In light of the imminent demise of the AM IBOC system, it might be a good time to discuss alternate and workable systems for AM. (FWIW, WLW had its IBOC system shut down for about a week). Anyways, here is my suggestion for a digital system for AM: Designate 1500 through 1710 as digital-only channels. That would allow 7-8 digital channels in each market assuming a 3 channel spacing. Ideal power levels could be determined later. The stations that currently occupy those channels could remain there as long as there was no demand in that particular area for a digital station. In the mean time, those analog stations could be encouraged to vacate that portion of the band. The system used could be Ibiquity, DRM, or any other suitable system. For instance, Bob Savage would be able to keep his analog station at 1040, and broadcast an all-digital signal between 1500 and 1710. In time, he could turn off the analog station if the digital station became predominate. As the transition picked up steam, another part of the band could be set aside for all-digital stations. This would keep the analog and digital signals separate and and allow for a more orderly transition.
-
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
Digital system for AM
- Thread starter Len14043
- Start date
I guess I missed the "gem of wisdom" that has to be buried somewhere in your post.
Why would your scheme work any better than the scheme we have now?
7 or 8 channels in each market? Top 25? Top 50? Top 100? Does your plan have a scheme for small-town America? How many channels would you make available to Stuttgart, AR or Alice, TX or Beloit, KS or Jasper, IN?
Why would your scheme work any better than the scheme we have now?
7 or 8 channels in each market? Top 25? Top 50? Top 100? Does your plan have a scheme for small-town America? How many channels would you make available to Stuttgart, AR or Alice, TX or Beloit, KS or Jasper, IN?
GRC, any scheme would obviously have its challenges in the large metro areas. In the small towns, there would be plenty of room between 1500 and 1710 for the few stations that may want to have an all-digital feed. What is your suggestion for digitizing the AM band? I believe this proposed scheme would work better because, based on the current system for AM, we know that analog and digital signals cannot coexist on the same portion of the band without damaging the existing analog service and simultaneously limiting the effectiveness of the digital service.
My first thought is that digital that is optional will never succeed. If there are just select stations that are digital then the marketplace will not provide receivers. ONLY when the FCC announces that ALL AM stations will be digital by such-and-such year will the capitalists invest in designing, manufacturing and marketing DIGITAL receivers.
If, as a consumer, I cannot expect to find signal available where ever I might go, why would I personally invest in a digital receiver?
For OPTIONAL digital to work, it would have to provide something superior. Digital Radio in some form other than the iBiquity might be able to provide audiophile listening quality. As I tour the retail outlets where audio equipment can be purchased I see no evidence that Audiophile Quality devices have any toe-hold in the market place. If I had an extra $20,000 in my pocket today that I wanted to spend for a knock-your-socks-off listening set-up... in home, portable, or in a vehicle.... I have no idea where I would go in all of Atlanta to find a retailer who has such receiving equipment available. So, if I were a broadcaster, why would I invest in a transmitting facility to meet the wants and needs of an audience that may not even exist?
If I had a dream, and I thought it had a chance, I would NOT put my digital scheme on AM. I would get with the RF engineers and find a new home for digital... maybe that's what the folks who plan to bid on the "WHITESPACE" frequencies up in the the UHF television bands plan to do with part of the spectrum they buy. I suspect today's FM band is not much more hospitable to digital than is the current AM band.
There is a lot of sentiment that EVERYTHING in life has to become digital, thus it is automatic that broadcasting as we have known it has to go digital. Maybe the whole concept of broadcasting, much like sail boats, is a pleasure that trades on tradition and nostalgia. Maybe broadcasting can never make the journey through the wilderness to the 'promised land' of digital. Maybe it must always wander around in it's current modality.... or simply die.
Maybe broadcasting needs a Moses.
If, as a consumer, I cannot expect to find signal available where ever I might go, why would I personally invest in a digital receiver?
For OPTIONAL digital to work, it would have to provide something superior. Digital Radio in some form other than the iBiquity might be able to provide audiophile listening quality. As I tour the retail outlets where audio equipment can be purchased I see no evidence that Audiophile Quality devices have any toe-hold in the market place. If I had an extra $20,000 in my pocket today that I wanted to spend for a knock-your-socks-off listening set-up... in home, portable, or in a vehicle.... I have no idea where I would go in all of Atlanta to find a retailer who has such receiving equipment available. So, if I were a broadcaster, why would I invest in a transmitting facility to meet the wants and needs of an audience that may not even exist?
