-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
over the air signals
- Thread starter BigJimmy
- Start date
The FCC has been very clear that it will NOT mandate HD radio. The reason is because it's a licensed technology, and mandating it would be a financial windfall for the licensing company. They would also have to mandate all radios include HD receivers, and most manufacturers are opposed to it. It's not going to happen, and Congress is also against any mandates.
Ive had people try to convince me audio quality & signal coverage of HD AM & FM willl improve as
HD technology evolves. Is that likely?
But--- willl stations offer compellling programmming causing people to buy HD radios?
I don't know one human being who owns an HD radio. And----when Ive rented cars --- Ive asked about HD radio
& none of the rental agents know what HD radio is.
HD technology evolves. Is that likely?
But--- willl stations offer compellling programmming causing people to buy HD radios?
I don't know one human being who owns an HD radio. And----when Ive rented cars --- Ive asked about HD radio
& none of the rental agents know what HD radio is.
I'm not aware that HD technology has "evolved" at all. The only change I'm aware of was the FCC allowing stations to increase the power to improve coverage. But the technology is what it is, AFAIK. I don't think HD audio quality is an issue at all.
"Compelling programming" isn't enough to get you to pay for satellite or public broadcasting. What makes you think it will get people to pay extra to buy a radio? We've had 12 years of history, and what we know is that people simply do not want to buy new radios, regardless of the programming or technology. They'll gladly get one for free with something else they buy, like a car or a clock. We already know that a lot of people are listening to streams of OTA radio on their computer and phone. But they're not buying radio-only devices, including table-top internet radios, and a lot of manufacturers have stopped making them.
"Compelling programming" isn't enough to get you to pay for satellite or public broadcasting. What makes you think it will get people to pay extra to buy a radio? We've had 12 years of history, and what we know is that people simply do not want to buy new radios, regardless of the programming or technology. They'll gladly get one for free with something else they buy, like a car or a clock. We already know that a lot of people are listening to streams of OTA radio on their computer and phone. But they're not buying radio-only devices, including table-top internet radios, and a lot of manufacturers have stopped making them.
No. This isn't the Soviet Union, the government does not mandate any company provide a certain service.
They *could* require all AM/FM stations use Ibiquity HD radio, but that seems unlikely at this time.
We know the UK plans on ending analog radio by 2020 (first it was the end of 2013, then 2015, now they're saying by 2018). Will the US follow? Who knows. We know Commissioner Pai likes the idea of AM going all digital. Will his "like" become law? Who knows. And that's the point. No one can predict what the government will or will not mandate in the future. But remember; if they did it for broadcast television, they can do it for radio.
Selling off 600 MHz spectrum is not about satisfying the needs for wireless spectrum. Verizon couldn't wait to get rid of its 700 MHz holdings and at the second LEARN workshop, engineers for the telco giants admitted that they don't have the antenna technology to use the 600 MHz band in small handheld devices like a smart phone. No, this is about a) the government raiding couch cushions and looking for pocket change and b) the wireless companies crippling broadcast television and, thereby, eliminating a competitor. Verizon, AT&T and the Silicon Valley raptors like Google all want to get into the TV broadcasting business and have you, the consumer, pay for the privilege. The last thing they want is a free service, like mobile DTV, crabbing their pay-by-the-month (or download) business model.
IF this 600 MHz spectrum goes up for auction (and it's a big if at this point since we don't know who among broadcasters will be participating) the telcos will buy it and sit on it for years. It may never get built out. Thankfully, so far, none of the networks are interested in selling nor are the broadcast groups like Sinclair. That leaves a few mangy, struggling full power independents and Class As.
Last edited:
I pay every month for TV anyway--as do probably 90% of the viewers in my area. Can't get a thing off-air, even with the local TV station(s) only about 7 miles away. 3 network affiliates, co-owned, 1 full power, 2 low powers--all three blocked by terrain. So over the air TV could vanish and I, and many others, wouldn't notice.
I've also been skeptical about how the present UHF spectrum could be used for true mobile devices, but was thinking either fixed devices (in-home) or mobile devices with fixed antennas (cars). Or more spectrum for point to point, freeing up ghz frequencies now used. But there certainly is someone or someones with $$$ interested.
Digital radio in the U.K.: Is not a hybrid service like the U.S. but has its own band. About 175 to 240 mhz.
I've also been skeptical about how the present UHF spectrum could be used for true mobile devices, but was thinking either fixed devices (in-home) or mobile devices with fixed antennas (cars). Or more spectrum for point to point, freeing up ghz frequencies now used. But there certainly is someone or someones with $$$ interested.
Digital radio in the U.K.: Is not a hybrid service like the U.S. but has its own band. About 175 to 240 mhz.
That's what I'm betting. We get a LOT of complaints from viewers in a particular neighborhood about 10-12 miles east of our tower. Invariably they have a "flat panel" antenna with a booster and no "ears". (our station is on RF channel 10)
We tell them to replace it with a plain old set of rabbit ears. Most of them call/write back & say not only do they now get our channel reliably, but they get 3-5 more other channels they didn't know about.
In English: DO NOT buy a "boosted"/"amplified" antenna if you live within 20 miles of the transmitting towers! Digital signals can be *too strong*.
Not only the "digital" siganls, but just plain overload from the many sources that are not properly tuned out by such antennas,
which are a wideband design, and care not whether the "signal" is a desired signal. or the hash off the multitude of
digital devices present in virtually all dwellings today.
Once the "boosted" signal gets to the TV, it's impossible to decode anything now that the noise is indistinguishable from the desired signal.
Ideally, such antennas woudl have -20 db attentuators built in so you could simply push a button to correct this problem.
which are a wideband design, and care not whether the "signal" is a desired signal. or the hash off the multitude of
digital devices present in virtually all dwellings today.
Once the "boosted" signal gets to the TV, it's impossible to decode anything now that the noise is indistinguishable from the desired signal.
Ideally, such antennas woudl have -20 db attentuators built in so you could simply push a button to correct this problem.
K
kenglish
Guest
Sometimes I wish there was a forum dedicated just to interference issues (of which there are many).
If they can mandate Health Care, they can mandate anything....
- Status