Is HD Radio Really Going to be Free ?

[davideduardo]

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.

Most of us abhor the thought of running smaller market stations. Small markets take two or three times the management time that a top 10 market does, and leaves one-tenth the profit. This is why groups like CBS are getting out of all but the top 50 markets. It takes a totally different breed to work in the small markets.

Your conclusion is totally flawed.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

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.

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.

HAVE THE SHAREHOLDERS BEEN TOLD ABOUT THIS? I THINK THEY WERE PROMISED PROFITS!

 

[SUPERCASTER]

"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 !!!

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.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) among other things, regulates false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, and has already gotten complaints about HD Radio. (If you haven't filed your complaint yet, you should.) So the FTC is definately involved.
*CD QUALITY SOUND
*GET HUNDREDS OF NEW STATIONS (SAME OLD STATIONS, JUST ADDITIONAL STREAMS AS RADIO HAS BEEN DOING ON SCA FOR DECADES)
*GET THE STATIONS BETWEEN THE STATIONS (HD RADIO JAMMS THOSE WITH DIGITAL BUZZ. HD Radio gets no new stations, just the same old ones with added digital streams. The same streams you can get on the internet, better, cheaper, farther and in some cases, clearer!)
The lies, misrepresentations, deception, and false adverising just goes on and expands from there.

 

[autopaint-1]

*CD QUALITY SOUND = I believe they say for FM CD LIKE sound. For AM near FM quality. A properly engineered HD 2 stream is pretty close to CD quality. WCBS FM HD2 which I thought had marginal audio quality a few months ago now sounds great. I recorded a dat of their HD 2 yesterday and will try to post a demo here later if I have time.


"*GET HUNDREDS OF NEW STATIONS (SAME OLD STATIONS, JUST ADDITIONAL STREAMS AS RADIO HAS BEEN DOING ON SCA FOR DECADES)"

(Yawn) Wrong again. nationally hundreds of new formats have been introduced. New to the market that is and SCA audio quality is nowhere near that of a well engineered HD station.


"*GET THE STATIONS BETWEEN THE STATIONS (HD RADIO JAMMS THOSE WITH DIGITAL BUZZ. HD Radio gets no new stations, just the same old ones with added digital streams. The same streams you can get on the internet, better, cheaper, farther and in some cases, clearer!)"

No digital "BUZZ" on my Receptor. As a matter of fact I don't hear anyy "BUZZ" on my analogue FM receivers either. On AM The IBOC stations cause no interference to any listenable station in my market and many of our IBOC stations run 50 KW.



"The lies, misrepresentations, deception, and false adverising just goes on and expands from there."

Well other than advertising I thinnk this line better reflects the comments made by the anti-iboc crowd. They are the ones who are less than candid about their reasoning for these anti-iboc comments. Are you all, DXers, Wi-Fi people, satellite subscribers, or friends of Kahn? C'mon, be honest with us. I am honest and will state that I am an engineer for a national radio network not a local radio station. We are a content supplier to stations. My interest in IBOC is as a radio owner and someone who see's this as a step forward in program delivery. I make this statement only to disclose that I have no financial interest in IBOC. My job does not depend on HD in any way. Personally, I really am happy with my Receptor. It sounds great, is sensitive enough to receive all my local HD stations, with its DSP is about the most selective radio I've seen in years, I've DXed wih this radio and heard stations on it that I have never heard on any other radio, and did I say, it sounds great.

 

[davideduardo]

HAVE THE SHAREHOLDERS BEEN TOLD ABOUT THIS? I THINK THEY WERE PROMISED PROFITS!

iBiquity is a start up. It is mostly owned by the major broadcasters of the US, none of whom are "upset" since iBiquity is doing what it is supposed to.

Ask the same question of nearly 100% of the genetic drug companies, many of whom have been sucking up capoital for 15 to 20 years with no approved products.

Ask the same question of XM and Sirius, both about 15 years old, and losing about $200 million a quarter.

And, finally, unless you are a shareholder, how would you know what was promised? iBiquity is not a public corporation, so it has no filings, no published annual report, etc. You are in no position to know.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

*CD QUALITY SOUND = I believe they say for FM CD LIKE sound. For AM near FM quality. A properly engineered HD 2 stream is pretty close to CD quality. WCBS FM HD2 which I thought had marginal audio quality a few months ago now sounds great. I recorded a dat of their HD 2 yesterday and will try to post a demo here later if I have time.


