertainment of needs, community (PA) programming, news content, etc. The
FCC was obcessed with localism. I do not know of any station or group that
lobbied for it as a policy, although plenty of applicants went for the
licenses based on pushing local ownership and management.



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

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.


And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect
for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.

By the end of the 60's, the FM band was pretty full, especially in the major
markets, and the FCC was starting on its way to break up the clears.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM
operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?

FM was not profitable until the mid-70's on a major scale. In the 50's, the
number of FMs declined between 1950 and 1960... by nearly 25%. It was not
until the FCC mandated an end to simulcasting in the late 60's that FM
started to react, based on new programming, but forced by the FCC.

The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however.

No, they did everything they could to prevent editorializing, especially the
requirement to give equal time for opposing viewpoints. I never worked with
a station from 1959 through the 80's that editorialized. It was legally too
full of problems and could put the license in jeopardy.

And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness doctrine.

Yes, now we can all editorialize freely without having to notify, grant
replies, etc.

HD Article from Radio World
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

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

"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.

HD Article from Radio World
 

"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.

HD article from Radio World
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the
late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?

Yes. The FCC had a policy of localism. Local applicants had a huge
advantage
over companies or distant applicants for new TV and FMs as well as AMs in
that period, and localism was required in the license renewal process via
ascertainment of needs, community (PA) programming, news content, etc. The
FCC was obcessed with localism. I do not know of any station or group that
lobbied for it as a policy, although plenty of applicants went for the
licenses based on pushing local ownership and management.

OK, my first instinct said the FCC was getting lobbyed to maintain the
status quo by the local stations.

So what was motivating the FCC?




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

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no
skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was
pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.

"Everyone wants to operate at night", "nobody did want to operate at night".

Whichever. It's hard to say the FCC was doing anybody any favors by
allowing expanded nighttime operation.



And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect
for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.

By the end of the 60's, the FM band was pretty full, especially in the
major
markets, and the FCC was starting on its way to break up the clears.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM
operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?

FM was not profitable until the mid-70's on a major scale. In the 50's,
the
number of FMs declined between 1950 and 1960... by nearly 25%. It was not
until the FCC mandated an end to simulcasting in the late 60's that FM
started to react, based on new programming, but forced by the FCC.

And the broadcast industry pros didn't know what to do with FM, either.


The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing
editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however.

No, they did everything they could to prevent editorializing, especially
the
requirement to give equal time for opposing viewpoints. I never worked
with
a station from 1959 through the 80's that editorialized. It was legally
too
full of problems and could put the license in jeopardy.

OK, the issue of editorializing on public radio stations came up before the
Supreme Court in 1984.

A quote from the decision:

"Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying
the public's interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views through
the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the
Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial
broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their
programming."

And the footnote on the quote:

"[ Footnote 14 ] In 1949, finding that "programs in which the licensee's
personal opinions are expressed are [not] intrinsically more or less subject
to abuse than any other program devoted to public issues," the FCC concluded
that overt licensee editorializing, so long as "it is exercised in
conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably
balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" is "consistent with the
licensee's duty [468 U.S. 364, 383] to operate in the public interest."
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1253, 1258 (1949).
At the time, of course, this decision applied with equal force to both
noncommercial educational licensees and commercial stations. The FCC has
since underscored its view that editorializing by broadcast licensees serves
the public interest by identifying editorial programming as one of 14 "major
elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires of
the community." FCC Programming Statement, 25 Fed. Reg. 7295 (1960). The
Commission has regularly enforced this policy by considering a licensee's
editorializing practices in license renewal proceedings. See, e. g., Greater
Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 402, 444 F.2d 841,
860 (1970); Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 27 F. C. C. 2d 316, 332 (1971);
RKO General, Inc., 44 F. C. C. 2d 149, 219 (1969). "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=364#f14



And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups
from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

I know I sure heard alot of editorals on the radio and almost as many
editorial replies. They were particularly prevalent on WBBM.



Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness
doctrine.

Yes, now we can all editorialize freely without having to notify, grant
replies, etc.



Yeah, and the programming is more interesting for it. And I haven't heard a
stand alone radio editorial in years.

Frank Dresser

HD article from Radio World
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


OK, my first instinct said the FCC was getting lobbyed to maintain the
status quo by the local stations.

So what was motivating the FCC?

The motive was a belief in the concept that local media reinforces the
Republic. No kidding... there were frequent references to things like this
back in that era. It was believed local voices were important. I think the
FCC used the newspaper model for localism, not undetrstanding that
newspapers are restricted by distribution, not localism.
OK, the issue of editorializing on public radio stations came up before
the
Supreme Court in 1984.

A quote from the decision:

"Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying
the public's interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views
through
the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the
Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial
broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their
programming."

But the fact is, due to the restrictions and potential for litigation,
fines, protests, nearly no station did editorialize until later that decade
when Fariness was revoked.

