even harris says traditional broadcast days are numbered

[Chuck]

You and others claim Ibiquity is a ruthless company. If so how did they get Harris, Nautel and others to back their technology by selling transmitters compatible with this system? Forgive my ignorance but it sounds as though you have had some negative experience with Ibiquity. Not wanting to pry into your personal business but what is it you know that you can share with us that will prove the Ibiquity is somehow operating on the fringes of the law by operating in a shady manner.

Harris, Nautel, Continental and others are in the business of making transmitters. They will build whatever the market demands. I’ll bet they’d be happy to build a Wi-Max transmitter if you are willing to pay them. In fact, a lot of their production is for non-broadcast equipment that can benefit from their manufacturing capabilities and expertise. Why wouldn't they make HD transmitters if someone was willing to buy them?

As for some of your other questions, they would best be answered by looking back at some previous posts. Most of this has been discussed over and over. My own personal qualms about HD revolve around the discovery that it appears to be fairly useless technology for small broadcasters. Even among the "HD converted," there is reasonably good consensus that it will be bad news for small AM broadcasters. It also makes very little sense for small FM stations and translators. The side bands from full power HD stations are likely to cause interference to these smaller broadcasters, especially in currently existing short spaced conditions.

Further, there seems to be a point of diminishing returns where a HD signal is not viable. Since the HD carrier is 1/100 of your analog ERP, a 250 watt translator would have a 2 1/2 watt ERP HD signal. It is unclear how far that would go, but it is fairly certain that building penetration would be a big problem at that kind of power level. I doubt you’d get much over 3-4 miles out of it under good conditions. Maybe a lot less. It simply wouldn’t be worth the expense.

There are thousands of FM stations that are fairly low power, as well as nearly 1000 LPFM stations and thousands of translators that run with power levels way under 250 watts. What about them? If NAB has their way, there will be a lot more. The HD proponents say "Those are secondary services and if they are no longer viable, well, that is too bad." They also say the AM band needs "thinning out." That's nice, but you'd be less than pleased if you were on the endangered species list. I hate walking around with a target on my chest.

IBOC seems like a great idea for 25-100 kW FM stations, as well as 50,000 watt AM stations. The technology works for them. It's the little guy who has the problem. I happen to be one of those "little guys." I have no problem with the concept of Digital Radio. In some form, it probably is our future, but I'd like to adopt a system that works for everyone. Until that comes along, I see no urgency in a digital conversion. The general public has no problem with the current analog methods of delivering a signal. In fact, they could care less how they get the signal. They only care if there is something worth listening to or not.

That's the Cliff's notes of where I stand.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Excellent and very valid points brought up. May I suggest that the best way to resolve this would be for a AM & FM band reorganization. This has ben done before and might be a way to resolve these conflicts. Say HD stations are allowed to operate below 1200 Khz, for AM stations and how about a sub band like the present non commercial section of the FM BCB. That way stations which wish to continue operating in analogue can do so for as long as they wish and those who wish to operate using Ibiquities IBOC exciter can do so. Of course the exact bandwidth for each service would have to be worked out. That way eeveryone gets what they want.

 

[vsa]

R.F. Burns wrote: "...Cam-D, I've heard a lot of claims made and while they may or may not be true...I don't know if I'd want to do business with a company which appears on the level to be a bit flakey...FM Extra, I'd like to know more about it. How does it work and who is behind it? I don't believe it's AM compatible, but my main concern isn't compatibilty on both AM & FM but for a legitimate digital system which is willing to explain it's system, show some data and provide some demos..."

Regarding Cam-D, Leonard Kahn is not going to spill the beans on how it works until he has a patent in his hands - for some very legitimate reasons. It may come as a shock to you, but some unscrupulous companies in the past have actually stolen the ideas of others and figured it would be cheaper to fight it out in court many years later. Now, I know that iBiquity would NEVER dream of doing this.  ;D  As for FMeXtra, a Google search will give you plenty of information on how well it works.

