• 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

Is HD Radio Really Going to be Free ?

IBOCRocks said:
That's akin to saying that the Windows Operating System could go to a subscription-based model. Sure it could, if the code was re-written and you actually installed it on your computer.

Since IBOC is essentially software, it could be modified to to that, absolutely. It's not able to do it in it's current form however. And at this point the consensus is that it makes no sense to move in that direction.

So, possible? Yes. Just as possible (and likely) that the satellite code could be changed to provide service for free.
Click to expand...

They said that it was possible to do right now and that it was part of the original design parameters of the system. The only reason you can't do it right now is there are no addressable receivers.

I'm not trying to impugn your integrity. I’m just pointing out that it could become a pay service, and probably will. Talking Books for the blind come to mind, but it wouldn't be hard to expand on that to a variety of niche formats.
 
This thread got me interested now, I would not pay for HD-radio. I might would pay for Sat. radio because I know I can get it at home & in the car, but there is no way I would pay for HD radio monthly.
 
Chuck said:
I’m just leaving the Texas Association of Broadcaster’s Convention. There was an interesting session called “HD Radio Transition.” Panelists were senior engineers from BE, Continental and Harris. In their presentation, they mentioned that one of the revenue features of the HD system is the ability to make the channels addressable, making their programming only available to radios that are subscribed to the service.

That caught my attention, since it is contrary to the popular opinion of some of you on this Board. Just to make sure I wasn’t misinterpreting things, I popped up with the question “So that means that the auxiliary channels can be used for subscriber supported channels that would require a paid subscription?” Their answer was absolutely yes. Technically, it would work in a similar fashion that satellite radio uses to address the subscriber’s receiver. They went on to say that that is part of the business model that should appeal to various content providers. I can see how that might be attractive.

I’m not saying that it is anybody’s intention to turn HD into pay radio, but these gentlemen were quick to tout the ability to do so if you wanted to. Since these guys were about as expert as you can get (and all agreed) I think I will take their word for it that HD radio has the potential to become a subscription service, despite claims made elsewhere on this Board.
Click to expand...


While the system could be MADE addressable, the fact is that the combination of the current chipset and receiver specs do not contain any addressable capability, and the management decision to make HD free is universal. The Intel deal is based on a simplified chip with lower power needs, not new features.

I could make my car into a lawn mower by attaching some devices to the trailer hitch and driving the SUV across the yard. That does not mean that I will do it, have any interest in doing it or that there is any demand to do it.

Engineers often talk about potential. The market addresses needs. This is why products today are market driven as opposed to being manufacturing driven.

Since the design spec and chipset we will use for the rollout of HD is not subscription capble, I take that to mean that there will be no subscription HD. HD is a solution to certain problems facing free radio. Making is subscriber based would hasten the death of AM, and hurt FM, too.
 
This is the link to the original article, that I posted, that got buried under all of the dribble:

http://billboardradiomonitor.com/ra...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000882951

After I tried HD Radio at Best Buy today, there is NO way I would pay for an HD radio, so I could get the same local endless dribble ! The HD channels will be the same dribble, just in an endless loop. The audio quality was no different, than AM/FM boom-boxes, and I could only get 105.9 and 107.3 on the HD radio, where the boom-boxes got everything ! What in heck, are they selling ?

"Engineers often talk about potential. The market addresses needs. This is why products today are market driven as opposed to being manufacturing driven."

HD Radio is being driven by the needs of the HD cartel, not by consumer demand - there is nada interest !
 
jras20 said:
This thread got me interested now, I would not pay for HD-radio. I might would pay for Sat. radio because I know I can get it at home & in the car, but there is no way I would pay for HD radio monthly.
Click to expand...

This is how rumors get started.

No broadcast company currently deploying HD has thought about anything except it being free.
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
This is the link to the original article, that I posted, that got buried under all of the dribble:

http://billboardradiomonitor.com/ra...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000882951

After I tried HD Radio at Best Buy today, there is NO way I would pay for an HD radio, so I could get the same local endless dribble ! The HD channels will be the same dribble, just in an endless loop. The audio quality was no different, than AM/FM boom-boxes, and I could only get 105.9 and 107.3 on the HD radio, where the boom-boxes got everything ! What in heck, are they selling ?
Click to expand...