If I had a dream, and I thought it had a chance, I would NOT put my digital scheme on AM. I would get with the RF engineers and find a new home for digital... maybe that's what the folks who plan to bid on the "WHITESPACE" frequencies up in the the UHF television bands plan to do with part of the spectrum they buy. I suspect today's FM band is not much more hospitable to digital than is the current AM band.
There is a lot of sentiment that EVERYTHING in life has to become digital, thus it is automatic that broadcasting as we have known it has to go digital. Maybe the whole concept of broadcasting, much like sail boats, is a pleasure that trades on tradition and nostalgia. Maybe broadcasting can never make the journey through the wilderness to the 'promised land' of digital. Maybe it must always wander around in it's current modality.... or simply die.
Maybe broadcasting needs a Moses.
In pure digital mode the stations could be spaced closer than 30 kHz apart (the current primary sidebands would be upt to +or- 5kHz from the center frequency) plus the digital power would be 32 times stronger (+15dB) than hybrid analog/digital mode.
As nostalgic music (70s and standards) is my favorite music it would be great to hear it with better frequency response and in stereo.
As a rather fussy listener regarding sound quality I think the sound of AM HD is quite good considering it's 36kbps or 20kbps when in mono (farther from the transmitter [core stream]). Of course the source audio should be uncompressed audio files which stations don't often use (satelitte feed). What people complain about is data compressed source audio (e.g. MP3 ads, music) that is recompressed with the HD radio codec. 99% of Joe sixpack listeners will conclude the AM HD quality is an improvement.
As nostalgic music (70s and standards) is my favorite music it would be great to hear it with better frequency response and in stereo.
As a rather fussy listener regarding sound quality I think the sound of AM HD is quite good considering it's 36kbps or 20kbps when in mono (farther from the transmitter [core stream]). Of course the source audio should be uncompressed audio files which stations don't often use (satelitte feed). What people complain about is data compressed source audio (e.g. MP3 ads, music) that is recompressed with the HD radio codec. 99% of Joe sixpack listeners will conclude the AM HD quality is an improvement.
"99% of Joe Sixpack listeners will conclude that AM HD is an improvement?" Really? According to whom?
Not according to the vast majority of those in the industry. Or consumers, among whom only a laughably minuscule minority are even aware of HD-AM. Or nonexistent receiver sales. Or broadcasters, most of whom laugh at HD-AM when/if they're not cursing it. The whopping 80 or so AM stations using IBOC 24-7 are, with only a tiny handful of exceptions, Alliance stations or pubcasters whose HD equipment was paid for out of government grants. And almost without exception, they sound like crap to the audience which comprises 99.9994% of their listening base - those would be ANALOG listeners.
Of course, briankay, you conveniently gloss over the disastrous interference problems. Which comes in two nasty, unpalatable flavors: self-interference, which is what prevents 75% of AM-HD stations from using the system at night, and adjacent-channel skywave problems at night. I don't know where you're located, but if you were in the northeast, you would have heard the nightly cacaphony between 990 kHz and about 1200 kHz, which if you have any objectivity would temper your enthusiasm for Radio's Biggest Mistake Ever.
How can anybody realistically expect a hybrid digital system with these overwhelming problems to ultimately succeed in the marketplace? It's just over-the-top stupid.
I come to the defense of Len14043. Len may not have nailed down all the corners of a digital conversion plan, but let's all please observe that NOBODY has done that thus far. Still, his proposal at the beginning of this thread contains all the necessary ingredients for a sane evolution to digital - assuming that is truly what is needed or wanted for broadcasting. And, namely, that would be: migration to new frequencies and modes with a transitional period of dual operation. In this approach he is absolutely correct. Which is why that's precisely the approach which has been taken by broadcast TV.
Not according to the vast majority of those in the industry. Or consumers, among whom only a laughably minuscule minority are even aware of HD-AM. Or nonexistent receiver sales. Or broadcasters, most of whom laugh at HD-AM when/if they're not cursing it. The whopping 80 or so AM stations using IBOC 24-7 are, with only a tiny handful of exceptions, Alliance stations or pubcasters whose HD equipment was paid for out of government grants. And almost without exception, they sound like crap to the audience which comprises 99.9994% of their listening base - those would be ANALOG listeners.
