RadioBanter - IBOC Crap News

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)

- - IBOC Crap News (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/99402-iboc-crap-news.html)

David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Re-read, please. I said, "You are tuning the AM dial to see what
unusual thing you can get."

In other words, you find some distant station, like listening to KOA
in LA... a reasonable clear signal for a DXer, but horrible for a
non-DXer due to fading, static bursts, buzz every time you go under
power lines, etc.

Now wait a minute. Here I am doing my best for discussion purposes
buying into part of your theories on what is important in AMBCB and you
try to slog the discussion back to DXing. I'm not buying into debate
tactics.

In this case, I am discussing what is acceptable reception to some is not to
others. Those used to "the old days" of listening to out of market AMs at
night have a tolerance. the younger generations do not.

You made an real world listening situation comment and I, using your
own reasoning, dismissed it based on your own market rationalizations
on what stations I should be listening too. Using your reasoning the
local stations have strong signals that sounds good on the average
car radio and not sound noisy. The other people in the car would not
object to listening to local stations.

I was only saying that tuning to an "outside station" is acceptable to
traditional AM users. To all others, it is not.

I don't DX AM radio stations in the car. I listen to distant stations,
when they sound good, for the program material. I'm a program listener
not a DXer.

If it is way out of market and on skywave, I would argue that it is DX.
Distance = DX.

It makes no difference when listening to FM analog, FM digital, AM
analog, or AM digital if the signal is poor for any reason the average
person is not going to listen to it. Going digital or using a different
band are engineering exercises at solving different issues other than
just reception. Arguments to the contrary are nonsensical.

We may be saying the same thing. I agree here, entirely.

The changes to HD are not intended to improve reception. They are intended
to improve the perception of quality.

Doesn't matter what you say. You're BUSTED.

David Frackelton Gleason, prancing shill posing as 'Eduardo' wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Re-read, please. I said, "You are tuning the AM dial to see what
unusual thing you can get."

In other words, you find some distant station, like listening to KOA
in LA... a reasonable clear signal for a DXer, but horrible for a
non-DXer due to fading, static bursts, buzz every time you go under
power lines, etc.

Now wait a minute. Here I am doing my best for discussion purposes
buying into part of your theories on what is important in AMBCB and you
try to slog the discussion back to DXing. I'm not buying into debate
tactics.

In this case, I am discussing what is acceptable reception to some is not to
others. Those used to "the old days" of listening to out of market AMs at
night have a tolerance. the younger generations do not.

You made an real world listening situation comment and I, using your
own reasoning, dismissed it based on your own market rationalizations
on what stations I should be listening too. Using your reasoning the
local stations have strong signals that sounds good on the average
car radio and not sound noisy. The other people in the car would not
object to listening to local stations.

I was only saying that tuning to an "outside station" is acceptable to
traditional AM users. To all others, it is not.

I don't DX AM radio stations in the car. I listen to distant stations,
when they sound good, for the program material. I'm a program listener
not a DXer.

If it is way out of market and on skywave, I would argue that it is DX.
Distance = DX.

IBOC = QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

IBOC blows. If you are going to make the change to digital split the
band and make half of it digital or better use a different band. If the
bean counting think goes with the "only good station is a local one"
based on an advertising model then pick a band that does not propagate
long distance while you are at it.

We were handed AM. We don't like the fact that it has skywave, which has not
been particularly helpful since TV took over evening entertainment.

The reason AM became outmoded is that the FCC itself could not decide
whether to allow regional or national coverage or to promote localism... so
they never allowed US AMs the amount of power needed to really be anything
but a local medium.... and licensed thousands of lower power stations that
only find that skywave creates interference that reduces coverage.

In article ,
Mike wrote:

In article
,
Telamon wrote:

Yeah, an opinion based on "stacking the deck" to favor your opinion. You
set up a circumstance that was not a part of the discussion, which was
listening at home or in the car.

WTF are you talking about? Listening to AM in a car or at home - at
night - is definitely different from listening to AM in a car or at home
- during the day! Either sucks during a thunderstorm. FM is better
in all of these scenarios.

WTF indeed. Read the thread. Did I write day time and night time was the
same? Noooo.

