HD was Highly Disappointing for WHAT

[Savage]

That's not the document, TIOmeister and King Of Kreative Speling. And I know, I know - I said I was going to ignore you - but it was a slow day.

So you believe in HD Radio - fine. We get it. Perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of the class - the callsigns of SIX radio stations who have newly installed HD in the past year? You know: out of the thirteen thousand AM & FM stations in the USA?? If you can, please include a credible source.

To save you time, I'll type these in for you: "Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot." And the timeless: "LOL!" :

 

[N1WVQ]

Of course an out of band solution would have been ideal. In a way, the broadcasters got what they deserved for not embracing a whole new digital broadcast band. Instead, they insisted on protecting their existing licenses and trying to add more stations, too, and it's a half-assed disaster because of greed and fear of new independent competition.

Agreed. I would have liked to have seen the L-band system here like in Canada. Then again, there would be new stations & competition! Can't have that!

As a sidenote, imagine if F.M. had been placed on mediumwave! We'd only have 5 frequencies! (.7, .9, 1.1, 1.3 & 1.5 Mc.).

 

[Darth_vader]

"Can't have that!"

Nope. And you know the military wouldn't have that either!

 

[tomservo]

The FCC has forced various government agencies to vacate spectrum for 3G/4G reallocations, including the military. Where I live now my service provides offers no east data service and won't until the local air force base's licences expire in March 2011.

 

[Don Juannn]

That's not the document, TIOmeister and King Of Kreative Speling.

Then where is it?

And I know, I know - I said I was going to ignore you - but it was a slow day.

Can't resist, I know...

So you believe in HD Radio - fine.

I don't "believe in HD radio". Don't over exaggerate my stance.

I don't believe in much these days. I think HD has some potential, especially in the area of bringing new formats and programming to a full radio dial.

Mostly why I respond here is because I think most of the HD Haterz are "over the top"...and a tad out of touch with reality. They congregate in little corners of the internet and slap each other on the back, claim the end of the world if HD radio is allowed to stand.

My only goal is to instill a little "reality" into the discussion.

We get it. Perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of the class - the callsigns of SIX radio stations who have newly installed HD in the past year?

Most (almost all) of the stations I listen to and have had dealings with, and most of the major companies have already installed HD...so there are none left in my realm to see it installed.

Most of the smaller station (in smaller markets) probably won't (or more likely can't) spend the money until they can turn around and get money back in the door to replace it.

To save you time, I'll type these in for you: "Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot."

That phrase is only pulled out when HD Haterz claim that those who are not anti-HD call names, make things personal, have no insight beyond their own, etc., when theyab re doing the very same things themselves.

And the timeless: "LOL!" :

Of course I am neurotic laughing out loud at some of the responses by the anti-HD crowd!

 

[Play Freebird]

"Can't have that!"

Nope. And you know the military wouldn't have that either!

Just to clear up a misconception, the L-band segment that had been considered for Eureka-147 DAB is not military-exclusive. It's allocated for aeronautical flight test telemetry and used for both military and civilian purposes here in the US. It has been assigned to DAB in the rest of the world (including Canada, of course) and if NAB, etc. had put forth a concerted effort, we probably could have found another place for the incumbent users to operate. The fact that the border zones weren't a problem, (even though airborne transmitters cover a good distance) suggests that this wouldn't have been an insurmountable obstacle.

But a better approach simply would have been to hang on to some spectrum that was already allocated to broadcasting -- namely a few of the surplus UHF TV channels from 52 up. The Government still could have taken back most of this segment to auction off - in fact, the value of the remaining channels would have been higher (due to the law of supply and demand) so in the end, the economic impact might not have been significant.

Like L-band, these channels would have allowed an all-digital system to run in parallel with analog, making it much easier to establish "single-frequency networks" without interference issues. Wavelengths at 700 MHz are short enough to allow efficient antennas in portable devices, but not as susceptible to blockage by foliage and terrain as the 1.4 GHz L-band range.

Of course, we would have had to hold off until the DTV transition was complete -- but as we now know, consumers are more than willing to wait for a digital radio system that really works.

 

[Savage]

At the risk of "over exaggerating," we'll just note for the record that I challenged you to provide the callsigns of six new HD Radio installs over the past year. And you couldn't. Out of THIRTEEN THOUSAND licenses. And even if you could, that would still be a sorry commentary on such a vastly hyped "new digital technology." You want to talk about reality? Look at the real-world implementation - or more precisely, non-implementation - of HD. Same as it was about two years ago: 98-99% of AMs don't have it. 84% of FMs don't have it. Nobody's even been able to provide even miniscule audience figures for digital streams, HD-1, 2 or 3. Receivers are only available at retail if you actively hunt them up. And it goes on and on like that. Reality? Try looking at the numbers. HD is moribund.

I've never suggested, let alone stated, that HD represents "the end of the world." What I have said, and continue to say is, HD is a self-defeating distraction for the industry. Nobody cares about it, it wastes valuable resources, turns broadcasters against one another over interference issues and convinces listeners that radio is a noisy audio junkyard. In this competitive atmosphere HD, as it currently exists, is the last thing we need.

All I'm going to say is, the "license" posted on iBiquity's website is not the one I've seen. I suspect it has been posted to deflect criticism as a PR move.

 

[N1WVQ]

From what I've seen, Radio World stopped publishing the #s of stations transmitting in IBOC.

I like the idea of a UHF broadcast band be it in the 700Mc. range or in the L-band. The features Play Freebird mentioned sound cool. As for the Eureka 147 standard, I've read some stories about British D.A.B. & its problems. The comments for the House of Lords' desire to phase out analog for D.A.B. were running in the negative with the most common problems being the loss rate, the tinny sound & the general satisfaction with F.M. broadcasting. Also the D.A.B. chipsets are power hogs too. The Australians have reported good audio quality with the second generation (I forget if it's called DAB+ or Eureka 147+).

The hope with a new band would be for new station owners to be able to enter the market.

Back to IBOC, it appears that the new owners of WDDZ, Salem Broadcasting, don't have any A.M.s transmitting IBOC. This is good news. Now if WHJJ would shut theirs off, Providence could be IBOC-free again on A.M.!

 

[Don Juannn]

At the risk of "over exaggerating," we'll just note for the record that I challenged you to provide the callsigns of six new HD Radio installs over the past year. And you couldn't.

I don't follow HD's rollout across the United States, I could care less.

For the record we'll note that in almost every major market, almost every major station, almost every major radio company is already on board with HD. A fact that you can't seem to accept.

Out of THIRTEEN THOUSAND licenses. And even if you could, that would still be a sorry commentary on such a vastly hyped "new digital technology."

Again, those that would add it have already, those that haven't probably won't. So what?

You want to talk about reality? Look at the real-world implementation - or more precisely, non-implementation - of HD. Same as it was about two years ago: 98-99% of AMs don't have it. 84% of FMs don't have it.

The reality is that most (85%) of the country lives within the reach of the major markets. Most of the major markets are all running HD. Most of America has acccess to HD. TO claim that most 1kw's (500 watts nights) in east frostbite fall Minn hasn't installed HD is disingenuous.

Nobody's even been able to provide even miniscule audience figures for digital streams, HD-1, 2 or 3.

So? It's niche formats serving particlar audiences. Have you seen the ratings for SIrious XM/s niche formats? Similar.

Receivers are only available at retail if you actively hunt them up.

And?

And it goes on and on like that. Reality? Try looking at the numbers. HD is moribund.

Every major station in every major market is using it....and have put more effort into their programming over the years. There is no finish line. It doesn't have to be "the next big thing". You keep creating imaginary finish lines.

I've never suggested, let alone stated, that HD represents "the end of the world."

Nor have I stated, let alone suggested, that HD is the 2nd coming!

What I have said, and continue to say is, HD is a self-defeating distraction for the industry.

Speak for yourself if you feel distracted by it. It is not self-defeating at all.

Nobody cares about it, it wastes valuable resources.

The only people that need to care about it are those that want to avail themselves to it. It doesn't have to be the next iPod. In the stations I have been involved with it doesn't waste any valuable resources.

turns broadcasters against one another.

Welcome to radio. Have you ever lived in a time in broadcasting when there wasn't any rivalry, or complaints about other stations?

over interference issues and convinces

Speak for yourself....not for the industry as a whole.

listeners that radio is a noisy audio junkyard.

See above, there is no such data to support this.

In this competitive atmosphere HD, as it currently exists, is the last thing we need.

No, in a competitive atmosphere....adding choices to the listener is exactly what we need. With the decline of AM...and the limited space on FM...radio is doomed unless it can offer more choices to the listeners.

All I'm going to say is, the "license" posted on iBiquity's website is not the one I've seen. I suspect it has been posted to deflect criticism as a PR move.

We'll just note for the record that I challenged you to back up your assertion about the license clause and cite chapter and verse....And you couldn't.

 

[tomservo]

I seem to recall that the UK DAB system is in the 200 MHz band, so their coverage is bound to be more robust than either 700 MHz or 1.4 GHz...

 

[N1WVQ]

I seem to recall that the UK DAB system is in the 200 MHz band, so their coverage is bound to be more robust than either 700 MHz or 1.4 GHz...

I think you're right. It seems to me it's in VHF Band III (174-230Mc.). In I.T.U. Region 2 (the Americas) we typically have T.V.channels 7-13 in the 174-216Mc. range & an amateur band somewhere between 219-225Mc.. Here in the U.S. it's 219-220 & 222-225Mc. and is a very good amateur band. I personally like it better than 2 meters (144-148Mc.).