New book predicts failure of DAB Digital Radio
DigitalRadioScams
“Digital radio switchover is unlikely to ever happen in the UK” writes
radio specialist Grant Goddard in his new book ‘DAB Digital Radio:
Licensed To Fail’ published on 1 October 2010 by Radio Books in the UK
and US.
Mr Goddard uncovers a secret deal struck between the government and
the UK commercial radio industry to force DAB radio upon the British
public. In return for the radio industry promising to press ahead with
DAB, the government bowed to pressure from the largest commercial
group to amend the law so that its most profitable national FM radio
licence could be renewed without a public auction.
Mr Goddard also exposes a wealth of inaccurate and distorted data
published by radio industry lobbyists as part of their campaign to
convince the government and consumers that take-up of DAB radio has
been a success in the UK and overseas.
However, while the radio industry was assuring the government of its
commitment to DAB as ‘the future of radio’, Grant Goddard’s book
reveals that the largest commercial radio group was quietly closing
its digital radio stations and selling off its investments in DAB
radio licences.
Goddard estimates that the UK radio industry’s investment to date in
the DAB radio system is almost £1 billion and has contributed
significantly to the current lack of profitability in the commercial
radio sector. He concludes that UK radio’s misplaced faith in European
DAB technology has destroyed the viability of much of the UK’s
previously profitable local commercial radio industry.
Written as diary entries between 2008 and 2010, Mr Goddard’s 314-page
book uses charts and graphs to chronicle a critical period in DAB
radio’s implementation in the UK. The government had launched a number
of initiatives intended to solve the problem of slow consumer take-up
of DAB radio – the Digital Radio Working Group, the Digital Britain
consultation, Digital Radio Upgrade and the Digital Economy Bill. The
book documents these efforts and their culmination in the last-minute
legislation of the Digital Economy Act during the final days of the
outgoing Labour government in 2010.
Author Grant Goddard is a London-based media analyst specialising in
the radio broadcasting sector. For thirty years, he has worked in the
radio industry as a senior manager and consultant, in the UK and
overseas, and has written extensively about the radio business for
consumer and trade magazines.
http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/new-book-predicts-failure-of-dab-digital-radio
"Mr Goddard also exposes a wealth of inaccurate and distorted data
published by radio industry lobbyists as part of their campaign to
convince the government and consumers that take-up of DAB radio has
been a success in the UK and overseas."
Hey, SMS - maybe, Grant mentioned YOU in his book - LMFAO!!!! ROTFL!!!
LOL!!!
RHF
wrote:
>
> "Mr Goddard also exposes a wealth of inaccurate and distorted data
> published by radio industry lobbyists as part of their campaign to
> convince the government and consumers that take-up of DAB radio has
> been a success in the UK and overseas."
>
> Hey, SMS - maybe, Grant mentioned YOU in his book - LMFAO!!!! ROTFL!!!
> LOL!!!
DAB {Eureka 147} only succeeds in the short term;
when one of the other options AM & FM is removed
causing a Force Migration of Radio Listeners from
one to the other.
Like it or not this is the Problem that IBOC was
supposed to overcome by keeping Digital Radio
in the same AM & FM Radio Bands and allowing
for existing Radio Listeners to slowly and naturally
Migrate from Analog to Digital without shutting down
one of the existing Radio Bands and Forcing the
Migration of Radio Listeners from one old Band to
another new Band. The driving force in modifying
Radio Listener Behavior was the Car/Truck with 90%
of them being replace within a Decade; and each
of those with a new IBOC AM & FM HD-Radio in
the Dash. This would then be leveraged into the
Home and Office.
* A secondary aspect would be the Ramping-Up
of Digital Power and the Ramping-Down ot the
Analog Power over a number of years.
* A third aspect would be the HD-2 Radio Channels
giving FM HD-Radio the potential for twice as much
Audio Content in the existing FM Radio Band.
Conclusion : Why DAB Eureka 147 failed in the UK :
Maybe the reason IBOC "HD" AM & FM Radio will
succeed in the USA.
-and-that-is-some-thing-to-think-about- ~ RHF
.
.
SMS
> Conclusion : Why DAB Eureka 147 failed in the UK :
> Maybe the reason IBOC "HD" AM& FM Radio will
> succeed in the USA.
Two things led to the IBOC solution in the U.S.:
1) There was no spectrum available for a digital-only service.
2) Broadcasters wanted an IBOC solution because it did not require the
purchase of additional spectrum or licenses.
Now there's talk of a new digital-only band in the space where analog TV
channels 5 and 6 used to be. This would be especially well suited to low
power FM stations. It would likely use iBiquity technology as well
because the silicon used for HD Radio could be easily modified for the
new band. With the low power stations moved off of FM there would be
less of an issue with increased power on HD FM causing interference to
those stations. The big issue with HD right now is that the power levels
are too low to provide equivalent coverage to FM.
The addition/adoption of HD has striking parallels to the
addition/adoption of FM radio in the 20th century. It took FM 40 years
to become as ubiquitous as AM. Those that complain that HD is taking too
long to become ubiquitous have no understanding of the radio business
and how hard it is to replace the installed base of receivers.
In any case, it all is coming together for HD in the U.S. with huge
increases in receiver sales, more vehicle manufacturers including HD,
and the HD consortium deciding to assist smaller stations with the
conversion to HD by helping with funding and engineering expertise that
the smaller stations lack.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> 1) There was no spectrum available for a digital-only service.
Absolute nonsense.
> 2) Broadcasters wanted an IBOC solution because it did not require the
> purchase of additional spectrum or licenses.
Broadcasters wanted an IBOC solution because they didn't want newcomers
filing for space on a *new* service. IBOC was the only way to preserve
the licensed "good ole boy" broadcasters club. Added bonus: by creating
the "HD Alliance", the big corporate owners could put the squeeze on the
independent broadcasters (who happened to be much better at serving
their local audiences) by manipulation of the licensing fees. As it is,
the independent broadcasters have, for the most part eschewed anything
to do with IBOC and "HD Radio". Some of those who bought into it have
since dumped it (Peak Broadcasting in Fresno comes to mind).
> In any case, it all is coming together for HD in the U.S. with huge
> increases in receiver sales, more vehicle manufacturers including HD,
> and the HD consortium deciding to assist smaller stations with the
> conversion to HD by helping with funding and engineering expertise that
> the smaller stations lack.
