Carmine5 said:
But here's the rub: the Commission also wants to put satellite in all HD Radios as well.
All the Commission "wants" at this point is analysis of various scenarios. The NOI is a collection of "straw men" that you can either support or knock down based on your ability to argue the case well.
It's would also be useful to analyze the premises of the scenarios. For example -- you want to talk about unintended consequences? "Some commenters also urged the Commission to require the combined SDARS company to direct manufacturers to include HD Radio technology in all SDARS receivers containing analog AM or FM radio technology." It would seem to me that the interests of all terrestrial broadcasters would not be served by giving vendors of SDARS receivers a huge disincentive to include AM/FM radio
at all.
I find the NOI quite odd in that it only addresses performance requirements of AM/FM radio receivers when combined with SDARS radio receivers. Under what theory of managing the AM and FM bands in the public interest does this represent a solution to a pressing problem? Why wouldn't it be enough to require SDARS receivers to comport to whatever the prevailing minimum standard might be for
all AM/FM radio receivers? This would seem to ensure consumers the access to the "Multiple Audio Entertainment Services" that is the goal of the NOI. (Put another way, it would allow terrestrial broadcasters to compete for the same audience.) Remember, the programming on AM and AM-HD is
exactly the same, and the top-tier programming on FM and FM-HD is
exactly the same -- including EAS alerts (paragraph 6).
(It would seem to be premature to be discussing hypothetical and not-yet-authorized subscription radio services that HDR might eventually support, especially because the advocates for this NOI failed to mention that, stressing instead "free" radio.)
- Jonathan