"HD Radio awaits listeners"

[PocketRadio]

"HD Radio awaits listeners" July 9, 2007

"Whether anyone is listening is another matter. The HD Radio tuner takes seven seconds to lock into and start playing a digital stream.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5620715,00.html

Although recently dated, this sounds like an old article.

 

[PocketRadio]

Well, it looks like HD is DOA - no one is posting anymore. I have to admit, this is getting rather boring, and I'm sure that enough damage has been done already. Even the HD shill reporters seem to have pretty much given up - the only active one left seems to be Glenn Fleishman:

"High Fidelity Radio"

http://digital-am-fm.com/

 

[dbdigital]

"CCR’s Total Traffic Goes HD"

"Clear Channel Radio’s Total Traffic Network has begun transmitting traffic data via HD Radio in 48 metropolitan areas of the U.S. The company also reports its working with numerous receiver manufacturers to make the specially equipped receivers available by the end of the year."

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/

The last part is of interest: it means that the HD-R radio you just bought for your car will have to be replaced with one that will pick up these traffic alerts. O the joys of being an early adopter.

db

 

[PocketRadio]

"CCR’s Total Traffic Goes HD"

"Clear Channel Radio’s Total Traffic Network has begun transmitting traffic data via HD Radio in 48 metropolitan areas of the U.S. The company also reports its working with numerous receiver manufacturers to make the specially equipped receivers available by the end of the year."

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/

The last part is of interest: it means that the HD-R radio you just bought for your car will have to be replaced with one that will pick up these traffic alerts. O the joys of being an early adopter.

db

Sounds like the same vicious cycle of having to constantly buy new HD radios, to replace ones that are defective (e.g., Sangean HDT-1 and HDT-1X). Isn't Satellite Radio for navigation and traffic alerts - it really seems silly for HD Radio to be doing this (and what about constant dropouts). Then, CC will start charging for this stuff, like anyone is really listening.

 

[Cornflake the Destroyer]

Press Release from Clear Channel:

Traffic Data Goes High Def with Clear Channel Radio


Total Traffic Network Launches Traffic Information Service for HD Radio



Expands existing Traffic Navigation Service Coverage to 19 More Markets



San Antonio – July 9, 2007 – Clear Channel Radio’s Total Traffic Network today announced that it has begun transmitting traffic data via HD Radio in 48 of the largest U.S. metropolitan areas. This launch marks the first commercially available data service over HD Radio and leverages the robust data delivery capabilities of HD Radio. Clear Channel is working with a variety of receiver manufacturers to make the specially-equipped receivers available by the end of this year.



Clear Channel’s Total Traffic Network also announced that it has further expanded its delivery of real-time traffic data over RDS-TMC (Radio Data System Traffic Message Channel) with the addition of 19 new markets that include: Albany, NY; Albuquerque, NM; Birmingham, AL; Columbia, SC; Fort Myers, FL; Louisville, KY; Omaha, NE; Portsmouth/Manchester, NH; Richmond, VA; Rochester, NY; Sarasota, FL; Springfield, MA; Syracuse, NY; Toledo, OH; Tucson, AZ; Worcester, MA and Toronto, ON; Ottawa, ON and Montreal, QE in Canada. Clear Channel’s Total Traffic Network now delivers real time traffic via RDS-TMC in 68 cities, and plans to add more markets to its Total Traffic Network data delivery via RDS-TMC throughout 2007. This expanded coverage is made available to existing subscribers without additional charge.



"HD Radio is the future for broadcast data delivery, allowing us to not only deliver traffic data, but provide additional services a well," said Jeff Littlejohn, Clear Channel Radio Executive Vice President of Distribution Development. "Clear Channel Radio is synonymous with high quality traffic data. With the addition of these 19 markets, we cover over 160 million people with our traffic service for consumer devices."


Clear Channel Radio’s Total Traffic Network currently provides real-time traffic information to devices made by Garmin, TomTom, Mio-Mitac, Delphi, Kenwood, Clarion, Navigon, Cobra Electronics and Siemens VDO and supplies traffic content to several media outlets including Citadel Broadcasting, Univision, Fox Interactive Media, and others.



In September 2006, Clear Channel Radio announced a milestone agreement with BMW of North America, LLC in which they became the first automotive brand in the United States to offer real-time traffic as a subscription free service included with navigation on select models. Earlier this year, MINI USA became the second automotive brand to announce such a relationship with Total Traffic Network.

