Is this how we're going to spend 2009?

[dumber than a box of hair]

I remember an interview (Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes," IIRC) asking Mel Brooks why he insists on lampooning Nazis (as in "Springtime for Hitler"), inevitably drawing tons of mail declaring "there's nothing funny about Nazis!" His response (paraphrased): "I'm not lampooning them, I'm ridiculing them, because that's all that's left to do with them." I think the "anti" reactions to HD radio on this board are running the same way, mostly because too many of the "pros" have all the sincerity of a corporate press release (which a lot of them appear to be). Further, the continuing farcical forecasts by iBiquity (on the order of "this is the year HD will take off," which we've already heard several times, "there are 1.5 million chip sets already manufactured," which relates to real, measurable net receiver sales not in the slightest, and "there are more HD receivers on the market than ever before," which as we all know is making approximately no effect whatsoever on consumers' disinterest in the product) unfortunately reflect nothing other than a corporation completely out of touch with reality. We can, of course, also include the way this product was tested (not) and introduced (marketed as an engineering improvement over the heads of engineers to managers who don't generally have any idea of what's feasible technically), and whose resulting interference have either resulted in silence from regulators (who are supposedly bound by law to resolve such complaints; Bob Savage said it much more eloquently than I could) or scaled-back use (see Martin Stabbert).

Cliff's Notes: We ridicule HD radio because we have nothing else left.

 

[clouseau]

Just a comment about perceptions. And how I believe many people do not understand them. Frankly, I feel most peopel with something sensible to say are treated fairly here. At least by the Pro crowd. The Anti gang... My perception not so much. But I digress.

Savage has recently posted a well written piece about HD and his feelings about it. And the discussion that goes on here. I'm certain Savage feels he does not get a fair shake overall on the issue. He cites in particular that anti HD people are villfied as "Luddites" or "DXers".

To me, I wasn't aware that being branded a "DXer" was vilification. But I'll take it. I like to DX some times. Brand me guilty and March me off. I've never seen the term as derrogatory. Neither is... So You're a boater. "I understand you'd like to replace all the black top on the streets with canals. You're a BOATER." There's probably a better example of this, but it's not worthy of any more attention. My apologies if somehow being painted as a DXer is villification. To me you can collect stamps and still use the post office. Whining that the stamps are not pretty enough is nonesense.

The L u d d i t e s thing really got me to thinking. And I've not retyped it to show the following illustration. If you search for "That word" in the little box at the top of this page, you get 10 hits on this board since the beginning of time.

The list includes author and usages

David Eduardo - referring to the NRC
Tom Wells - quoteing me asking Supercaster to stop using the word about Pro IBOCers
Me - asking Supercaster to stop using the word about Pro IBOCers
Supercaster - Thinking he's telling off DrZ when he's actually replying to David Eduardo
Dr Z - The #1 Analog guy Sarcastically saying that Anti HD people are Luddites.
Me - Quoting Supercaster
Me - Quoting Zach RE his comments of Broad technology and how the US is a nation of...
Savage - speaking of how HD oopponents are always caled l u d d i t e s to Radioman100.
Savage - addressing StopIBOC.Com and refuting those who use the word about him and his members.
Savage - This thread and the how he and the anti HD folks are called that.

Scoreboard?

30% Savage complaining about use of the term
20% Me quoting someone else who used it.
10% Me requesting Supercaster stop using it.
10% Dr. Z Sarcastically using it to malign pro HD people.
10% Supercaster Telling off Dr. Z. (Who says they don't eat their young)
10% David Eduardo referring to the National Radio Club
10% Tom Wells quoting David Eduardo.

Maybe the Anti gang is a little sensitive. Or the is a "Perception" gap.

I post this exercise not to annoy people but to make a point. Often times someone's perception is NOT reality. Do I think Savage is trying to mislead? Absolutly not. I'm sure he will be as surprised about this as others may be. I was not. I actually was surprised how little the term was used at all.

I think this example says a lot about where people's heads are. And PERHAPS why the "Should we or shouldn't we" discussion, at least about FM is pretty much centered on this board. Because it's a non-starter elsewhere. It's already happening. It's like debating the good and bad of electricity.

I would suggest that if there was a forum with anyone who mattered more than here who would discuss it, the discussion would be there. When it comes to FM implementation, in my opinion it isn't. The discussion about FM I hear in SBE and the like is Cost and timing and PITA factors. Not should we or shouldn't we.