"*GET HUNDREDS OF NEW STATIONS (SAME OLD STATIONS, JUST ADDITIONAL STREAMS AS RADIO HAS BEEN DOING ON SCA FOR DECADES)"

(Yawn) Wrong again. nationally hundreds of new formats have been introduced. New to the market that is and SCA audio quality is nowhere near that of a well engineered HD station.


"*GET THE STATIONS BETWEEN THE STATIONS (HD RADIO JAMMS THOSE WITH DIGITAL BUZZ. HD Radio gets no new stations, just the same old ones with added digital streams. The same streams you can get on the internet, better, cheaper, farther and in some cases, clearer!)"

No digital "BUZZ" on my Receptor. As a matter of fact I don't hear anyy "BUZZ" on my analogue FM receivers either. On AM The IBOC stations cause no interference to any listenable station in my market and many of our IBOC stations run 50 KW.



"The lies, misrepresentations, deception, and false adverising just goes on and expands from there."

Well other than advertising I thinnk this line better reflects the comments made by the anti-iboc crowd. They are the ones who are less than candid about their reasoning for these anti-iboc comments. Are you all, DXers, Wi-Fi people, satellite subscribers, or friends of Kahn? C'mon, be honest with us. I am honest and will state that I am an engineer for a national radio network not a local radio station. We are a content supplier to stations. My interest in IBOC is as a radio owner and someone who see's this as a step forward in program delivery. I make this statement only to disclose that I have no financial interest in IBOC. My job does not depend on HD in any way. Personally, I really am happy with my Receptor. It sounds great, is sensitive enough to receive all my local HD stations, with its DSP is about the most selective radio I've seen in years, I've DXed wih this radio and heard stations on it that I have never heard on any other radio, and did I say, it sounds great.

"*CD QUALITY SOUND = I believe they say for FM CD LIKE sound. For AM near FM quality. A properly engineered HD 2 stream is pretty close to CD quality."

Your inserting the word "like" when the promotions and advertising clearly say "CD quality sound" is just layering on more lies, and does not change any culpability, nor add to your credibility. Neither does your adding the word "near" for the AM claims made of "FM quality sound".
See for yourself what the adds say. Here are the links to the advertising lead from the HD cartel website that everyone copies:http://www.hdradio.com/what_is_hd_digital_radio.php

"The Same Unmatched Fidelity as Your Digital Music" -(Inferring the same as CD's again?)

FM stations now with CD-quality sound
AM stations now with FM-quality sound"

Here is more false HD Radio advertising:
"Expect More From Your Radio"
"All digital, all the time" NOT-HD Radio flips back and forth between analog and digital!
"No hiss, distortion or station drop off" ALSO NOT TRUE-The HD signal disappears long before the analog that it uses for a backup. There have been numerous reports of power line noise on HD AM, and multipath on FM HD makes the HD signal disappear!

(Yawn) Wrong again. nationally hundreds of new formats have been introduced. New to the market that is and SCA audio quality is nowhere near that of a well engineered HD station.


Your are trying to confuse "stations" that the advertising claims, with "formats", again being dishonest. New "stations" implies new creative sources, new "formats" (from the same old sources) would be more accurate, but that is not what is stated or claimed. Another deception.
Perhaps it is your excessive, continuous, boredom and sleepiness that causes inattentiveness and all the incessant unscrupulousness?
Digital HD on SCA fequencies can be every bit as good, and perhaps better then HD Radio/iBiquity/"IBOC".
FMeXtra:
www.dreinc.com


"No digital "BUZZ" on my Receptor. As a matter of fact I don't hear anyy "BUZZ" on my analogue FM receivers either. On AM The IBOC stations cause no interference to any listenable station in my market and many of our IBOC stations run 50 KW."

Apparently you are one of the few who can't hear the digital buzz between stations caused by the adjacent channel digital signals of iBiquity/HD Radio/"IBOC". Continuous tinnitus buzzing blocking the HD noise?
Perhaps it is related to your lack of sleep, or too much HD Radio listening?
ARE YOU DEAF YET?

