Here is where digital radio should go
Telamon
is not an issue and daytime skip does not happen very often.
This new band can have enough channel bandwidth for high quality sound
and hight quality of service. The encoding/decoding start to finish
should employ open standards uncontrolled by special interests. The
public is not going to have this Ibiquity crap shoved down their throat.
The currently employed digital radio old technology RF modulation scheme
should not be used. It does not work well for vehicles in motion.
The new band might also consider using several lower power transmitters
instead one high powered transmitter for a station. This together with
low audio compression rates will reduce receiver DSP workload helping to
make portables a reality.
Using stable open standards will remove the reluctance of semiconductor
manufactures committing to making chips that operate on the new band.
Another aspect of the new radios is that they should be software
upgradable by the consumer like most computer appliances.
Larger radios and units in car dashboards should have screens for
traffic conditions, weather, album covers and the like.
This new service could be a mix of free commercial sponsored and
subscription services catering to what an individual wants.
<http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081010/tc_nm/us_fcc_airwaves_1>
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Dave
The VHF Low TV band would work OK. 54-72, 76-88 Megahertzes. Too noisy
for digital TV, may work OK for DAB.
Brenda Ann
"Dave" <da...@dave.dave> wrote in message news:lAuIk.87$E%3...@newsfe19.iad...
>
> The VHF Low TV band would work OK. 54-72, 76-88 Megahertzes. Too noisy
> for digital TV, may work OK for DAB.
Much better would be to make part of one of the TV channels above 59 a
digital radio band. UHF has reasonably good penetration and radios wouldn't
have to have a huge antenna for decent reception like they would on the low
VHF band.
KaitoWRX911
"Could EXB Band Be Your New Home?"
"The group says most AMs should move to the new band, where they would
operate as FMs on channels of 100 kHz width, enjoy more parity with
current FM stations in terms of audio fidelity and gain the ability to
go all-digital. AMs could transition to 100 channels and operate in
the all-digital mode. In this way, AMs 'can solve the current digital
problems they are experiencing, especially at night', the group
states. But while most would move, the existing band could, under
their plan, also remain populated with clear-channel stations that
would enjoy more elbow room. Under the proposal, filed with the FCC in
its diversity proceeding (Docket 07-294), the old AM band would be 're-
packed.'"
http://radioworld.com/pages/s.0052/t.15575.html
"Radio: This Old Frequency"
"Brilliant. Create a new frequency for what already exists on AM and
to the left of the FM dial. Render every existing AM radio extinct. I
can visualize hundreds of thousands of consumers rushing out to buy
those 'new frequency' radios. Did I already mention HD Radio and how
well those sold?"
It's called hijacking our airways - good-luck selling these new radios.
Telamon
<f43a9c7c-deda-4406...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
KaitoWRX911 <kaito...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 4:24?pm, Telamon
> <telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Create a new band that is high enough in frequency that nigh time skip
> > is not an issue and daytime skip does not happen very often.
> >
> > This new band can have enough channel bandwidth for high quality sound
> > and hight quality of service. The encoding/decoding start to finish
> > should employ open standards uncontrolled by special interests. The
> > public is not going to have this Ibiquity crap shoved down their throat.
> >
> > The currently employed digital radio old technology RF modulation scheme
> > should not be used. It does not work well for vehicles in motion.
> >
> > The new band might also consider using several lower power transmitters
> > instead one high powered transmitter for a station. This together with
> > low audio compression rates will reduce receiver DSP workload helping to
> > make portables a reality.
> >
> > Using stable open standards will remove the reluctance of semiconductor
> > manufactures committing to making chips that operate on the new band.
> >
> > Another aspect of the new radios is that they should be software
> > upgradable by the consumer like most computer appliances.
> >
> > Larger radios and units in car dashboards should have screens for
> > traffic conditions, weather, album covers and the like.
> >
> > This new service could be a mix of free commercial sponsored and
> > subscription services catering to what an individual wants.
> >
> > <http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081010/tc_nm/us_fcc_airwaves_1>
> >
>
> "Could EXB Band Be Your New Home?"
>
> "The group says most AMs should move to the new band, where they would
> operate as FMs on channels of 100 kHz width, enjoy more parity with
> current FM stations in terms of audio fidelity and gain the ability to
> go all-digital. AMs could transition to 100 channels and operate in
> the all-digital mode. In this way, AMs 'can solve the current digital
> problems they are experiencing, especially at night', the group
> states. But while most would move, the existing band could, under
> their plan, also remain populated with clear-channel stations that
> would enjoy more elbow room. Under the proposal, filed with the FCC in
> its diversity proceeding (Docket 07-294), the old AM band would be 're-
> packed.'"
>
> http://radioworld.com/pages/s.0052/t.15575.html
>
> "Radio: This Old Frequency"
>
> "Brilliant. Create a new frequency for what already exists on AM and
> to the left of the FM dial. Render every existing AM radio extinct. I
> can visualize hundreds of thousands of consumers rushing out to buy
> those 'new frequency' radios. Did I already mention HD Radio and how
> well those sold?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3vq6u9
>
> It's called hijacking our airways - good-luck selling these new radios.
