iBiquity/Volvo/BMW conspiracy to commit major criminal fraud - LOL!
DigitalRadioScams
"With our 2010 and 2011 models, Volvo drivers can expect the best in
audio quality, more music and news/talk through multicast channels,
and advanced data services with scrolling text that shows artist name
and title, and much more. This is a huge benefit to all Volvo owners
and we’re sure they’ll be pleased."
http://www.hdradio.com/the_buzz.php?thebuzz=389
"Automotive Recall and TSB Titles for 2010 Volvo XC60"
"TJ20784 MAR 09 Audio System - HD Radio(R) Troubleshooting Guidelines"
http://www.alldatadiy.com/TSB/64/1064arag.htm
Looks like the same HD Radio TSB and Trouble-Shooting Guide that BMW
has! Now, the charges have gone from major fraud to include consipracy
to commit major fraud. Think Keefe Bartels knows about it -
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NX211
wrote:
God I love it! I hope iBiquity gets their ass kicked. It's about time
they're held accountable.
dave
> "Volvo Makes HD Radio Standard Across All Vehicles"
>
> "With our 2010 and 2011 models, Volvo drivers can expect the best in
> audio quality, more music and news/talk through multicast channels,
Ford is an Ibiquity partner.
NX211
which they had no understanding or just didn't care.
Read this!
"FCC Admits Ignorance on Digital Radio, Adopts Standard Anyway"
"The Commissioners seemed completely unconcerned about the documented
evidence illustrating potentially disastrous interference problems
with IBOC technology. But the whopper came from the mouth of Michael
Copps, who admitted with incredible candor he had no idea what the
hell he was unleashing: 'A few questions remain to be settled,
including how the IBOC system will function in the real world; what is
the potential for and extent of interference that IBOC could cause to
existing services; and the technical feasibility of nighttime AM IBOC
transmissions'... Everybody involved pretty much admitted from the
outset that the digital radio initiative is all about giving the
broadcast industry more avenues to make money rather than actually
improving radio from the perspective of the listener... You can watch
and listen to the deed being done at our special report on the IBOC
vote."
NX211
The law firms’ claims aren’t baseless. In reality they’re rooted in
the false claims made by iBiquity and their unholy “Alliance”. You
can start with the number of stations that iBiquity touts as
transmitting digital radio and the number that actually are. Then
move on to the way they’ve intentionally wanted to force the “rollout”
down the throats of broadcasters, radio manufacturers, auto companies,
etc. In no way did it look like they truly wanted the market to
decide. Then continue on to the false claims of hidden channels just
waiting to be discovered and, unlike satellite radio, “with no monthly
fees” no less.
With a little Internet research you can find all kinds of misleading
statements made by iBiquity president Bob Struble. His flapping gums
have iterated enough trash talk to hang him - big-time.
Just the overall attitude that “digital” is the way it should be, as
the proponents loudly shout in-your-face doesn’t give it license to
be. But that’s what they really think.
Think about it.
Richard Evans
> Just the overall attitude that “digital” is the way it should be, as
> the proponents loudly shout in-your-face doesn’t give it license to
> be. But that’s what they really think.
>
> Think about it.
In the past digital was better.
CD is better than Vinyl.
DVD is better than VHS.
The landline telephone networks improved when they went digital.
Hence people got the impression that digital is always better than
analogue. Trouble is that isn't necessarily the case. Those digital
systems are better because they were designed to be better than the
analogue they were intended to replace. But these days, they have
started using digital for reasons other than quality, especially in
digital broadcasting, where they keep using low bit rates, either to
reduce costs, or to cram in more services. And now you have this new HD
radio system, that as far as I can work out, isn't even capable of
sounding better than the analogue FM system it was intended to replace.
Then they have the cheek to try and sell it as an improvement in sound
quality.
Digital isn't necessarily better than analogue, but they still try to
sell the idea that digital is better. I wonder how long it will take for
the general public to realize this fact.