I have never heard a bigger load of garbage. No one has offered "smaller
stations" a damned thing. I am involved with eight "small" stations, so
I ought to know. How many are you associated with?
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
dave
>
> Conclusion : Why DAB Eureka 147 failed in the UK :
> Maybe the reason IBOC "HD" AM& FM Radio will
> succeed in the USA.
>
> -and-that-is-some-thing-to-think-about- ~ RHF
> .
> .
If you are relying on auto buyer adoption you need to get the system to
work in cars first!
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
dave
> On 9/28/2010 9:49 PM, RHF wrote:
>
>> Conclusion : Why DAB Eureka 147 failed in the UK :
>> Maybe the reason IBOC "HD" AM& FM Radio will
>> succeed in the USA.
>
> Two things led to the IBOC solution in the U.S.:
>
> 1) There was no spectrum available for a digital-only service.
>
Bullshit. They were afraid of a level playing field.
Kevin Alfred Strom
> On 9/28/2010 9:49 PM, RHF wrote:
>
>> Conclusion : Why DAB Eureka 147 failed in the UK :
>> Maybe the reason IBOC "HD" AM& FM Radio will
>> succeed in the USA.
>
> Two things led to the IBOC solution in the U.S.:
>
> 1) There was no spectrum available for a digital-only service.
>
> 2) Broadcasters wanted an IBOC solution because it did not require
> the purchase of additional spectrum or licenses.
Preposterous.
The money-men wanted to preserve the inferiority of the smaller
stations and AM stations, which could have suddenly become equal in
coverage and quality in a new digital band. They wanted to prevent
that from happening. They also wanted to _own_ any new content
streams that might come into existence, instead of having them
available for new broadcasters.
http://3950.net/2009/12/hd-radio-doomed-from-the-start/
With my best,
Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
D. Peter Maus
Two areas where your analogy breaks down.
One is that FM worked. Hybrid Digital...not so much. FM
presented a listenable improvement in audio performance that even
the tone deaf could recognize. Many users of Hybrid Digital do not
agree that the audio performance measures up to the claims made for it.
The other is that the market has changed from the days of early
FM, when the listening opportunities were limited. AM, or recordings
that were noisy, of questionable reproductive quality, and irregular
availability. Further, receivers were bulky, heavy and not portably
operated with any convenience. Batteries were expensive.
Today, the reproduction of recordings is remarkably consistent,
and of very high comparative quality. They are also globally
available for a fraction of the cost of recordings in the days of
early FM. And a person can put his/her entire recording library in a
shirt pocket, on a device with a battery life of many hours,
rechargable at one's own convenience. Often from a variety of
sources. There are also myriad options for listening of programmed
content. AM, of course, and FM, as well as internet radio, streamed
audio on cell phones, satellite radio, and self programmed 'radio
channels' accessible, often at a whim.
None of these offers the dropouts, and the Hybrid Digital to
Analog to Hybrid Digital switching offered by IBOC.
So, while the lamp isn't out for HD radio, at least not yet, the
comparison with the early days of FM does not really possess the
parallels as claimed.
Going back to the beginning days of this discussion: for IBOC to
take off, there will have to be a mandate by FCC that analog
broadcasting is to end.
SMS
No, not true. Many people that have never listened to HD claim poor
audio performance, but they have no experience with HD. Many have a
vested interest in the failure of digital radio. Every independent
review of HD FM has noted the superior audio quality and the lack of
interference.
> Going back to the beginning days of this discussion: for IBOC to take
> off, there will have to be a mandate by FCC that analog broadcasting is
> to end.
Not really necessary. Sufficient numbers of stations in the urban
markets have voluntarily added HD. What would be helpful is the
elimination of royalties on the receiver side combined with a mandate
that all receivers after a certain date be able to receive HD. Financial
incentives for stations to increase their HD power levels to the maximum
allowable levels would also help. But he HD consortium deciding to
assist smaller stations with the conversion to HD by helping with
funding and engineering expertise that the smaller stations lack, is
going to help as well.
RHF
wrote:
All Politics Are 'Local' : All Advertising Is "Local"
Every Politician What's 'The Voice of the People'
Churning "The Money" in their 'Local' Districts.
AM & FM Radio -aka- The Franchise :
Is The Franchise : Is The Franchise
~ RHF
.
RHF
- for IBOC to take off, there will have to be a mandate
- by FCC that analog broadcasting is to end.
and . . . when does that other shoe drop . . .
in what year 2015... 2020 . . .
.
RHF
wrote:
> On 9/29/2010 12:49 AM, RHF wrote:
> [...]
>
> > DAB {Eureka 147} only succeeds in the short term;
> > causing a Force Migration of Radio Listeners from
> > one to the other.
>
>
> Where was this done?
>
> With all good wishes,
The Point Being That It Was Not Done : Hence,
The Failure of the Adoption of DAB {Eureka 147}.
.
D. Peter Maus
While it's true, there are those who have a vested interest in teh
failure of IBOC, I"m not referrring to those. I refer specifically
to those who have heard Hybrid Digital, and have attempted to use
Hybrid Digital Radio, and have found that it's audio performance
fails to meet what's been claimed for it.
I'm one of them. And I've participated in conducting listening
tests. I've also read page after page of complaints of users not
impressed by HD's performance.
I've been in stores when Hybrid Digital receivers have been
returned for non performance.
So...Yes, true. Many users of Hybrid Digital do not agree that the
performance measures up to what's been claimed for it.
>
>> Going back to the beginning days of this discussion: for IBOC to take
>> off, there will have to be a mandate by FCC that analog broadcasting is
>> to end.
>
> Not really necessary. Sufficient numbers of stations in the urban
> markets have voluntarily added HD. What would be helpful is the
> elimination of royalties on the receiver side combined with a mandate
> that all receivers after a certain date be able to receive HD. Financial
> incentives for stations to increase their HD power levels to the maximum
> allowable levels would also help. But he HD consortium deciding to
> assist smaller stations with the conversion to HD by helping with
> funding and engineering expertise that the smaller stations lack, is
> going to help as well.
What broadcasters choose to do is one thing. What listeners
choose to purchase is another.
Listeners have not embraced HD. Streams are being discontinued in
markets across the country.