 

[PocketRadio]

Press Release from Clear Channel:
Traffic Data Goes High Def with Clear Channel Radio
Total Traffic Network Launches Traffic Information Service for HD Radio
Expands existing Traffic Navigation Service Coverage to 19 More Markets
.
.
.

"Real-Time Traffic Information - one of the 2007 US Updates"

"This was released earlier in the week. Starting with September Production, all of the 3,5,6 Series cars with Navigation will recieve Real Time Traffic Information. There will be an increase in the price of navigation of $100. 3 Series will go to $2,100 from $2,000 and 5 Series from $1,800 to $1,900. However there is no increase on the 6 Series, M5 or M6 cars. RTTI will not be offered on the 7, X3, or Z4. Here is the ONLY catch. IF you order HD Radio in conjunction with Navigation you WILL NOT RECIEVE RTTI. If you order your 3/5/6/M5/M6 with HD Radio you will not get RTTI. Since the Navigation is Standard on the 6/M5/M6, if you order HD Radio, no RTTI. RTTI works through the regular radio and HD will limit RTTI. The service is good for 4 years and there are NO monthly fees. It will work when your navigation is active and will plan the route around the traffic, should be interesting! Thought I would just pass this along to calm some of the hype down for the 07 model year. Heres the real choice: HD Radio or RTTI?? Personally, HD Radio."

http://www.edbmw.com/main/ednews.html

Why, would anyone in their right-mind order this extremely expensive option ? When I used to drive the Wash, D.C. Beltway, before leaving work I would just log-on the Internet and check the VDOT and MDOT Cams - if there was a backup, then I would go a different route, while listening to my standard in-dash analog radio. If I needed directions, I would just run Mapquest. Also, I assume that to receive these traffic channels, one may have to buy new in-dash HD radios, and pay a fee ? Are these extra traffic channels going to further reduce the bit-rate of the other HD channels ? Can people safely monitor these navigation systems, while driving in 65 MPH rush-hour traffic - is that realistic ?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

But HD Digital Radio Alliance president/CEO Peter Ferrara acknowledged what many in the terrestrial radio business have been complaining about recently: There are too few HD Radio receivers in automobiles, where most Americans listen to radio. Ferrara says it will be hard for broadcasters to wrestle carmakers' attention from the satcasters until there is more mainstream demand for HD receivers in cars.

And, for the first time this year, reports the Post, subscriptions for XM and Sirius are growing, through their partnerships with automakers including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Honda. Ferrara sees that as more of a threat to the widespread adoption of HD Radio. "If they [merge], they can control the dashboard," Ferrara tells the Post about the satellite companies. "They already have the partnerships. They could block us out."

Link to full story:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=VMt%2fmTkauDg%3d&Version=1

 

[PocketRadio]

But HD Digital Radio Alliance president/CEO Peter Ferrara acknowledged what many in the terrestrial radio business have been complaining about recently: There are too few HD Radio receivers in automobiles, where most Americans listen to radio. Ferrara says it will be hard for broadcasters to wrestle carmakers' attention from the satcasters until there is more mainstream demand for HD receivers in cars.

And, for the first time this year, reports the Post, subscriptions for XM and Sirius are growing, through their partnerships with automakers including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Honda. Ferrara sees that as more of a threat to the widespread adoption of HD Radio. "If they [merge], they can control the dashboard," Ferrara tells the Post about the satellite companies. "They already have the partnerships. They could block us out."

"Satellite showdown" CNNMoney.com

"Satellite radio is a viable business model. Every car is going to have satellite radio eventually. Think of the number of cars out there, and how more people are getting used to the service, he said."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/07/technology/satellite/index.htm

If true, HD is DOA !

 

[PocketRadio]

Press Release from Clear Channel:
Traffic Data Goes High Def with Clear Channel Radio
Total Traffic Network Launches Traffic Information Service for HD Radio
Expands existing Traffic Navigation Service Coverage to 19 More Markets

"Clear Channel starts Traffic information on HD Radio in the US"

"Clear Channel is working with a variety of receiver manufacturers to make the specially-equipped receivers available by the end of this year, said the company."

http://www.rssmicro.com/?f=0&st=U.S.+Traffic&fid=66159025

Just answered my own question - yup, new receivers will have to be bought, just like for accessing the RadioGuard protected HD channels. How many rounds of HD radios do you expect consumers to have to purchase ?