Of course, briankay, you conveniently gloss over the disastrous interference problems. Which comes in two nasty, unpalatable flavors: self-interference, which is what prevents 75% of AM-HD stations from using the system at night, and adjacent-channel skywave problems at night. I don't know where you're located, but if you were in the northeast, you would have heard the nightly cacaphony between 990 kHz and about 1200 kHz, which if you have any objectivity would temper your enthusiasm for Radio's Biggest Mistake Ever.
How can anybody realistically expect a hybrid digital system with these overwhelming problems to ultimately succeed in the marketplace? It's just over-the-top stupid.
I come to the defense of Len14043. Len may not have nailed down all the corners of a digital conversion plan, but let's all please observe that NOBODY has done that thus far. Still, his proposal at the beginning of this thread contains all the necessary ingredients for a sane evolution to digital - assuming that is truly what is needed or wanted for broadcasting. And, namely, that would be: migration to new frequencies and modes with a transitional period of dual operation. In this approach he is absolutely correct. Which is why that's precisely the approach which has been taken by broadcast TV.
briankay's post contains the typical hyperbolic, unrealistic assessments we have heard over and over and over ad nauseam concerning IBOC, particularly AM-HD, from its dwindling band of boosters.
Talk about "damning with faint praise" - "the sound of AM-HD is quite good considering its 32 kbps or 20 kbps" (parentetically, given the sorry performance of AM-HD in the field, the "core stream" listeners are generally "all the listeners who aren't camped out in lawn chairs at the transmitter site.") An observation like this is like saying 30W motor oil actually tastes quite good considering it isn't carefully refined olive oil. IOW: sounds okay for something that doesn't sound very good.
Then there's the ludicrous lecture about how, for HD-AM to work, we've got to rely on strictly uncompressed audio files, another completely unrealistic condition obviously imposed by design engineers with utterly no experience in the real world of radio broadcasting. Obviously insisted upon by somebody who has never called on an ad agency or who has tried to work productively with national satellite program providers. Another head-in-the-sand salvo from the IBOC "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a helluva Christmas" crowd.
Somebody haul out the 9mm and put a round in IBOC's brain. Please. Right away, before it wastefully burns through still more capital and careers or runs off still more listeners from the AM band.
Talk about "damning with faint praise" - "the sound of AM-HD is quite good considering its 32 kbps or 20 kbps" (parentetically, given the sorry performance of AM-HD in the field, the "core stream" listeners are generally "all the listeners who aren't camped out in lawn chairs at the transmitter site.") An observation like this is like saying 30W motor oil actually tastes quite good considering it isn't carefully refined olive oil. IOW: sounds okay for something that doesn't sound very good.
Then there's the ludicrous lecture about how, for HD-AM to work, we've got to rely on strictly uncompressed audio files, another completely unrealistic condition obviously imposed by design engineers with utterly no experience in the real world of radio broadcasting. Obviously insisted upon by somebody who has never called on an ad agency or who has tried to work productively with national satellite program providers. Another head-in-the-sand salvo from the IBOC "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a helluva Christmas" crowd.
Somebody haul out the 9mm and put a round in IBOC's brain. Please. Right away, before it wastefully burns through still more capital and careers or runs off still more listeners from the AM band.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy is right. If you want to get AM stations into a digital mode, it must happen in a completely different spectrum range.
Two main reasons: 1. We'll never get MW to behave as 100Mhz does. Skywave, phase shifting, "funny" lobes, interference, and the lack of resolution at 1 Mhz makes for a digital signal about as agile as Mr Magoo was driving his car.
For the same reasons that CDs can only reproduce audio up to 22khz, MW's resolution is inadequate to define the signal states of the
many digital sidebands. Let a slow-speed FM shift tell the radio where to tune (at a MUCH higher freq) to find the digital feed.
At the higher frequency, we would ideally be able to re-use the frequency as is done in at 100mhz, since the propogation is much more
easily "contained" geographically.