But you have conveniently not addressed the issue of marketplace.
There are dramatically more sources for listening to content than
there were in the early days of FM. The audio quality of recordings
can now exceed the audio performance of broadcast en masse. And
users can now put their entire library of recordings in their pockets.
All of which paints a much different picture than that faced by
FM in it's own infancy.
Hybrid Digital Radio may, indeed, become a success.
But, dramatically more likely, is that, like DAT, it's a solution
for which the problem has been more effectively, and more
efficiently addressed by newer, and more readily accessible
technologies.
In any event, for users to make that conversion, en masse, and
make Hybrid Digital Radio a going concern, there will have to be a
mandate that the current scheme of broadcasting will end. Which may
happen. There is powerful money behind Hybrid Digital. And
considerable political will.
But it will take a political solution to make the investment pay
returns before The Money goes in a different direction.
>
RHF
Yes by simply Expanding the FM Radio Band and
requiring all the new FM Radio Stations to be IBOC
HD-Radio with a Cut-Off of Analog at 5 Years would
hasten the migration of Radio Listeners to HD-Radio
on the FM Band.
Use the New FM Channels to migrate many of the
Smaller and Lower Powered AM Radio Stations to
the Expanded FM Radio Band. {Depopulate the AM
Radio Band}.
I will repeat myself -presently- The driving force in
modifying Radio Listener Behavior is their Car/Truck
When the number of Cars/Trucks on-the-road with
IBOC HD-Radio is around 90% IBOC will be de-facto
Adopted by the Radio Listeners in their Car/Trucks.
That will take a Decade or more. Each of those new
IBOC AM & FM HD-Radio Listeners will eventually
buy a new HD-Radio for their Home and/or Office.
Yes is a Decade Long View to gently transition
to HD-Radio; by gradually expanding it's 'presence'.
.
Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band
from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now !
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/116e98129d42d730
.
yes, Yes. YES ! - Expand the FM Radio Band
-by- Moving AM's to Old TV Channels 5 & 6 !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/8b403d27fe07c27f
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/92eec9db49629a49
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/de56e4adae3ab587
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/ebba020aff11f5f0
"Expanded" FM Radio Band to cover 76 MHz to
88 MHz to create and additional 60 FM Channels.
.
Expanding the FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/93586e2bf667afb2
.
Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/deb423d8c51f486c
! Do It Now !
.
IBOC : FM HD-Radio -The Answer Is - The 4% Solution
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/b77c3a7efd380a6d
More Digital FM HD-Radio Power
.
IBOC : The Killer-App for FM "HD" Radio's HD-2 Channels
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/08e05095a43bec7b
.
The Future of Terrestrial Radio Broadcasting
is FM Radio and the Future of FM Radio is
IBOC Multi-Channel "HD" Radio
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7acdb337d9029df4
.
Expanding the FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/93586e2bf667afb2
.
HDTV : Selling-Off UHF Channels 52~69
and Expanding The FM Radio Band . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/04301a3d44747762
.
IBOC : FM HD-Radio Needs More HD-2 Power !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/1313262fe9ed3c1d
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/30342d02f81fddf4
.
"HD" Radios ! - The Un-Qualified Comments
by a Simple Consumer of 'Free' Over-the-Air
AM & FM Radio
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2185aed02732ce3e
.
The Future of All Talk-Radio Formats is on
the FM Radio Band and HD-2 Channels . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/38187e60546e2f35
.
It's Only a Matter of Time : "Conditional Access"
-wrt- AM & FM "HD" Radio Technology
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4a98bc15e374b08b
.
The Future of New Radio Technologies . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/9c16e8c3266f13fa
.
Reality-Check : To Make AM/MW "HD" {IBOC} Radio
'Work' the AM/MW Band Needs A New Band Plan
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7361662c8fd12e9f
.
The Alternative View Point
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT !
Leave the good old AM/MW Radio Band Alone
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/f64c4f482b701d06
.
.
All Politics Are 'Local' : All Advertising Is "Local"
Every Politician Wants 'The Voice of the People'
Churning "The Money" in their 'Local' Districts.
AM & FM Radio -aka- The Franchise : Is The
Franchise : Is The Franchise for Local Business
and the Politicians Their Support.
~ RHF
.
SMS
> and . . . when does that other shoe drop . . .
> in what year 2015... 2020 . . .
It will be similar to the transition to digital television, though
longer. First there will be a requirement that all new receivers be
capable of receiving digital, then after x number of years there will be
a requirement to turn off analog (no doubt with some extensions). 2020
is probably too early. With television, since so few are mobile
receivers, it was easy to do adapter boxes for digital but with radio
this is unlikely since the adapter would be too costly and too cumbersome.
The FCC should at least implement a date that all new receivers be
capable of receiving HD FM, and something should be worked out to
eliminate royalties on the receiver side to start, and the transmitter
side long term. The government could in essence buy out iBiquity and
turn the technology into open source.
All the misinformation you see promulgated by those opposed to HD Radio
is based _solely_ on their objection to the royalty model of iBiquity,
not on any valid technological objections. Such a position is
understandable since it does seem unfair that a private company profits
from a monopoly of their system (though the real profits are actually
made by the equipment manufacturers).
D. Peter Maus
> All the misinformation you see promulgated by those opposed to HD Radio
> is based _solely_ on their objection to the royalty model of iBiquity,
> not on any valid technological objections.
Numerous papers written by broadcast engineers say otherwise.
Several of them were published in Radio World over the last few
years. All of them objected on technical grounds.
One engineer--someone who posted here, in fact--also mentioned
that iBiquity threatened legal action for criticism of the Hybrid
Digital Radio system
A system of quality, that meets the needs of the customers,
requires no such thuggery to protect it.
That alone raises questions about it's operation.
SMS
> One engineer--someone who posted here, in fact--also mentioned that
> iBiquity threatened legal action for criticism of the Hybrid Digital
> Radio system
>
> A system of quality, that meets the needs of the customers, requires no
> such thuggery to protect it.
>
> That alone raises questions about it's operation.
And you actually _believed_ him and base your entire opposition to HD on
something than _one_ alleged engineer, said on _Usenet_, that's what's
truly amazing.