I fear however, that the industry's answer to AM's problems is going to become... Move it to FM. They'll use translators and full power stations and dump the stick altogether.

In my opinion, the end of AMHD will signal the end of the end for AM radio overall. That's when the big broadcasters will just move the good stations over to FM. Or buy another signal. You've seen the foolishness about "The way out of the recession for radio is revised ownership limits" right? Does anyone think they are lookng to lower those limits?

How viable will AM radio be when it really DOES disappear from radio dials? Most markets are but 1 or two AM stations away from having the band not matter anymore anyway. No one really thinks there is going to be an AM resurgance do they? Really?

I'm working with a client who is an AM owner right now to get them out of their AM and exclusively on FM. I didn't suggest this, it was their idea. I've got 'em on translators and they're in buy mode. Mostly because they're scared. Frankly, AMHD got big broadcasters to give a hoot about their AM stations again. I fear if they let go, they'll find a sucker and sell the stick. Who on this forum really believes they couldn't beat themselves with equal programming in a head to head contest FM vs AM?

The scary part is, we're only about 100 stations away from Nonstop religion and Mickey Mouse NATIONALLY. (And even Mickey Mouse is going to FM here and there).

You did see ESPN want to buy FM in NYC and put DEPORTES on 1050, right?

It's a scary time, even outside of the big City. A lot scarier than it was when they first thought they should fix AM.

Clouseau

 

[pqgeorge]

Like so many other people on this board, I too am not anti-digital. However, with the current situation with IBOC, I feel that it is not the solution for digital broadcasting due to its' destructive tendencies of interfering with adjacent channels on both AM and FM. Even at 1% injection, the adjacent splatter on FM really causes grief on adjacent channels. Imagine the problems with 10% injection? I personally think that FMeXtra would be a better alternative than IBOC, considering the comparatively small amount of IBOC receivers already in the market. Like CBS Color never took off and was replaced with NTSC Color, maybe FMeXtra would be a more lucrative digital format. Unlike IBOC, the smaller stations including the Class D's and the LPFM's would have a chance to go digital without "breaking the bank" or interfering with their "neighbors".

 

[RadeoEngineer]

There is some really good thinking and writing in this thread. It's a shame the same can't be applied to the process of reviving broadcast radio and making it beyond relevant again. But that's really not the job of the folks that screw the wires together. And perhaps that's where the multitude of the problems reside. Those who dictate without consideration of the advice of their most valuable technical employees deserve to have their titulars in the wringer. I have always been skeptical, if not downright disrespectful of the attitude of "I will do what I'm told even if I believe it is wrong. And I will shut my mouth to save my job." Fornicate that. My job is to tell them they're wrong, and save them the grief they would have (and in fact, have) brought upon themselves.

I don't believe AM dies, and I don't believe FM becomes a bastard step-child to satelite, which I actually believe has more chance of failure than terrestrial. When this all shakes out, and it will, we'll have functional, relevant stations that will probably never have the cash flow or personnel from the glory years of not so long ago, but they'll make money through relevance and serving the local public.

There are still stations that work with live people on the air as a rule, and in many cases they're kicking ass on the conglomerates that run nice juke boxes. The immediacy of a caller on the air or someone actually in house to cover a disaster is what radio does. Harry Reasoner (yes I'm that old) used to have a CBS radio promo spot about how "you can read it tomorrow, see it tonight, or hear it now." That's what will save terrestrial radio. There will be increased competition as more services come on line, but the smart ones will figure out the balance, and find the way to profitable operation. The mega operations will lose money liquidating their 20X+ cash flow acquisitions as the new operators come in and take radio back to where it can once again succeed. It's a golden opportunity in many ways for smart people.

IBOC will die, and it should. It's a bad compromise system that solved no problems but created many new ones. It will not be mandated by the FCC. The money spent to install this thing will be written off to "we at least have great facilities now that never would have been upgraded before." The analog technology we have for AM and FM is quite good, and if we can get back to content with quality audio and good facilities we can succeed.

Terrestrial radio don't need no stinkin' digitizing. It needs relevant local content.

 

[TheBigA]

Harry Reasoner (yes I'm that old) used to have a CBS radio promo spot about how "you can read it tomorrow, see it tonight, or hear it now." That's what will save terrestrial radio.

