"HD Radio: The 'HD' must stand for 'Half Dead'"

[PocketRadio]

"HD Radio: The 'HD' must stand for 'Half Dead'"

"Got an HD Radio. What a piece of crap. In the MP3 player world, this particular unit looks like a Heath Kit from 1968... Turns out it was a wobbly, unattached-to-anything shelf -- as I discovered when I tried to turn the radio around to see the rear connections. This thing has AM stereo written all over it. In other words, a big, BIG flop..."

http://revolution-21.blogspot.com/2007/06/hd-radio-hd-must-stand-for-half-dead.html

Hey - I built a HeathKit Star Roamer in 1968 !

 

[Mike Walker]

Can you do anything, ANYTHING EVER but post links to someone else's thoughts and/or conclusions. Are you capable of your own? Wait...that would involve having some experience with HD radio (which you've admitted you don't). So by your own admission, you don't know what you're talking about. "HD...must stand for half dead BRAIN CELLS".

 

[Tom Wells]

Thanks for another gem of opinion from the real world of real listeners, PocketRadio. Keep up the good work.

They think your posts and behavior are annoying. This is good.
As long as ibiquity's splatter trashes the broadcast bands, such persistent commentary and bad news should continue, if
only to give the HD proponents "equal annoyance".

It also adds some sport to what is basically watching ibiquity steal and corporatize electromagnetic spectrum.

Your fact-finding and reporting are much appreciated. I check ALL the links you have provided.

It is odd they find your behavior annoying, while approving of the methods of ibiquity.

 

[PocketRadio]

Thanks for another gem of opinion from the real world of real listeners, PocketRadio. Keep up the good work.

They think your posts and behavior are annoying. This is good.
As long as ibiquity's splatter trashes the broadcast bands, such persistent commentary and bad news should continue, if
only to give the HD proponents "equal annoyance".

It also adds some sport to what is basically watching ibiquity steal and corporatize electromagnetic spectrum.

Your fact-finding and reporting are much appreciated. I check ALL the links you have provided.

It is odd they find your behavior annoying, while approving of the methods of ibiquity.

You are certainly welcome - some of these blogs are too good to pass up, and yes, they do reflect what consumers are really thinking about HD Radio. I realize that some links may be a waste of time, but it is amusing watching some of the posters' reactions. Too bad, this board won't determine the fate of HD Radio, but I do hope that Peter Ferrera reads this site, as he does Jacob's Blog.

Greg Smith
Olney, Md. (or close)

 

[Mike Walker]

More wisdom from the world of Baghdad Bob, where up is down, black is white, and facts are never...well factual.

 

[Tom Wells]

I hardly find ibiquity's "facts" to be factual.
They select radios from current production ONLY and construe THAT to be representative of the radios in the public's use?

Then they say "some listening might be affected"?

Then they say "Nobody needs audio over 5khz anyway".

OK, brickwall the HD-AM audio at 5khz too, and then I'll begin to take ibiquity seriously.

While in Stevens Point Wisconsin ( University of Wisconsin town ) yesterday, I interviewed the Radio Shack manager.

No one but me has asked about HD, and they are not stocking the Accurian.
NONE of the college students there seems to have any interest.

Let's not forget that common-law concepts of tresspass go back to the Magna Carta and even the old testament of the bible.
It is so simple even a 4-year old can get it.
When the old lady yells "Get off my grass!", she is within her rights.
Standing next to her property line, and taunting her from "just over the line" is ibquity's childish position of "legal".
I have little respect from those who found a corporation based on theft of services.

I pray some legal means can be reached to stop the willful, intentional, repeated, malicious interference on the AM.

 

[Mike Walker]

More comments from the guy who thinks radio and coumputers shouldn't mix, and the guy who thinks a ten dollar pocket radio makes digital modes irrelevant.

You guys enjoy the station. You should have lots of privacy...seeing as how the station has already left.

BYE BYE!

 

[PocketRadio]

NONE of the college students there seems to have any interest...

