Ibiquity wants HD in sat radios, but not sat in HD radios???

[tomservo]

Well, here ya go. As most of you may know, Ibiquity is currently lobbying the FCC to force manufacturers to include HD technology in future satellite radio products. Logic would dictate that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that perhaps satellite technology should be mandated in HD radios. I mean, what's fair is fair, right? Both are struggling mediums at the moment, and again that pesky logic would dictate that survival of both may depend on merging the technologies at this time. Ibiquity sums it up thuslyutting HD in sat boxes "will encourage the development of a competitive platform for satellite and terrestrial digital radio services and will promote the public interest through enhanced competition."

So how does Ibiquity feel about add sat tech to HD radios?"Any requirement that HD Radio receivers include satellite radio technology would impose technical constraints and costs on HD Radio technology that could significantly retard the rollout of this important, subscription-free, universally available service."

You can't have it both ways, guys. Apparently it's perfectly fair to impose the massively processor intensive and power hungry HD tech on sat radios, but the postage-stamp sized XM tuner would impose 'technical contraints'? Bulldink.

(These quotes appeared in today's SkyReport.)

 

[KB1OKL]

Another last ditch effort by a company that still doesn't know it's was DOA. I think that's called D-E-N-I-A-L.

 

[clouseau]

While Zach's contention seems reasonable on the surface, in reality it's pretty odd. (IMHO)

I consider satellite radio to be a premium service like HBO.

Cable TV includes local channels and HBO is an option. You can't GET HBO without local channels. There is no "HBO only" device I know of. Now you CAN get DirecTV & Dish without locals, but that's because locals were added later. Locals have the right to demand carrige on both DirecTV & Dish by law. HBO does not. I once was on a cable system which had locals, but not HBO. (A Warner-Amex system IIRC. They had The Movie Channel only for premiums.)

Historically, free stuff gets a free ride with pay stuff. And NO WHERE is there a mandate for cable, satellite or Fios to carry HBO.

That's just history. Doesn't make it law. But it IS the way things like this are looked at.

I suspect Ibiquity would be better served to get HD in every terrestrial "RADIO" sold before they go after this one. At least in every radio that plugs in. It happened for UHF TV. How about a 2 year moratoriam on receiver license fees and a push for mandatory inclusion of HD on all AM-FM radios or FM only radios?

Then a maximum license fee of $1 a radio continually adjusted for inflation after that. If they were in every radio it would be small per radio, but big overall.

Most farmers don't try and milk the calf as soon as it stands up. The REAL money comes when she's a big ol' heiffer. HD radio isn't yet a big ol heiffer. It's still trying to stand.

Their business plan is all wrong here.

Clouseau

 

[tomservo]

Clouseau, the difference between sat radio and premium cable is that HBO charges a fee to be carried on cable systems, just like ESPN, TBS and many other non-premium channels.

If Ibiquity wants to pay Sirius XM a per-radio fee for adding the service, that's cool. If Ibiquity wants to charge SXM a fee for embedding HD chips in their equipment, that's cool too. But they shouldn't be forced to carry anything.

Another different way I see it is digital channel carriage. Sure, it's mandated that cable carries local channels, but with the hi-def and subchannel signals they're apparently not required to carry anything at all. My local cableco only carries ABC-HD with their Fox SD subchannel on their digital tier, despite having access to two CBS-DTs, NBC-DT, a second ABC-DT, three PBS-DTs, My Network TV & CW on subchannels and another Fox-DT.

Sat and HD are both digital signals beyond the basic "analog tier" of free radio and as such... If it's not important enough to mandate for cable/sat, why is it important for radio? For that matter, DirecTV and Dish both sell in my area, but don't carry my locals, or offer significantly viewed locals despite uplinking those other three adjacent markets. Why should the FCC mandate the carriage of my locals on satellite just because they install dishes here?

(The whole difference between the local channel rules between cable and satellite is enough for me to complain in a whole 'nother thread.)

 

[clouseau]

Clouseau, the difference between sat radio and premium cable is that HBO charges a fee to be carried on cable systems, just like ESPN, TBS and many other non-premium channels.

