-
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
HD Radio-programming
- Thread starter SUPERCASTER
- Start date
I
IBOCRocks
Guest
SUPERCASTER said:
He'd be right if that comment were contained to the HD version of the analog channel. So far, I've listened to commercial-free, announcer free, quality channels of Dance, Blues, Oldies, and Classic Country, to name a few...more than 20 songs, and no jingles.
It's funny how the people who make the most noise and the ones who think they have the most knowledge on the subject. Unfortunately, it's usually not true.
S
SayNoToIBOC
Guest
And, all that redundant terrestrial garbage is free - what about that $300 you had to plunk down for that ugly desktop Receptor HD radio. If it was really free, then HD Radio would be able to utilize the existing 800 million analog radios. Instead, of buying a very attractive Satellite Radio boom-box for $69, and having monthly fees, you have just paid for HD Radio up front ! Oh boy, I am so glad you are enjoying your HD Radio experience ! 
IBOCROCKS WROTE: So far, I've listened to commercial-free, announcer free, quality channels of Dance, Blues, Oldies, and Classic Country, to name a few...more than 20 songs, and no jingles. It's funny how the people who make the most noise and the ones who think they have the most knowledge on the subject. Unfortunately, it's usually not true.
Ditto. The new FM HDs are fantastic. It would be great if they put talk shows on the HD3s and HD4s such as Limbaugh, Savage, Laura Ingram and Hannity.
Ditto. The new FM HDs are fantastic. It would be great if they put talk shows on the HD3s and HD4s such as Limbaugh, Savage, Laura Ingram and Hannity.
Fortunately I can hear almost all those programs for free and thousands more, worldwide, streaming on the internet. Even wireless by WIFI. No need for a $300.00 Boston Acoustics tabletop HD Radio that limits me to a few local HD Radio streams, within the primary coverage of a few local radio stations, the length of my extension cord, and ability to drag along AM and FM antennas and keep them properly oriented so I don't loose the HD Radio signal.Len14043 said:
D
dbdigital
Guest
SayNoToIBOC said:And, all that redundant terrestrial garbage is free - what about that $300 you had to plunk down for that ugly desktop Receptor HD radio. If it was really free, then HD Radio would be able to utilize the existing 800 million analog radios. Instead, of buying a very attractive Satellite Radio boom-box for $69, and having monthly fees, you have just paid for HD Radio up front ! Oh boy, I am so glad you are enjoying your HD Radio experience !
IBOC boosters really put a lot of traction on the "free" aspect of terrestrial commercial radio as if a 15 minute block of commercials, something you're likely to hear on any popular LA morning show, is not heavy price to pay to any listener's sanity.
But facts indicate that people are not always impressed by or loyal to something just because it's "free". A case in point is television. Today only 14% of the U.S. population watches TV using an antenna. The rest either have cable or satellite because they want more choices and are willing to pay a monthly fee to get it.
So simply saying that the public will adopt HD Radio because it's "free" as well as digital is making a weak argument and disregarding the entertainment habits of the American people.
db
I
IBOCRocks
Guest
dbdigital said:SayNoToIBOC said:And, all that redundant terrestrial garbage is free - what about that $300 you had to plunk down for that ugly desktop Receptor HD radio. If it was really free, then HD Radio would be able to utilize the existing 800 million analog radios. Instead, of buying a very attractive Satellite Radio boom-box for $69, and having monthly fees, you have just paid for HD Radio up front ! Oh boy, I am so glad you are enjoying your HD Radio experience !
IBOC boosters really put a lot of traction on the "free" aspect of terrestrial commercial radio as if a 15 minute block of commercials, something you're likely to hear on any popular LA morning show, is not heavy price to pay to any listener's sanity.
But facts indicate that people are not always impressed by or loyal to something just because it's "free". A case in point is television. Today only 14% of the U.S. population watches TV using an antenna. The rest either have cable or satellite because they want more choices and are willing to pay a monthly fee to get it.