As for digital radio, unless they launch using something that is
actually better than FM, then we are better off sticking with FM. What
is frustrating, is that they could quite easily come up with a system
that would wipe the floor with FM, but for one reason or another it just
hasn't been done.
Richard E.
DigitalRadioScams
Ford is pulling the same shit in the UK with installing DAB radios as
standard:
"Dragging the DAB chain"
"Kudos to Ford for including DAB radio as standard in the new C-Max
minivan line - now with a seven-seat Grand version due on sale here in
the UK next month. Joining Mini which announced back in February it
too would be standardising Digital Audio Broadcasting, our equivalent
of HD radio in the US. DAB... It's usually a ridiculously costly
factory option - GB39.95 for a passable portable radio at Tesco;
GBP300 more on the bill for your new Jaguar; GBP100-300 on other
Fords, for example."
http://www.just-auto.com/comment/dragging-the-dab-chain_id105746.aspx
BUT:
"Car industry: “gaps in digital coverage are a major deterrent to
[the] introduction of digital radios”"
"The key issue raised by SMMT concerning the necessary robustness of
DAB in-car reception across the whole of the UK would require a
massive investment from the radio industry to rectify:"
http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/car-industry-gaps-in-digital-coverage.html
The conspriacy has spread to the UK.
DigitalRadioScams
>
> - Show quoted text -
"NDS Optimistic About Conditional Access Uses for Radio"
"I spoke with NDS recently to see what's on tap for their Radio Guard
product for 2009. Radio Guard, you'll recall, is the name of the NDS
conditional access capability for HD Radio. It's in the Dice iTR-100A,
a digital radio reading service receiver that utilizes voice prompts
and audible feedback to simplify tuning.
Todd Narwid is the NDS vice president of new media and now oversees
Radio Guard. Tom Rucktenwald, formerly spokesman for the product, is
no longer with the company after some responsibilities were shifted
around in December.
NDS is working with chip manufacturers like Texas Instruments,
Samsung, SiPort, NXP and others to work the Radio Guard intellectual
property into HD Radio chipsets. The Dice unit is the first to have
the NDS conditional access properties; however, "We expect eventually
all HD Radio chips will have NDS Radio Guard in them," he said.
The process of making that happen, which he called "serialization and
integration," is happening now.
http://www.rwonline.com/article/73784
Yup - iBiquity has plans to eventually charge for those extra "free"
channels - LOL!
Richard Evans
> The conspriacy has spread to the UK.
Nahh. I don't think it spread here, it started here.
They've been promoting DAB for nearly 8 years here. At first it was
advertised it as CD quality, but the advertising standards stopped that
after the 1st few years. So now they make do with meaningless terms such
as "Digital Quality" and "Crystal Clear sound", all designed to mislead,
but they can get away with it because phrases like that don't actually
mean anything.
Now they've been trying to push for digital switchover, turning of the
FM signals. Hopefully that idea will blow up in their faces and some
sanity will return.
I think you are years behind us when it comes to implementing silly
digital radio systems. ;-o
Richard E.
dave
that the medium lacks appeal to young people.
dave
> As for digital radio, unless they launch using something that is
> actually better than FM, then we are better off sticking with FM. What
> is frustrating, is that they could quite easily come up with a system
> that would wipe the floor with FM, but for one reason or another it just
> hasn't been done.
>
> Richard E.
A system like Sirius or XM can get 60 good sounding stereo channels in
4.5 MHz of spectrum and can cover a city with 10 KW or less. The analog
FM band is 20 MHz and can also theoretically contain 60 stations, but
each one needs 10 KW to cover the same area.
There were proposals for such a digital system 20+ years ago, but the
NAB balked, because flamethrowers would lose their advantage. Now, the
NAB's going to lose the whole enchilada, as young people stream Pandora
on their smart phones.
DigitalRadioScams
hwh
> Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> As for digital radio, unless they launch using something that is
>> actually better than FM, then we are better off sticking with FM. What
>> is frustrating, is that they could quite easily come up with a system
>> that would wipe the floor with FM, but for one reason or another it just
>> hasn't been done.