 

[rwagoner]

But HD Digital Radio Alliance president/CEO Peter Ferrara acknowledged what many in the terrestrial radio business have been complaining about recently: There are too few HD Radio receivers in automobiles, where most Americans listen to radio. Ferrara says it will be hard for broadcasters to wrestle carmakers' attention from the satcasters until there is more mainstream demand for HD receivers in cars.

And, for the first time this year, reports the Post, subscriptions for XM and Sirius are growing, through their partnerships with automakers including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Honda. Ferrara sees that as more of a threat to the widespread adoption of HD Radio. "If they [merge], they can control the dashboard," Ferrara tells the Post about the satellite companies. "They already have the partnerships. They could block us out."

"Satellite showdown" CNNMoney.com

"Satellite radio is a viable business model. Every car is going to have satellite radio eventually. Think of the number of cars out there, and how more people are getting used to the service, he said."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/07/technology/satellite/index.htm

If true, HD is DOA !

What is the reason that you are so ticked off about HD/IBOC? Your many negative posts make me think it is somehow personal.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

What is the reason that you are so ticked off about HD/IBOC? Your many negative posts make me think it is somehow personal.

A lot of people are ticked off because it is jamming both bands with adjacent channel interference. It is a thinly veiled attempt to jam smaller broadcasters and rim shots right off the dial. Once in a while an advocate actually slips up and states that plainly.

It is a "fix" to something that wasn't broken - the sound of radios. Fixes to the sound quality have been around for decades - AMax, diversity antennas, stereo blending, etc. FM could also adopt the Canadian equalization curve and sound MUCH better - I've heard 20 Hz to 18 kHz on some Canadian stations. Broadcast radio is in trouble due to competition from satellite and iPods. The problem is bland formats approved by corporate legal - and people want none of them. I don't know how many times I've heard a local DJ say "I can't say that, the legal department wouldn't like it." Or "I have to get that approved through the head office in New York." Fix that problem, radio will get listeners back.

The whole thing sounds like high pressure (brainwashing) sales pitches. I can almost reconstruct the sales pitch stations must be getting - a lot of advocates sound like they have been cloned, spouting out the same words over and over again like invasion of the body snatchers or something. It freaks me out a bit - what's in that coffee the IBOC sales people undoubted serve station owners and engineers. Any attempt to criticize the technology based on sound engineering is met with anger, arrogance, and denial. This is a sure sign that Ibiquity knew from the start it was going to be an uphill battle, there was something inherently wrong with the technology (it jams adjacents), and they needed high pressure brainwashing sales techniques to sell it.

It ignores existing AM listeners by making AM sound horrific on all existing radios - which accounts for 99.99% of the audience right now. And any attempt to prove that is met by denial - no matter how many radios I buy and do an engineering tear down of to prove my point that virually all new designs are subject to IBOC self jamming noise, I am met by the same arrogant denial I just talked about above. Get used to it - all new AM radio designs are wideband because of their cheap IF design and sound like a waterfall mixed with a million angry crickets when you tune an HD station!

It ignores the interests of perhaps hundreds of thousands of NPR listeners on the East coast, who are listening to first adjacents in tightly packed metro areas. There are account after account of people being disenfranchised from listening to a public radio station because of IBOC on a station slightly closer. Not everybody lives under a tower, and metro areas of the East often are closely spaced, people living out in suburbs are equidistant from two or more city centers. All I get from arrogant IBOC advocates is the nonsensical statement "you were never supposed to listen to first adjacents". Yeah - with 1940's technology. And in THEIR dreams, you ought to be listening to their glorious station(s) instead of a first adjacent. To them, legalized jamming is a good thing. The reality of the technology is that now, with adaptive IF, listening to first adjacents is easy - commonplace. If broadcasters were smart, they would be lobbying right now to lower the spacing requirements so they could put more stations on the air (that they would own), and make more money.

HD-2 is going to become pay-per-listen - the technology is out there, it was demonstrated, and the chance to rake money in from niche audiences is too tempting to pass up, especially when ad revenue is falling. Good luck with that ---- personally I think it will backfire and drive even more defections to satellite. But why the pretense that HD radio will always be "free" - when the technology to make it subscription is already being announced? We KNOW its all about money, at least do us the favor of announcing it.

Some of us "outmodes" who DX are working over time trying to help a new generation of DX'ers, some only 12 to 15 miles from towers, get enough signal into HD radios to get reliable decode. We see the folly of a system that forces consumers to do something it has been proved they will NOT do - become antenna tinkerers. A percentage might tinker with antennas for a format. But the system is defective when it doesn't work with internal antennas - which for decades have been adequate for local stations. You want to attract younger audiences who are always "on the go"? MAKE IT WORK, the first time out of the box. Box open - radio on table top - turn on - HD with no hassles. Or else: market failure!!!

Put something on HD-2 people care to hear. Not clunkers like Spanish top 40, pride (gay) radio, all Beatles, etc. You program to tiny niche audiences like that, nobody will buy a radio for it.

You asked -----

 

[radiopilot]

What is the reason that you are so ticked off about HD/IBOC? Your many negative posts make me think it is somehow personal.

A lot of people are ticked off because it is jamming both bands with adjacent channel interference. It is a thinly veiled attempt to jam smaller broadcasters and rim shots right off the dial. Once in a while an advocate actually slips up and states that plainly.

It is a "fix" to something that wasn't broken - the sound of radios. Fixes to the sound quality have been around for decades - AMax, diversity antennas, stereo blending, etc. FM could also adopt the Canadian equalization curve and sound MUCH better - I've heard 20 Hz to 18 kHz on some Canadian stations. Broadcast radio is in trouble due to competition from satellite and iPods. The problem is bland formats approved by corporate legal - and people want none of them. I don't know how many times I've heard a local DJ say "I can't say that, the legal department wouldn't like it." Or "I have to get that approved through the head office in New York." Fix that problem, radio will get listeners back.

The whole thing sounds like high pressure (brainwashing) sales pitches. I can almost reconstruct the sales pitch stations must be getting - a lot of advocates sound like they have been cloned, spouting out the same words over and over again like invasion of the body snatchers or something. It freaks me out a bit - what's in that coffee the IBOC sales people undoubted serve station owners and engineers. Any attempt to criticize the technology based on sound engineering is met with anger, arrogance, and denial. This is a sure sign that Ibiquity knew from the start it was going to be an uphill battle, there was something inherently wrong with the technology (it jams adjacents), and they needed high pressure brainwashing sales techniques to sell it.

It ignores existing AM listeners by making AM sound horrific on all existing radios - which accounts for 99.99% of the audience right now. And any attempt to prove that is met by denial - no matter how many radios I buy and do an engineering tear down of to prove my point that virually all new designs are subject to IBOC self jamming noise, I am met by the same arrogant denial I just talked about above. Get used to it - all new AM radio designs are wideband because of their cheap IF design and sound like a waterfall mixed with a million angry crickets when you tune an HD station!

It ignores the interests of perhaps hundreds of thousands of NPR listeners on the East coast, who are listening to first adjacents in tightly packed metro areas. There are account after account of people being disenfranchised from listening to a public radio station because of IBOC on a station slightly closer. Not everybody lives under a tower, and metro areas of the East often are closely spaced, people living out in suburbs are equidistant from two or more city centers. All I get from arrogant IBOC advocates is the nonsensical statement "you were never supposed to listen to first adjacents". Yeah - with 1940's technology. And in THEIR dreams, you ought to be listening to their glorious station(s) instead of a first adjacent. To them, legalized jamming is a good thing. The reality of the technology is that now, with adaptive IF, listening to first adjacents is easy - commonplace. If broadcasters were smart, they would be lobbying right now to lower the spacing requirements so they could put more stations on the air (that they would own), and make more money.

HD-2 is going to become pay-per-listen - the technology is out there, it was demonstrated, and the chance to rake money in from niche audiences is too tempting to pass up, especially when ad revenue is falling. Good luck with that ---- personally I think it will backfire and drive even more defections to satellite. But why the pretense that HD radio will always be "free" - when the technology to make it subscription is already being announced? We KNOW its all about money, at least do us the favor of announcing it.

Some of us "outmodes" who DX are working over time trying to help a new generation of DX'ers, some only 12 to 15 miles from towers, get enough signal into HD radios to get reliable decode. We see the folly of a system that forces consumers to do something it has been proved they will NOT do - become antenna tinkerers. A percentage might tinker with antennas for a format. But the system is defective when it doesn't work with internal antennas - which for decades have been adequate for local stations. You want to attract younger audiences who are always "on the go"? MAKE IT WORK, the first time out of the box. Box open - radio on table top - turn on - HD with no hassles. Or else: market failure!!!

