I
IBOCRocks
Guest
It's the Federal Trade Comm...oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Nevermind.
-
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
D
dbdigital
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
Of course, the operative word is "currently" which means it can change next week.
But if HD Radio is anything like Eureka-147 than it is possible to change software within the radio to accommodate other services, including paid services.
If you read the Eureka-147 website, one of the "features" of the technology is the ability for a station to upload software updates to a user's radio right along with the program content. The user need not even be aware that it's happening.
I'm sure iBiquity has developed something similar to update HD Radio receivers.
db
dbdigital said:
Any change to a subscriber based mode would have to be approved by the FCC. Second, the iBiquity chip is not addressable, as far as the data I have indeicates. In other words, it can not be updated or have the firmware changed.
And the $200 million dollar radio campaign for HD that started last week makes FREE a key part of the campaign. You do not put $200 million in time against a concept you are about to change. The keystone of terrestrial radio is that it is free.
I
IBOCRocks
Guest
dbdigital said:
How about instead of guessing to try and prove a point, find out for sure. I swear...the anti-IBOC crowd has nothing better to do than play "what-if". You guys have said a whole lot, but have proven very little.
You've been shown reasons why it's a pretty good bet that pay radio is not going to happen. Even down to the inablility to remotely upgrade firmware (Guess what? It can't happen. When multi-cast got added to the spec, the very early radios had to be sent in to be upgraded). Can they do it someday? Maybe. But not now.
Of course, the anti-IBOC crowd can't let reality get in the way.
I just can't fathom the hate. Are there things that don't excite me about the technology? Yep. I'd rather focus my efforts on fixing those things then just brushing it off.
Seriously - we get it. You don't like it. How many times do you have to repeat the same things over and over?
Here's what you've said, once again: Nobody wants it. Too expensive. Flawed technology. We understand how you feel...really! We've presented our rebuttals. The 100th time you bring it up is not going to sway anyone. We've told you our side and have moved on. Is there a DX'ers site that gives you guys "talking points" or something? You all say the same things, almost word for word.
The only thing you won't hear from your side is "Try it for yourself". Seems to me that if it was THAT evil, people wouldn't need you to keep telling them. It's like you feel that if you say it enough, it will come true.
Oh well. Rehash it. It's not like we haven't heard it before.
D
dbdigital
Guest
IBOCRocks said:
Cool your jets, pal.
What I stated was conjecture based on the specification of another digital radio technology. I was sure his eminence, David Eduardo, would clarify the point for me. He hasn't because he isn't sure.
As for what a nation of people want, it is possible to extrapolate what the average consumer is thinking by taking a poll. That's what pollsters do. It can be formal or informal.
Since HD radio has appeared on the radar, I've discussed the technology with the many people I come in contact with and, so far, no one has heard of it. Mention digital radio and they think satellite. Yes, they've thought about getting satellite radio, no they aren't interested in deep sixing their current FM stereo radio to buy another one (no surprise there). The only ones who are familiar with HD Radio are friends of mine who work for L.A. radio stations.
Will that lack of recognition of and desire for HD Radio Change? I don't know and neither do you.
Do your own poll.
Besides, I thought you said your work here was done. Some people just can't bow out gracefully.
db
dbdigital said:
The consumer marketing began a week ago Monday.... 11 days ago. Of course there is little awareness. Of course there are no radios in the stores. The consumer marketing is less thn two weeks old. Half the staffs at HD stations do not even know they are in HD.
This will change as the marketing continues into months and years. This will change as more receivers come at lower prices ove rhte next months and years. And this will come as it is discovered that unduplicated formats can be heard on HD 2 channles, especially with the additional marketing form NPR.
Why take a poll? 99% of the listeners hav eno clue what HD is yet. We are at the very beginning. Give it a year or two.
S
SayNoToIBOC
Guest
David wrote: "Why take a poll? 99% of the listeners hav eno clue what HD is yet. We are at the very beginning. Give it a year or two."
Boy, the HD folks are REALLY cluless:
1) iBiquity investors have already been waiting 7 years for their investment to start paying out (typically it is 5 years), and expecting them to wait another two years - hmmmmmm.
2) In two years, Wireless Internet will be a reality in cars.
3) Satellite Radio wil continue steady growth, and has already taken over in-the-dash.
4) It's about CONTENT, not an inferior delivery system.
Boy, the HD folks are REALLY cluless:
1) iBiquity investors have already been waiting 7 years for their investment to start paying out (typically it is 5 years), and expecting them to wait another two years - hmmmmmm.
2) In two years, Wireless Internet will be a reality in cars.
3) Satellite Radio wil continue steady growth, and has already taken over in-the-dash.
4) It's about CONTENT, not an inferior delivery system.
SayNoToIBOC said:
1. WRONG.. iBiquity is a long term investment in a system intended to benefit radio. Most of the investors have no interest in profit, but, rather, in the technology.