2. Some things just are not digital, and trying to explain that to people who are not technical is hopeless.
Smell, for instance, is not digital, and it probably never can be made digital. Odors are not going away, however, just because scent cannot be digitized. Acoustic guitars are not digital, but why would we want them to be?
Why aren't we clamoring for sandpaper to be digital? Or automobile steering?
Trying to force a giant Redwood tree into a bonsai version only kills it. Black is NOT white, and will not be, despite anyone's
most ardent wishes.
On a happy note, while listening to WLS this morning on the way to a customers' location ( in Tinley Park IL, where WLS is ) they were hissing normally. After I finished the job and was driving back to our office, I was pleased to find them crystal clear.
At 11 AM, I heard two attempts to start the iboc system, which immediately dropped back out.
If I need to drive out to Tinley Park each morning in order to keep WLS from hissing I guess I could do that.....
Two main reasons: 1. We'll never get MW to behave as 100Mhz does. Skywave, phase shifting, "funny" lobes, interference, and the lack of resolution at 1 Mhz makes for a digital signal about as agile as Mr Magoo was driving his car.
For the same reasons that CDs can only reproduce audio up to 22khz, MW's resolution is inadequate to define the signal states of the
many digital sidebands. Let a slow-speed FM shift tell the radio where to tune (at a MUCH higher freq) to find the digital feed.
At the higher frequency, we would ideally be able to re-use the frequency as is done in at 100mhz, since the propogation is much more
easily "contained" geographically.
2. Some things just are not digital, and trying to explain that to people who are not technical is hopeless.
Smell, for instance, is not digital, and it probably never can be made digital. Odors are not going away, however, just because scent cannot be digitized. Acoustic guitars are not digital, but why would we want them to be?
Why aren't we clamoring for sandpaper to be digital? Or automobile steering?
Trying to force a giant Redwood tree into a bonsai version only kills it. Black is NOT white, and will not be, despite anyone's
most ardent wishes.
On a happy note, while listening to WLS this morning on the way to a customers' location ( in Tinley Park IL, where WLS is ) they were hissing normally. After I finished the job and was driving back to our office, I was pleased to find them crystal clear.
At 11 AM, I heard two attempts to start the iboc system, which immediately dropped back out.
If I need to drive out to Tinley Park each morning in order to keep WLS from hissing I guess I could do that.....
K
kenglish
Guest
The DRM system is already in place in other countries, and is totally legal for shortwave in the USA. So, it could be a good choice.
Where to put it's non-hybrid (Digital only) signals would be the question. Maybe in the existing AM BCB, maybe someplace else?
Where to put it's non-hybrid (Digital only) signals would be the question. Maybe in the existing AM BCB, maybe someplace else?
My first choice would still be the expanded FM band proposal. But if that goes nowhere, I tend to go along with Guy Wire's suggestion. He proposed keeping AM analog until their is a sufficient penetration of HD Radios and then flash cut to digital only.
Of course, the operative expression is 'sufficient penetration' which could be a long time in coming, if ever. But it's clear that hybrid digital is a terrible idea for AM.
In the meantime, Mr. Savage has the right idea. Make your AM signal the best possible sounding it can be for the medium.
C5
Of course, the operative expression is 'sufficient penetration' which could be a long time in coming, if ever. But it's clear that hybrid digital is a terrible idea for AM.
In the meantime, Mr. Savage has the right idea. Make your AM signal the best possible sounding it can be for the medium.
C5
Right, Carmine5. AM doesn't have to sound lousy. All you have to do is expend a little effort - far less, it must be observed, than is necessary to implement IBOC. And no exotic, troublesome, expensive new hardware is required for this improvement.
Tom Wells has stated the case with humour and elegance. Some things in the human experience were never meant to be digital. I just don't get where the dogma "radio must become digital to survive" comes from. Radio should morph to digital only if digital offers something that listeners and advertisers want. The resounding and repetitive answer when you pose it to any given radio listener is: WHY? Sounds fine to me the way it is.
Tom's account of the WLS difficulties is so typical. IBOC: a cobbled, Rube Goldberg maintenance hog offering far more grief than benefit for anyone who has the misfortune to have to work with it.
