tested said:
Engineering is all about solving problems and filling genuine needs. The reason HD Radio hasn't shown significant progress is that it falls short in both areas.
Our biggest problem as an AM daytimer has been the inability to serve the communities within our 2 mV/m contour between sunset and sunrise. While other digital broadcast alternatives would have addressed this problem, IBOC provides no solution whatsoever.
For many fulltime AM stations such as WYSL, the problem is inconsistent coverage between day and night -- but AM IBOC doesn't help with that either.
Another major issue (from an AM operator's perspective) is the need to maintain multi-tower arrays that require lots of maintenance and real estate. Again, IBOC isn't an answer.
For FM stations, the only glaring problem IBOC seems to solve is urban multipath, but it does not extend coverage into suburban fringe areas or allow better building penetration. The so-called "dramatic improvement" in audio quality just isn't apparent to most listeners -- FM analog sounds fine to their ears. And the multicast channels as presently implemented (low budget/low bitrate) aren't attracting significant consumer interest either. How can we expect people to buy into this system if so few problems are solved and no genuine needs are filled? Telling them "its great because it's digital" isn't enough to sell radios, especially in this economy.
It has been my belief that listeners are easy to attract if you give them these things:
1) Ability to listen whenever they want and wherever they are within the areas they normally live, work, and drive. They should be able to turn on the radio and expect good sound to come out, without a lot of fuss. (This should be the primary technical objective of a well-designed digital radio system)
2) Relevant, compelling content.
3) Presentation of the content in an intelligent, pleasant, satisfying manner. (Not easy when you're battling first-adjacent interference from a distant IBOC station.)