The problem for the "noisy minority" anti-digital radio faction is that
HD Radio is succeeding because the broadcasters are adding it and the
early adopter consumers are trying it and buying it. Nothing can really
change this at this point in time. It's quite similar to the adoption of
FM which took many years to reach the level of deployment of AM. HD is
the digital radio standard for the U.S.. The only valid objection to it
is that it's not open source.
What many people apparently don't understand, but apparently the book
that was mentioned points out, are the key differences between what was
deployed in the UK and what was deployed in the U.S.. The U.S. has a
digital radio system that's totally voluntary and that does not require
stations to purchase new bandwidth. This was not accidental, it was a
result of listening to broadcasters and taking into account their views.
Perhaps this approach resulted in a slower adoption of digital radio by
both broadcasters and listeners than what would have occurred had the
government issued mandates, but often education works better than
compulsion. We ended up with a system where all the stakeholders
benefited, something rather rare in this world.
[rec.radio.shortwave removed]
Nick_G
Some quotes from SMS from another thread:
"Well I think the market for such a thing is very small. Far fewer Wi-
Fi
radios have been sold in the U.S. than HD Radios [b]even though
services
like Pandora have more listeners than HD Radio.[/b] "
"There have been about 3 million HD receivers sold so far. If you
count
an iPod dock as an internet radio then of course there have been more
internet radios sold. But in the U.S., standalone internet radio sales
are extremely low. The sales are spread out over a bunch of companies
all losing their shirts together. There's just no market. Internet
radio
is extremely popular, but it's listened to on smart phones and
laptops,
not on dedicated receivers. "
So, what you are saying is that internet radio is more popular than HD
radio, even though the method of delivery is different and there are
allegedly less dedicated receivers out there. This to me shows that
there is a market for stand-alone internet radio receivers, and this
market is getting bigger every year. I suspect that as bandwidth gets
cheaper and bitrates improve the standalone internet radio market can
only get bigger.
So, SMS, according to you, internet radio is the most popular 'digital
radio' platform, and HD radio is the least popular!
Regards,
Nick
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> The FCC should at least implement a date that all new receivers be
> capable of receiving HD FM, and something should be worked out to
> eliminate royalties on the receiver side to start, and the transmitter
> side long term.
Good luck with that, since the whole point of the exercise is to put
money into iBiquity's pocket.
> The government could in essence buy out iBiquity and
> turn the technology into open source.
I would vote anyone out of office who did that. What a WASTE of taxpayer
dollars!
> All the misinformation you see promulgated by those opposed to HD Radio
> is based _solely_ on their objection to the royalty model of iBiquity,
> not on any valid technological objections.
Wrong. Most of my objections are technological, and you have failed to
address any of them.
> Such a position is
> understandable since it does seem unfair that a private company profits
> from a monopoly of their system (though the real profits are actually
> made by the equipment manufacturers).
You've never really talked to inside people at Continental, BE, or
Nautel, have you? That's what I thought.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> And you actually _believed_ him and base your entire opposition to HD on
> something than _one_ alleged engineer, said on _Usenet_, that's what's
> truly amazing.
Many *real* engineers (but how would you know, you're not in the
business, or anywhere near it) have voiced criticisms here. There are
many more who don't dare, on pain of losing their jobs.
> The problem for the "noisy minority" anti-digital radio faction is that
> HD Radio is succeeding because the broadcasters are adding it and the
> early adopter consumers are trying it and buying it. Nothing can really
> change this at this point in time. It's quite similar to the adoption of
> FM which took many years to reach the level of deployment of AM. HD is
> the digital radio standard for the U.S.. The only valid objection to it
> is that it's not open source.
And, obviously, you don't sit in on the local engineering conferences.
> What many people apparently don't understand, but apparently the book
> that was mentioned points out, are the key differences between what was
> deployed in the UK and what was deployed in the U.S.. The U.S. has a
> digital radio system that's totally voluntary and that does not require
> stations to purchase new bandwidth.
No, they just use the additional bandwidth within the broadcasting
spectrum while the FCC looks the other way.
> This was not accidental, it was a
> result of listening to broadcasters and taking into account their views.
> Perhaps this approach resulted in a slower adoption of digital radio by
> both broadcasters and listeners than what would have occurred had the
> government issued mandates, but often education works better than
> compulsion. We ended up with a system where all the stakeholders
> benefited, something rather rare in this world.
Everyone but the public and the non-corporate-owned broadcasters.
SMS
> So, what you are saying is that internet radio is more popular than HD
> radio, even though the method of delivery is different and there are
> allegedly less dedicated receivers out there.
Yes, every computer, at home or at work is an internet radio receiver.
Where it all falls apart for internet radio is in the mobile space, for
multiple reasons.
1. Pandora admitted that its mobile business model is dependent on low
cost bandwidth, it was all working great when the carriers all offered
unlimited data on smart phones. Now AT&T changed the rules on the most
popular smart phone with tiered and limited data, and Verizon will
likely follow suit. No one with a 200MB $15 data plan is going to use
their data to stream music into their car's audio system, or use their
iPhone as an internet radio with ear buds.
2. Wireless coverage is even more spotty than terrestrial radio coverage.
3. Internet radio, like Pandora, is not necessarily free. Pandora offers
a "free" service but it's limited.
It's amusing to see (admittedly very few) people in the terrestrial
radio business rail against HD because in reality it's one of their only
hopes of remaining relevant in terms of mobile entertainment. When I'm
in the car with my kids, and their favorite stations are playing endless
commercials on analog FM, the solution is to either find an HD station
(if we're in the vehicle with HD) or the familiar "can I plug in my
iPod"? FM stations that want to remain relevant have added HD. Those
without the financial or technical resources to add HD will be
increasingly marginalized.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> No, not true. Many people that have never listened to HD claim poor
> audio performance, but they have no experience with HD. Many have a
> vested interest in the failure of digital radio. Every independent
> review of HD FM has noted the superior audio quality and the lack of
> interference.
On the other hand, I have years of experience with IBOC (dating back to
the nineties), and I say it sounds like crap (even when it works at
all). And unlike your "independent reviewers" I actually have an ear.
> Not really necessary. Sufficient numbers of stations in the urban
> markets have voluntarily added HD. What would be helpful is the
> elimination of royalties on the receiver side combined with a mandate
> that all receivers after a certain date be able to receive HD.