The new band would offer different content from AM and FM. The content
would be local or metro area specific. This would be in sync with the
service area coverage, which is local. They would not carry syndicated
programming. They would carry free commercial supported and for pay
services.
As written above the AM band would become less congested and the
stations can then be more effective as regional stations especially at
night.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Dan
news:telamon_spamshield-F...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> The new band would offer different content from AM and FM. The content
> would be local or metro area specific. This would be in sync with the
> service area coverage, which is local. They would not carry syndicated
> programming. They would carry free commercial supported and for pay
> services.
Who is this "different content" going to be aimed at? Virtually no one
under 25 listens regularly to AM radio, and very few listen to FM.
Everyone has the music/programs/whatever they want on their MP3 players and
cell phones. Radio just isn't even on the radar for these people.
That leaves the existing, aging AM/FM audience. So you end up splitting
that audience, or that audience does not embrace the new
content/frequency/radios. The former will kill both, the latter will just
kill the new medium.
If this was done 10 years ago, it MIGHT have made a difference. I just
think it's too late to save AM radio, and FM is not far behind. As the
quote goes, "Listening to radio is like listening to someone else's Ipod,
with commercials". It is simply irrelevant to the current generation.
Of course, it's entirely possible that as these kids get older and get
interested in other things besides the latest Pop Tarts and Boy Bands (like
sports/politics/news/talk), they may start listening. Or they may just
download the shows and listen commercial free on their MP3 players and cell
phones.
RHF
>
> - Show quoted text -
.
The American Radio Listening Audience Knows both
the AM and FM Radio Bands -so- these Bands both
already have Social and Technical acceptance and a
functioning Broadcast System of Transmitters and
Receivers {Working 'Operational' Infrastructure}.
.
Something Completely Different Has Proven Not To Work :
The European attempt at a DAB Band using Eureka 147
{174 MHz ~ 240 MHz [VHF] has proven less than successful
WORLD DAB ORG - http://www.worlddab.org/
.
1 -IF- The AM Band is Dying or Dead : Leave It Analog
.
2 -IF- The FM Band is still Alive and usable for IBOC HD-Radio
.
THEN - The FCC Needs to Expand the FM Radio Band [.]
Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band - Do It Now !
Expand the FM Radio Band -by- Moving Many/Most AM
Radio Stations to the 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
.
RHF's Plan For The "HD" AM/MW Radio Band :
Going All Digital And Beyond !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/e0c90cb1dfb18bc5
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6f1485c13c483a5f
.
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! :
Leave the AM Radio Band Alone and Analog
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/f64c4f482b701d06
.
Use the 'former' VHF Analog TV Channels 5 & 6
to Expand the FM Radio Band !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/de56e4adae3ab587
.
Alternative : To Make AM/MW "HD" {IBOC} Radio 'Work'
the AM/MW Band Needs A New Band Plan Designed
for IBOC Broadcasting with only 1/5th the Radio Stations
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7361662c8fd12e9f
.
Telamon
"Dan" <som...@somewhere.here> wrote:
> "Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:telamon_spamshield-F...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > The new band would offer different content from AM and FM. The content
> > would be local or metro area specific. This would be in sync with the
> > service area coverage, which is local. They would not carry syndicated
> > programming. They would carry free commercial supported and for pay
> > services.
>
> Who is this "different content" going to be aimed at?
Less then 9 month old fetuses. None has marketed to them yet.
> Virtually no one under 25 listens regularly to AM radio, and very few
> listen to FM. Everyone has the music/programs/whatever they want on
> their MP3 players and cell phones. Radio just isn't even on the
> radar for these people.
This would not be "AM radio". Not everyone listens to players they
program all the time. How else are people to find new music? How about
being surprised? I have plenty of CD's and MP3 recordings and I still
listen to the radio.
> That leaves the existing, aging AM/FM audience. So you end up
> splitting that audience, or that audience does not embrace the new
> content/frequency/radios. The former will kill both, the latter
> will just kill the new medium.
Different content creates a different audience. This is no a zero sum
game.
> If this was done 10 years ago, it MIGHT have made a difference. I just
> think it's too late to save AM radio, and FM is not far behind. As the
> quote goes, "Listening to radio is like listening to someone else's Ipod,
> with commercials". It is simply irrelevant to the current generation.
It would make a difference today and it is not to late for AM. I don't
think FM would remain viable though. FM as it is programed today is
mostly dead.
> Of course, it's entirely possible that as these kids get older and get
> interested in other things besides the latest Pop Tarts and Boy Bands (like
> sports/politics/news/talk), they may start listening. Or they may just
> download the shows and listen commercial free on their MP3 players and cell
> phones.
I don't see why tastes would have to change for it to work. Like I said
the new band would be a collection of free radio and subscription. The
new band would broadcast up to the moment content news, traffic,
weather, just released music. This is where the short attention mode
material would be broadcast.
The new band will offer different up to the moment localized content.
The existing AM will cater more toward regional audiences with
syndicated programs of general interest, long interviews, discussions,
news magazines and the like. This where the long attention mode material
would be broadcast.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California