R.F. Burns later wrote: "May I suggest that the best way to resolve this would be for a AM & FM band reorganization....how about a sub band like the present non commercial section of the FM BCB. That way stations which wish to continue operating in analogue can do so for as long as they wish..."

It's been discussed here ad nauseum. I see that you think analog stations should be relegated to a sub-band ghetto. I'd suggest, how about a sub-band for IBAC stations (there are only a relative few, and that will always be the case) who insist on polluting the AM dial. Stick THEM at the upper end of the AM dial, spacing them tightly at 10 kHz intervals. If some stations insist in having the right to jam neighboring stations while not wanting to take advantage of night-time skywave any longer, they may as well jam each other until they figure out how to repeal the laws of physics.

Meanwhile, we in radio are diverting our attention from a threat and an opportunity of a lifetime. A few days ago, Bill Gates said that television will change big time within 5 years, largely to be delivered via the Internet. You think radio is immune? Here we argue over how to build a better digital cassette recorder and player. Nobody wanted digital cassettes and nobody wants HD radio.

 

[KMGX]

Nobody wanted digital cassettes and nobody wants HD radio.

That is all that needs to be said about HD Radio. Although, I have a DAT machine in my home studio, it's simply due to my own geek nature.

Aside from the technical aspects, including the virtual extermination of small and mid-sized AM/FM's, signals throttling eachother and the fact that HD Radio just ins't that much better than FM--especially when considering that the same business that has put us in the mess we are in now is running these HD stations. HD Radio has the obvious problem that virtually zero average consumers even know what HD Radio really means, what it is or what it does... not to mention why they should buy it in the first place. There's just far too much technology out there for HD Radio to really make a splash... it's too little too late.

 

[R.F. Burns]

[
Regarding Cam-D, Leonard Kahn is not going to spill the beans on how it works until he has a patent in his hands - for some very legitimate reasons. It may come as a shock to you, but some unscrupulous companies in the past have actually stolen the ideas of others and figured it would be cheaper to fight it out in court many years later. Now, I know that iBiquity would NEVER dream of doing this. ;D As for FMeXtra, a Google search will give you plenty of information on how well it works.


I don't disagree but why is it taking so long to get a patent? He's been at Cm D for years already. I've heard that it's a variation on his powerside

R.F. Burns later wrote: "May I suggest that the best way to resolve this would be for a AM & FM band reorganization....how about a sub band like the present non commercial section of the FM BCB. That way stations which wish to continue operating in analogue can do so for as long as they wish..."

It's been discussed here ad nauseum. I see that you think analog stations should be relegated to a sub-band ghetto. I'd suggest, how about a sub-band for IBAC stations (there are only a relative few, and that will always be the case) who insist on polluting the AM dial. "

OK may I suggest that we try to remain adult in our discussion and by refering to IBOC under another name you really upset any valid argument you might have. I'd be happy to answer you. I'd stick IBOC intop a sub band, but not the upper portion of the AM BCB. If we are to divide AM I'd stick the IBOCS where most probabaly are already below 1200 Khz. The only difference in todays digital world between 540 and 200 Khz is ground wave coverage IE: propagation. Historically the lower power stations (and those now complaining about HD) have resided above 1200 Khz on either regional or local frequencies. So if we divide the band the shift won't be that great and the non IBOC stations can even have the 100Khz between 16 and 1700. Adding those frequencies should cut down on the QRM our overcrowded bands already suffer from. If we cat like adults here I'm sure a compromise can be met.

 

[vsa]

R.F. Burns wrote: "I don't disagree but why is it taking so long to get a patent? He's been at Cam-D for years already. I've heard that it's a variation on his powerside..."

I'm not a patent attorney. I don't know. I do know that these things take time. Powerside technology is involved, but there's much more to it. Otherwise, iBiquity's engineers could have figured it out by now.

R.F. Burns wrote: "I suggest that we try to remain adult in our discussion and by refering to IBOC under another name you really upset any valid argument you might have."