Except that Harry Reasoner wasn't local content. And that's the point. Local doesn't matter unless there's a local disaster.

What made Harry's point irrelevant was the cell phone and personalized networks built around cell phones and the internet.

So while you can hear it now on the radio, you have to be listening to hear it. But you can get a cell phone alert if you're not. Ingenius, actually.

What will make FM relevant is learning how to benefit from and integrate with new technology. Relevant local content won't matter if the audience is doing something else. You need to get them where they are. And the technical staff IS a factor there. Those who can show ways to integrate and monetize will be valued. The FM iPhone app developed by Jacobs Media is just one example.

So where is HD Radio in that discussion? Not part of it.

 

[KB1OKL]

Savage has recently posted a well written piece about HD and his feelings about it. And the discussion that goes on here. I'm certain Savage feels he does not get a fair shake overall on the issue. He cites in particular that anti HD people are villfied as "Luddites" or "DXers".

To me, I wasn't aware that being branded a "DXer" was vilification. But I'll take it. I like to DX some times.
Clouseau

I believe we DXer's are vilified because we were amongst the first outside the industry to understand just what it was and just what it was going to do and consequently were amongst the first to complain about it. Many of us are also very vocal in our opinion which probably doesn't make us real popular with HD devotees and/or advocates.

 

[TheBigA]

I believe we DXer's are vilified

I don't see it as vilification. It simply is US government and FCC policy for over 25 years to encourage localism in radio. As a result, the interests of DXers is unimportant, because it doesn't support localism. It's what has led to the establishment of thousands of local community radio stations across the country. It has led to a transference from a small number of high powered radio stations in major cities to thousands of radio stations in smaller communities. The sales and ratings structure of these stations has moved from one that sold regionally, especially at night, to one that strictly focuses on the local market, even in the case of 50,000 watt stations. It has led to policy changes in the way markets are determined for ownership limits, so that companies that own large powerful AMs can own similar stations in nearby markets.

Unfortunately, the policy ignored the fact that it's harder to staff and program those smaller stations than the larger ones. In a time when supply of radio stations exceeds the demand, a case could be made for returning to the previous policy of fewer larger stations. But I don't see it happening. There is bipartisan support, mainly from the Democrats, to continue and expand the policy of localism.

The other problem we have now is that the policy of localism has crashed head on into another policy of digitalization of broadcasting. That is an established policy of the government and the FCC. However, there is a conflict in those two policies in the way they're being executed, because small local stations are being hurt by large digital signals. They have no solution to that problem, and like most things with the government, no one wants to stick their neck out without covering their hind quarters.

But it's not meant as vilification, nor should it be taken as an insult. It's just policy.

 

[clouseau]

I believe we DXer's are vilified because we were amongst the first outside the industry to understand just what it was and just what it was going to do and consequently were amongst the first to complain about it. Many of us are also very vocal in our opinion which probably doesn't make us real popular with HD devotees and/or advocates.

KB,

I think you are mischaracterizintg the situation. DXers are like "Caboose lovers" Quaint and not relevant to the operation of the railroad. Do railroads hate people who like cabbooses? (Caboosi?) Of course not. In fact from time to time they'll even put a caboose on a train for special occasions. (Can you say DX test?)

Radio does not hate DXers. But they ARE irrelevant. That apparently has hurt some people''s feelings. Sorry. Some of the best moments I had in radio were talking to a guy in Colorado who piced up our graveyarder from Texas. But he sure as heck didn't help me get higher ratings, sell more ads or pay my bills.

The Business of Radio is more than people trying to hear you 3 states away with a ball of wire on the floor.

Clouseau

 

[Play Freebird]

What will make FM relevant is learning how to benefit from and integrate with new technology. Relevant local content won't matter if the audience is doing something else. You need to get them where they are. And the technical staff IS a factor there. Those who can show ways to integrate and monetize will be valued. The FM iPhone app developed by Jacobs Media is just one example.

So where is HD Radio in that discussion? Not part of it.

Interesting that you mention the iPhone app. We know it's not a big problem for an independent software writer to develop new applications to run on a Windows, Linux, Palm, Mac, HTML, iPhone, etc. platform, and that's why we keep seeing these new ideas flourish. They start at the bottom and work their way up. Look at all the hobbyists who started by writing freeware and then found a way to derive revenue from it.

But suppose an entrepreneur comes up a new idea for use of ancillary data in an HD radio stream? Can he or she get past all of the intellectual property hurdles imposed by iBiquity? According to the licensing agreements, it appears iBiquity wants to control everything.

And how does a consumer load new application software into an existing HD receiver? Where's the flexibility for growth? Are we supposed to throw away our old HD radio and buy a new one every time a new feature is introduced?

If I were designing a new digital car radio -- or even a home receiver -- I would insist on including a Bluetooth and/or WiFi interface to allow it to be linked to a PDA or laptop, so the data sent over the air could be transferred to a portable device conveniently, without the need for wires. Not only would this provide great flexibility to download information that could be accessed at the user's convenience, but receiver firmware updates could be downloaded from the internet portable device and then transferred to the radio. This should add little cost; Bluetooth is now available in the same inexpensive chip as an FM receiver:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...zes-11n-bluetooth-fm-into-new-cheap-chip.html

I'm sure the accountants at iBiquity will pooh-pooh this suggestion because they want a piece of ALL the action --but might DRE run with it? For that matter, let's do it with open-source RDS.

Further, I would encourage development of new applications at the station level and offer substantial financial incentives to employees for innovative ideas. People at the bottom are usually much more in touch with reality than top level executives. We would then start to see some brilliant applications that would likely drive the sale of receivers.

Broadcasters have always been free to feed (just about) anything to the audio inputs of their transmitters, why not the data inputs as well? Listeners have always had direct access to the audio outputs of their receivers (whether speaker level or line level), so why not the ancillary data stream?

 

[Play Freebird]

What will make FM relevant is learning how to benefit from and integrate with new technology. Relevant local content won't matter if the audience is doing something else. You need to get them where they are. And the technical staff IS a factor there. Those who can show ways to integrate and monetize will be valued. The FM iPhone app developed by Jacobs Media is just one example.

So where is HD Radio in that discussion? Not part of it.

Interesting that you mention the iPhone app. We know it's not a big problem for an independent software writer to develop new applications to run on a Windows, Linux, Palm, Mac, HTML, iPhone, etc. platform, and that's why we keep seeing these new ideas flourish. They start at the bottom and work their way up. Look at all the hobbyists who started by writing freeware and then found a way to derive revenue from it.

But suppose an entrepreneur comes up a new idea for use of ancillary data in an HD radio stream? Can he or she get past all of the intellectual property hurdles imposed by iBiquity? According to the licensing agreements, it appears iBiquity wants to control everything.

And how does a consumer load new application software into an existing HD receiver? Where's the flexibility for growth? Are we supposed to throw away our old HD radio and buy a new one every time a new feature is introduced?

If I were designing a new digital car radio -- or even a home receiver -- I would insist on including a Bluetooth and/or WiFi interface to allow it to be linked to a PDA or laptop, so the data sent over the air could be transferred to a portable device conveniently, without the need for wires. Not only would this provide great flexibility to download information that could be accessed at the user's convenience, but receiver firmware updates could be downloaded from the internet to the portable device and then transferred to the radio. This should add little cost; Bluetooth is now available in the same inexpensive chip as an FM receiver:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...zes-11n-bluetooth-fm-into-new-cheap-chip.html

I'm sure the accountants at iBiquity will pooh-pooh this suggestion because they want a piece of ALL the action --but might DRE run with it? For that matter, let's do it with open-source RDS.

Further, I would encourage development of new applications at the station level and offer substantial financial incentives to employees for innovative ideas. People at the bottom are usually much more in touch with reality than top level executives. We would then start to see some brilliant applications that would likely drive the sale of receivers.

Broadcasters have always been free to feed (just about) anything to the audio inputs of their transmitters, why not the data inputs as well? Listeners have always had direct access to the audio outputs of their receivers (whether speaker level or line level), so why not the ancillary data stream?

 

[TheBigA]

But suppose an entrepreneur comes up a new idea for use of ancillary data in an HD radio stream? Can he or she get past all of the intellectual property hurdles imposed by iBiquity? According to the licensing agreements, it appears iBiquity wants to control everything.

You're absolutely right, and it's that 20th century mentality that will stifle any possible growth.

I have been an advocate for a long time that iBiquity should give away the technology FOR FREE to radio manufacturers in order to get the application in the marketplace. You will not see HD becoming more widespread as long as there are the huge licensing costs involved. I find it interesting that FM didn't become more widespread in radios until the Armstrong family's patent ran out in the 60s. I think that same rule applies here. Give away the technology for electronics manufacturers. Once the application is a hit, then you make your money on the back end.