>>
>> Richard E.
>
> A system like Sirius or XM can get 60 good sounding stereo channels in
> 4.5 MHz of spectrum
So obviously either they use more channels or they have less bandwidth
than that, because these sat systems are not good sounding ones.
gr, hwh
Richard Evans
I was wondering about this.
Could 60 channels in 4.5 Mhz of spectrum produce good sound quality?
Not sure, but thinking about it, it sounds unlikely.
Do they actually do this (providing 60 good sounding channels)?
I seriously doubt it.
Richard E.
hwh
>> So obviously either they use more channels or they have less bandwidth
>> than that, because these sat systems are not good sounding ones.
>
> I was wondering about this.
>
> Could 60 channels in 4.5 Mhz of spectrum produce good sound quality?
> Not sure, but thinking about it, it sounds unlikely.
>
> Do they actually do this (providing 60 good sounding channels)?
> I seriously doubt it.
They don't. Far from it. 4,5 MHz of spectrum is quite a lot by the way,
but the signal strength from the satellite is not going to be strong.
For high efficiency or bits per Hertz you need a strong signal. ISTR the
average for the channels is 46 kbps.
gr, hwh
RHF
wrote:
Doing-the-Math : 4,500 kHz / 60 = 270 kHz per Channel
* Presently AM/MW is 10 kHz per Channel
* Presently FM is 200 kHz per Channel
? So Why Won't 270 kHz per Channel Work
for Digital Radio Broadcasting Formats ?
~ RHF
.
RHF
- Why don't you drop it?
- If NPR is giving up on radio they agree with me
- that the medium lacks appeal to young people.
'Special Dave' Has Spoken ! {Case Closed}
. . . So What Else Can Be Said . . .
.
Richard Evans
>
> Doing-the-Math : 4,500 kHz / 60 = 270 kHz per Channel
> * Presently AM/MW is 10 kHz per Channel
> * Presently FM is 200 kHz per Channel
>
> ? So Why Won't 270 kHz per Channel Work
> for Digital Radio Broadcasting Formats ?
I think hwh has fond the answer to that one. The signal from the
satellite is too weak.
Actually, for terrestrial broadcasting, with a reasonable signal level,
they ought to be able to do a lot better than that. But then they still
use outdated inefficient technology :-(
hwh
Take a look at the DVB-T2 specifications. That's what I call efficient.
How different from DAB or IBOC.
gr, hwh
RHF
wrote:
- http://www.diymedia.net/audio/mp3fcciboc.htm
-
- It's all in MP3 format for the courts to hear.
DigitalRadioScams,
{Reply to another 'Free' Over-the-Air Radio SLAM}
Consider :
On Technical Matters within it's "Purview" before
a US Federal Court : How Often Does the FCC
Prevail ? ~+95%~ {M#COONW:CIJMIU}
On Administrative Matters within it's "Jurisdiction"
before a US Federal Court : How Often Does the
FCC Prevail ? ~+68%~ {M#COONW:CIJMIU}
IBOC : iBiquity and FCC Under Investigation for HD-Radio
=Result= Lawsuits Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/ffb5d6149534c9ae
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/116e98129d42d730
.
Some call these type of Fishing Expedition Lawsuits
-heard-on-the-radio-
? Shake-Down-Justice ? -or- ! Shake-Down-Injustice !
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/a8d97363cde073e6
.
IBOC : HD Radio Ambulance Chasers - LMFAO!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/1b89aa3945a49c3e
.
-wrt- Radio Reception and Real-Estate it usually
comes down to : location, Location. LOCATION !
.
NOTE - Every Radio that I ever bought never came
with a Guarantee of 100% Radio Reception be it :
Analog AM/MW -or- Analog FM -or- Analog Shortwave.
Never Heard of any Digital Radio Scheme that
'promised' or Guarantee 100% Radio Reception [.]
.
don't count your lawsuit$ before
there is a final ruling . . . ~ RHF
.
.
{M#COONW:CIJMIU}
Magic Number Coming Out of Nowhere :
Cause I Just Made It Up
.