And the footnote on the quote:

"[ Footnote 14 ] In 1949, finding that "programs in which the licensee's
personal opinions are expressed are [not] intrinsically more or less
subject
to abuse than any other program devoted to public issues," the FCC
concluded
that overt licensee editorializing, so long as "it is exercised in
conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably
balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" is "consistent with
the
licensee's duty [468 U.S. 364, 383] to operate in the public interest."
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1253, 1258
(1949).
At the time, of course, this decision applied with equal force to both
noncommercial educational licensees and commercial stations. The FCC has
since underscored its view that editorializing by broadcast licensees
serves
the public interest by identifying editorial programming as one of 14
"major
elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires
of
the community." FCC Programming Statement, 25 Fed. Reg. 7295 (1960). The
Commission has regularly enforced this policy by considering a licensee's
editorializing practices in license renewal proceedings. See, e. g.,
Greater
Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 402, 444 F.2d 841,
860 (1970); Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 27 F. C. C. 2d 316, 332 (1971);
RKO General, Inc., 44 F. C. C. 2d 149, 219 (1969). "

Still, nearly nlo station editorialized in the 50's, 60's and 70's. All they
needed to do is look at Red Lion to see how editorials can lose the licence.
I do not remember a single station that editorialized in that period, and it
was out of fear. There were plenty of other ways to get the license renewed.
like keeping the commercial locad below 18 minutes, running PSA,s etc., that
one did not hve to jump in the fire on editorials.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

I know I sure heard alot of editorals on the radio and almost as many
editorial replies. They were particularly prevalent on WBBM.

A very big station... one of the top 10 reevenue producers in the USA, in
fact.

Yeah, and the programming is more interesting for it. And I haven't heard
a
stand alone radio editorial in years.

Most radio stations research. we find that the interest in editorials is
about the same as among under-55 readers of the newspaper... nearly none. It
is a tune out, and there is so much opinion available today, it is not
needed.

HD article from Radio World
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


OK, my first instinct said the FCC was getting lobbyed to maintain the
status quo by the local stations.

So what was motivating the FCC?

The motive was a belief in the concept that local media reinforces the
Republic. No kidding... there were frequent references to things like this
back in that era. It was believed local voices were important. I think the
FCC used the newspaper model for localism, not undetrstanding that
newspapers are restricted by distribution, not localism.
OK, the issue of editorializing on public radio stations came up before
the
Supreme Court in 1984.

A quote from the decision:

"Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying
the public's interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views
through
the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the
Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial
broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their
programming."

But the fact is, due to the restrictions and potential for litigation,
fines, protests, nearly no station did editorialize until later that decade
when Fariness was revoked.

And the footnote on the quote:

"[ Footnote 14 ] In 1949, finding that "programs in which the licensee's
personal opinions are expressed are [not] intrinsically more or less
subject
to abuse than any other program devoted to public issues," the FCC
concluded
that overt licensee editorializing, so long as "it is exercised in
conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably
balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" is "consistent with
the
licensee's duty [468 U.S. 364, 383] to operate in the public interest."
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1253, 1258
(1949).
At the time, of course, this decision applied with equal force to both
noncommercial educational licensees and commercial stations. The FCC has
since underscored its view that editorializing by broadcast licensees
serves
the public interest by identifying editorial programming as one of 14
"major
elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires
of
the community." FCC Programming Statement, 25 Fed. Reg. 7295 (1960). The
Commission has regularly enforced this policy by considering a licensee's
editorializing practices in license renewal proceedings. See, e. g.,
Greater
Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 402, 444 F.2d 841,
860 (1970); Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 27 F. C. C. 2d 316, 332 (1971);
RKO General, Inc., 44 F. C. C. 2d 149, 219 (1969). "

Still, nearly nlo station editorialized in the 50's, 60's and 70's. All they
needed to do is look at Red Lion to see how editorials can lose the licence.
I do not remember a single station that editorialized in that period, and it
was out of fear. There were plenty of other ways to get the license renewed.
like keeping the commercial locad below 18 minutes, running PSA,s etc., that
one did not hve to jump in the fire on editorials.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

I know I sure heard alot of editorals on the radio and almost as many
editorial replies. They were particularly prevalent on WBBM.

A very big station... one of the top 10 reevenue producers in the USA, in
fact.

Yeah, and the programming is more interesting for it. And I haven't heard
a
stand alone radio editorial in years.

Most radio stations research. we find that the interest in editorials is
about the same as among under-55 readers of the newspaper... nearly none. It
is a tune out, and there is so much opinion available today, it is not
needed.

BUSTED!!

HD article from Radio World
 

"Steve" wrote in message
s.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

Most radio stations research. we find that the interest in editorials is
about the same as among under-55 readers of the newspaper... nearly none.
It
is a tune out, and there is so much opinion available today, it is not
needed.

BUSTED!!

What does that mean? You have now said it three or four times, and it is
borderline incoherence.

HD article from Radio World
 

My next oldest sister (her nick name is Tinker) was over here a few
minutes ago,checkin to see if I am still alive and kickin.She brought
about thirty pounds of frozen leftovers too,as usual.Where am I going to
put it? my frige is already so full that when you open the door,stuff
falls out.I think I will give it to my litlte African girlfriend up the
street.
cuhulin