"Can Sony Make HD Radio A Winner?"

"So, the old consumers don't want HD. Young consumers think the concept is laughable. Big retailers can't sell it. And radio companies won't invest in it."

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2007/05/can-sony-make-hd-radio-winner.html

Yup - who's in a better position than Jerry Del Colliano, as a professor of Music Industry at USC !

I pray some legal means can be reached to stop the willful, intentional, repeated, malicious interference on the AM.

Or, maybe there will be a mass-exodus from AM, as nighttime HD/IBOC lights-up, and AMs will be forced into bankruptcy.

 

[PocketRadio]

More comments from the guy who thinks radio and coumputers shouldn't mix, and the guy who thinks a ten dollar pocket radio makes digital modes irrelevant.

Yup, a $10 pocket-radio makes $120 - $300 HD radios irrelevant - ask any consumer !

You guys enjoy the station. You should have lots of privacy...seeing as how the station has already left.

BYE BYE!

But, the train has left without its passengers - what good is that ?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Thanks for another gem of opinion from the real world of real listeners, PocketRadio. Keep up the good work.

They think your posts and behavior are annoying. This is good.
As long as ibiquity's splatter trashes the broadcast bands, such persistent commentary and bad news should continue, if
only to give the HD proponents "equal annoyance".

It also adds some sport to what is basically watching ibiquity steal and corporatize electromagnetic spectrum.

Your fact-finding and reporting are much appreciated. I check ALL the links you have provided.

It is odd they find your behavior annoying, while approving of the methods of ibiquity.

Ditto.
As long as HR Radio folk and their supporters keep up the HD radio promotional over-hype, sales deceptions, and personal attacks, we should continue countering with the truth, wherever we find it.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

More wisdom from the world of Baghdad Bob, where up is down, black is white, and facts are never...well factual.

HD radio rebuttal.
Dear Baghdad Bob/Mike Walker,
HD Radio interference and buzz? I don't hear no stinkin' iBuzz and interference. HD radio is pure, virginal, godly, flawless, and completely untainted in my fantasies.
After all, how can the HD cartel and their conglomerates be wrong?
Only the HD cartel and their supporters have "the facts".
You have to buy an HD radio be worthy to comment on it, you can not post links to other's experiences, or evaluate HD radio by dealer demonstrations, or any other means.

Eduardo:
No listeners matter outside the 10 millivolt per meter coverage area.
There are no obligations a broadcaster has to the public. All that matters is adding to ever larger conglomerate shareholder dividends, and increasing screwy ad agency profits. Broadcasting is a business and has no obligations to the public. Broadcasters are the anointed ones, who own the public's airwaves.

I believe I got HD supporters main points and the general thrust of their assertions correct.

HD supporters are totally lost in their own fantasies and deep in denial.

 

[dbdigital]

Without a doubt HD-AM poses a real dilemma.

The only way the FCC would ever re-examine HD-AM is if it received enough legitimate complaints from stations and listeners. So far the only complaint registered (by a station in New Jersey) was found to be without merit.

But what would happen to the AM band in cities if all stations went IBOC. In Los Angeles there are some 15 AM stations. If they all converted to HD (and, indeed, all of them have the cash to do it) would it trash the AM band for analog listening? Absolutely. But who would complain? Certainly not the stations since to do so would put their own HD signals in question. The average listener wouldn't know why his/her favorite AM station suddenly went away in a haze of noise or why it started to sound so bad. In all likelihood they probably wouldn't complain but would either endure the noise, tune to some FM station, the internet or some other program source.

Finally, the FCC has a very poor record of reversing itself on decisions it has made. The agency will probably set some new rules governing nighttime HD use but I doubt it would ever prohibit HD-AM.

So, in the end, as the AM band gets further trashed with noise two things happen: the listener either converts to HD or abandons AM forever (I suspect more of the latter then the former).