The correct name is IBAC. It is in-band ADJACENT channel, isn't it? If it was truly ON channel, few of us here would have a problem with it. iBiquity's exciters broadcast on channels that are licensed to nobody or to other entities, without the usual requirement to be the highest bidder for the use of a new frequency or to purchase another's license. IBOC is a lie. At auction, how much would the use of these adjacent frequencies be worth to the federal treasury?

The effort and expense of rearranging the AM and FM bands is unneccessary. HD radio is dead, particularly on the AM side. Not everybody realizes it yet, that's all.

In a world where wireless Internet connectivity will soon be cheap, convenient and ubiquitous, please tell me how HD radio is any different than digital cassettes. I'm not knocking digital cassettes. When they became available, they were just way too little way too late.

 

[R.F. Burns]

R.F. Burns wrote: "I don't disagree but why is it taking so long to get a patent? He's been at Cam-D for years already. I've heard that it's a variation on his powerside..."

I'm not a patent attorney. I don't know. I do know that these things take time. Powerside technology is involved, but there's much more to it. Otherwise, iBiquity's engineers could have figured it out by now.

I don't know about that. First there are ways of dealing with this and the fact that he's filed patents has to be taken into account. I know many challenged patents have been found for their creators by the creator sending a letter with the patent information to onmes self and keeping that post marked envelope in a secure box. What that does is show that the date on the creation predated any competition due to the federal postmark. I don't know about this system but It seems that he's been at it for years and patents don't take that long to acquire.

R.F. Burns wrote: "I suggest that we try to remain adult in our discussion and by refering to IBOC under another name you really upset any valid argument you might have."

The correct name is IBAC. It is in-band ADJACENT channel, isn't it? If it was truly ON channel, few of us here would have a problem with it. iBiquity's exciters broadcast on channels that are licensed to nobody or to other entities, without the usual requirement to be the highest bidder for the use of a new frequency or to purchase another's license. IBOC is a lie.


and here we start getting into name calling and ranting. It's called IBOC because that is what they choose to call it, period. Calling it by another name is like a child making fun of anothers name. In other words it's name calling and childish. I've seen IBOC in action and on the reciever I had access to there was no adjacent issue. That said if you live in most markets in this country there are no protected frequencies that are adjacent to each other. I've never been able to recieve say a station at 101.3 because we have a local 101.1. the only place on FM that I've heard adjacent channel stations is below 92.1 Mhz. Interestingly today I heard a pirate on an adjacent channel to a local 50 KW college IBOC station and there was no interference to the pirate. Also, I was listening on my car radio. I'm not denying your claims I just haven;t experienced it in my travels.

"The effort and expense of rearranging the AM and FM bands is unneccessary. HD radio is dead, particularly on the AM side. Not everybody realizes it yet, that's all."

I guess that's yet to happen. I can't say if you are right or wrong and of coure it's only your prediction, not a fact. I will say at this time there are many more IBOC stations operating on AM & FM then there were AM stereo stations and it took years to kill that off too.

"In a world where wireless Internet connectivity will soon be cheap, convenient and ubiquitous, please tell me how HD radio is any different than digital cassettes. I'm not knocking digital cassettes. When they became available, they were just way too little way too late."

I can't say what will happen with HD radio. As for wireless connectivity, it's going to take some time to build the infratsucture. Maybe small towns can do it but places which are large population centers are another matter. Too the best of my knowledge there is no existing internet streamer capable of streaming to millions of simultanious listeners. Also BPL is in real trouble with the ARRL going after the BPL proponents in court as I write this. My point is that I keep reading about a technology who's future is still at least a few years off at best. HD radio for it's flaws is here now and no matter what some would have you believe they are starting to sell radios. I read that the Radio Shack HD radio did very welll during their black Friday sales. I will personally say that if it wasn't for the multicasting abilities of HD I'd too say it's worthless. Multicasting holds all sorts of promise, especially as a way of providing missing formats in larger markets. PLease remember the only reason these markets are bigger is because they cover areas where the vast majority of Americans reside.