 

[autopaint-1]

I can't wait for the lawsuits to be filed and the subsequent dismissals to take place. All that wasted money fighting nonsense. All I hear is blustering and accusations and none of it is based on fact. One would have to have quite an imagination to taken anything said here seriously. The hair splitting and desperation I read in here is just too much to take seriously. It’s 3 or 4 people with nothing better to do. The rest of the country couldn’t care less about Dxing or any of the garbage that IBOC naysayer’s have passed on as fact. I recorded a IBOC HD 2 demo yesterday on DAT from my receptor. It sounds great. I’ll try to post it in wav form later today. Oh, it does sound like CD quality. Very clean with no audible noise floor.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Your recordings of idealized HD Radio signals are irrelevent to any of the issues of deception, analog interference, or the abandonment of license commitments.

 

[davideduardo]

Your recordings of idealized HD Radio signals are irrelevent to any of the issues of deception, analog interference, or the abandonment of license commitments.

There are no deceptions: it sounds better
There is no analog interference: nobody listens to the adjacent channels
There is no abandonment of licencee commitments; for 50 years the FCC has emphasized serving the local market, not distant ones.

 

[IBOCRocks]

Your recordings of idealized HD Radio signals are irrelevent to any of the issues of deception, analog interference, or the abandonment of license commitments.

None of which applies to your argument. You are the original anti-IBOC deceptor. Unlike others here, you attacked the technology, and then flat-out refused to present any science to back it up. You are the worst kind...you just blatently make things up, and then twist reality to fit your delusions.

 

[autopaint-1]

And the best part is that in the end IBOC will be available, terrestrial radio will survive and those posting opposing views will have to find something else to occupy their time. ;D

 

[IBOCRocks]

And the best part is that in the end IBOC will be available, terrestrial radio will survive and those posting opposing views will have to find something else to occupy their time. ;D

The funny thing is is that BPL (Broadband over power line) is poised to do real damage, much more than these guys claim will happen by IBOC. That's a very real, proven threat. Yet they attack this. What's funnier is not only will they lose this battle, but before they know it DX'ing will be obliterated by that very real threat.

There is some other agenda here that I'm trying to figure out. If they were really interested in helping the public, they'd be going after the bigger threat.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

And the best part is that in the end IBOC will be available, terrestrial radio will survive and those posting opposing views will have to find something else to occupy their time. ;D

The funny thing is is that BPL (Broadband over power line) is poised to do real damage, much more than these guys claim will happen by IBOC. That's a very real, proven threat. Yet they attack this. What's funnier is not only will they lose this battle, but before they know it DX'ing will be obliterated by that very real threat.

There is some other agenda here that I'm trying to figure out. If they were really interested in helping the public, they'd be going after the bigger threat.

So you agree the biggest threat to the radio listeners is HD Radio, while the biggest threat to DXers and short wave listeners is BPL.

 

[IBOCRocks]

And the best part is that in the end IBOC will be available, terrestrial radio will survive and those posting opposing views will have to find something else to occupy their time. ;D

The funny thing is is that BPL (Broadband over power line) is poised to do real damage, much more than these guys claim will happen by IBOC. That's a very real, proven threat. Yet they attack this. What's funnier is not only will they lose this battle, but before they know it DX'ing will be obliterated by that very real threat.

There is some other agenda here that I'm trying to figure out. If they were really interested in helping the public, they'd be going after the bigger threat.

So you agree the biggest threat to the radio listeners is HD Radio, while the biggest threat to DXers and short wave listeners is BPL.

Nope, I sure don't agree. I don't believe HD Radio is a threat to anything, but BPL os. And I urge you to show me where I even implied otherwise.

Nice of you to try and bend reality to your needs. Too bad it didn't work, though.

 

[Chuck]

[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.

It appears to me, and your more or less confirm it, that lots of smaller stations will not survive the transition to IBOC. In major metros, HD in its current form makes quite a bit of sense, especially if you happen to be one of the well established stations whose 64 dbu contour covers 90% of its listeners.

For the rest of us, it isn't exactly good news. I know for a fact that we have regular listeners to at least our 50dbu contour, and there are a few brave souls who have gone to the extent of erecting outdoor antennas to pick us up. Some of those are well past our 50 dbu contours as shown on our Longley-Rice contour maps. I know this because I’ve actually talked to some of those listeners.