Since you won't or can't I'll explain one last time for your greater
than average comprehension needs. The discussion was about home and car
AMBCB listening and you added listening in an office building. The
thread is about IBOC (read the subject line). I state that IBOC is not
an improvement and David thinks it is. We both write about scenarios
about listening in a car. Then you jump in sniping the thread about
listening in an office building. You were just introducing new thoughts
that were a little discontinuous to what was being discussed.

You were the one claiming that local AM had no problems at night!

Yes, I understand that also. That's why I'd rather see it move to FM
than to "digital AM".

Make it move? Make what move? I think the idea is to add channels or
streams while the current stations keep what they have maintaining the
status quo.

Where did I say "make it move". I said I'd rather see it move to FM
than to "digital AM", for all of the above reasons!

Reading is *so* fundamental.

You have a real comprehension problem about what you wrote so here you
go from a few lines above.

"That's why I'd rather see it move to FM than to "digital AM".

And now going back through the thread to see what you previously wrote
and sniped I see you mean the program material.

So basically you don't know how to snip appropriately either.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

IBOC blows. If you are going to make the change to digital split the
band and make half of it digital or better use a different band. If the
bean counting think goes with the "only good station is a local one"
based on an advertising model then pick a band that does not propagate
long distance while you are at it.

We were handed AM. We don't like the fact that it has skywave, which has not
been particularly helpful since TV took over evening entertainment.

The reason AM became outmoded is that the FCC itself could not decide
whether to allow regional or national coverage or to promote localism... so
they never allowed US AMs the amount of power needed to really be anything
but a local medium.... and licensed thousands of lower power stations that
only find that skywave creates interference that reduces coverage.

Ok then who is responsible for perpetuating the continued use of a band
that has long range propagation?

When things started out decades ago the night time long distance
propagation was desired, then at some point the FCC wanted the use of
the band to be local and changed rules to favor that. Now that it is
proposed to continue the local over distant usage AND going to a new
mode requires that everyone buy new receivers why not change the band to
a frequency range that does not favor distant propagation?

What is the point of making a mess of the current AM band? The status
quo could be maintained by giving the current AMBCB holders of licenses
first dibs on the new band.

There are all kinds of solutions out there. Former TV analog band space
could be used for radio or as a sub channel on digital over the air TV.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...

IBOC blows. If you are going to make the change to digital split the
band and make half of it digital or better use a different band. If the
bean counting think goes with the "only good station is a local one"
based on an advertising model then pick a band that does not propagate
long distance while you are at it.

We were handed AM.

You were handed your ass when you got BUSTED.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

IBOC blows. If you are going to make the change to digital split the
band and make half of it digital or better use a different band. If the
bean counting think goes with the "only good station is a local one"
based on an advertising model then pick a band that does not propagate
long distance while you are at it.

We were handed AM. We don't like the fact that it has skywave, which has
not
been particularly helpful since TV took over evening entertainment.

The reason AM became outmoded is that the FCC itself could not decide
whether to allow regional or national coverage or to promote localism...
so
they never allowed US AMs the amount of power needed to really be
anything
but a local medium.... and licensed thousands of lower power stations
that
only find that skywave creates interference that reduces coverage.

Ok then who is responsible for perpetuating the continued use of a band
that has long range propagation?

The FCC. Just the same reason why we never considered Eureka... the band is
in military service in the US. The same reason Long Wave is not used in the
US. And so on.

When things started out decades ago the night time long distance
propagation was desired, then at some point the FCC wanted the use of
the band to be local and changed rules to favor that.

Actually, if you peruse Broadcasting Magazine going back to the late 30's,
you find a couple of decades of indecision on the part of the FCC. When
there were few stations, when the bands were reallocated in around 1932, the
FCC established the clears because there were so few local stations yet.
Then, after the war, they doubled the AMs in 4 years, and kept postpoing the
upgrading of clears to 500 to 750 kw. Eventually, this became a written (via
administrative law) position of favoring localism over broad coverage. This
changed even FM, where power limits of 50 kw or 100 kw (by zone) were
imposed where up to 500 kw had been earlier authorized.

So, through the 70's, many, many local stations were authorized, FMs were
dropped in power caps, and only the 24 1 A clears survived, but at the low
power of 50 kw. By the end of the 70's, even the clears were broken down to
give new local servi ce, mostly in the west.