It would be nice if gold grew on trees, but what would really be the
point in taking a technical fraud and removing its actual design purpose?
> Financial
> incentives for stations to increase their HD power levels to the maximum
> allowable levels would also help. But he HD consortium deciding to
> assist smaller stations with the conversion to HD by helping with
> funding and engineering expertise that the smaller stations lack, is
> going to help as well.
Could you cite the reference for that load of bunk? I didn't think so.
John Higdon
"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@att.net> wrote:
> What broadcasters choose to do is one thing. What listeners
> choose to purchase is another.
That is probably the most profound statement in this entire thread. "HD
Radio" promoters talk about the great success of their baby, but then
turn around and talk about government regulations requiring "HD"
capability in radios, the government "buying out" iBiquity, and even
requiring "HD Radio" manufactured into cell phones. How about washing
machines?
If the public were ready to embrace this, manufacturers couldn't build
it fast enough. The government wouldn't have to mandate *anything*.
> But you have conveniently not addressed the issue of marketplace.
There are many things our "HD Radio" evangelist does not address. He
does not address the real, in-contour interference, even right here in
the Bay Area. He does not address the audio quality issue with real
discussion, but rather quotes unknown people in consumer magazines. He
claims that there was no spectrum space for an all-digital service, and
then in the next paragraph talks about the proposed all-digital service
using iBiquity (using spectrum, I presume). He has no grasp of the
broadcast industry and how it functions in the real world. He refuses to
state a single credential for his opinions, or any sources for his
"facts". He has exhibited no sign of any experience in the technical
operation of a radio station whatsoever.
All this, and then he denigrates the many real broadcast technicians and
engineers (such as yourself) who post here, whose credentials are well
established.
> But, dramatically more likely, is that, like DAT, it's a solution
> for which the problem has been more effectively, and more
> efficiently addressed by newer, and more readily accessible
> technologies.
This makes very good sense when you consider that the entire IBOC
technology is about twenty years old. It's passe. As you mention, there
are many technologies that were completely bypassed by newer
technologies that made much more sense.
Broadcast radio's forte is simplicity and its local presence. That's
what it has in the marketplace to offer the public. Loading it down with
Rube Goldberg contraptions that, in sum, merely degrade its ability to
function and serve the public is a course that is doomed to fail. The
public is quite understandably is just not interested. The real, savvy
broadcasters are well aware of this.
> But it will take a political solution to make the investment pay
> returns before The Money goes in a different direction.
Amen. And at that point, it becomes a different industry at the expense
of another that is irreplaceable.
John Higdon
dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
> Bullshit. They were afraid of a level playing field.
Mainly, yes. But they were also afraid of new players horning in. I
remember the trades of the era and the prospects of doom and gloom if a
"digital band" were ever created.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> It's amusing to see (admittedly very few) people in the terrestrial
> radio business rail against HD because in reality it's one of their only
> hopes of remaining relevant in terms of mobile entertainment.
That is indeed how it was marketed to the broadcasters. The corporate
idiots fell for it hook, line, and sinker. The real broadcasters, who
had to make every dime effecting in serving their audiences, were
skeptical.
> Those
> without the financial or technical resources to add HD will be
> increasingly marginalized.
Don't you wish. Admittedly, since you appear to have no contact with any
real broadcasters, you are not aware that nowadays, the decision to not
bother with IBOC is a pure business consideration. There is no payback,
and the prospect of serious degradation of the revenue-generation
channel.
Denials of this cement your reputation of being a total broadcasting
outsider.
RHF
> On 9/29/2010 7:25 AM, RHF wrote:
>
> > and . . . when does that other shoe drop . . .
> > in what year 2015... 2020 . . .
>
- longer. First there will be a requirement that all new receivers be
- capable of receiving digital, then after x number of years there
will be
- a requirement to turn off analog (no doubt with some extensions).
2020
- is probably too early. With television, since so few are mobile
- receivers, it was easy to do adapter boxes for digital but with
radio
- this is unlikely since the adapter would be too costly and too
cumbersome.
No simply by Ramping-Up the Digital Power every
two to three Years over a Two Decades
-and- At the same time Ramping-Down the Analog
Power over the same number of years.
This Works for FM HD-Radio Only :
Digital Power Up -and- Analog Power Down
Year 2005 : Digital 1% -&- Analog 99%
Year 2010 : Digital 10% -&- Analog 90%
Year 2013 : Digital 12% -&- Analog 75%
Year 2016 : Digital 14% -&- Analog 60%
Year 2019 : Digital 16% -&- Analog 45%
Year 2022 : Digital 18% -&- Analog 30%
Year 2025 : Digital 20% -&- Analog 15%
Year 2025 : Digital 20% -&- Analog 00%
AM/MW IBOC is a Different Animal : For the
AM/MW Radio Band with a Digital IBOC Signal
a 1 KW "Local" Analog Radio Station and a
50 KW Clear Channel Radio Station Do Not
Work along side each other in an All Digital
Radio Band [1KW versus 50KW]
Digital AM Radio Power Ranges really will only
work in a more 'Localized' Compressed Set of
Power Ranges :
* 500 Watts Local ~ 25 Miles
{Both Days and Nights}
* 1500 Watts Metro ~ 50 Miles
{Maybe reduced to 1000 Watts Nights}
4500 Watts Regional ~ 100 Miles
{Maybe reduced to 3000 Watts Nights}
?WHY? a 'Localized' Compressed Set of Power
Ranges ?
The reason 'why' is the IBOC Digital Side-Bands will
effectively make all AM/MW Radio Broadcasting "Local"
-and- having a Higher Powered AM/MW Radio Station
will simply be having a Digital Hash Jammer on one to
two channels on each side of it for hundreds of Miles
outside of it's Licensed Broadcast Service Area.
Presently the old 50 KW 'The Clears" have a 'revised'
750 Mile 'protected' Range in the Analog Mode :
This is NOT Compatible with the IBOC Digital Mode
-so- There needs to be a 2nd Revision for the now
former "Clears" to a Regional 100 Mile 'protected'
Range in IBOC Digital Mode with a Power limit of
under 5 KW {4500 Watts}. to insure that their Digital
Side-Bands Hash does not extend to far into 'other'
Media Markets and effective JAM other Broadcasters.
.