I think digital broadcasting is a great idea, and adding secondary channels has its appeal as well. The problem is for many of us, coverage to our 64 dbu contour is simply not adequate.

 

[IBOCRocks]

[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.

It appears to me, and your more or less confirm it, that lots of smaller stations will not survive the transition to IBOC. In major metros, HD in its current form makes quite a bit of sense, especially if you happen to be one of the well established stations whose 64 dbu contour covers 90% of its listeners.

For the rest of us, it isn't exactly good news. I know for a fact that we have regular listeners to at least our 50dbu contour, and there are a few brave souls who have gone to the extent of erecting outdoor antennas to pick us up. Some of those are well past our 50 dbu contours as shown on our Longley-Rice contour maps. I know this because I’ve actually talked to some of those listeners.

I think digital broadcasting is a great idea, and adding secondary channels has its appeal as well. The problem is for many of us, coverage to our 64 dbu contour is simply not adequate.

You make a very good point. The only thing I can add is that with a good antenna, you can pick up a digital signal from much farther out. There's a 6kw class A that I can hear 25 miles from their transmitter.

So, the spec is for solid reliable coverage at the city grade contour, but just like analog, in reality it can be heard farther out.

 

[1q2w3e]

[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.

It appears to me, and your more or less confirm it, that lots of smaller stations will not survive the transition to IBOC. In major metros, HD in its current form makes quite a bit of sense, especially if you happen to be one of the well established stations whose 64 dbu contour covers 90% of its listeners.

For the rest of us, it isn't exactly good news. I know for a fact that we have regular listeners to at least our 50dbu contour, and there are a few brave souls who have gone to the extent of erecting outdoor antennas to pick us up. Some of those are well past our 50 dbu contours as shown on our Longley-Rice contour maps. I know this because I’ve actually talked to some of those listeners.

I think digital broadcasting is a great idea, and adding secondary channels has its appeal as well. The problem is for many of us, coverage to our 64 dbu contour is simply not adequate.

The thing is that no station is being REQUIRED to implement IBOC. I dont see the smaller stations going to IBOC. Like the early days of FM, a lot of stations were not in stereo. Smaller markets can hold on to the analog (as will the major markets) without the need to go to IBOC. For those markets that can afford to, they can implement IBOC IF THEY CHOOSE.

There is a lot to learn on the IBOC signal. I know I implemented an FM that did quite well on its HD signal. It came close to matching the analog, and defintely covered that 60dBu. A lot of transmitting plants are in need to upgrading or at least maintenance. Over the years the signal may have drifted and with a good look at at the transmitting plant you may see an overall improvement in both analog and HD signals.

 

[Chuck]

The thing is that no station is being REQUIRED to implement IBOC. I dont see the smaller stations going to IBOC. Like the early days of FM, a lot of stations were not in stereo. Smaller markets can hold on to the analog (as will the major markets) without the need to go to IBOC. For those markets that can afford to, they can implement IBOC IF THEY CHOOSE.

True enough, and I think not participating is the decision that many smaller stations are making, at least for now. Time will tell if IBOC is something that becomes crammed down our throats or not. It probably won't. There are quite a few stations that still broadcast in mono and they have listeners. My over-simplified point of view is that as long as you broadcast programming that someone wants to listen to, someone will listen, regardless of the technology used to deliver that programming.

 

[1q2w3e]

The thing is that no station is being REQUIRED to implement IBOC. I dont see the smaller stations going to IBOC. Like the early days of FM, a lot of stations were not in stereo. Smaller markets can hold on to the analog (as will the major markets) without the need to go to IBOC. For those markets that can afford to, they can implement IBOC IF THEY CHOOSE.

True enough, and I think not participating is the decision that many smaller stations are making, at least for now. Time will tell if IBOC is something that becomes crammed down our throats or not. It probably won't. There are quite a few stations that still broadcast in mono and they have listeners. My over-simplified point of view is that as long as you broadcast programming that someone wants to listen to, someone will listen, regardless of the technology used to deliver that programming.

You my friend, have nailed it. There are so many people flailing their arms around saying the sky is falling. All need to take a breath and look at what the situation is.