.
Richard Evans
>
> Take a look at the DVB-T2 specifications. That's what I call efficient.
I haven't got time to go through the technical details, but I know it
*VERY* *GOOD*. As I've said many time on alt.radio.digital they should
seriously consider moving from DAB to a system based upon DVB-T2 in DAB
channels. Using the aac/aac+ codec obviously.
I also think they should use DRM+, as wideband multiplexes aren't
suitable for every broadcaster.
> How different from DAB or IBOC.
Yes modern 21st century technology, vs 1980's and 1990's technology that
was hampered by lack of processing power. No contest.
Richard E.
NX211
the early days that the 1% power lever was perfectly aduquate because
in the event the digital signal wasn’t strong enough it was transition
back to analog. That being said, how could anyone make the stretch
that the system was reliable and of high quality. When they added HD2
and HD3 things became even more problematic. A lawyer could have a
field day with that alone when compared to the false claims Struble
has made over the years.
As Barry Said:
“Go back and look at all the system documentation put forward by
iBiquity and the NRSC back in 2001, and you’ll find no hint that a
future digital power increase would be either feasible or desirable,
except for the obvious increase that would occur in a transition from
the hybrid system to an all-digital system.
In fact, the field trial data presented to the FCC at that time
claimed very good digital coverage, out to the 45–50 dBu contours. A
closer inspection of the data showed some dropouts in the mobile
tests, but that was no problem, thanks to the blend-to-analog
backup.”
dave
>
> I was wondering about this.
>
> Could 60 channels in 4.5 Mhz of spectrum produce good sound quality?
> Not sure, but thinking about it, it sounds unlikely.
>
> Do they actually do this (providing 60 good sounding channels)?
> I seriously doubt it.
>
> Richard E.
They cram 180 radio stations plus cartoons in that 4.5 MHz. They sounded
killer when they debuted 10 years ago with around 60 music channels
each. Just kept getting worse.
dave
>
> Doing-the-Math : 4,500 kHz / 60 = 270 kHz per Channel
> * Presently AM/MW is 10 kHz per Channel
> * Presently FM is 200 kHz per Channel
>
> ? So Why Won't 270 kHz per Channel Work
> for Digital Radio Broadcasting Formats ?
>
> ~ RHF
> .
Error correction overhead. I think they are 1:2. So halve that spectrum.
dave
Waste of time. Terrestrial radio should be returned to the people so
they can have unbiased news and public affairs. Something to counter
the propaganda on big media.
Richard Evans
>>
>> Yes modern 21st century technology, vs 1980's and 1990's technology that
>> was hampered by lack of processing power. No contest.
>>
>> Richard E.
>
> Waste of time. Terrestrial radio should be returned to the people so
> they can have unbiased news and public affairs. Something to counter
> the propaganda on big media.
I think that would be best served by lots of small community stations.
We have some of those over here in the UK, on the FM band. However DRM+
would allow more such stations to fin into the FM band, as it uses a
narrower bandwidth than FM, and can work at lower signal levels.
Richard E.
RHF
> Based on this piece that was in RW by Barry McLarnon iBiquity felt in
> the early days that the 1% power lever was perfectly aduquate because
> in the event the digital signal wasn’t strong enough it was transition
> back to analog. That being said, how could anyone make the stretch
> that the system was reliable and of high quality. When they added HD2
> and HD3 things became even more problematic. A lawyer could have a
> field day with that alone when compared to the false claims Struble
> has made over the years.
>
> As Barry Said:
>
> “Go back and look at all the system documentation put forward by
> iBiquity and the NRSC back in 2001, and you’ll find no hint that a
> future digital power increase would be either feasible or desirable,
> except for the obvious increase that would occur in a transition from
> the hybrid system to an all-digital system.
- In fact, the field trial data presented to the FCC at that time
- claimed very good digital coverage, out to the 45–50 dBu contours.