So simply saying that the public will adopt HD Radio because it's "free" as well as digital is making a weak argument and disregarding the entertainment habits of the American people.
db
Funny - they pay for satellite and cable...only to see commercials! You're also mixing entertainment "apples and oranges". Television is a bigger entertainment draw than radio. People generally spend more time with it, and use it differently. How long has sat radio been available? New subscriptions are slowing down, while radio is still very strong. Plus, HD2 has no commercials. So for a one time cost, you can have a radio in your car that allows you to listen to your iPod, play a CD, or listen to analog or digital radio.
I don't know why you people think that using an iPod, WiMax, radio, or CD's are mutually exclusive. People listen to all of them. Which means they will all co-exist.
They say people can be blinded by hate. Some people here prove it.
1
1q2w3e
Guest
Len14043 said:
I know of stations working on that. Hang in there. It will happen.
D
dbdigital
Guest
IBOCRocks said:dbdigital said:SayNoToIBOC said:And, all that redundant terrestrial garbage is free - what about that $300 you had to plunk down for that ugly desktop Receptor HD radio. If it was really free, then HD Radio would be able to utilize the existing 800 million analog radios. Instead, of buying a very attractive Satellite Radio boom-box for $69, and having monthly fees, you have just paid for HD Radio up front ! Oh boy, I am so glad you are enjoying your HD Radio experience !
IBOC boosters really put a lot of traction on the "free" aspect of terrestrial commercial radio as if a 15 minute block of commercials, something you're likely to hear on any popular LA morning show, is not heavy price to pay to any listener's sanity.
But facts indicate that people are not always impressed by or loyal to something just because it's "free". A case in point is television. Today only 14% of the U.S. population watches TV using an antenna. The rest either have cable or satellite because they want more choices and are willing to pay a monthly fee to get it.
So simply saying that the public will adopt HD Radio because it's "free" as well as digital is making a weak argument and disregarding the entertainment habits of the American people.
db
Funny - they pay for satellite and cable...only to see commercials! You're also mixing entertainment "apples and oranges". Television is a bigger entertainment draw than radio. People generally spend more time with it, and use it differently. How long has sat radio been available? New subscriptions are slowing down, while radio is still very strong. Plus, HD2 has no commercials. So for a one time cost, you can have a radio in your car that allows you to listen to your iPod, play a CD, or listen to analog or digital radio.
I don't know why you people think that using an iPod, WiMax, radio, or CD's are mutually exclusive. People listen to all of them. Which means they will all co-exist.
They say people can be blinded by hate. Some people here prove it.
As you well know, not all cable and satellite TV channels have commercials. While it is true that TV is more engaging than radio, they're both vehicles for entertainment and information. The point that I'm making is that people do not mind paying for something on a monthly basis if they find that it meets their needs and desires and are not necessarily impressed with something simply because it's "free" if it doesn't.
I also find it disingenuous when broadcasters trumpet "free" radio at the expense of satellite when it was commercial broadcasters along with the NAB and their powerful lobby who put satellite radio in the position of being a subscription only service in the first place as well as preventing it from broadcasting local content. (Forbes, Sept. 6, 2004 p. 134). The point about HD2 channels being commercial free is not totally honest because we know that this moratorium is only temporary and as a "come on" to get the public to buy HD Radio.
Of course, all the technologies you mention can co-exist but only IF terrestrial broadcasters, the NAB (and for that matter the RIAA) will let them alone and not try to lobby and legislate them out of existance while preserving and strengthening their interests. So far, they've all had poor track record.
db
I
I.B. Iquity
Guest
"As you well know, not all cable and satellite TV channels have commercials."
I can think of maybe 2 or 3 "free" cable channels on cable TV. Other than that, if you want commercial free entertainment you pay extra for it. channels such as HBO, Showtime etc all have charges above and beyond the cost of cable alone. XM & Sirrius also have their "premium" channels.
"The point that I'm making is that people do not mind paying for something on a monthly basis if they find that it meets their needs and desires and are not necessarily impressed with something simply because it's "free" if it doesn't."