Yes, it's a real dilemma.

db

 

[Tom Wells]

It all seems intentional to me, because it's all a mess of our making, due to cheap engineering,
aided by a FCC that has been a sham since about the time they abolished the 1st Class License.
(And smelled the real money coming up in cellphone tech)

Not in exactly this order, but 'proximately.
1. Eliminate clear channel protections, begin ingoring industrial and power grid noise sources.
2. Add poorly shielded televisions (always been a problem, no good excuse except cheapness)
3. Add unfiltered SCR/Triac light dimmers.
4. Add poorly filtered switching mode power supplies.
5. Add even more stations to crowded dial, and permit many more nightime ops.
6. Restrict bandwidth.
7. continue to add more nighttime ops.
8. Restrict bandwidth some more.
9. Permit signals with apparent RF noise bandwidths of 35-40 khz, while limiting actual audio RF bandwidth on the same station to 10khz.

Every step above has been the conscious choice of the FCC, despite being chartered to prevent interference!
How could this be unless the intent were to drive the AM out of existence?

Before you say that couldn't be possible, take the time to explain why the above items,
all within the jurisdiction of the FCC, were permitted and approved in direct opposition to their chartered function.
There has been a choice to make it this bad, and since the stations aren't dying off fast enough to suit them, they bring in guys with flame-throwers to ...well, flamethrowers usually leave behind a clear field and scorched earth.

 

[clouseau]

It all seems intentional to me, because it's all a mess of our making, due to cheap engineering,

Tom, much of it is cheap engineering, imho. I do thik we need to look at engineering "TODAY" though. (Unless you think we can recall the TVs and Triac Dimmers, and start rolling traffic lights and truck turnsignals back to lightbulbs.)

aided by a FCC that has been a sham since about the time they abolished the 1st Class License.
(And smelled the real money coming up in cellphone tech)

I don't care for the word "Sham", but maybe "Asleep at the wheel" I can live with.

Not in exactly this order, but 'proximately.
1. Eliminate clear channel protections,

I'm not a fan, but Chicago service in Amarillo doesn't really serve the Public Interest, Convienience and Necessity. While I liked it, I can see the rationale.

begin ingoring industrial and power grid noise sources.

Asleep at the wheel Dumbness here.

2. Add poorly shielded televisions (always been a problem, no good excuse except cheapness)

Totally Agree.

3. Add unfiltered SCR/Triac light dimmers.

Not Bright. Totally dumb

4. Add poorly filtered switching mode power supplies.

same as above. Not Intentional, but really stupid. "Asleep at the Wheel"

5. Add even more stations to crowded dial, and permit many more nightime ops.

I sort of agree with this. However a "No More Stations" policy might have actually ACCELERATED AM's decline.

6. Restrict bandwidth.

Caused by the realization that "AM" would never be "FM"

7. continue to add more nighttime ops.

Because Local is better than Skywave

8. Restrict bandwidth some more.

You gotta give 'em credit for consistency...

9. Permit signals with apparent RF noise bandwidths of 35-40 khz, while limiting actual audio RF bandwidth on the same station to 10khz.

I would assume this is the introduction of IBOC. By the time you agree to 1-8, 9 is actually a good idea. IMHO. If you can get me back to "Pre #1" I'm on board. But I'm not seeing that as possible.

Every step above has been the conscious choice of the FCC, despite being chartered to prevent interference!

I don't want to start a fight, but they have other missions besides preventing interference. Otherwise, every station in the US would be on it's own unique channel.

How could this be unless the intent were to drive the AM out of existence?

Before you say that couldn't be possible, take the time to explain why the above items,
all within the jurisdiction of the FCC, were permitted and approved in direct opposition to their chartered function.

In a sentence.... "Because they are trying to bring the most good to the most people using the available resources."

There has been a choice to make it this bad, and since the stations aren't dying off fast enough to suit them, they bring in guys with flame-throwers to ...well, flamethrowers usually leave behind a clear field and scorched earth.