 

[700WLW]

R.F. Burns wrote: "I don't disagree but why is it taking so long to get a patent? He's been at Cam-D for years already. I've heard that it's a variation on his powerside..."

I'm not a patent attorney. I don't know. I do know that these things take time. Powerside technology is involved, but there's much more to it. Otherwise, iBiquity's engineers could have figured it out by now.

I don't know about that. First there are ways of dealing with this and the fact that he's filed patents has to be taken into account. I know many challenged patents have been found for their creators by the creator sending a letter with the patent information to onmes self and keeping that post marked envelope in a secure box. What that does is show that the date on the creation predated any competition due to the federal postmark. I don't know about this system but It seems that he's been at it for years and patents don't take that long to acquire.

R.F. Burns wrote: "I suggest that we try to remain adult in our discussion and by refering to IBOC under another name you really upset any valid argument you might have."

The correct name is IBAC. It is in-band ADJACENT channel, isn't it? If it was truly ON channel, few of us here would have a problem with it. iBiquity's exciters broadcast on channels that are licensed to nobody or to other entities, without the usual requirement to be the highest bidder for the use of a new frequency or to purchase another's license. IBOC is a lie.


and here we start getting into name calling and ranting. It's called IBOC because that is what they choose to call it, period. Calling it by another name is like a child making fun of anothers name. In other words it's name calling and childish. I've seen IBOC in action and on the reciever I had access to there was no adjacent issue. That said if you live in most markets in this country there are no protected frequencies that are adjacent to each other. I've never been able to recieve say a station at 101.3 because we have a local 101.1. the only place on FM that I've heard adjacent channel stations is below 92.1 Mhz. Interestingly today I heard a pirate on an adjacent channel to a local 50 KW college IBOC station and there was no interference to the pirate. Also, I was listening on my car radio. I'm not denying your claims I just haven;t experienced it in my travels.

"The effort and expense of rearranging the AM and FM bands is unneccessary. HD radio is dead, particularly on the AM side. Not everybody realizes it yet, that's all."

I guess that's yet to happen. I can't say if you are right or wrong and of coure it's only your prediction, not a fact. I will say at this time there are many more IBOC stations operating on AM & FM then there were AM stereo stations and it took years to kill that off too.

"In a world where wireless Internet connectivity will soon be cheap, convenient and ubiquitous, please tell me how HD radio is any different than digital cassettes. I'm not knocking digital cassettes. When they became available, they were just way too little way too late."

I can't say what will happen with HD radio. As for wireless connectivity, it's going to take some time to build the infratsucture. Maybe small towns can do it but places which are large population centers are another matter. Too the best of my knowledge there is no existing internet streamer capable of streaming to millions of simultanious listeners. Also BPL is in real trouble with the ARRL going after the BPL proponents in court as I write this. My point is that I keep reading about a technology who's future is still at least a few years off at best. HD radio for it's flaws is here now and no matter what some would have you believe they are starting to sell radios. I read that the Radio Shack HD radio did very welll during their black Friday sales. I will personally say that if it wasn't for the multicasting abilities of HD I'd too say it's worthless. Multicasting holds all sorts of promise, especially as a way of providing missing formats in larger markets. PLease remember the only reason these markets are bigger is because they cover areas where the vast majority of Americans reside.

And, you always believe, what you read - do you really think RS was over-stocked, with HD radios, and sold out. I read, that it took one RS store six days, to sell six HD radios - yea, they sold out !

"Are you waiting in line for your HD radio?"

http://www.hear2.com/2006/11/are_you_waiting.html

 

[R.F. Burns]

:

 

[R.F. Burns]

R.F. Burns wrote: "I don't disagree but why is it taking so long to get a patent? He's been at Cam-D for years already. I've heard that it's a variation on his powerside..."

I'm not a patent attorney. I don't know. I do know that these things take time. Powerside technology is involved, but there's much more to it. Otherwise, iBiquity's engineers could have figured it out by now.