Once Again with IBOC Digital Transmission : All
AM/MW Radio Broadcasters in the USA become
"Local" to their :
Local Area ~ 25 Miles
Local Metro ~ 50 Miles
Local Region ~ 100 Miles
-and- NOT {Nothing} Beyond That [.]
.
after 100 years the am/mw dxing in the 'usa'
that i grew-up listening to and loving is dying
and about to be dead - imho ~ RHF
.
.
- The FCC should at least implement a date that all new receivers be
- capable of receiving HD FM, and something should be worked out to
- eliminate royalties on the receiver side to start, and the
transmitter
- side long term. The government could in essence buy out iBiquity and
- turn the technology into open source.
Now that is a smart idea
-and- Yes imho it should be done.
.
- All the misinformation you see promulgated by those opposed to HD
Radio
- is based _solely_ on their objection to the royalty model of
iBiquity,
- not on any valid technological objections. Such a position is
- understandable since it does seem unfair that a private company
profits
- from a monopoly of their system (though the real profits are
actually
- made by the equipment manufacturers).
Yeah - iBiquity Haters : Love To Hate IBOC ~ RHF
.
.
SMS
<snip>
> If the public were ready to embrace this, manufacturers couldn't build
> it fast enough. The government wouldn't have to mandate *anything*.
Yet the government did mandate that television receivers be able to
receive digital television signals, they mandated the shutdown of analog
television broadcasts, and they spent $2 billion subsidizing converter
boxes.
The fact is that government mandates and funding are sometimes necessary
to overcome the resistance to advances in technology and to move the
country forward technologically.
Kevin Alfred Strom
[...]
>
> All the misinformation you see promulgated by those opposed to HD
> Radio is based _solely_ on their objection to the royalty model of
> iBiquity, not on any valid technological objections. Such a position
> is understandable since it does seem unfair that a private company
> profits from a monopoly of their system (though the real profits are
> actually made by the equipment manufacturers).
What a fantastically broad and unverifiable statement.
I have listened to IBOC. And I have read numerous articles
criticizing IBOC on numerous grounds, and none of them mentioned the
royalties.
I do suspect, though, that they -- and the sweetheart monopoly
behind them -- are just as dishonest as the rest of the system.
With every good wish,
SMS
<snip>
> You've never really talked to inside people at Continental, BE, or
> Nautel, have you? That's what I thought.
Your problem is that you believe that anyone that has views and
experience other than your own must be somehow deluded.
But since you asked, I'll tell you that at Nautel I've corresponded with
Hal Kneller. But of course you would not consider that as worthwhile
since he used to work for iBiquity, and since Nautel has a vested
interest in the deployment of HD Radio. Here's part of an e-mail he send
me regarding the Brazilian interest in HD Radio.
from Hal Kneller <hxx.k...@nautel.com>
to scharf...@xxxxxxxxx.us
date Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM
subject RE: HD Radio in Brazil
<snip>
What do you do in radio, you are remarkably well informed.
H
SMS
> No simply by Ramping-Up the Digital Power every
> two to three Years over a Two Decades
> -and- At the same time Ramping-Down the Analog
> Power over the same number of years.
>
> This Works for FM HD-Radio Only :
> Digital Power Up -and- Analog Power Down
> Year 2005 : Digital 1% -&- Analog 99%
> Year 2010 : Digital 10% -&- Analog 90%
> Year 2013 : Digital 12% -&- Analog 75%
> Year 2016 : Digital 14% -&- Analog 60%
> Year 2019 : Digital 16% -&- Analog 45%
> Year 2022 : Digital 18% -&- Analog 30%
> Year 2025 : Digital 20% -&- Analog 15%
> Year 2025 : Digital 20% -&- Analog 00%
Analog at the lower levels will work so poorly for the lower power
stations that there's no real reason for the lower powers. If they go
the gradual route then they should be exempting the low power stations.
I don't think KKUP at 15% of 200 watts would be viable!
There needs to be a clean break at some point rather than messing about
with 15% analog power. You'd have too many consumers complaining about
worsening reception.
> AM/MW IBOC is a Different Animal
I think it's best to forget about AM HD altogether. AM can remain as
analog. If the new digital band in the channel 5 & 6 space is created
then one thing that could be mandated is that new radio receivers be
required to not only tune HD FM, but the new digital band as well. The
AM stations, which are mostly talk radio now anyway, can be moved to HD
sub-channels of FM stations.
dave
>
> All the misinformation you see promulgated by those opposed to HD Radio
> is based _solely_ on their objection to the royalty model of iBiquity,
> not on any valid technological objections. Such a position is
> understandable since it does seem unfair that a private company profits
> from a monopoly of their system (though the real profits are actually
> made by the equipment manufacturers).
Is adjacent channel interference "misinfornation"? The way I see it,
this HD BS is just to crowd out LPFM (the old dreaded Class D stations
from the '60s).
You talk like 'Dwardo.
John Higdon
dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
> Is adjacent channel interference "misinfornation"? The way I see it,
> this HD BS is just to crowd out LPFM (the old dreaded Class D stations
> from the '60s).
That's very perceptive. One of my stations was strong-armed (by the FCC)
into allowing a second-adjacent LPFM to locate its transmitter *within*
my station's 60dbu contour. If my station were to adopt IBOC, it would
literally wipe that LPFM away.
I agree that if the majority of primary stations were to adopt IBOC,
besides causing major interference among themselves, it would
effectively negate the entire LPFM service in many crowded areas.
> You talk like 'Dwardo.
At least Eduardo is a real person with real broadcasting experience (who
actually recanted his support for HD Radio). "SMS" has no broadcasting
credentials whatsoever.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/2010 9:55 AM, John Higdon wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You've never really talked to inside people at Continental, BE, or
> > Nautel, have you? That's what I thought.
>
> Your problem is that you believe that anyone that has views and
> experience other than your own must be somehow deluded.
Regale me in email with your actual experience and some real, verifiable
observations, and I'll make up my own mind. A supposed snippet from an
alleged communication is not convincing.
If it is actually real, I'm sorry that the individual you name is so
easily impressed.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Yet the government did mandate that television receivers be able to
> receive digital television signals, they mandated the shutdown of analog
> television broadcasts, and they spent $2 billion subsidizing converter
> boxes.
The government had spectrum to sell. They wanted the money in a hurry.
It was never about the marketplace. There is no money to be made in the
case of "HD Radio" for the FCC since there is no spectrum being sold.
> The fact is that government mandates and funding are sometimes necessary
> to overcome the resistance to advances in technology and to move the
> country forward technologically.
Are you REALLY that naive?
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Analog at the lower levels will work so poorly for the lower power
> stations that there's no real reason for the lower powers. If they go
> the gradual route then they should be exempting the low power stations.
> I don't think KKUP at 15% of 200 watts would be viable!
You don't have to "ramp down" analog power by a single watt if you don't
adopt IBOC.
> There needs to be a clean break at some point rather than messing about
> with 15% analog power. You'd have too many consumers complaining about
> worsening reception.
It's a fantasy not even worth discussion.
> I think it's best to forget about AM HD altogether. AM can remain as
> analog. If the new digital band in the channel 5 & 6 space is created
> then one thing that could be mandated is that new radio receivers be
> required to not only tune HD FM, but the new digital band as well. The
> AM stations, which are mostly talk radio now anyway, can be moved to HD
> sub-channels of FM stations.
But there is no spectrum available for a "digital-only" band, according
to you. That was your #1 reason why we are suffering under hybrid IBOC.
But I'm willing to play: I have no objection to a digital-only band if
the analog band is returned to analog only. Then let the marketplace
decide. Who could be against that?
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>
>>
>> All the misinformation you see promulgated by those opposed to HD Radio
>> is based _solely_ on their objection to the royalty model of iBiquity,
>> not on any valid technological objections. Such a position is
>> understandable since it does seem unfair that a private company profits
>> from a monopoly of their system (though the real profits are actually
>> made by the equipment manufacturers).
>
> Is adjacent channel interference "misinfornation"?
Let's just say that it's greatly exaggerated for reasons that we are all
aware of.
> The way I see it,
> this HD BS is just to crowd out LPFM (the old dreaded Class D stations
> from the '60s).
I'm sure you understand that that is not the reason behind digital
radio, though if the power levels continue to rise as digital replaces
analog then indeed those LPFM stations would be history. The FCC is
looking at a new digital band where those stations could move, or they
could lease sub-channels of more powerful HD stations. At least they'd
be able to be received by a lot more listeners!
> You talk like 'Dwardo.
I don't know who that is so I don't know if that's good or bad!
SMS
You're not understanding the history and the big picture. At the time HD
Radio was created there was still analog television. Now there is some
spectrum available, and a digital radio band is being looked into.
> But I'm willing to play: I have no objection to a digital-only band if
> the analog band is returned to analog only.
That's not going to happen, as you are well aware. There are already
2000 stations, many of them larger stations, operating with HD. The
receiver manufacturers have ramped up production as have the chipmakers.
More and more vehicle manufacturers are offering HD. There's too much
momentum in HD. What you should look into as soon as possible are the
subsidies that are being offered to smaller stations to add HD.
> Then let the marketplace decide. Who could be against that?
The same people that had enough foresight to understand that to move to
digital television required more than just letting the marketplace
decide. It required mandates to both broadcasters and equipment
manufacturers, and $2 billion of subsidies for converter boxes.
Kevin Alfred Strom
[...]
> I'm sure you understand that that is not the reason behind digital
> radio
IBOC and "digital radio" are not synonymous terms. IBOC is a _type_
of digital radio -- just like a Yugo is a type of car.
With all good wishes,
Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
RHF
- You talk like 'Dwardo.
'Special Dave' -that's- D'Eduardo !
When Numbers Count : You Can Count on . . .
Count D'Eduardo "Grand Duke of the Arbiton"
that is provided you are not one of the count-less,
un-count-able, no-a-counts over the age of . . .
60 . . . a little lower please
55 . . . a little lower please
50 . . . a little lower please
how low can you go . . . ~ RHF
.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> You're not understanding the history and the big picture. At the time HD
> Radio was created there was still analog television. Now there is some
> spectrum available, and a digital radio band is being looked into.
With some minor reshuffling, there was plenty of VHF and UHF spectrum
available for a relatively tiny digital broadcast band.
> That's not going to happen, as you are well aware. There are already
> 2000 stations, many of them larger stations, operating with HD. The
> receiver manufacturers have ramped up production as have the chipmakers.
Could you just give a quick reference on that? I've heard that line for
over eight years.
> More and more vehicle manufacturers are offering HD. There's too much
> momentum in HD. What you should look into as soon as possible are the
> subsidies that are being offered to smaller stations to add HD.
Would the subsidy cover the degradation to the ability of the station to
serve the public? If "HD Radio" were scrapped today and done over, the
public wouldn't even flinch. It is the public that counts. Where is the
cite I asked for regarding the subsidies?
> The same people that had enough foresight to understand that to move to
> digital television required more than just letting the marketplace
> decide. It required mandates to both broadcasters and equipment
> manufacturers, and $2 billion of subsidies for converter boxes.
I see you have decided to selectively ignore the real reason for all of
that movement to dump analog TV by the government.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/2010 12:56 PM, dave wrote:
> > Is adjacent channel interference "misinfornation"?
>
> Let's just say that it's greatly exaggerated for reasons that we are all
> aware of.
And you know this how? I don't recall seeing you out there with your
spectrum analyzer when I was documenting the interference on our
station. Did you perform you own independent study? I will go anywhere
you designate to see it. Plus, I'll renew my offer: any time you want to
see the interference documentation and get a practical demonstration of
that interference, just give me a call. How can you resist the
opportunity to tell me to my face after being shown this material how
"exaggerated" my claim is?
> I'm sure you understand that that is not the reason behind digital
> radio, though if the power levels continue to rise as digital replaces
> analog then indeed those LPFM stations would be history.
And you are sure of that because why?
> The FCC is
> looking at a new digital band where those stations could move, or they
> could lease sub-channels of more powerful HD stations. At least they'd
> be able to be received by a lot more listeners!
Or, maybe the FCC will once again ignore its own rules and strong arm
primary broadcasters to put up with interference from both iBiquity's
abortion AND LPFM stations assigned within their protected contours.
John Higdon
Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin...@revilo-oliver.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/2010 3:30 PM, SMS wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm sure you understand that that is not the reason behind digital
> > radio
> [...]