I guess I'm missing the point. The "Pay" channels ( anything not available for "FREE") cost you, but the :Free channels don't cost you and are "FREE". Most "Free" channels have must carry rights. As in TBS, HBO, CNN - Gotta Pay. Your local independant UHF station - Must carry rights (Unless they opt out for pay for carry). ESPN and TBS man not be "Preium" but they're sure not free either. And they do not have must carry.

If Ibiquity wants to pay Sirius XM a per-radio fee for adding the service, that's cool. If Ibiquity wants to charge SXM a fee for embedding HD chips in their equipment, that's cool too. But they shouldn't be forced to carry anything.

I'm sure you're local cable operator feels the same way.

Another different way I see it is digital channel carriage. Sure, it's mandated that cable carries local channels, but with the hi-def and subchannel signals they're apparently not required to carry anything at all. My local cableco only carries ABC-HD with their Fox SD subchannel on their digital tier, despite having access to two CBS-DTs, NBC-DT, a second ABC-DT, three PBS-DTs, My Network TV & CW on subchannels and another Fox-DT.

I thihnk you'll see some significant squawking from broadcasters after the digital transition on the subcarrier issue. Cable is really craped for capacity with the transition. I'm actually waiting to see when cable cos "Go Digital." Surely we'll be dumping analog altogether at some time in the not too distant future.

Sat and HD are both digital signals beyond the basic "analog tier" of free radio and as such... If it's not important enough to mandate for cable/sat, why is it important for radio? For that matter, DirecTV and Dish both sell in my area, but don't carry my locals, or offer significantly viewed locals despite uplinking those other three adjacent markets. Why should the FCC mandate the carriage of my locals on satellite just because they install dishes here?

This is another case of "He who has the distribution system has more rules." Broadasters have faced this for decades. It's why there is no public service requirements for internet audio. Or newspapers. Anyone can start one. Cable used to be this way. Then they got regulated. Sat radio is getting a pretty free regulatory ride. No EAS. No Public service. All of these could be added. While SatRad has done a VERY bad job of managing their business, they have continued to get almost a free ride from regulation.

 

[tomservo]

Clouseau, the difference between sat radio and premium cable is that HBO charges a fee to be carried on cable systems, just like ESPN, TBS and many other non-premium channels.

I guess I'm missing the point. The "Pay" channels ( anything not available for "FREE") cost you, but the :Free channels don't cost you and are "FREE". Most "Free" channels have must carry rights. As in TBS, HBO, CNN - Gotta Pay. Your local independant UHF station - Must carry rights (Unless they opt out for pay for carry). ESPN and TBS man not be "Preium" but they're sure not free either. And they do not have must carry.

Maybe my analogy was just bad.

The point is I equate the satellite platform as pay cable, including stuff like TBS and CNN, but terrestrial radio, whether analog or HD, er, digital, is free, as in, get an antenna and watch for free.

Two different regulatory concepts, and I feel the same way about satellite radio and terrestrial radio.

If Ibiquity wants to pay Sirius XM a per-radio fee for adding the service, that's cool. If Ibiquity wants to charge SXM a fee for embedding HD chips in their equipment, that's cool too. But they shouldn't be forced to carry anything.

I'm sure you're local cable operator feels the same way.

Probably not as much as satellite TV. Cable companies seem to get a much wider platitude, if that's the right word, when it comes to carrying broadcast channels.

Cable here offers at least one channel from each of THREE TV markets. Satellite doesn't carry ANY locals for my county because they don't uplink this DMA. And for whatever reason, they can't/won't offer adjacent markets, meaning I gotta have an antenna to get the few OTA channels that actually cover my county. It stinks, especially considering that Dish and DirecTV both uplink the two adjacent markets, one even has HD locals.

Sorry to get off topic but that's a sore spot for me. I think the sat providers should have the same option as local cable when it comes to carrying locals — they should be allowed to give me whatever my local cable provider does.

I thihnk you'll see some significant squawking from broadcasters after the digital transition on the subcarrier issue. Cable is really craped for capacity with the transition. I'm actually waiting to see when cable cos "Go Digital." Surely we'll be dumping analog altogether at some time in the not too distant future.

On another message board geared towards consumer advice, there is a thread where a few people have complained about needing a cable box because some of their favorite channels had moved to a digital tier. I get the impression from that and other sites that people would much rather not have a box at all on their old TV sets; maybe that is what's holding back from eliminating the analog channels. They seem to think it's a scam to have to pay for a box to get the channels they "used to get" without the box. I imagine if a carrier announced a move to all digital, it would dredge up tons of complaints, misunderstand and accusations of shady business practices. When it comes to technology, we are a nation of Luddites still.

That might be a small part of the lack of interest in HD radio. Only us techies really care one way or the other.

Sat radio is getting a pretty free regulatory ride. No EAS. No Public service. All of these could be added. While SatRad has done a VERY bad job of managing their business, they have continued to get almost a free ride from regulation.

The question is: would regulation have made them more money or less? Or no change?

And to be fair, at least on XM there IS an EAS - pre-merger each channel was interrupted for weekly/montly tests. Also, I believe the Emergency and public radio channels counted towards public service. And C-SPAN radio (as if C-SPAN wasn't boring enough.)

 

[pocket-radio]

iBiquity can’t sell their radios, so why wouldn’t they want to hitch a ride with sat radio, an accessory that’s been hot with new car dealers. That is when cars were selling.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

XM broadcasts RMT and weekly EAS tests on all channels for some time now.

 

[clouseau]

XM broadcasts RMT and weekly EAS tests on all channels for some time now.

If this is true, for what purpose? I'm sure the rest of the country has no more use for my hurricane warnings than we have for the Blizzard notification in Detroit.

You do know the only national notification used on EBS was a false positive, right?

What good is national EAS?

Clouseau

 

[clouseau]

The point is I equate the satellite platform as pay cable, including stuff like TBS and CNN, but terrestrial radio, whether analog or HD, er, digital, is free, as in, get an antenna and watch for free.

Two different regulatory concepts, and I feel the same way about satellite radio and terrestrial radio.

I get you. But I don't agree. SatRad operates like a "Cable Radio" provider. There's a reason why we have "Must Carry". Even on DirecTV or DIsh. Incumbant broadcasters get royally screwed if they don't have parity. Part of the reason SatRad has been such a morginal success (That's kind I know) is because of their lack of localism, IMHO. SatRad hasn't done enough to make itself a "Must Have" item. And it's kind of creepy, because they've done a lot. Between The Huge sports deals, Howard and the like, you'd think they had done enough. Obviously not.

Remember Sat TV carries locals as an option. Unlike cable, they are not required to do so. They have a boatload of research that shows people like sat TV better with locals, so they've spent literally millions gettin as much local content as possible. There are must carry rules IF THEY OFFER locals, but there is no requirement to do it. ISTR there must be a provision on you Sat TV box to accomodate an external OTA antenna.

Cable companies seem to get a much wider platitude, if that's the right word, when it comes to carrying broadcast channels.

Cable here offers at least one channel from each of THREE TV markets. Satellite doesn't carry ANY locals for my county because they don't uplink this DMA. And for whatever reason, they can't/won't offer adjacent markets, meaning I gotta have an antenna to get the few OTA channels that actually cover my county. It stinks, especially considering that Dish and DirecTV both uplink the two adjacent markets, one even has HD locals.

Sorry to get off topic but that's a sore spot for me. I think the sat providers should have the same option as local cable when it comes to carrying locals — they should be allowed to give me whatever my local cable provider does.

That's all regulated by SHIVA (Or something like that). The Satellite Home viewer act. A degree in Origami helps to understand all of it.

On another message board geared towards consumer advice, there is a thread where a few people have complained about needing a cable box because some of their favorite channels had moved to a digital tier. I get the impression from that and other sites that people would much rather not have a box at all on their old TV sets; maybe that is what's holding back from eliminating the analog channels. They seem to think it's a scam to have to pay for a box to get the channels they "used to get" without the box. I imagine if a carrier announced a move to all digital, it would dredge up tons of complaints, misunderstand and accusations of shady business practices. When it comes to technology, we are a nation of Luddites still.

Well I don't know. I dop know people just want plug and play. I'll bet where I love you don't have a TV antenna on more than 1 house in every hundred. And I HATE cable boxes. We have ads here saying "DirecTV charges extra for HDTV, but Time-Warner has it for free. Free as in "Rent the box for more a month " and then we won't charge you more for HD. It's a crock.

That might be a small part of the lack of interest in HD radio. Only us techies really care one way or the other.

Yep. programming quality will need to improve as well.

Sat radio is getting a pretty free regulatory ride. No EAS. No Public service. All of these could be added. While SatRad has done a VERY bad job of managing their business, they have continued to get almost a free ride from regulation.

The question is: would regulation have made them more money or less? Or no change?
[/quote]

I think their issue was a double edged sword. On one hand they tried to be "radio" to market it easier and get investors to understand it. But most of it has the compelling content of a computer in a closet from what I've heard. Now if they worked on it, the product could be local and amazing. Think intelligent radios along the line of the new XDS receivers. They could add local content into the national stream based on Zip code. Unlike what they want to do with the repeaters, the intelligent radio would be within terms of their license.

Like that's had any bearing on how they've behaved anyway...

Clouseau

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

What good is national EAS?

So the President can warn us in advance of Soviet ICBMs coming over Canada toward the US.

Oh, wait...

(sheepishly) Never mind...

 

[tomservo]

ISTR there must be a provision on you Sat TV box to accomodate an external OTA antenna.

I didn't think any of them had a pass-though, but after looking at some of my old boxes I see that is true. None of the three HD receivers I have, however, pass through OTA. One of those two has a built in digital-only OTA tuner, and the other two need an external box if OTA integration is desired.

Kinda strange.

Well I don't know. I dop know people just want plug and play. I'll bet where I love you don't have a TV antenna on more than 1 house in every hundred. And I HATE cable boxes. We have ads here saying "DirecTV charges extra for HDTV, but Time-Warner has it for free. Free as in "Rent the box for more a month " and then we won't charge you more for HD. It's a crock.

You must live near a big(er) city. Out here in small town Mississippi it's probably one in 10 in town, and I've seen one in three in the county.

But of course Time Warner is offering the HD for free, they probably get enough profit from renting out those boxes to make up the difference. With satellite, we already have and pay fees for the box to begin with (well, for each additional box)...

I think their issue was a double edged sword. On one hand they tried to be "radio" to market it easier and get investors to understand it. But most of it has the compelling content of a computer in a closet from what I've heard. Now if they worked on it, the product could be local and amazing. Think intelligent radios along the line of the new XDS receivers. They could add local content into the national stream based on Zip code. Unlike what they want to do with the repeaters, the intelligent radio would be within terms of their license.

A computer in a closet, that's the same problem HD radio has. Personally, I think some formats lend themselves to the jukebox treatment (like classic rock) moreso that, say, top 40 or current country. But that may be prejudice on my part, being a fan of the now gone "Top Tracks" on XM. No jock interruptions, regular, unobtrusive branding jingles and almost no promos for other content. I don't need a raspy-voiced chain smoking woman (I'm looking at you, Carol Miller) telling me about her experiences meeting bands or trying to make clever filler in the segements between songs. And that's what I'm getting now on Classic Vinyl, the Top Tracks replacement. The music's the same, but the jocks and constant channel promos really ruin the mood.

I've had the service for years. Again this may be the XM fanboy in me talking, but I thought they did a good job of putting voices on the channels that needed them, like 20 on 20, the 60's on 6, Deep Tracks and Soul Street. What made the other, jukeboxy channels worth was not the lack of interaction so much as they were so well programmed. It was so interesting listening to Fine Tuning or Bluegrass Junction or Beyond Jazz that it wasn't really necessary for someone to come on and yack for a moment. Not that it wouldn't have added a pleasant dimension learning about the artists and whatnot, but it wasn't really necessary.

What we're seeing now on the XM side is a lot of complaints about the Siriusization of the service. What comes up first? Annoying jocks yacking too much and too many promos. So it does all come down to programming. Sat, HD, doesn't matter. Program it well and jocks become secondary. No offense to any pros out there.