I don't know about that. First there are ways of dealing with this and the fact that he's filed patents has to be taken into account. I know many challenged patents have been found for their creators by the creator sending a letter with the patent information to onmes self and keeping that post marked envelope in a secure box. What that does is show that the date on the creation predated any competition due to the federal postmark. I don't know about this system but It seems that he's been at it for years and patents don't take that long to acquire.

R.F. Burns wrote: "I suggest that we try to remain adult in our discussion and by refering to IBOC under another name you really upset any valid argument you might have."

The correct name is IBAC. It is in-band ADJACENT channel, isn't it? If it was truly ON channel, few of us here would have a problem with it. iBiquity's exciters broadcast on channels that are licensed to nobody or to other entities, without the usual requirement to be the highest bidder for the use of a new frequency or to purchase another's license. IBOC is a lie.


and here we start getting into name calling and ranting. It's called IBOC because that is what they choose to call it, period. Calling it by another name is like a child making fun of anothers name. In other words it's name calling and childish. I've seen IBOC in action and on the reciever I had access to there was no adjacent issue. That said if you live in most markets in this country there are no protected frequencies that are adjacent to each other. I've never been able to recieve say a station at 101.3 because we have a local 101.1. the only place on FM that I've heard adjacent channel stations is below 92.1 Mhz. Interestingly today I heard a pirate on an adjacent channel to a local 50 KW college IBOC station and there was no interference to the pirate. Also, I was listening on my car radio. I'm not denying your claims I just haven;t experienced it in my travels.

"The effort and expense of rearranging the AM and FM bands is unneccessary. HD radio is dead, particularly on the AM side. Not everybody realizes it yet, that's all."

I guess that's yet to happen. I can't say if you are right or wrong and of coure it's only your prediction, not a fact. I will say at this time there are many more IBOC stations operating on AM & FM then there were AM stereo stations and it took years to kill that off too.

"In a world where wireless Internet connectivity will soon be cheap, convenient and ubiquitous, please tell me how HD radio is any different than digital cassettes. I'm not knocking digital cassettes. When they became available, they were just way too little way too late."

I can't say what will happen with HD radio. As for wireless connectivity, it's going to take some time to build the infratsucture. Maybe small towns can do it but places which are large population centers are another matter. Too the best of my knowledge there is no existing internet streamer capable of streaming to millions of simultanious listeners. Also BPL is in real trouble with the ARRL going after the BPL proponents in court as I write this. My point is that I keep reading about a technology who's future is still at least a few years off at best. HD radio for it's flaws is here now and no matter what some would have you believe they are starting to sell radios. I read that the Radio Shack HD radio did very welll during their black Friday sales. I will personally say that if it wasn't for the multicasting abilities of HD I'd too say it's worthless. Multicasting holds all sorts of promise, especially as a way of providing missing formats in larger markets. PLease remember the only reason these markets are bigger is because they cover areas where the vast majority of Americans reside.

And, you always believe, what you read - do you really think RS was over-stocked, with HD radios, and sold out. I read, that it took one RS store six days, to sell six HD radios - yea, they sold out !

"Are you waiting in line for your HD radio?"

http://www.hear2.com/2006/11/are_you_waiting.html

700 could you do me a favor? I don't mind discussing the pros and coms of HD or other analogue or digital systems but from what I've read your posts are filled with anger and negativity with no alternative radio system sugested. You are of course entitled to your opinion but do me a favor. Unless you can do something besides questioning the truthfullness of others while you yourself provide no digital radio alternative (this is after all a HD forum and this site has so many different forums to discuss other types of broadcasting, be it internet or satellite or what have you) that you don't bother responding to my posts. I've read many of the posts in here and I don't bother responding to those whom I already know will be posting a hatchet job and for who no amount of discusson will change their minds, so I just say, OK, they can say what they will and I ignore them. Please show me the same respect and do the same for my posts. Thank you.

 

[700WLW]

R.F. Burns wrote: "I don't disagree but why is it taking so long to get a patent? He's been at Cam-D for years already. I've heard that it's a variation on his powerside..."