Put something on HD-2 people care to hear. Not clunkers like Spanish top 40, pride (gay) radio, all Beatles, etc. You program to tiny niche audiences like that, nobody will buy a radio for it.

You asked -----

Excellent point rbrucecarter5, if the pro-hd alliance doesn't understand one word you said then it's their fault for the demise of terrestrial radio and HD more or less put the last knife into it.

Although I don't understand the last comment about Spanish Top-40, being of Spanish heritage myself this does very well in communities that have large Spanish populations and it does what it's intended to do... serve that community.

Radiopilot

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Although I don't understand the last comment about Spanish Top-40, being of Spanish heritage myself this does very well in communities that have large Spanish populations and it does what it's intended to do... serve that community.

Radiopilot

I wasn't aware there even WAS a Spanish top-40. Still sounds niche-y to me. Certainly does nothing compelling to me to buy an HD radio. I'm glad its there for folks that want it but I won't pay $200 to hear somebody else's format. Foreign language programming is not very enticing to me. There is a translator on 106.9 that plays Spanish Christian music, not bad listening even if I don't understand the words, but foreign language listener fatigue sets in pretty fast. If I want something different, a new Indian station opened up near me. Most of the time, they speak English and the music is pretty interesting.

Radio wants me to listen to commercials and buy - they better speak my language (literally and formatically). Gay and Spanish radio commercials will go unheard. By me.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

What is the reason that you are so ticked off about HD/IBOC? Your many negative posts make me think it is somehow personal.

A lot of people are ticked off because it is jamming both bands with adjacent channel interference. It is a thinly veiled attempt to jam smaller broadcasters and rim shots right off the dial. Once in a while an advocate actually slips up and states that plainly.

It is a "fix" to something that wasn't broken - the sound of radios. Fixes to the sound quality have been around for decades - AMax, diversity antennas, stereo blending, etc. FM could also adopt the Canadian equalization curve and sound MUCH better - I've heard 20 Hz to 18 kHz on some Canadian stations. Broadcast radio is in trouble due to competition from satellite and iPods. The problem is bland formats approved by corporate legal - and people want none of them. I don't know how many times I've heard a local DJ say "I can't say that, the legal department wouldn't like it." Or "I have to get that approved through the head office in New York." Fix that problem, radio will get listeners back.

The whole thing sounds like high pressure (brainwashing) sales pitches. I can almost reconstruct the sales pitch stations must be getting - a lot of advocates sound like they have been cloned, spouting out the same words over and over again like invasion of the body snatchers or something. It freaks me out a bit - what's in that coffee the IBOC sales people undoubted serve station owners and engineers. Any attempt to criticize the technology based on sound engineering is met with anger, arrogance, and denial. This is a sure sign that Ibiquity knew from the start it was going to be an uphill battle, there was something inherently wrong with the technology (it jams adjacents), and they needed high pressure brainwashing sales techniques to sell it.

It ignores existing AM listeners by making AM sound horrific on all existing radios - which accounts for 99.99% of the audience right now. And any attempt to prove that is met by denial - no matter how many radios I buy and do an engineering tear down of to prove my point that virually all new designs are subject to IBOC self jamming noise, I am met by the same arrogant denial I just talked about above. Get used to it - all new AM radio designs are wideband because of their cheap IF design and sound like a waterfall mixed with a million angry crickets when you tune an HD station!

It ignores the interests of perhaps hundreds of thousands of NPR listeners on the East coast, who are listening to first adjacents in tightly packed metro areas. There are account after account of people being disenfranchised from listening to a public radio station because of IBOC on a station slightly closer. Not everybody lives under a tower, and metro areas of the East often are closely spaced, people living out in suburbs are equidistant from two or more city centers. All I get from arrogant IBOC advocates is the nonsensical statement "you were never supposed to listen to first adjacents". Yeah - with 1940's technology. And in THEIR dreams, you ought to be listening to their glorious station(s) instead of a first adjacent. To them, legalized jamming is a good thing. The reality of the technology is that now, with adaptive IF, listening to first adjacents is easy - commonplace. If broadcasters were smart, they would be lobbying right now to lower the spacing requirements so they could put more stations on the air (that they would own), and make more money.

HD-2 is going to become pay-per-listen - the technology is out there, it was demonstrated, and the chance to rake money in from niche audiences is too tempting to pass up, especially when ad revenue is falling. Good luck with that ---- personally I think it will backfire and drive even more defections to satellite. But why the pretense that HD radio will always be "free" - when the technology to make it subscription is already being announced? We KNOW its all about money, at least do us the favor of announcing it.