2. WRONG.. WiMax does not even have all the necessary national frequency coverage. Folks like McCaw are awaiting the next auction, then they can do the fund-raising to build it out at a cost of around $20 to $25 billion per Business Week. We ther eis limited coverage of about 10% of the country, but an integrated national net is 3 years away.
3. WRONG.. All we are discussing is delivery. Content exists. AM can gain many years of useful life with HD, and FM can trump satellite with more channels in better quality and free.
You are wrong on all counts.
S
SayNoToIBOC
Guest
Wrong, I just read investors are getting very anxious with iBiquity.
Wrong, I just read that Wireless Internet is going into US cars in two years.
Wrong !
Wrong, I just read that Wireless Internet is going into US cars in two years.
Wrong !
At the TAB HD presentation, the ability to make IBOC a subscriber medium was presented as a "feature" that could be used as a potential revenue stream. Sombody, somewhere is thinking of making at least a few of the channels subscriber based, or they wouldn't have had it as a part of their Power Point sales presentation. I think that is significant.
This seminar was presented by three major manufacturers of HD equipment. The audience consisted of station managers, engineers and programmers of real radio stations. The audience and the presenters were about as involved in radio you could get. These people were broadcasters, not arm chair quarterbacks. I think that tended to put the BS filter in place, and only facts were discussed.
I don't know if this potential revenue stream will ever amount to a hill of beans, but my life experiences tell me that if there is a potential for making money from something, you can bet that someone will try it. As to their potential for success, well the jury is still out on that.
By the way, the audience seemed fairly evenly divided between large corporations and small "mom and pop" broadcasters. Texas still has a lot of small family owned stations. Many of them are very good broadcasters. I like that.
As you might guess, the big corporations were firmly committed to the Ibiquity technology. The "Mom & Pop's" were pretty well universally opposed. It had little to with technology though. Most that spoke out thought it was completely unfair that a station in a small 10-15,000 population town had to pay the same licensing fee as a station in Dallas or Houston. On a per potential listener basis, I think they have a very valid point. Maybe Ibiquity will address that.
This seminar was presented by three major manufacturers of HD equipment. The audience consisted of station managers, engineers and programmers of real radio stations. The audience and the presenters were about as involved in radio you could get. These people were broadcasters, not arm chair quarterbacks. I think that tended to put the BS filter in place, and only facts were discussed.
I don't know if this potential revenue stream will ever amount to a hill of beans, but my life experiences tell me that if there is a potential for making money from something, you can bet that someone will try it. As to their potential for success, well the jury is still out on that.
By the way, the audience seemed fairly evenly divided between large corporations and small "mom and pop" broadcasters. Texas still has a lot of small family owned stations. Many of them are very good broadcasters. I like that.
As you might guess, the big corporations were firmly committed to the Ibiquity technology. The "Mom & Pop's" were pretty well universally opposed. It had little to with technology though. Most that spoke out thought it was completely unfair that a station in a small 10-15,000 population town had to pay the same licensing fee as a station in Dallas or Houston. On a per potential listener basis, I think they have a very valid point. Maybe Ibiquity will address that.
SayNoToIBOC said:
The build out of WiMax will take at least three years. This will be extended by the fact that not all the needed spectrum is held by McCaw in its alliance with Motorola and Intel, and that the needed $20 billion or so has not been raised.
iBiquity is privately held. There are no reports about investors being "anxious" as iBiquity is rignt on track. This is just a downright lie. the main investors are US broadcasters themselves.
You really have to check your information, as it tends to be 100% worng as you realize that there are now 1000 on air HD stations (you said this was not true, but cpould not prove it) and 1000 more with equipment ordered.
Chuck said:
The equipment manufacturers would love HD to be subscriber based, as they coiuld sell more equipment. However, equipment manufacturers tend to be pretty clueless about the business of broadcasting, so including a totally irrelevant item in a presentation does not surprise me. If the manufacturers knew that they actually did themselves harm by this, they would stop.
The current design spec from iBiquity has no provision for decryption.
Broadcasters have no interest in a pay service. We have seen XM and Sirius, which make no money, and we see our own model, which makes lots of money, and the conclusion is easy: there is a bigger market for free radio. The HD Coallition campaign, valued at $200 million, promotes free radio with more options. If we wanted to go to a paid model, we would not be promoting the "free" aspects so voraciously.
The last folks I would go to for radio programming or marketing advice are Harris, BE and Nautel.
DavidEduardo said:
Actually, I'd think you might be leaving money on the table if you didn't take advantage of the subscriber based model. Just as many early FM stations made their money from renting SCA channels, many early adopter HD stations could use it to their advantage by leasing out the channels. Realistically, it's going to be a while until there are enough receivers out there to make much difference with your HD 2 and HD 3 channels. Might as well make some money out of it until there is enough of a receiver base to justify doing something else with it.
One thing is for sure; running HD along with an existing analog station is not going to lower your electricity bill.
A
autopaint-1
Guest
"One thing is for sure; running HD along with an existing analog station is not going to lower your electricity bill."