I'm not a patent attorney. I don't know. I do know that these things take time. Powerside technology is involved, but there's much more to it. Otherwise, iBiquity's engineers could have figured it out by now.

I don't know about that. First there are ways of dealing with this and the fact that he's filed patents has to be taken into account. I know many challenged patents have been found for their creators by the creator sending a letter with the patent information to onmes self and keeping that post marked envelope in a secure box. What that does is show that the date on the creation predated any competition due to the federal postmark. I don't know about this system but It seems that he's been at it for years and patents don't take that long to acquire.

R.F. Burns wrote: "I suggest that we try to remain adult in our discussion and by refering to IBOC under another name you really upset any valid argument you might have."

The correct name is IBAC. It is in-band ADJACENT channel, isn't it? If it was truly ON channel, few of us here would have a problem with it. iBiquity's exciters broadcast on channels that are licensed to nobody or to other entities, without the usual requirement to be the highest bidder for the use of a new frequency or to purchase another's license. IBOC is a lie.


and here we start getting into name calling and ranting. It's called IBOC because that is what they choose to call it, period. Calling it by another name is like a child making fun of anothers name. In other words it's name calling and childish. I've seen IBOC in action and on the reciever I had access to there was no adjacent issue. That said if you live in most markets in this country there are no protected frequencies that are adjacent to each other. I've never been able to recieve say a station at 101.3 because we have a local 101.1. the only place on FM that I've heard adjacent channel stations is below 92.1 Mhz. Interestingly today I heard a pirate on an adjacent channel to a local 50 KW college IBOC station and there was no interference to the pirate. Also, I was listening on my car radio. I'm not denying your claims I just haven;t experienced it in my travels.

"The effort and expense of rearranging the AM and FM bands is unneccessary. HD radio is dead, particularly on the AM side. Not everybody realizes it yet, that's all."

I guess that's yet to happen. I can't say if you are right or wrong and of coure it's only your prediction, not a fact. I will say at this time there are many more IBOC stations operating on AM & FM then there were AM stereo stations and it took years to kill that off too.

"In a world where wireless Internet connectivity will soon be cheap, convenient and ubiquitous, please tell me how HD radio is any different than digital cassettes. I'm not knocking digital cassettes. When they became available, they were just way too little way too late."

I can't say what will happen with HD radio. As for wireless connectivity, it's going to take some time to build the infratsucture. Maybe small towns can do it but places which are large population centers are another matter. Too the best of my knowledge there is no existing internet streamer capable of streaming to millions of simultanious listeners. Also BPL is in real trouble with the ARRL going after the BPL proponents in court as I write this. My point is that I keep reading about a technology who's future is still at least a few years off at best. HD radio for it's flaws is here now and no matter what some would have you believe they are starting to sell radios. I read that the Radio Shack HD radio did very welll during their black Friday sales. I will personally say that if it wasn't for the multicasting abilities of HD I'd too say it's worthless. Multicasting holds all sorts of promise, especially as a way of providing missing formats in larger markets. PLease remember the only reason these markets are bigger is because they cover areas where the vast majority of Americans reside.

And, you always believe, what you read - do you really think RS was over-stocked, with HD radios, and sold out. I read, that it took one RS store six days, to sell six HD radios - yea, they sold out !

"Are you waiting in line for your HD radio?"

http://www.hear2.com/2006/11/are_you_waiting.html

700 could you do me a favor? I don't mind discussing the pros and coms of HD or other analogue or digital systems but from what I've read your posts are filled with anger and negativity with no alternative radio system sugested. You are of course entitled to your opinion but do me a favor. Unless you can do something besides questioning the truthfullness of others while you yourself provide no digital radio alternative (this is after all a HD forum and this site has so many different forums to discuss other types of broadcasting, be it internet or satellite or what have you) that you don't bother responding to my posts. I've read many of the posts in here and I don't bother responding to those whom I already know will be posting a hatchet job and for who no amount of discusson will change their minds, so I just say, OK, they can say what they will and I ignore them. Please show me the same respect and do the same for my posts. Thank you.