Some of us "outmodes" who DX are working over time trying to help a new generation of DX'ers, some only 12 to 15 miles from towers, get enough signal into HD radios to get reliable decode. We see the folly of a system that forces consumers to do something it has been proved they will NOT do - become antenna tinkerers. A percentage might tinker with antennas for a format. But the system is defective when it doesn't work with internal antennas - which for decades have been adequate for local stations. You want to attract younger audiences who are always "on the go"? MAKE IT WORK, the first time out of the box. Box open - radio on table top - turn on - HD with no hassles. Or else: market failure!!!

Put something on HD-2 people care to hear. Not clunkers like Spanish top 40, pride (gay) radio, all Beatles, etc. You program to tiny niche audiences like that, nobody will buy a radio for it.

You asked -----

Thanks for this post. I agree completely. I wish MasterThesus, and other HD supporters would take your post seriously.

 

[PocketRadio]

Thanks for this post. I agree completely. I wish MasterThesus, and other HD supporters would take your post seriously.

RWOnline wants me to write a blurb on HD Radio to counter one of their recent HD shill articles - I wonder if, rbrucecater5 would be willing to submit his excellent post, instead ?

 

[dxho]

Bruce makes great points, and I've seen Dave Eduardo's responses. Dave is probably right about where the money is going, though, which is depressing and a little scary. iow, most stations have and will continue to format to the lowest common denominator, which in my mind guarantees demand for satellite and internet radio outlets.

A bigger issue might be actually selling HD radios in any quantity. I'll probably have to buy one just to protect myself from that awful adjacent-channel splatter. I hear the Sangean HDT-1 has great selectivity

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Thanks for this post. I agree completely. I wish MasterThesus, and other HD supporters would take your post seriously.

RWOnline wants me to write a blurb on HD Radio to counter one of their recent HD shill articles - I wonder if, rbrucecater5 would be willing to submit his excellent post, instead ?

This sounds wierd - but please submit it under your name. Since I work for one of the IC makers heavily vested in this clunky technology, I would be a bit uncomfortable with my name in there. Now that it appears IBOC is on the defensive, scared of the truth, failing in the marketplace with consumers - there WILL be a witch hunt of people to blame. I don't want my name at the top of the list - you might as well paint a big target on my back if you use my name in RWOnline!!!

 

[PocketRadio]

Thanks for this post. I agree completely. I wish MasterThesus, and other HD supporters would take your post seriously.

RWOnline wants me to write a blurb on HD Radio to counter one of their recent HD shill articles - I wonder if, rbrucecater5 would be willing to submit his excellent post, instead ?

This sounds wierd - but please submit it under your name. Since I work for one of the IC makers heavily vested in this clunky technology, I would be a bit uncomfortable with my name in there. Now that it appears IBOC is on the defensive, scared of the truth, failing in the marketplace with consumers - there WILL be a witch hunt of people to blame. I don't want my name at the top of the list - you might as well paint a big target on my back if you use my name in RWOnline!!!

Wierd ? I was just giving you a complement, and wondering if you would be interested in submitting your post... Geeez.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Thanks for this post. I agree completely. I wish MasterThesus, and other HD supporters would take your post seriously.

RWOnline wants me to write a blurb on HD Radio to counter one of their recent HD shill articles - I wonder if, rbrucecater5 would be willing to submit his excellent post, instead ?

This sounds wierd - but please submit it under your name. Since I work for one of the IC makers heavily vested in this clunky technology, I would be a bit uncomfortable with my name in there. Now that it appears IBOC is on the defensive, scared of the truth, failing in the marketplace with consumers - there WILL be a witch hunt of people to blame. I don't want my name at the top of the list - you might as well paint a big target on my back if you use my name in RWOnline!!!

Just for clarification and conformation. I believe what you said was, don't use your name (Bruce) or moniker (rbrucecarter5) as the author. Submit the content under my (or pocket's) own name.
Am I correct?
I don't think any slight was intended toward pocket, or anyone.

 

[PocketRadio]

Just for clarification and conformation. I believe what you said was, don't use your name (Bruce) or moniker (rbrucecarter5) as the author. Submit the content under my (or pocket's) own name.
Am I correct?
I don't think any slight was intended toward pocket, or anyone.

My bad, then...