David Frackelton Gleason, posing as Edtardo wrote:

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

David Eduardo wrote:

Irrelevant twaddle deleted.

You are so BUSTED!!

What is "twaddle?"

Baloney: pretentious or silly talk or writing.

You know... what YOU do, oh shiller of IBOC/QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

Irrelevant twaddle deleted.

You are so BUSTED!!

What is "twaddle?"

As BUSTED as you are, you shouldn't even concern yourself.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
..

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 FCC is not going to give up multi-billion dollar frequencies for a few
dollars. They already have a plan and demand for the TV channels, and this
is pretty much set in cement.

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

Probably not for a decade, if that. There is no sunset law on it going all
digital... unlike HDTV.

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

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 FCC is not going to give up multi-billion dollar frequencies for a few
dollars. They already have a plan and demand for the TV channels, and this
is pretty much set in cement.

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

Probably not for a decade, if that. There is no sunset law on it going all
digital... unlike HDTV.

None of this matters. You're BUSTED.

In article ,
Mike wrote:

In article
,
Telamon wrote:

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

Wow you are an asshole.

I know what the thread is about. I know the objections to IBOC. If
you read what I actually wrote - not what you think I wrote - you would
see that I was ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH YOU! I would rather see current
AM programming go to FM rather than **** up AM with "digital"!

Do you get it yet?


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

Yes, that's exactly it. Given a choice of ****ing up AM or moving to
FM, I vote for the latter.

You pompous, presumptuous ****. Have a good life, dip****.

Same to you.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

::history lesson snipped::

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.

No it wouldn't; you've stated yourself that there's
no movement to replace the analog streams with
digital, but rather it's an addition to the current
service.

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.

I'm still waiting on that one happening. There are still
plenty of people out there who haven't bought their
new digital TV yet, technological improvement or not.

No Congressman wants to be seen as blowing off a
big constituency like the elderly on a fixed income
who can't afford the new sets; Congress will keep
extending the deadline until enough old televisions
have died off to make it practical.

Aside from that, the way other prices have been rising
lately I don't think that people will be putting a digital
converter or a digital television at the top of their "to
purchase" list anytime soon.

--Mike L.

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...
..

I'm still waiting on that one happening. There are still
plenty of people out there who haven't bought their
new digital TV yet, technological improvement or not.

No Congressman wants to be seen as blowing off a
big constituency like the elderly on a fixed income
who can't afford the new sets; Congress will keep
extending the deadline until enough old televisions
have died off to make it practical.

Aside from that, the way other prices have been rising
lately I don't think that people will be putting a digital
converter or a digital television at the top of their "to
purchase" list anytime soon.


They have developed a plan to provide digital cable converters to anyone for
free. Makes old sets totally usable via downconversion of digital to analog.

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

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...
.

I'm still waiting on that one happening. There are still
plenty of people out there who haven't bought their
new digital TV yet, technological improvement or not.

No Congressman wants to be seen as blowing off a
big constituency like the elderly on a fixed income
who can't afford the new sets; Congress will keep
extending the deadline until enough old televisions
have died off to make it practical.

Aside from that, the way other prices have been rising
lately I don't think that people will be putting a digital
converter or a digital television at the top of their "to
purchase" list anytime soon.


They have developed a plan to provide digital cable converters to
anyone for
free. Makes old sets totally usable via downconversion of digital to
analog.

That'll be interesting, but they have to fund it and
advertise it first. I can't see the big box stores being
too thrilled about it, either, since it means that the
people who might consider upgrading their television
now will wait for the freebie.

--Mike L.

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

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

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...
.

I'm still waiting on that one happening. There are still
plenty of people out there who haven't bought their
new digital TV yet, technological improvement or not.

No Congressman wants to be seen as blowing off a
big constituency like the elderly on a fixed income
who can't afford the new sets; Congress will keep
extending the deadline until enough old televisions
have died off to make it practical.

Aside from that, the way other prices have been rising
lately I don't think that people will be putting a digital
converter or a digital television at the top of their "to
purchase" list anytime soon.


They have developed a plan to provide digital cable converters to
anyone for
free. Makes old sets totally usable via downconversion of digital to
analog.

That'll be interesting, but they have to fund it and
advertise it first. I can't see the big box stores being
too thrilled about it, either, since it means that the
people who might consider upgrading their television
now will wait for the freebie.

It is federally funded. The government needs the revenue from the vacated
spectrum.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...
.

I'm still waiting on that one happening. There are still
plenty of people out there who haven't bought their
new digital TV yet, technological improvement or not.

No Congressman wants to be seen as blowing off a
big constituency like the elderly on a fixed income
who can't afford the new sets; Congress will keep
extending the deadline until enough old televisions
have died off to make it practical.

Aside from that, the way other prices have been rising
lately I don't think that people will be putting a digital
converter or a digital television at the top of their "to
purchase" list anytime soon.


They have developed a plan to provide digital cable converters to anyone for
free. Makes old sets totally usable via downconversion of digital to analog.

Doesn't matter. You're BUSTED!