Boy, have I heard this "anger" tactic, over-and-over-again ! Sorry... not going to happen - there are two other IBOC shill sites you could post on, instead.

 

[R.F. Burns]

"Boy, have I heard this "anger" tactic, over-and-over-again ! Sorry... not going to happen - there are two other IBOC shill sites you could post on, instead."

And I see how much respect you have for others. You were asked politely, not to stop posting here, but to not respond to my comments, which I promise will not pertain to you in any way. I won't get personal after I state the following because all that does is destroy an otherwise decent discussion. You sir apppear to have trouble playing properly with others. Sad if you are an adult that you can't respect the wishes of others. I guess this anti social behavoir must extend into your private life. Very sad indeed. I guess the adult thing to do here is ignore you and try to show some pitty on what must be a shallow life. OK, on to better things.

 

[vsa]

To R.F. Burns:  Please learn to use the "quote" feature properly or don't use it at all. In your last response to me, you mixed your comments with mine, making it appear that all of the comments were mine.

Thank you.

BTW, anyone and everyone is allowed to comment on anything they see here on this board. You're new here. You'll catch on after a little while.

 

[R.F. Burns]

To R.F. Burns: Please learn to use the "quote" feature properly or don't use it at all. In your last response to me, you mixed your comments with mine, making it appear that all of the comments were mine.

Thank you.

BTW, anyone and everyone is allowed to comment on anything they see here on this board. You're new here. You'll catch on after a little while.

Maybe my mistake was trying to comment in what obviously is a very angry forum. As someone who has made his living in the industry for well over 30 years and has tried to act respectfully to others it appears that I missjudged some of the others who post in here. I thought that this was a board dedicated to the discussion of digital radio, not wi-fi or any of the other non HD methods of broadcasting brought up in here. Maybe this room should be renamed the Anti HD board, Truth in advertising doesn't hurt anyone. [EDIT]



[inflammatory]

 

[Tom Wells]

Harris and the others will build when there is a demand justifying the engineering, Wi-max may be in their design dept now.

As regarding "anger".....
The first lie by ibiquity was that the lie of compatibility for AM.
It's only compatible for people wearing earplugs, which cut off audio above 5 khz.
They chose sample test receivers which would not reproduce the outrageous hissing on the host's AM signal.
I have NO radios (excepting communications receivers like a Collins 390) with narrow enough IFs to listen to IBOC.

And it is in fact IBAC. When a company gives a name description such as in band on channel it's supposed to MEAN that.
If it's not, THEY are the ones who lose credibility.

When you have a party, I trust you do not destroy permanently your neighbor's ability to enjoy the use of their property.
Ibiquity (capitalized as the first word in a sentence?) designed this AM system specifically to broadcast on 5 channels at once.
That's enough to make me angry, but I'm trying to be fair anyway...
This travesty is a slap in the face to every engineer who has had to sweat and suffer to make their AM sound good.

Patents may take years in prosecution. I, like Mr Kahn, chose non-publication for my patents while in prosecution.
Otherwise, the whole thing is published at 18 months from filing. He wants to keep a lid on it for now.
My patented circuit only contains a dozen or so components. It looks like a standard amplifier circuit, but with a specific difference
that makes it patentable. It was way beyond the understanding of the examiner, even though he was supposed to be electrically knowledgable. I had to recite basic electronic theory in office action responses. I can imagine Mr Kahn is having a very similar
time with his system.

Mr Burns seems to be overly passive and accepting of the claims of ibiquity, and overly harsh on ibiquity's critics.
Any anti-social behavior is only following and in response to the tone set by ibiquity in its less-than-honest presentation of the system.
It is cheating, pure and simple, and people DO get upset when they plainly see cheating.
The referee or umpire is supposed to stop such shenanigans, not rewrite the rule book to make poor sportsmanship the new standard.

It is sad that a corporation has been given the green light to stomp on other corporations and individuals.
How much respect is ibiquity showing to the public, who never asked to have their AM radio reception trashed?