Where is the 'defined' FM Signal Service Area
XX dBu Contour set : 70, 64, 60, ___ anything
beyond that is gratis to those living outside and
beyond it.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmclasses.html
- A closer inspection of the data showed some
- dropouts in the mobile tests, but that was no
- problem, thanks to the blend-to-analog backup.”
So the 'promise' of IBOC FM HD-Radio was
better quality sound; and the if you could not
get the Digital Signal; you would still be able
to get the Analog Signal; which was no better
and no worse that your present FM Radio.
Provided that you were not already having
FM reception problems in known FM Analog
Signal 'Trouble Spots' along the Roadway.
has anyone won a lawsuit {Class action}
against the cellphone providers for digital
signal drop outs ? ~ RHF
.
dave
But you can't build a DRM receiver for a dollar. In the USA there are 2
or 3 radios per citizen.
Brenda Ann
"dave" <da...@dave.dave> wrote in message
news:4c8d8769$0$5489$bd46...@news.dslextreme.com...
I suspect it's somewhat higher, perhaps 5 or more on average (then there are
those of us in this and some other NG's that do our part to bring up the
average...) :)
Richard Evans
>
> But you can't build a DRM receiver for a dollar.
Not at the moment, but as the price of microelectronics goes down, it
could end up being cheap enough. OK perhaps 1 dollar might never be
possible, but cheap enough.
dave
Aren't there patent fees involved, for Fraunhaufer and Coding
Technologies, etc.
SMS
<snip>
> But you can't build a DRM receiver for a dollar. In the USA there are 2
> or 3 radios per citizen.
The difference in cost between an analog-only and a digital+analog
receiver could easily be $1 in volume. In the U.S. you have the
licensing fees to the inventor of the codec which drives up the price,
just as licensing fees to Dolby Labs drives up the price of audio
equipment with their licensed technology.
Perhaps the U.S. government should purchase iBiquity and eliminate the
licensing fees. It would be a less expensive deal then starting over
with a new codec, and the open-source codecs currently available are not
as good as what iBiquity has designed. Apparently what many people don't
understand is that there is a finite limit that you can compress and
decompress a signal and maintain acceptable quality. "Modern technology"
does not change this limit. If you look at cell phone codecs, the sound
quality has declined as they've increased compression and gone to
variable bit rate codecs.
Richard Evans
There are fees for decoding of aac+, but as far as I understand it, it's
a matter of pennies per receiver.
SMS
There was a good explanation of this over at
"http://news.cnet.com/8601-13645_3-20015566-0.html?communityId=2034&targetCommunityId=2034&blogId=47&tag=mncol;tback"
Look for the post by by "rochmndx" September 10, 2010 7:31 PM PDT.
dave
That didn't explain anything. It was some cheerleading and unicorns.
RHF
.
DigitalRadioScams,
{Reply to another 'Free' Over-the-Air Radio SLAM}
IBOC : iBiquity and FCC Lawsuits :
A Conspiracy to Commit Legal Laughter !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/830c0212c62b1cb7
.
IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation . . .
-ROTFL- This Lawsuit Is Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/ffb5d6149534c9ae
.
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
.
.
.
On Sep 11, 11:07 pm, DigitalRadioScams <digitalradiosc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Volvo Makes HD Radio Standard Across All Vehicles"
>
> "With our 2010 and 2011 models, Volvo drivers can expect the best in
> audio quality, more music and news/talk through multicast channels,
> and advanced data services with scrolling text that shows artist name
> and title, and much more. This is a huge benefit to all Volvo owners
> and we’re sure they’ll be pleased."
>
> http://www.hdradio.com/the_buzz.php?thebuzz=389
>
> "Automotive Recall and TSB Titles for 2010 Volvo XC60"
>
> "TJ20784 MAR 09 Audio System - HD Radio(R) Troubleshooting Guidelines"
>
> http://www.alldatadiy.com/TSB/64/1064arag.htm
>
> Looks like the same HD Radio TSB and Trouble-Shooting Guide that BMW
> has! Now, the charges have gone from major fraud to include consipracy
> to commit major fraud. Think Keefe Bartels knows about it -
> LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!