I completely agree with your point that is it far more beneficial for electronics manufacturers to develope their own digital technology for radio than to install iBiquity's. The only advantages iBiquity has is they have the FCC approval, and they've built an alliance of owners. But both can be overcome, however with a lot of upfront investment. We're talking about deferring financial gain until the technology is a proven success, and most companies can't afford that kind of business model.

 

[clouseau]

According to the licensing agreements, it appears iBiquity wants to control everything.

You're absolutely right, and it's that 20th century mentality that will stifle any possible growth.

I have been an advocate for a long time that iBiquity should give away the technology FOR FREE to radio manufacturers in order to get the application in the marketplace.

Amen to that. however, in this day of month to month firings dues to revenue, they don't look at it like that. Here's a thought. What if they DID give away HD. No License fee. Or maybe better for them... Free for 10 years.

Transmitter licensing? There's no way this shouldn't have been free.

Not to beat the deadest of dead horses, but How about FMeXtra? If THEY would "Give away" encoders for cost (Which I'll guess is about $2K max) think of where THEY could go. Maybe Norm Miller and Bob Strubel could face off in Celebrity Death Match on MTV.

But seriously, the Ibiquity plan of major bucks per installation makes no sense. Maybe they should run a "Sale" $1000 licensing for top 100 markets - $500 for everyone else. Sign up in January '09 and commit to build by Dec '10. Lose the license fees on equipment for the first install. What would an encoder cost, maybe $10K?. Probably less.

Secondary fees would still apply. They could sign up another 1000 stations overnight.

Not very good marketing by them so far IMHO.

Of course that's their middle name, right?

Clouseau

 

[KB1OKL]

I believe we DXer's are vilified because we were amongst the first outside the industry to understand just what it was and just what it was going to do and consequently were amongst the first to complain about it. Many of us are also very vocal in our opinion which probably doesn't make us real popular with HD devotees and/or advocates.

KB,

I think you are mischaracterizintg the situation. DXers are like "Caboose lovers" Quaint and not relevant to the operation of the railroad. Do railroads hate people who like cabbooses? (Caboosi?) Of course not. In fact from time to time they'll even put a caboose on a train for special occasions. (Can you say DX test?)

Radio does not hate DXers. But they ARE irrelevant. That apparently has hurt some people''s feelings. Sorry. Some of the best moments I had in radio were talking to a guy in Colorado who piced up our graveyarder from Texas. But he sure as heck didn't help me get higher ratings, sell more ads or pay my bills.

The Business of Radio is more than people trying to hear you 3 states away with a ball of wire on the floor.

Clouseau

Not to change the subject but I realize radio stations couldn't care less about DXer's, 75 years ago? yes because they wanted to see how far they were getting out. I'm just pointing out why the very small majority of listeners who are DXers are disliked by IBOCers, that's all.
You love that ball of wire, huh Inspector? I'll sell you some of that magic wire cheap. It will pull in stations from half the country away on a 1929 unrestored radio while AM iBOC won't come in here at 40 miles at night at all and during the day is full of artifacts, sounds shrill, saccharine and drops out continuously during the day.

 

[clouseau]

I'm just pointing out why the very small majority of listeners who are DXers are disliked by IBOCers, that's all.

I'm assuming the "Small Majority" is an ooops. Nonetheless. "IBOCers" could care less about DXers. What they care about is when Dxers use their hobby as a reason for fewer choices and lower quality sound. (OK That's marketing, but you get the meaning)

IBOCers don't hate DXers. They HAVE been know to ridicule DXers when DXers think we should write interference rules based on their hobby rather than actual radio listening patterns. Much like I would suspect railroads would ridicule caboose lovers if they try to write "Pro Caboose" legislaion because "It's harder to see the end of the train coming now without a caboose". We don't use cabooses (caboosi?) anymore. We'll all just have to adjust. You do know basically no one cares about cabooses or DX, right?

Clouseau

 

[fybush]

IBOCers don't hate DXers. They HAVE been know to ridicule DXers when DXers think we should write interference rules based on their hobby rather than actual radio listening patterns. Much like I would suspect railroads would ridicule caboose lovers if they try to write "Pro Caboose" legislaion because "It's harder to see the end of the train coming now without a caboose". We don't use cabooses (caboosi?) anymore. We'll all just have to adjust. You do know basically no one cares about cabooses or DX, right?

And here's the part where I get to disagree with the Inspector

While I'll gladly agree that listening patterns have changed dramatically since KB1OKL's favorite radio (you know, the one with the Famous Ball o' Wire on the floor next to it) was made back in the thirties, the laws of physics haven't. This is problematic for some of the staunch supporters of AM HD. I vividly recall having lunch at an NAB show a few years ago, sitting right across from a Very Well-Known IBOC Proponent who earnestly explained to me that in a few years' time (a decade, I think it was - and this was three or four years ago already), all AM would be digital.

"So how will that work with skywave interference?," I asked him.

"Oh, there won't be any skywave," he replied.

Well, nobody practicing radio engineering in a position of authority should need to be told - by a DXer or anyone else -that signals in the medium-wave band, whether analog or digital, are still propagated by skywave at night.

Nor should they need to be told that as the number of stations on the band is increased, thus increasing the background noise level on the band, transmitted power levels need to be increased to keep groundwave coverage areas consistent. But all that added power gets out by skywave, too, thus increasing background noise levels even higher, thus forcing power levels to go even higher to keep up, and the vicious circle continues. (See: "Graveyard Channels Increase to 1000 Watts at Night," circa 1980s, for details.)

I'm not disputing the point that nobody at WBZ cares anymore about whether the station can be heard at night in Rochester or Roanoke. (Heck, it's not clear, after last week, that anybody at BZ really cares about nighttime service to freakin' Revere, but I digress.)

My point here is that the DXers seem to understand, far better than, say, your average Ibiquity executive, how MW signals propagate - and how you can't stop them from propagating no matter how much you might like to legislate skywave out of existence.

So while I'm not arguing for interference rules based on DX hobbyists' desires, I do think it would be nice if we had interference rules based on propagation realities, rather than the wishful "there won't be any skywave" desires of the system's promoters. I think it would be even nicer if we had interference rules that recognized the unique nature of the MW frequencies, and that allocated at least a few wide-reach frequencies to broadcasters who would actually take advantage of the power of nighttime skywave. (But then, I spent some time, 20 years ago, living and traveling in one of those radio "white areas" that tend to get swept under the rug in such discussions.)

Where I probably differ from KB, though, is that I'd be equally interested to see what could be done with all-digital service over a powerful clear channel at night. If the AM dial has really become as worthless as we're being told it is, what's the harm in trying at this point?

 

[jras20]

I am a little late on this, but let me jump in since I saw I was in the first thread about Houston FM. I can tell you, I can receive Houston very good with a dipole antenna 84 miles, its a clean FM stereo sound. (For the most part) I fired up my HD Radio, I could get a good mono signal for Houston, HD will pop up every so often but not enough to listen. Austin HD is not very reliable either, even for only 30 miles out. Try listening to it on a car radio. The HD-2 channel goes out every time I go under power lines...

 

[rbrucecarter5]

IBOCers don't hate DXers. They HAVE been know to ridicule DXers when DXers think we should write interference rules based on their hobby rather than actual radio listening patterns. Much like I would suspect railroads would ridicule caboose lovers if they try to write "Pro Caboose" legislaion because "It's harder to see the end of the train coming now without a caboose". We don't use cabooses (caboosi?) anymore. We'll all just have to adjust. You do know basically no one cares about cabooses or DX, right?

Clouseau

Oh - really? Try posting on here about skywave or DX and feel the love from the pro-IBOC folks. In reality, most of the most vehement pro-IBOC folks disappeared months ago after the nighttime AM operation was approved. Their victory won, they lost interest in the forum. Having tangled with a few of them, I can tell you I felt about as welcome as an African American at a KKK rally. Even this post, comparing DX to railroad cabooses, is biased. The two have nothing in common, so a comparison is ludicrous.

DX today is common in rural America. People don't give a flip about QSL cards, but they give a flip about entertainment and will put up TV antennas to get it. Don't give that garbage about broadband internet or satellite, the folks who most need distant stations are the very ones who are least likely to be able to afford or understand such things. Even if that is only a few percentage of the population, it is still millions of people. Millions more than have HD radios.

 

[clouseau]

Oh - really? Try posting on here about skywave or DX and feel the love from the pro-IBOC folks.

IBOC folks could care less about DXing. Herein lies the perception issue. DXing is a hobby. PERIOD. If you want to DX, fine. It's like Ham radio and American Airlines. American Airlines could care less if you play with your "Moon Bounce" hobby as a ham. However when you say "We should stop air travel because it interferes with my ability to utilize "Moon bounce", then you're being nonsensical. However here is where your issue comes from. You're apparent;y not satisfied with DXing. You want "DXing protection". KB has posted on this forum how "Boston FMHD has interfered with his analog NYC skip listening." You have mislabeled "ANY" broadcasters dismissal of your DXing complaints, with they "Hate You". And you have transposed that onto HD.

Where's the outrage about losing WHO in New York state because of WYSL? (Sorry Bob). That "Protect DX" mentality is just silly. And it's been dismissed, both proctically and legally. All over the country, station have been assigned which interfere with other stations. It was called "Breaking down the Clears". I'm sure you've heard of it.

Even this post, comparing DX to railroad cabooses, is biased. The two have nothing in common, so a comparison is ludicrous.{/quote]

They have a LOT in common. Both were very needed at one time. Both played a vital roll as a component in a "one of a kind system". And both have outlived their usefulness. Both have a group of affectionados who still love them. And from time to time, the industries who created them still dabble in them, as a hobby or "Salute". Of course now. instead of DX radio, the people who need the election results listen to their local station. Or get it from cable, satellite or the internet. Just like we no longer need a guy riding the back of the train. Switches are remotely thrown from the control center. This portion of the original system is no longer needed

You find the comparison "Biased" because you expect protection for your hobby. I like horses as much as the next guy, but you can't expect to get "protection" so you can ride one down the freeway.

DX today is common in rural America. People don't give a flip about QSL cards, but they give a flip about entertainment and will put up TV antennas to get it.

So now we're talking about TV-DX? And IBOC affect these people HOW?

Don't give that garbage about broadband internet or satellite, the folks who most need distant stations are the very ones who are least likely to be able to afford or understand such things.[/quote]

So they don't want to PAY to subscribe, but they WILL put up an antenna for more choices. Yet you find total fault with that logic for HD radio users getting more choices in cities.

<Sarcasm>Ya know Cartman, it looks like you don't really care about the Muslims, you just want to get "Family Guy" off the air.</sarcasm>.

The issue here is truly identifying what DXing is. Radio DXing. It's a hobby. Not much more.

Clouseau

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Oh - really? Try posting on here about skywave or DX and feel the love from the pro-IBOC folks.

American Airlines could care less if you play with your "Moon Bounce" hobby as a ham. However when you say "We should stop air travel because it interferes with my ability to utilize "Moon bounce", then you're being nonsensical.

My point has been made. By comparing me with a child bouncing on a moon bounce - you have attempted to marginalize me. Ad hominen arguments lose the debate - look it up. So - I WIN, you LOSE - deal with it!

If you want to discuss the issue intelligently, without resorting to ad hominen attacks, I'd be happy to. But your position is clearly on the side of RF pollution - if not from IBOC, then from all the ridiculous allocations and lack of confronting Mexico. I side with those who think less interference, not more interference, would make radio easier to listen to and attract listeners back.

 

[clouseau]

American Airlines could care less if you play with your "Moon Bounce" hobby as a ham. However when you say "We should stop air travel because it interferes with my ability to utilize "Moon bounce", then you're being nonsensical.

My point has been made. By comparing me with a child bouncing on a moon bounce - you have attempted to marginalize me.

Err. Let me be polite...

Right after it says "Moon Bounce hobby"it says "As a ham".

Moon Bounce communications in amateur radio are accomplished by bouncng a signal, VHF IIRC, from the Earth to the Moon and back to the Earth. It is fairly sophisticated, requiring some specialized equipment as well as a knowledge of RF propagation and Celestial movement. Geometry and Calculus are helpful as well. Air traffic will disrupt attempts at moon bounce communications to a degree. That was my point.

Ad hominen arguments lose the debate - look it up. So - I WIN, you LOSE - deal with it!

Let me quote "Wrath of Kahn"? "I Yield to the superior intellect"

If you want to discuss the issue intelligently, without resorting to ad hominen attacks, I'd be happy to.

You're kidding me, right?

Out.

Clouseau