Tom Wells has stated the case with humour and elegance. Some things in the human experience were never meant to be digital. I just don't get where the dogma "radio must become digital to survive" comes from. Radio should morph to digital only if digital offers something that listeners and advertisers want. The resounding and repetitive answer when you pose it to any given radio listener is: WHY? Sounds fine to me the way it is.
Tom's account of the WLS difficulties is so typical. IBOC: a cobbled, Rube Goldberg maintenance hog offering far more grief than benefit for anyone who has the misfortune to have to work with it.
Len,
Although your proposal is a constructive one, there are just way too many stations in the current AM band to make it work. The difference between the DTV situation and the HD Radio situation is that there was extra unused spectrum in the TV band, which is not the case for radio. The only way to do this right is to open up a new band and make it 100% digital from the start. This will allow the digital technology to succeed while maintaining analog service, without creating additional noise and interference like the current HD system does. I am in favor of using TV channels 5 and 6 for this.
I agree in principal with the idea that there needs to be a "date certain" for analog radio to end in order to ensure a successful transition to digital. Otherwise, I think it will drag on forever. Again, there are important differences between radio and TV. The government mandated a switch to DTV so they could reallocate the upper part of the TV band to other services and auction it off. I just don't see the same incentive to clear the AM band, for example. What would anyone use it for besides broadcasting? It's too small to carry any significant amount of bandwidth, and the propagation is too unstable. I'm not sure what should be done with the current FM band if all stations (both AM and FM) were moved to a new digital band in TV channels 5 and 6. Perhaps they could retain it for legacy analog FM operation. Perhaps it could be auctioned off for new services. It is definitely valuable spectrum.
Although your proposal is a constructive one, there are just way too many stations in the current AM band to make it work. The difference between the DTV situation and the HD Radio situation is that there was extra unused spectrum in the TV band, which is not the case for radio. The only way to do this right is to open up a new band and make it 100% digital from the start. This will allow the digital technology to succeed while maintaining analog service, without creating additional noise and interference like the current HD system does. I am in favor of using TV channels 5 and 6 for this.
I agree in principal with the idea that there needs to be a "date certain" for analog radio to end in order to ensure a successful transition to digital. Otherwise, I think it will drag on forever. Again, there are important differences between radio and TV. The government mandated a switch to DTV so they could reallocate the upper part of the TV band to other services and auction it off. I just don't see the same incentive to clear the AM band, for example. What would anyone use it for besides broadcasting? It's too small to carry any significant amount of bandwidth, and the propagation is too unstable. I'm not sure what should be done with the current FM band if all stations (both AM and FM) were moved to a new digital band in TV channels 5 and 6. Perhaps they could retain it for legacy analog FM operation. Perhaps it could be auctioned off for new services. It is definitely valuable spectrum.
The practical thing to do would indeed be to open up a new digital-only spectrum for the audio now heard on analog AM stations. We are probably too late. The product is apparently already out there. It's called: Streaming via broadband cell-phones.
Be careful what you wish for.
Be careful what you wish for.
Savage said:
Bob, it's very hard for "ME" to argue that "AM sounds lousy" Fact is, to "ME" it doesn't. However where "I" live, you get news or sports or "music with accordians". (Apologies to all Tejano, Conjunto, Recuerdo, La Tejenita, La Lea, etc...). There's also a hefty dose of God as well. The AM's are down to one that makes money, one that slides by and anything else but God is waiting for a sale. It is common to hear about how AM-HD has failed on this board. Maybe. AMHD is a disappointment. But AM Analog has failed worse.
The 400 lb Gorrilla in the room is... While AM had a 100% market share in the 60's, it's darned near gone now. Honestly, does anyone think AM has a 10 share natiuonally? Am I really to believe that every single AM station which used to own the dial, died because of bad programming? Look at Philly. WFIL, WIBG and WIP. In the 70's I'll bet they had a combined 30 share or more. Today, all together as per this board in December, 4.3. I'm not saying AM sounds lousy, the market says AM sounds lousy. To blame the AM decline on "Bad Programming" is absurd, IMHO. AM didn't dump music to go talk. Music died and then along came Limbaugh. Now that there's a NEW successful talk genre, IT'S moving to FM. Anyone wonder why?
On FM I'd agree. That's why they're pushing the multicasting thingy. But back to AM. Perhaps Savage "IS" right. Maybe we should leave AM alone. I don't say this with spite. I'm just wondering to myself (Outloud) if AM should just be "Let Go". Let me explain... And I'm going to go at this from an FCC perspective... You heard it here first.
How's THIS for an idea.First off, No more AM-HD. Mandate permanant shutdown of the system by Dec 31st, 2015.That should allow for the amortization of all this equipment without having to write it off. Also if it's as bad as everyone says, it'll die a lot sooner. Like maybe next week.
However, it will have to come with a price. Any radio costing over $20.00 must have AM Stereo included, if it has FM stereo included. All FM radios UNDER $20.00 must include AM. Drop dead date is 12/31/2010 for implementation. This is the "AM Radio Preservation Act" of 2009.Secondly. No more NEW AM stations. Exceptions for White or Gray areas ONLY, assuming someone would choose AM over FM in that case. Other than that, NO MORE. Period. NONE. As in No More Class "D" AM. No More 10 watt FM. Take the App off of CBDS. You can't apply. Bye Bye. Upgrades are allowed, including upgrade in class. Last Man standing could still be a zillionaire.
Thirdly, Encourage B's and C's to migrate to FM where possible. Maybe D's too, although I suspect if they could, they already have. Find incentives. Offer rebates (Regulatory fees, Tax Credits, etc..). Thin the herd, by migration and attrition. Those behind will be stronger for it.
Now I'm not dumb enough to NOT understand what this really is. It's a "CB Radio" like, AM Stereo "Let the market decide" like, Whatever you want to do, like, decision. The FCC should be good with it. Business as usual.
The tone of this is flippent, but I mean it. "The Industry" has tried to "Save AM Radio" for almost 40 years and failed. Here's a thought.
AM radio in 1969 vs AM radio in 2009. How's that "Saving" thing working out for ya so far?
Sometimes you just need to go home. So what would happen? Well I suspect the money would leave AM. CBS and Clear Channel woulsd have to accept what AM is and deal with it. While the lack of HD might piss them off, the assurance that AM will always be available in radios SHOULD be a mitigating factor. Frankly, I believe people find AM radio sounds bad. But certainly NOT as bad as a cell phone. And people are using the spoken word on Cell phones every day. AM Talk works. And we all know us old people can't hear fidelity anyway. Fortunately, there's always a new supply of old people.
Don't laugh at me. I'll run your Butt over with my Hoveround.
So where's the future for AM under this plan? Fewer stations. Limited fidelity. No hope of improvement. And a free pass on inclusion in radios forever.
It's an interesting trade. And one which will scare the "Money", and intrigue the "Radio People". And in 20-30 years, you might have the equivalant of Longwave in the EU, right here in the US. Ah what a breath of fresh air "Atlantic 252" was when I was in Ireland. But, I Digress.
And so, you "AM radio" Kahn's, (That's Ricardo Montalbán, not Leonard) Are you ready to embark on this Brave New World out there with AM radio on Ceti Alpha VI ?
As is Music on AM. WIth deference to Alaska, "A Pig with Lipstick is still a pig". A pig with Digital sidebands might still be a pig as well.
Maybe "Big Radio" needs to just give up on AM and leave it alone.
Somehow I gotta believe I finally wrote somehing Savage agrees with. Hey Bob, welcome to the land of LPTV. I just pitched "Must Carry" for AM on radios. ANy chance I can get you to stand up for my must carry LPTV on cable?
Clouseau
1.HD-AM sounds like krap, saccharine highs, telephone quality drop outs and artifacts do not make a good sounding system. Good analog AM kills it.
2, There is absolutely no reason to convert analog radio to digital, this is a pipe dream not shared by many outside the business. IBOC and DRM are in the process of a slow death and have been for years. Want to kill radio? Force a digital conversion, absolutely the worst thing that could be done especially right now with all the other digital choices available that work MUCH better, watch out for Wifi, that will be the 400 lb gorilla soon.
2, There is absolutely no reason to convert analog radio to digital, this is a pipe dream not shared by many outside the business. IBOC and DRM are in the process of a slow death and have been for years. Want to kill radio? Force a digital conversion, absolutely the worst thing that could be done especially right now with all the other digital choices available that work MUCH better, watch out for Wifi, that will be the 400 lb gorilla soon.
- Status