You're correct people will pay for entertainment, but there is a limit. With the cost of the cable bills getting higher and higher, the high speed internet monthly expense, Movie prices at 9$ (and with that you get 5 to 10 minutes of commercials before the movie starts), sports, concerts, and on and on, most people don't want to pay for radio. Radio is in many instances used as audible wall paper. You can say that what is 12 dollars a month (and of course that doesn't include the start up cost, which they mention in their spots but never say how much that is), but over a year that's nearly 150$. Prices aren't going down and you could spend that 150$ on the music you want to listen to by filling your I-Pod (or other devise) with music.
"I also find it disingenuous when broadcasters trumpet "free" radio at the expense of satellite when it was commercial broadcasters along with the NAB and their powerful lobby who put satellite radio in the position of being a subscription only service in the first place as well as preventing it from broadcasting local content."
That is business. Radio owners are interested in one thing and that is their survival. It wasn't until DirecTV and Dish Net were able to carry local stations that they became successful. People want local content. You'll have to tell me when the sats wanted to operate as free content providers? I never knew that didn't want to operate as a subsciption service. Of course the fact that a single operator can provide over 100 channels of audio nationaly puts them at an unfair advantage and that is why old line terrestrial broadcasters went after them.
"(Forbes, Sept. 6, 2004 p. 134). The point about HD2 channels being commercial free is not totally honest because we know that this moratorium is only temporary and as a "come on" to get the public to buy HD Radio."
To the best of my knowledge no station has claimed that their HD product will rmeain commercial free forever. There is an agreement that their HD 2 & HD 3 streams will remain commercial free for at least another year.
"Of course, all the technologies you mention can co-exist but only IF terrestrial broadcasters, the NAB (and for that matter the RIAA) will let them alone and not try to lobby and legislate them out of existance while preserving and strengthening their interests. So far, they've all had poor track record."
That is the world we live in. If terestrial broadcasters had their way both sats would diappear, that is business. The RIAA has nothing to do with broadcasters, other than charging them a hefty fee to play music on their radio stations. What you want is a clear field for XM & Sirrius. We don't live in that kind of world, at least here in the US. What broadcasters are doing is standard business practice.
I can think of maybe 2 or 3 "free" cable channels on cable TV. Other than that, if you want commercial free entertainment you pay extra for it. channels such as HBO, Showtime etc all have charges above and beyond the cost of cable alone. XM & Sirrius also have their "premium" channels.
"The point that I'm making is that people do not mind paying for something on a monthly basis if they find that it meets their needs and desires and are not necessarily impressed with something simply because it's "free" if it doesn't."
You're correct people will pay for entertainment, but there is a limit. With the cost of the cable bills getting higher and higher, the high speed internet monthly expense, Movie prices at 9$ (and with that you get 5 to 10 minutes of commercials before the movie starts), sports, concerts, and on and on, most people don't want to pay for radio. Radio is in many instances used as audible wall paper. You can say that what is 12 dollars a month (and of course that doesn't include the start up cost, which they mention in their spots but never say how much that is), but over a year that's nearly 150$. Prices aren't going down and you could spend that 150$ on the music you want to listen to by filling your I-Pod (or other devise) with music.
"I also find it disingenuous when broadcasters trumpet "free" radio at the expense of satellite when it was commercial broadcasters along with the NAB and their powerful lobby who put satellite radio in the position of being a subscription only service in the first place as well as preventing it from broadcasting local content."
That is business. Radio owners are interested in one thing and that is their survival. It wasn't until DirecTV and Dish Net were able to carry local stations that they became successful. People want local content. You'll have to tell me when the sats wanted to operate as free content providers? I never knew that didn't want to operate as a subsciption service. Of course the fact that a single operator can provide over 100 channels of audio nationaly puts them at an unfair advantage and that is why old line terrestrial broadcasters went after them.
"(Forbes, Sept. 6, 2004 p. 134). The point about HD2 channels being commercial free is not totally honest because we know that this moratorium is only temporary and as a "come on" to get the public to buy HD Radio."