Now that it is
proposed to continue the local over distant usage AND going to a new
mode requires that everyone buy new receivers why not change the band to
a frequency range that does not favor distant propagation?

And what frequencies would you use? And that would obsolete existing radios,
which HD does not do.

What is the point of making a mess of the current AM band? The status
quo could be maintained by giving the current AMBCB holders of licenses
first dibs on the new band.

But, in the way the AM band is used today, it does not make as big a mess as
everyone complains. I have seen several recent RW articles in which skywave
is still defended as the reason why HD is not a good idea. These experts do
not understand that, starting with the FCC in the 40's, skywave is no longer
relevant.

There are all kinds of solutions out there. Former TV analog band space
could be used for radio or as a sub channel on digital over the air TV.

The TV band is going to be auctioned off for new technologies and the FCC
plans to bring in billions. Giving licenses for new "AM swaps" in Bemidji
will not come anywhere close to that, so it will not happen.

David Eduardo wrote:

Irrelevant twaddle deleted.

You are so BUSTED!!

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

David Eduardo wrote:

Irrelevant twaddle deleted.

You are so BUSTED!!

What is "twaddle?"

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..

IBOC blows. If you are going to make the change to digital split the
band and make half of it digital or better use a different band. If the
bean counting think goes with the "only good station is a local one"
based on an advertising model then pick a band that does not propagate
long distance while you are at it.

We were handed AM. We don't like the fact that it has skywave, which has
not
been particularly helpful since TV took over evening entertainment.

The reason AM became outmoded is that the FCC itself could not decide
whether to allow regional or national coverage or to promote localism...
so
they never allowed US AMs the amount of power needed to really be
anything
but a local medium.... and licensed thousands of lower power stations
that
only find that skywave creates interference that reduces coverage.

Ok then who is responsible for perpetuating the continued use of a band
that has long range propagation?

The FCC. Just the same reason why we never considered Eureka... the band is
in military service in the US. The same reason Long Wave is not used in the
US. And so on.

When things started out decades ago the night time long distance
propagation was desired, then at some point the FCC wanted the use of
the band to be local and changed rules to favor that.

Actually, if you peruse Broadcasting Magazine going back to the late 30's,
you find a couple of decades of indecision on the part of the FCC. When
there were few stations, when the bands were reallocated in around 1932, the
FCC established the clears because there were so few local stations yet.
Then, after the war, they doubled the AMs in 4 years, and kept postpoing the
upgrading of clears to 500 to 750 kw. Eventually, this became a written (via
administrative law) position of favoring localism over broad coverage. This
changed even FM, where power limits of 50 kw or 100 kw (by zone) were
imposed where up to 500 kw had been earlier authorized.

So, through the 70's, many, many local stations were authorized, FMs were
dropped in power caps, and only the 24 1 A clears survived, but at the low
power of 50 kw. By the end of the 70's, even the clears were broken down to
give new local servi ce, mostly in the west.

Now that it is
proposed to continue the local over distant usage AND going to a new
mode requires that everyone buy new receivers why not change the band to
a frequency range that does not favor distant propagation?

And what frequencies would you use? And that would obsolete existing radios,
which HD does not do.

What is the point of making a mess of the current AM band? The status
quo could be maintained by giving the current AMBCB holders of licenses
first dibs on the new band.

But, in the way the AM band is used today, it does not make as big a mess as
everyone complains. I have seen several recent RW articles in which skywave
is still defended as the reason why HD is not a good idea. These experts do
not understand that, starting with the FCC in the 40's, skywave is no longer
relevant.

There are all kinds of solutions out there. Former TV analog band space
could be used for radio or as a sub channel on digital over the air TV.

The TV band is going to be auctioned off for new technologies and the FCC
plans to bring in billions. Giving licenses for new "AM swaps" in Bemidji
will not come anywhere close to that, so it will not happen.

Further above you asked what frequencies would I use and the last
paragraph I previously wrote answers that. I don't see why some of the
old TV band could not be used for a new commercial digital radio band
that normally would not propagate out of the local area. Antennas would
be smaller like the current FM band.

The hybrid IBOC is temporary and the analog will portion will be done
away with anyway so existing radios will be obsoleted.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California