"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

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

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...
Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change
Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6

by Edward Montgomery

[long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped]

IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates

I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the
present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons for
change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content,
without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system.

I'd say most of us are keeping
pace with the digital revolution. And I'd also say the digital threat to
radio is from the individualized media now possible, rather than from the
quality of the audio.

HD brings not just an improvement in perceived quality, but, with HD 2 and
even HD 3, many more free options.

Most other alternatives that can be called "new radio" are fee based in
some way, whether the fee is for the content or the delivery method.

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

Not only do people have more choices, but they have their own choices.

A majority of adults do not want to spend time on such choices, at least
yet. Part has to do with the complexity of delivery. There is an opportunity
for radio to adapt, and I think this is HD.

That's a powerful pull. And IBOC is just a band trashing form of the old
school mass media. IBOC adds little of merit.

The band is only trashed if something anyone is listening to is no longer
listenable. The issue for AM, for example, is that the audience is getting
older and no younger listeners are coming in. This is based on a combination
of quality and content... but the content can not be made appealing to
under-45's without a commensurate quality gain.

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

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...
Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change
Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6

by Edward Montgomery

[long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped]

IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates

I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the
present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons for
change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content,
without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system.

I'd say most of us are keeping
pace with the digital revolution. And I'd also say the digital threat to
radio is from the individualized media now possible, rather than from the
quality of the audio.

HD brings not just an improvement in perceived quality, but, with HD 2 and
even HD 3, many more free options.

Most other alternatives that can be called "new radio" are fee based in
some way, whether the fee is for the content or the delivery method.

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

Not only do people have more choices, but they have their own choices.

A majority of adults do not want to spend time on such choices, at least
yet. Part has to do with the complexity of delivery. There is an opportunity
for radio to adapt, and I think this is HD.

That's a powerful pull. And IBOC is just a band trashing form of the old
school mass media. IBOC adds little of merit.

The band is only trashed if something anyone is listening to is no longer
listenable. The issue for AM, for example, is that the audience is getting
older and no younger listeners are coming in. This is based on a combination
of quality and content... but the content can not be made appealing to
under-45's without a commensurate quality gain.

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

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


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

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

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...
Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change
Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6

by Edward Montgomery

[long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped]

IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates

I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the
present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons for
change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content,
without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system.

Snip

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

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

"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.

"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.

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