To the best of my knowledge no station has claimed that their HD product will rmeain commercial free forever. There is an agreement that their HD 2 & HD 3 streams will remain commercial free for at least another year.
"Of course, all the technologies you mention can co-exist but only IF terrestrial broadcasters, the NAB (and for that matter the RIAA) will let them alone and not try to lobby and legislate them out of existance while preserving and strengthening their interests. So far, they've all had poor track record."
That is the world we live in. If terestrial broadcasters had their way both sats would diappear, that is business. The RIAA has nothing to do with broadcasters, other than charging them a hefty fee to play music on their radio stations. What you want is a clear field for XM & Sirrius. We don't live in that kind of world, at least here in the US. What broadcasters are doing is standard business practice.
S
SayNoToIBOC
Guest
IBOCRocks wrote: "Funny - they pay for satellite and cable...only to see commercials! You're also mixing entertainment "apples and oranges". Television is a bigger entertainment draw than radio. People generally spend more time with it, and use it differently. How long has sat radio been available? New subscriptions are slowing down, while radio is still very strong. Plus, HD2 has no commercials. So for a one time cost, you can have a radio in your car that allows you to listen to your iPod, play a CD, or listen to analog or digital radio. I don't know why you people think that using an iPod, WiMax, radio, or CD's are mutually exclusive. People listen to all of them. Which means they will all co-exist. They say people can be blinded by hate. Some people here prove it."
They say some people can be blinded by shilling - some people here prove it.
If you are including me, I never stated that all these technologies are mutally-exclusive - I just stated, that people watch TV, play computer games, access the Internet, listen to CDs, listen to iPods and MP3 players, and watch DVDs MUCH, MUCH MORE than listen to AM/FM radio. BTW, the Bridge Ratings have terrestrial radio declining in popularity out to the middle of the century, with an explosion in Wireless Internet and Internet Radio, in no small part due to Wi-Max. You keep touting that HD Radio is free, and that is going to be terrestrial radio's savior (although, Mark Ramsey would certainly disagree with you), but in reality, with the outrageous costs of HD Radio receivers, people are just paying for HD Radio up-front (remember, iBiquity gets a piece of this pie, plus those outrageous up-front and yearly licensing fees from stations). Clear Channel is looking into adding commercials to the HD channels - with declining revenues, they will have no other choice, and it is bound to happen just like every thing else.
Your statement that radio remains strong is completely false - radio revenues have continued to slide:
"Radio revenues fall at Clear Channel"
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-30-2003-43634.asp
They say some people can be blinded by shilling - some people here prove it.
If you are including me, I never stated that all these technologies are mutally-exclusive - I just stated, that people watch TV, play computer games, access the Internet, listen to CDs, listen to iPods and MP3 players, and watch DVDs MUCH, MUCH MORE than listen to AM/FM radio. BTW, the Bridge Ratings have terrestrial radio declining in popularity out to the middle of the century, with an explosion in Wireless Internet and Internet Radio, in no small part due to Wi-Max. You keep touting that HD Radio is free, and that is going to be terrestrial radio's savior (although, Mark Ramsey would certainly disagree with you), but in reality, with the outrageous costs of HD Radio receivers, people are just paying for HD Radio up-front (remember, iBiquity gets a piece of this pie, plus those outrageous up-front and yearly licensing fees from stations). Clear Channel is looking into adding commercials to the HD channels - with declining revenues, they will have no other choice, and it is bound to happen just like every thing else.
Your statement that radio remains strong is completely false - radio revenues have continued to slide:
"Radio revenues fall at Clear Channel"
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-30-2003-43634.asp
S
SayNoToIBOC
Guest
Wi-Max is a delivery protocol, like Wi-Fi, and will bring Wireless Internet and Internet Radio to portable devices, including automobile radios by 2008. With the outrageous up-front costs of HD Radios, HD Radio is not really free. Like everything else, you get what you pay for - terrestrial radio is garbage. Also, Clear Channel is looking into adding commercials to the HD channels, so with declining revenues, it is bound to happen.