I will not call anyone names, but I can easily understand when the conversation over this issue becomes heated.
Playing well with others includes not breaking their radios with destructive "improvements".

Suggesting a sub-band is still no good. A new band for a new system. At least in the MW AM.

I again challenge anyone to cite an example where "nature" or "God" has evolved or created a digital, binary solution to anything.
It hasn't happened because the universe is analog and logarithmic.
Digital radio can work, but it is neither efficient or in harmony with the laws of physics, which do not like square waves very much.

 

[700WLW]

To R.F. Burns: Please learn to use the "quote" feature properly or don't use it at all. In your last response to me, you mixed your comments with mine, making it appear that all of the comments were mine.

Thank you.

BTW, anyone and everyone is allowed to comment on anything they see here on this board. You're new here. You'll catch on after a little while.

Earlier, the same thing happened to me, when I quoted/responded to one of Walker's posts, and ended up getting yelled at.

 

[700WLW]

To R.F. Burns: Please learn to use the "quote" feature properly or don't use it at all. In your last response to me, you mixed your comments with mine, making it appear that all of the comments were mine.

Thank you.

BTW, anyone and everyone is allowed to comment on anything they see here on this board. You're new here. You'll catch on after a little while.

Maybe my mistake was trying to comment in what obviously is a very angry forum. As someone who has made his living in the industry for well over 30 years and has tried to act respectfully to others it appears that I missjudged some of the others who post in here. I thought that this was a board dedicated to the discussion of digital radio, not wi-fi or any of the other non HD methods of broadcasting brought up in here. Maybe this room should be renamed the Anti HD board, Truth in advertising doesn't hurt anyone. [EDIT]



[inflammatory]

In the past, there were many IBOC supporters, but they have come-and-gone - there are two other, unmentionable, HD Radio shill sites, they now post on. We discuss all aspects of HD Radio, including competing technologies, that will put an end to this destuctive and fraudulent technology.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

R. F. Burns said:

Truth in advertising doesn't hurt anyone.

Exactly what I have been saying all along!
This is precisely what HD opponents have been saying, right from the start.
However, this would be better directed toward iNiquity and the HD cartel, where it actually applies.
Of course, if all you have to peddle is a defective, problematic, expensive, product, with virtually no interest, or demand, I guess false advertising, and deceit, is a desperate, last ditch effort to sell a pigs ear as a silk purse.

 

[R.F. Burns]

R. F. Burns said:

Truth in advertising doesn't hurt anyone.

Exactly what I have been saying all along!
This is precisely what HD opponents have been saying, right from the start.
However, this would be better directed toward iNiquity and the HD cartel, where it actually applies.
Of course, if all you have to peddle is a defective, problematic, expensive, product, with virtually no interest, or demand, I guess false advertising, and deceit, is a desperate, last ditch effort to sell a pigs ear as a silk purse.

Hmm, any reasonable person would have to conclude from reading your comments that your over the top anti Ibiquity comments and those of others who use similar catch phrases have problems greater then dealing with HD technology. Why not get off the computer and consider legal action if you feel you have a case. In other words, put your money where your mouths (or in this case) keyboards are. Note, this isn't pro or anti IBOC statement, it's only an observation from a relative newcomer without an axe to bear in this fight.

 

[calstymes]

R. F. Burns said in an earlier post:

Not wanting to pry into your personal business but what is it you know that you can share with us that will prove the Ibiquity is somehow operating on the fringes of the law by operating in a shady manner.

Not going to happen. Those who actually know first hand about iBiQuity's tactics and what they did when which dates back into the 1990s probably have jobs and/or relationships with individuals who have been principle players in the development of digital radio technology that they would like to keep. If these people were to actually print in this message board what iBiQuity did and how they did it they would be hunted down and executed by the cartel. Believe me, it's not pretty.

Mr. Burns, please refer to Tom Wells' recent post in this thread. He explains the technical side very well of why those of us who oppose the implementation of this form of AM digital radio agree it is a shameless rape of precious spectrum.