Tom, I understand why you are annoyed, but put down the tin foil hat. They are not evil. They're bureacrats. Morons. Little weasels sitting behind a desk running computers and granting authorizations for money. There's just no aliens or conspiracy. Just human dumbness. We all see it every day.

Which brings us to today. Based on where we were when this started, they authorized HD on AM.

Frankly, I'd like to have seen a "Everyone can turn it on at night" period before we wrote the final rules. It might have cleared up a few things.

There's a few that didn't want that I would suspect. Now I guess we'll see.

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

So, in the end, as the AM band gets further trashed with noise two things happen: the listener either converts to HD or abandons AM forever (I suspect more of the latter then the former).

Yes, it's a real dilemma.

db

That's about it. As I see it, a few major stations will be left standing on AM. They will prosper. The rest will be relegated to Broadcasting History. Conveniently enough the survivors will be stations that are owned by the proponents of this technology. Am I the only one who thinks this might be more than a coincidence? The FCC should have had an experimental period of nighttime HD broadcasting on AM before they finalized the rules. Anyone who is good at trouble-shooting knows that the process was flawed. There is a right way to do things, and then there is the "shortcut method." The shortcut method usually results in the wrong answer. On this, the FCC took "the shortcut method." I think they have potentially defined how AM as we know it, will end. The only realistic hope for a different outcome is if the public's apathy is such that nobody adopts it and HD becomes yet another also ran. I suspect that scenario is likely.

I know the American Public is more interested that Paris Hilton was released from jail than they are about the future of radio. At least, one national crisis is over. The public is not paying attention when it comes to radio. Maybe they don’t care. You’d think that would not bode well for radio’s future. Maybe, the apathy is good. Maybe nobody will care about HD and the concept will fail. I guess we’ll find out.

 

[davideduardo]

Eduardo:
No listeners matter outside the 10 millivolt per meter coverage area.

It's that in metros, there are, for all practical purposes, no listeners outside that contour.

There are no obligations a broadcaster has to the public.

Stations are licensed to serve the city of licence and the community surrounding it... the primary coverage area.

All that matters is adding to ever larger conglomerate shareholder dividends,

Not that many broadcast companies pay dividends.

and increasing screwy ad agency profits. Broadcasting is a business and has no obligations to the public. Broadcasters are the anointed ones, who own the public's airwaves.

Stations can not serve anyone if they do not cover expenses. Ad agencies make money no mater whichy media they buy... and the model has existed for nearly 100 years. Ad agencies are contracted to create and place advertising for advertisers who prefer qualified professionals, subject to review, over in house ad departments.

I believe I got HD supporters main points and the general thrust of their assertions correct.

It's simple: maintain the viability of radio broadcasting in a variety of ways.

HD supporters are totally lost in their own fantasies and deep in denial.

We know this is a multi-year proposition and that the rewards will not come for some time. It is an investment in the future.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Eduardo:
No listeners matter outside the 10 millivolt per meter coverage area.

It's that in metros, there are, for all practical purposes, no listeners outside that contour.

There are no obligations a broadcaster has to the public.

Stations are licensed to serve the city of licence and the community surrounding it... the primary coverage area.

All that matters is adding to ever larger conglomerate shareholder dividends,

Not that many broadcast companies pay dividends.

and increasing screwy ad agency profits. Broadcasting is a business and has no obligations to the public. Broadcasters are the anointed ones, who own the public's airwaves.

Stations can not serve anyone if they do not cover expenses. Ad agencies make money no mater whichy media they buy... and the model has existed for nearly 100 years. Ad agencies are contracted to create and place advertising for advertisers who prefer qualified professionals, subject to review, over in house ad departments.

I believe I got HD supporters main points and the general thrust of their assertions correct.

It's simple: maintain the viability of radio broadcasting in a variety of ways.

HD supporters are totally lost in their own fantasies and deep in denial.

We know this is a multi-year proposition and that the rewards will not come for some time. It is an investment in the future.