I
IBOCRocks
Guest
HD Ready said:
If history repeats itself, probably $40/month. If you can get it. The up-front price of the first radios will be outrageous, just like the first generation of anything.
It will be decades before it's rolled out everywhere, if at all. Seeing as the company rolling it out needs to make a buck, you'll see it in the "desirable" areas first. Just like DSL and FTTH.
Of course, you may get a WiMAX signal with a 7-foot dipole(tm)!!
S
SayNoToIBOC
Guest
IBOCRocks wrote: "Quote from: HD Ready on Today at 06:58:43 am
How much does it cost to access wi-max? If history repeats itself, probably $40/month. If you can get it. The up-front price of the first radios will be outrageous, just like the first generation of anything.It will be decades before it's rolled out everywhere, if at all. Seeing as the company rolling it out needs to make a buck, you'll see it in the "desirable" areas first. Just like DSL and FTTH.Of course, you may get a WiMAX signal with a 7-foot dipole(tm)!!"
Wi-Max, like Wi-Fi, is a delivery protocol and does not cost anything - it
will deliver Wireless Internet and Internet Radio to portable devices and automobile radios by 2008, and has already been demonstrated in automobile radios in Canada. Wi-Max will put Internet Radio into cellular phones, too, as Motorola has put iRadio into their cellular phones - and, how big is a cellular phone's antenna ! Cingular and Sprint already have 50 channels of radio available in their cellular phones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX
http://www.wimaxxed.com/wimaxxed_news/20060622/wimax_demo_send.html
So, another ignorant statement, because you have no idea of the cost of the portable devices. Making a buck - who is making money from the outrageous cost of HD radios and IBOC licenseing fees ? Oh, let me guess - iBiquity !
How much does it cost to access wi-max? If history repeats itself, probably $40/month. If you can get it. The up-front price of the first radios will be outrageous, just like the first generation of anything.It will be decades before it's rolled out everywhere, if at all. Seeing as the company rolling it out needs to make a buck, you'll see it in the "desirable" areas first. Just like DSL and FTTH.Of course, you may get a WiMAX signal with a 7-foot dipole(tm)!!"
Wi-Max, like Wi-Fi, is a delivery protocol and does not cost anything - it
will deliver Wireless Internet and Internet Radio to portable devices and automobile radios by 2008, and has already been demonstrated in automobile radios in Canada. Wi-Max will put Internet Radio into cellular phones, too, as Motorola has put iRadio into their cellular phones - and, how big is a cellular phone's antenna ! Cingular and Sprint already have 50 channels of radio available in their cellular phones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX
http://www.wimaxxed.com/wimaxxed_news/20060622/wimax_demo_send.html
So, another ignorant statement, because you have no idea of the cost of the portable devices. Making a buck - who is making money from the outrageous cost of HD radios and IBOC licenseing fees ? Oh, let me guess - iBiquity !
S
SayNoToIBOC
Guest
With the outrageous prices of HD radios, just means that people are paying for HD Radio up-front. Actually, Wi-Max will probably utilize existing cellular phone networks, so any cost should be minimal - hell, to be able to get hundreds and hundreds of radio channels, from all over the world, is surely worth a fee, as an option on a cellular phone plan !
S
SaynotoIB0C
Guest
Actually, I take allI said about IBOC back....
I am a closet IBOC'r
I have a receptor in every room and a kenwood in every car!
death to FM EXTRA , it interferes with reading services!
I am a closet IBOC'r
I have a receptor in every room and a kenwood in every car!
death to FM EXTRA , it interferes with reading services!
D
dbdigital
Guest
I.B. Iquity said:
I'm not looking for a clear field for satellite radio but a level one. Satellite and terrestrial broadcasting should be able to compete without government hamstringing or perks. Any business that needs government interference to help it compete isn't worth spit.
I threw the RIAA into the mix because of their disasterous insistance on DRM which will adversely affect most of the technologies you mention, including HD Radio.
db
S
SayNoToIBOC
Guest
SaynotoIBOC, you have been reported to management for masquerading as, SayNoToIBOC.
- Status