>
>
>
> IBOC and "digital radio" are not synonymous terms. IBOC is a _type_
> of digital radio -- just like a Yugo is a type of car.
And "HD Radio" is a registered trademark of iBiquity Digital Corporation
and is just that: a trademark. It does not mean "High Definition Radio".
SMS
> Could you just give a quick reference on that? I've heard that line for
> over eight years.
I doubt it, as eight years ago there were not 2000 stations, there were
no dedicated chipmakers, and there were few HD receivers. In any case,
since you're the one disputing what all the reports show, it's up to you
to provide the references to disprove it. Google is your friend.
>
>> More and more vehicle manufacturers are offering HD. There's too much
>> momentum in HD. What you should look into as soon as possible are the
>> subsidies that are being offered to smaller stations to add HD.
>
> Would the subsidy cover the degradation to the ability of the station to
> serve the public? If "HD Radio" were scrapped today and done over, the
> public wouldn't even flinch. It is the public that counts. Where is the
> cite I asked for regarding the subsidies?
Again, Google is your friend. They were widely reported. I saw it on the
Radio World web site. You need to keep up and not depend on Usenet to
learn what's happening in the broadcast industry.
Richard Evans
>
>> The same people that had enough foresight to understand that to move to
>> digital television required more than just letting the marketplace
>> decide. It required mandates to both broadcasters and equipment
>> manufacturers, and $2 billion of subsidies for converter boxes.
>
> I see you have decided to selectively ignore the real reason for all of
> that movement to dump analog TV by the government.
>
I don't know about the US. But here in the UK, there was already a huge
take up of digital TV before they decided to start switching off analogue.
It worked because people wanted more TV channels, and DTV provided
vastly more than analogue, hence the vast majority of people, who were
able to get DTV went out and got set top boxes. Most of those who can
not get Freeview (terrestrial digital TV), got sky instead (digital
satellite).
The analogue switch off will actually benefit far ore people than it
disadvantages, because it will enable them to increase signal levels,
and transmit from repeater stations that are currently analogue only. So
providing a digital service to everybody who currently or previously had
analogue (although repeater stations will carry fewer channels than main
transmitters). Also increased signal levels will provide far more robust
reception.
So basically digital TV has been a success, because people wanted it,
and digital switchover will lead to an improved service.
The situation is not the same with radio.
Most people are happy with the choice available on analogue radio, so
they don't see any benefit in going digital. Digital could have had
advantages in terms of sound quality, and that is what DAB was
originally designed for, but that advantage went years ago, when they
ruined the sound quality, by slashing bit rates to cram in more
stations. So basically there is no real advantage to going with digital
radio, hence the public are not interested, hence they are struggling to
try and push digital switchover onto us.
Richard E.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I doubt it, as eight years ago there were not 2000 stations, there were
> no dedicated chipmakers, and there were few HD receivers. In any case,
> since you're the one disputing what all the reports show, it's up to you
> to provide the references to disprove it. Google is your friend.
You are the one who has to depend upon Google. I'm actually in the
industry. As you know, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I
suppose you are at liberty to make up just about anything that strikes
your fancy, and it IS quite apparent that you make this stuff up.
> Again, Google is your friend. They were widely reported. I saw it on the
> Radio World web site. You need to keep up and not depend on Usenet to
> learn what's happening in the broadcast industry.
I have an actual subscription to Radio World; I don't need to go to the
web site. All I can say is this: if you are relying on the likes of
Radio World for your information, no wonder most of what you say is
crap. That, and your tendency to selectively report what you find there.
And again, since you don't seem to get it: I deal with broadcast
technology all day, every day. I don't have to put my nose in Google to
know what is going on. I never cease to be amazed at those who delude
themselves into thinking that they are more knowledgeable and informed
than the actual players in an industry from surfing the web.
You are a living example of the nature of misinformation that can be
obtained from the web.
SMS
> John Higdon wrote:
>
>>
>>> The same people that had enough foresight to understand that to move
>>> to digital television required more than just letting the marketplace
>>> decide. It required mandates to both broadcasters and equipment
>>> manufacturers, and $2 billion of subsidies for converter boxes.
>>
>> I see you have decided to selectively ignore the real reason for all
>> of that movement to dump analog TV by the government.
>>
>
> I don't know about the US. But here in the UK, there was already a huge
> take up of digital TV before they decided to start switching off analogue.
In the U.S. there were a lot of sales of digital capable TVs long before
there was any digital terrestrial broadcasting, HD or SD. Of course long
before digital broadcasting, cable and satellite companies were already
broadcasting in digital and the STB converted the signal to analog.
There are still a great many analog TVs still in use on cable and
satellite systems, and via the converter boxes that the U.S. government
subsidized to the tune of $2 billion.
Just as with digital radio, digital TV was able to provide a higher
quality product in greater quantities, due to more efficient use of the
spectrum. However in the case of digital TV, the government _mandated_
the conversion on a certain date so everyone receiving terrestrial TV
was required to switch over by some means (new TV or converter box). No
one in the U.S. has yet proposed a date for analog radio to be shut
down, and it's unlikely to be in our lifetime. For now, the IBOC
solution works sufficiently well alongside analog that there is no need
to start setting deadlines. Gentle encouragement and education will work
better than compulsion for now.
What's likely to happen is increased demands for better digital radio
coverage to the point where there could be some interference with analog
radio, a scenario that's been largely avoided for now. At that time the
FCC will have to decide on a plan for conversion to all-digital.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> What's likely to happen is increased demands for better digital radio
> coverage to the point where there could be some interference with analog
> radio, a scenario that's been largely avoided for now. At that time the
> FCC will have to decide on a plan for conversion to all-digital.
I have no problem with that, but that isn't what we have. We have a
"voluntary" system where the proprietary digital technology (controlled
and vended by a single source) plays havoc with the decades-old legacy
system.
If the plan were to mandate digital conversion, then at least the issue
would get an open discussion before a formal report and order.
Furthermore, there would be opportunity for all comers to develop
candidates for adoption, and most surely a superior system to "HD Radio"
would emerge.
What we have now is more or less a stealth system, about which real
discussion of technology and practices is suppressed. It is an inferior
system. At least with FM stereo, many systems were tested, as with the
case of AM stereo. This is a one-company cram down, to use broadcast
jargon.