#1- You agree that I read your comments correctly, "It's that in metros, there are, for all practical purposes, no listeners outside that contour."Yet the laws of physics dictate that as the coverage radius doubles, the area of coverage is squared. As a hypothetical example if the radius of a non-directional stations 10 mv/m coverage area is 10 miles then it's area of 10 mv/m coverage is 10 miles squared (100 square miles). If the coverage to the 2.5 mv/m coverage is 20 miles, then the station covers 20 miles squared (400 square miles). The widepread development of suburbs and delcine of inner cities means that often there are as many, or more people (listeners) in the 2.5 mv/m 400 square mile coverage minus the 10 mv/m 100 square mile coverage area= 300 square mile area between the 10 mv/m and 2.5 mv/ meter coverage. You

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Please excuse my accidental, incomplete post (above).

Eduardo:

No listeners matter outside the 10 millivolt per meter coverage area.

#1- It's that in metros, there are, for all practical purposes, no listeners outside that contour.

There are no obligations a broadcaster has to the public.

[/quote]

#1- You agree that I read your comments correctly, "It's that in metros, there are, for all practical purposes, no listeners outside that contour."Yet the laws of physics dictate that as the coverage radius doubles, the area of coverage is squared. As a hypothetical example if the radius of a non-directional stations 10 mv/m coverage area is 10 miles then it's area of 10 mv/m coverage is 10 miles squared (100 square miles). If the coverage to the 2.5 mv/m coverage is 20 miles, then the station covers 20 miles squared (400 square miles). The widespread development of suburbs and decline of inner cities means that often there are as many, or more people (listeners) in the 2.5 mv/m 400 square mile coverage minus the 10 mv/m 100 square mile coverage area= 300 square mile area between the 10 mv/m and 2.5 mv/ meter coverage. You claim that "It's that in metros, there are, for all practical purposes, no listeners outside that contour." Implying the station has no interest or obligation in covering the suburban metro areas where most of the listeners and commuters may be.
Then you claim a substantial percentage of radio listening is done in the car, by commuters. Since it is not unusual for commuters to travel 20, 40 or even 60 miles each way, sometimes from one suburban area to another, and inner city commuters are more likely to take public transportation inside of a an electrically noisy, shielded bus, train, trolley, or subway it takes no genius to figure out why MP3 players, and other new media are so popular.
This view would seem to confirm the vital importance of rimshots, translators, suburban stations, suburban coverage, and what you claim is DX listening outside the 10 mv/m coverage area, where many, or most of the population resides. Precisely the group of stations, and population that are most abused by HD radio's adjacent channel jamming.

#2- Stations are licensed to serve the city of licence and the community surrounding it... the primary coverage area.

10 mv/m is not much surrounding (suburban) coverage area if a station is necessarily located close to the city center, or the station is less then a 50 kilowatt flamethrower (most stations).

Just more HD radio "thinning the herd of cripples"?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

From supercaster:

All that matters is adding to ever larger conglomerate shareholder dividends,

From Eduardo:

Not that many broadcast companies pay dividends.

Are you saying radio broadcasting is mostly unprofitable, or that a few large Wall street corporate conglomerates that attempt to pay dividends, control too many of the stations?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Apparently the board is not letting me make revisions this morning.

Eduardo said:

Stations can not serve anyone if they do not cover expenses. Ad agencies make money no mater which media they buy... and the model has existed for nearly 100 years. Ad agencies are contracted to create and place advertising for advertisers who prefer qualified professionals, subject to review, over in house ad departments.

You keep repeating the obvious, but never answer the real question about where the radio broadcasters obligation to the public for the use of their airwaves is factored into the equation. According to your view, inner city urban coverage, and pursuit of profits is pretty much all we can expect from broadcasters, with only an occasional nod to public service, as a tiny afterthought. Perhaps at license renewal we need to reassign the whole commercial broadcast spectrum to new, more public spirited, less greed driven broadcasters, and eliminate the HD radio jamming at the same time.