I can't tell you what the electric bills are for a typical operation but let's compare electric costs for a current solid state 3DX-50 to that of a Continental 317C, which is a relatively recent tube type transmitter or a GE GE Model BT-50 or a RCA BTA-50F. By those standards today's transmitters are cheap to run and IBOC adds little to the cost.
I can't tell you what the electric bills are for a typical operation but let's compare electric costs for a current solid state 3DX-50 to that of a Continental 317C, which is a relatively recent tube type transmitter or a GE GE Model BT-50 or a RCA BTA-50F. By those standards today's transmitters are cheap to run and IBOC adds little to the cost.
Chuck said:
HD is an answer to satellite ande broadband. Free radio gets advertiser support, and is what we know how to do. Don't look for subscription HD. Even the biggest cluster could offer maybe 5 or 6 choices, while satellite for $13 offers nearly 150. There is no economic model that will work for this. And the readio deisgn is not based on this idea, which was discarded.
Here are the economics... An SCA channel, even in LA, might get $7 thousand to $10 thousand a month, average. That is on a station that is billing $30 million or more. The reason some stations do it (and there are still plenty... KLVE, the #1 station in LA, has one in Farsi) is that it is "free money." There is no other use for the SCA. HD channels, on the other hand, can expand listening and keep listeners with free radio, worthy far more. Some stations spend more a week on marketing than they get all year for the SCA rental. To do paid radio, you need subscription services, billing, etc. Nobody will pay more than a dollar or two for just 5 channels, so this is not remotely doable.
HD barely increases the electric bill... the beacon on the towr uses more light in most cases.
D
dbdigital
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
Last I checked, KFI-AM was the #1 station in LA, not KLVE.
db
dbdigital said:
Check again.
In 12+ there is a tie with both stations having the same share. Both are #1. In 25-54, KFI is 6th and KLVE is 2nd (to #1 KSCA). KFI´s audience is mostly 55+, which does not generate sales. This is why KROQ sells double what KFI does.
KLVE out-cumes KFI by 150,000 persons, too.
DavidEduardo said:
Not according to the engineers from BE, Harris and Continental who were showing some actual figures. Naturally, your power consumption will depend on your TPO, as well as how you choose to implement the system. There are several ways to do that, and one may make more sense than another. It depends on your situation. Generally speaking, the most power efficient systems require the most up front investment. It's basically "pay me now, or pay me later."
There are also additional costs of air conditioning and of course finding space in the transmitter building for the new equipment. Don't forget you need to find room on the tower for the antenna if you choose to use a dual antenna system rather than a combiner. A lot of stations rent their tower space, so that could be a significant additional cost.
The argument that buying everything new will save money is not always valid. It is not like every station is using an antique transmitter. Lots of them already have modern transmitters that are just fine and use no more power than a brand new one would. In that case, throwing out an old watt sucking 1968 model transmitter for a new efficient solid state transmitter is not a part of the equation. They already have reasonably efficient transmitters, and are simply adding a second transmitter for the IBOC signal. That second transmitter, as well as the HD exciter and processing do require additional electricity that I think most people would notice in their electric bill.
It may be chump change in New York or LA, but in someplace like Marshall, Texas, these things are a significant cost of doing business.
Chuck said:
On a 50 kw AM, the HD component adds 500 watts, and the power consumption is minimal since the HD transmitter, being digital, is pretty efficient. As I said, the beacons draw more power. The power feeds the same towers (we were discussing mostly AM here)
On FM, the difference is a little more, and your point about tower space is appropriate. On the Hancock in CHicago, HD is on a separate antenna (master). Others own their sites, and it is no big deal other than potential wind loading issues. Most opt for a combined antenna, so that part in the long run has no greater costs once installed. And the power consumption is hardly noticable... the demands on AC usually will not strain a well designed system that is amply over-engineered anyway. Same with generator sets.
About 60% of US population is in the first 50 markets. All of these can afford the HD cost on the viable signals (nothing wil save a signal that is not viable) and the same is true in the rest of the top 100 markets. In LA, HD means capex of less than 1% of a station's 1-year gross income, or about 0.2% if amortized on a 5-year straignt line.
Again, on smaller markets you have a valid point. But remember that HD was designed to help free radio survive the digital options, not as a gimmick. If broadcasters in the smaller markets want to remain viable, they will have to go HD. If they don't, they will become candidates for acquisition by those who know there is going to be a lot of low hanging fruit in radio in the next few years.
DAVID WROTE: "If broadcasters in the smaller markets want to remain viable, they will have to go HD. If they don't, they will become candidates for acquisition by those who know there is going to be a lot of low hanging fruit in radio in the next few years."
Here we see a Univision exec reveal yet another reason WHY the big boys are pushing HD Radio so hard. Jam the financially weaker/smaller stations, then ultimately buy the low-hanging "fruit" for themselves at fire sale prices.
Here we see a Univision exec reveal yet another reason WHY the big boys are pushing HD Radio so hard. Jam the financially weaker/smaller stations, then ultimately buy the low-hanging "fruit" for themselves at fire sale prices.
- Status