That link is so old, that it has been nuked, since Radio Monitor is now dead as a magazine.

Now that you have told us you did not like HD, why don't you go to the rap or hip hop groups and talk about Bronze Nazareth and such...
 
"Now that you have told us you did not like HD, why don't you go to the rap or hip hop groups and talk about Bronze Nazareth and such..."

That was for one of my 17 year-old boys, buddy ! Now, do you feel foolish, yet ?
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
"Now that you have told us you did not like HD, why don't you go to the rap or hip hop groups and talk about Bronze Nazareth and such..."

That was for one of my 17 year-old boys, buddy ! Now, do you feel foolish, yet ?
Click to expand...

Nope. From what you write, you sound like and express yourself like someone in the 18-24 demo.
 
DavidEduardo said:
jras20 said:
This thread got me interested now, I would not pay for HD-radio. I might would pay for Sat. radio because I know I can get it at home & in the car, but there is no way I would pay for HD radio monthly.
Click to expand...

This is how rumors get started.

No broadcast company currently deploying HD has thought about anything except it being free.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clear-up, David.
 
The other thing that people seem to neglect is that even if at some point, someone wants to do a pay service, the FCC would have to allow it. With such an unpopular postion as radio for pay (remember the "radio was meant to be free" campaign) I can't think of anybody letting that happen.

Now, I can see charging for ancillary services (data, picture transmission, etc) that are built into the HD Spec. The programming is free, the data services pay. That doesn't seem out of line.

Regardless, I'm betting that your radio wears out long before anything like that could ever happen.
 
"The other thing that people seem to neglect is that even if at some point, someone wants to do a pay service, the FCC would have to allow it. With such an unpopular postion as radio for pay (remember the "radio was meant to be free" campaign) I can't think of anybody letting that happen."

It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC - unbelievable !!! :D
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
"The other thing that people seem to neglect is that even if at some point, someone wants to do a pay service, the FCC would have to allow it. With such an unpopular postion as radio for pay (remember the "radio was meant to be free" campaign) I can't think of anybody letting that happen."

It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC - unbelievable !!! :D
Click to expand...

No, the FCC regulates radio service. They would have to approve it.

:D
 
It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC - unbelievable !!! All the FCC does is allocate bandwidth !
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC - unbelievable !!!
Click to expand...

My five year old came in today.

"I want to go outside!"
"Not now, it's time for dinner."
"I want to go outside!"
"Sorry"
"I want to go outside!"

You and my five year old sound a lot alike. Except he doesn't lie.

Or swear.
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC - unbelievable !!! All the FCC does is allocate bandwidth !
Click to expand...

The FCC just allocates bandwidth, eh? Where do I start?

Is telephone service "bandwidth". Are fines for tower problems "bandwidth"?

Man. You really don't know much about this stuff, do you?

I guess the FCC's indecency fine for the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" had to do with bandwidth too?
 
It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC; all the FCC does is allocate bandwidth !
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC; all the FCC does is allocate bandwidth !
Click to expand...

How pathetic. Are you going to call me names and swear at me, too?
 
It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC; all the FCC does is allocate bandwidth !
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC; all the FCC does is allocate bandwidth !
Click to expand...

OOOOOOkay then. I'll just move on. You're obviously off your meds or something.

I've got other things to do, and it's past your bedtime. :D
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
"The other thing that people seem to neglect is that even if at some point, someone wants to do a pay service, the FCC would have to allow it. With such an unpopular postion as radio for pay (remember the "radio was meant to be free" campaign) I can't think of anybody letting that happen."

It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC Anti-Trust Laws), not FCC - unbelievable !!! :D
Click to expand...

Actually the DOJ regulates the impact of things like consolidation, mergers, acquisitions, concentration of media.

The FCC regulates specturm and its use. Any FCC ownership rules that affect trade also get DOJ review, like th emajority of big post-1996 stransactions did. The FTC did not come into play at all.

Were HD channels to become enctypted, it would probably take a rulemaking procedure as the FCC wants digital to be accessable, such as with HDTV and HDTV2 channels, for example.

Bringing up this aspect is interesting, as it is obvious that the principle objectio to any future interest in encrypted, subscriber-paid HD would have to get FCC approval in the form of a petion for rulmaking such as pay TV on the UHFs in the 80's had to get.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom