R
RadioDoc
Guest
Post deleted by RadioDoc
-
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
J
JasonW
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly aware of the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her having to explain it every time.
In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms for IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes."
-- JasonW
> OK Folks...
>
> Can we be adults and use the term IBOC (as opposed to IBUZ
> and all those other clever little names)? It's like running
> around using phrases like Micro$oft or Micro$haft.
>
> It's unneccesary. We know how you feel, and really, you can
> make your point without having to make up names.
>
> Just a pet peeve...
>
> Carry on.
I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly aware of the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her having to explain it every time.
In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms for IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes."
-- JasonW> OK Folks...
>
> Can we be adults and use the term IBOC (as opposed to IBUZ
> and all those other clever little names)? It's like running
> around using phrases like Micro$oft or Micro$haft.
>
> It's unneccesary. We know how you feel, and really, you can
> make your point without having to make up names.
>
> Just a pet peeve...
>
> Carry on.
Re: It's IBOC
> Can we be adults and use the term IBOC (as opposed to IBUZ
> and all those other clever little names)? It's like running
> around using phrases like Micro$oft or Micro$haft.
>
> It's unneccesary. We know how you feel, and really, you can
> make your point without having to make up names.
>
> Just a pet peeve...
As the person who coined it I intend to continue using it. It appears to be the only truly accurate term. HD means nothing. Just ask the manufacturer. IBOC, I'm told, is really IBAC. For AM, at least, the system actually creates destructive buzz-like interference. Most of us with AM radios have heard it, even at this early stage of the game.
Somethimes honesty hurts. There hasn't been much of it in this rollout. IBUZ stays. It strikes me as far more adult than the term HD Radio. It gets to the heart of the issue. As you said, you know how users of the term feel. Another communication success. Sure beats "CD Quality" in the honesty department.
Rich
> Can we be adults and use the term IBOC (as opposed to IBUZ
> and all those other clever little names)? It's like running
> around using phrases like Micro$oft or Micro$haft.
>
> It's unneccesary. We know how you feel, and really, you can
> make your point without having to make up names.
>
> Just a pet peeve...
As the person who coined it I intend to continue using it. It appears to be the only truly accurate term. HD means nothing. Just ask the manufacturer. IBOC, I'm told, is really IBAC. For AM, at least, the system actually creates destructive buzz-like interference. Most of us with AM radios have heard it, even at this early stage of the game.
Somethimes honesty hurts. There hasn't been much of it in this rollout. IBUZ stays. It strikes me as far more adult than the term HD Radio. It gets to the heart of the issue. As you said, you know how users of the term feel. Another communication success. Sure beats "CD Quality" in the honesty department.
Rich
Re: It's IBOC
> I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
>
> Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly aware of
> the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her having to
> explain it every time.
>
> In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms for
> IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes." -- JasonW
>
Furthermore, with regard to IBAC, can anyone argue that digital sidebands are not on adjacent channels?
Someone, pleses take up my challenge!
(checkout my cute signature, closely)<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
> I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
>
> Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly aware of
> the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her having to
> explain it every time.
>
> In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms for
> IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes."
-- JasonW>
Furthermore, with regard to IBAC, can anyone argue that digital sidebands are not on adjacent channels?
Someone, pleses take up my challenge!
(checkout my cute signature, closely)<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
Re: It's In Band OFF Channel
> > I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
> >
> > Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly aware of
>
> > the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her having
> to
> > explain it every time.
> >
> > In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms for
>
> > IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes." --
> JasonW
> >
>
> Furthermore, with regard to IBAC, can anyone argue that
> digital sidebands are not on adjacent channels?
> Someone, pleses take up my challenge!
> (checkout my cute signature, closely)
>
When I tune to an adjacent channel of a station running IBAC, I hear distinctive IBUZ trash. IBOC should mean In Band Off Channel.<P ID="signature">______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471
WWPH 107.9 FM: http://wwph1079fm.no-ip.org</P>
> > I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
> >
> > Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly aware of
>
> > the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her having
> to
> > explain it every time.
> >
> > In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms for
>
> > IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes."
-- > JasonW
> >
>
> Furthermore, with regard to IBAC, can anyone argue that
> digital sidebands are not on adjacent channels?
> Someone, pleses take up my challenge!
> (checkout my cute signature, closely)
>
When I tune to an adjacent channel of a station running IBAC, I hear distinctive IBUZ trash. IBOC should mean In Band Off Channel.<P ID="signature">______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471
WWPH 107.9 FM: http://wwph1079fm.no-ip.org</P>
Re: It's In Band OFF Channel
> > > I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
> > >
> > > Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly aware
> of
> >
> > > the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her having
>
> > to
> > > explain it every time.
> > >
> > > In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms
> for
> >
> > > IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes." --
> > JasonW
> > >
> >
> > Furthermore, with regard to IBAC, can anyone argue that
> > digital sidebands are not on adjacent channels?
> > Someone, pleses take up my challenge!
> > (checkout my cute signature, closely)
> >
> When I tune to an adjacent channel of a station running
> IBAC, I hear distinctive IBUZ trash. IBOC should mean In
> Band Off Channel.
>
You are partly right about IBOC being off channel. It is referred to as the FCC mask. Analog also operates off channel in that you would have monkey chatter instead of the hiss if you tuned to a channel ajacient to an AM analog station. The FCC specified a mask in which stations are allowed to make excursions into the ajacient channel. (And yes, IBOC uses that mask very effeciently) Terms like IBAC and IBUZ are misleading and I usually gloss over posts which contain those acronyms because that tell me that the poster is anti-IBOC. However, once in a while I'll make a comment. Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't notice the problems which you bring up.
> > > I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
> > >
> > > Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly aware
> of
> >
> > > the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her having
>
> > to
> > > explain it every time.
> > >
> > > In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms
> for
> >
> > > IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes."
-- > > JasonW
> > >
> >
> > Furthermore, with regard to IBAC, can anyone argue that
> > digital sidebands are not on adjacent channels?
> > Someone, pleses take up my challenge!
> > (checkout my cute signature, closely)
> >
> When I tune to an adjacent channel of a station running
> IBAC, I hear distinctive IBUZ trash. IBOC should mean In
> Band Off Channel.
>
You are partly right about IBOC being off channel. It is referred to as the FCC mask. Analog also operates off channel in that you would have monkey chatter instead of the hiss if you tuned to a channel ajacient to an AM analog station. The FCC specified a mask in which stations are allowed to make excursions into the ajacient channel. (And yes, IBOC uses that mask very effeciently) Terms like IBAC and IBUZ are misleading and I usually gloss over posts which contain those acronyms because that tell me that the poster is anti-IBOC. However, once in a while I'll make a comment. Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't notice the problems which you bring up.
I'm with Doc on this one!
> > > > I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
> > > >
> > > > Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly
> aware
> > of
> > >
> > > > the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her
> having
> >
> > > to
> > > > explain it every time.
> > > >
> > > > In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms
>
> > for
> > >
> > > > IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes." --
> > > JasonW
> > > >
> > >
> > > Furthermore, with regard to IBAC, can anyone argue that
> > > digital sidebands are not on adjacent channels?
> > > Someone, pleses take up my challenge!
> > > (checkout my cute signature, closely)
> > >
> > When I tune to an adjacent channel of a station running
> > IBAC, I hear distinctive IBUZ trash. IBOC should mean In
> > Band Off Channel.
> >
> You are partly right about IBOC being off channel. It is
> referred to as the FCC mask. Analog also operates off
> channel in that you would have monkey chatter instead of the
> hiss if you tuned to a channel ajacient to an AM analog
> station. The FCC specified a mask in which stations are
> allowed to make excursions into the ajacient channel. (And
> yes, IBOC uses that mask very effeciently) Terms like IBAC
> and IBUZ are misleading and I usually gloss over posts which
> contain those acronyms because that tell me that the poster
> is anti-IBOC. However, once in a while I'll make a comment.
> Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't notice
> the problems which you bring up.
>
Another voice of reason. I agree with you and Doc concerning the acronym freaks. It would seem that most of these folks have no real electronic/RF knowledge....their postings prove it!
> > > > I find the term IBUZ rather cute.
> > > >
> > > > Besides, using such terms makes readers instantly
> aware
> > of
> > >
> > > > the poster's feelings toward IBOC without him/her
> having
> >
> > > to
> > > > explain it every time.
> > > >
> > > > In "Rush Limbaughean" terms, IBUZ and other such terms
>
> > for
> > >
> > > > IBOC are the equivalent of "anti-dittoes."
-- > > > JasonW
> > > >
> > >
> > > Furthermore, with regard to IBAC, can anyone argue that
> > > digital sidebands are not on adjacent channels?
> > > Someone, pleses take up my challenge!
> > > (checkout my cute signature, closely)
> > >
> > When I tune to an adjacent channel of a station running
> > IBAC, I hear distinctive IBUZ trash. IBOC should mean In
> > Band Off Channel.
> >
> You are partly right about IBOC being off channel. It is
> referred to as the FCC mask. Analog also operates off
> channel in that you would have monkey chatter instead of the
> hiss if you tuned to a channel ajacient to an AM analog
> station. The FCC specified a mask in which stations are
> allowed to make excursions into the ajacient channel. (And
> yes, IBOC uses that mask very effeciently) Terms like IBAC
> and IBUZ are misleading and I usually gloss over posts which
> contain those acronyms because that tell me that the poster
> is anti-IBOC. However, once in a while I'll make a comment.
> Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't notice
> the problems which you bring up.
>
Another voice of reason. I agree with you and Doc concerning the acronym freaks. It would seem that most of these folks have no real electronic/RF knowledge....their postings prove it!
R
RadioEngineer
Guest
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
> > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't notice
>
> > the problems which you bring up.
> >
Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
> Another voice of reason. I agree with you and Doc concerning
> the acronym freaks. It would seem that most of these folks
> have no real electronic/RF knowledge....their postings prove
> it!
>
I have no respect for this system, or the way it has been shoved down our throats by the collective known as iBiquity. I actually have extensive knowledge of electronics and RF, having been a DOE for some 20 plus years. This system was birthed by the owners of the existing facilities, in concert with the NAB, to prevent their analog properties from losing value, and to extend their inventory of spots to sell. The people who really understand this nonsense are the ones who stand to gain the most dollars from sales of equipment.
What no one seems to realize is that the technology on the horizon holds the potential to render terrestrial broadcasting meaningless. If you don't know what I'm referencing, you should do some research. Dinosaur RF is about to be history as far as a viable compeitor for entertainment services.
Again, hide and watch.
> > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't notice
>
> > the problems which you bring up.
> >
Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
> Another voice of reason. I agree with you and Doc concerning
> the acronym freaks. It would seem that most of these folks
> have no real electronic/RF knowledge....their postings prove
> it!
>
I have no respect for this system, or the way it has been shoved down our throats by the collective known as iBiquity. I actually have extensive knowledge of electronics and RF, having been a DOE for some 20 plus years. This system was birthed by the owners of the existing facilities, in concert with the NAB, to prevent their analog properties from losing value, and to extend their inventory of spots to sell. The people who really understand this nonsense are the ones who stand to gain the most dollars from sales of equipment.
What no one seems to realize is that the technology on the horizon holds the potential to render terrestrial broadcasting meaningless. If you don't know what I'm referencing, you should do some research. Dinosaur RF is about to be history as far as a viable compeitor for entertainment services.
Again, hide and watch.
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
> > > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't
> notice
> >
> > > the problems which you bring up.
> > >
> Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their
> Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
>
> > Another voice of reason. I agree with you and Doc
> concerning
> > the acronym freaks. It would seem that most of these folks
>
> > have no real electronic/RF knowledge....their postings
> prove
> > it!
> >
> I have no respect for this system, or the way it has been
> shoved down our throats by the collective known as iBiquity.
> I actually have extensive knowledge of electronics and RF,
> having been a DOE for some 20 plus years. This system was
> birthed by the owners of the existing facilities, in concert
> with the NAB, to prevent their analog properties from losing
> value, and to extend their inventory of spots to sell. The
> people who really understand this nonsense are the ones who
> stand to gain the most dollars from sales of equipment.
>
> What no one seems to realize is that the technology on the
> horizon holds the potential to render terrestrial
> broadcasting meaningless. If you don't know what I'm
> referencing, you should do some research. Dinosaur RF is
> about to be history as far as a viable compeitor for
> entertainment services.
>
> Again, hide and watch.
>
I agree 100% with the last paragraph....RF is going to be just part of the "pipe." Terrestrial services are, indeed, about to be history!
Your first statement about having this system "shoved down your throat"....I don't get that part. If you are a DOE, then you had a BIG say in what system was selected. Broadcast engineers were in the loop on this one....management does not have a clue when it comes to new technology....the DOE's were active here and had lot's of input!
And what is wrong with protecting your investment? If IBOC makes your facility worth more, and adds to dollars billed, then it is good, from an owner's perspective. Most advances had a profit motivation behind them, somewhere.I do not accept the argument that motivation by profit is wrong.
> > > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't
> notice
> >
> > > the problems which you bring up.
> > >
> Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their
> Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
>
> > Another voice of reason. I agree with you and Doc
> concerning
> > the acronym freaks. It would seem that most of these folks
>
> > have no real electronic/RF knowledge....their postings
> prove
> > it!
> >
> I have no respect for this system, or the way it has been
> shoved down our throats by the collective known as iBiquity.
> I actually have extensive knowledge of electronics and RF,
> having been a DOE for some 20 plus years. This system was
> birthed by the owners of the existing facilities, in concert
> with the NAB, to prevent their analog properties from losing
> value, and to extend their inventory of spots to sell. The
> people who really understand this nonsense are the ones who
> stand to gain the most dollars from sales of equipment.
>
> What no one seems to realize is that the technology on the
> horizon holds the potential to render terrestrial
> broadcasting meaningless. If you don't know what I'm
> referencing, you should do some research. Dinosaur RF is
> about to be history as far as a viable compeitor for
> entertainment services.
>
> Again, hide and watch.
>
I agree 100% with the last paragraph....RF is going to be just part of the "pipe." Terrestrial services are, indeed, about to be history!
Your first statement about having this system "shoved down your throat"....I don't get that part. If you are a DOE, then you had a BIG say in what system was selected. Broadcast engineers were in the loop on this one....management does not have a clue when it comes to new technology....the DOE's were active here and had lot's of input!
And what is wrong with protecting your investment? If IBOC makes your facility worth more, and adds to dollars billed, then it is good, from an owner's perspective. Most advances had a profit motivation behind them, somewhere.I do not accept the argument that motivation by profit is wrong.
J
JM_pstar
Guest
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
> > > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't
> notice
> >
> > > the problems which you bring up.
> > >
> Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their
> Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
Art Bell/George Noory/Coast to Coast AM is on at night when AMs aren't even allowed to run IBOC. Of course, in the future, that could change...but we never know.
Oh, and by the way, I live in a fringe area...and of the Albuquerque stations running HD, I have noticed NO coverage loss whatsoever.<P ID="signature">______________
16-year-old radio geek.</P>
> > > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't
> notice
> >
> > > the problems which you bring up.
> > >
> Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their
> Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
Art Bell/George Noory/Coast to Coast AM is on at night when AMs aren't even allowed to run IBOC. Of course, in the future, that could change...but we never know.
Oh, and by the way, I live in a fringe area...and of the Albuquerque stations running HD, I have noticed NO coverage loss whatsoever.<P ID="signature">______________
16-year-old radio geek.</P>
J
JasonW
Guest
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
Some FM talk stations do carry George Noory/Art Bell/Ian Punnet/Coast To Coast AM, but I don't know if any of them are running FM HD yet. -- JasonW
> > > > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't
> > notice
> > >
> > > > the problems which you bring up.
> > > >
> > Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their
> > Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
>
> Art Bell/George Noory/Coast to Coast AM is on at night when
> AMs aren't even allowed to run IBOC. Of course, in the
> future, that could change...but we never know.
>
> Oh, and by the way, I live in a fringe area...and of the
> Albuquerque stations running HD, I have noticed NO coverage
> loss whatsoever.
>
Some FM talk stations do carry George Noory/Art Bell/Ian Punnet/Coast To Coast AM, but I don't know if any of them are running FM HD yet. -- JasonW
> > > > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't
> > notice
> > >
> > > > the problems which you bring up.
> > > >
> > Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their
> > Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
>
> Art Bell/George Noory/Coast to Coast AM is on at night when
> AMs aren't even allowed to run IBOC. Of course, in the
> future, that could change...but we never know.
>
> Oh, and by the way, I live in a fringe area...and of the
> Albuquerque stations running HD, I have noticed NO coverage
> loss whatsoever.
>
K
k9ez
Guest
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
> > > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't
> notice
> >
> > > the problems which you bring up.
> > >
> Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their
> Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
If you were a DoE for 20 years you would know that you typical audience does not listen to "distant" stations. Most people have a few push buttons (if that) and dont tune around. Us DXers however are always tuning :-D
That being said, as a DoE myself, I am always trying to find ways to get my singals out further. If someone put a signal up that went into my fringe I would see what I could do about it. But if it is outside of my protected conture there is not a lot I can do about it.
>
> > Another voice of reason. I agree with you and Doc
> concerning
> > the acronym freaks. It would seem that most of these folks
>
> > have no real electronic/RF knowledge....their postings
> prove
> > it!
> >
> I have no respect for this system, or the way it has been
> shoved down our throats by the collective known as iBiquity.
> I actually have extensive knowledge of electronics and RF,
> having been a DOE for some 20 plus years. This system was
> birthed by the owners of the existing facilities, in concert
> with the NAB, to prevent their analog properties from losing
> value, and to extend their inventory of spots to sell. The
> people who really understand this nonsense are the ones who
> stand to gain the most dollars from sales of equipment.
>
And your point is???? Soudns like a decent BUSINESS decision to me! Radio is a BUSINESS after all.
> What no one seems to realize is that the technology on the
> horizon holds the potential to render terrestrial
> broadcasting meaningless. If you don't know what I'm
> referencing, you should do some research. Dinosaur RF is
> about to be history as far as a viable compeitor for
> entertainment services.
>
> Again, hide and watch.
>
I have done a LOT of research. Installed a few HD systems myself. Tested them out. If you are talking about wireless phone radio, there are more problems with that than people believe. (Shall we talk about serving the fringe areas? Shall we talk about bandwidth availability?) And even if it did take off, so what? Broadcasting would just use another route other than towers and high power transmitters. Broadcasting would not have changed that much.
> > > Also remember this fact: The general public doesn't
> notice
> >
> > > the problems which you bring up.
> > >
> Yes they do. Hide and watch when someone can't get their
> Art Bell, or when someone else loses a distant FM.
If you were a DoE for 20 years you would know that you typical audience does not listen to "distant" stations. Most people have a few push buttons (if that) and dont tune around. Us DXers however are always tuning :-D
That being said, as a DoE myself, I am always trying to find ways to get my singals out further. If someone put a signal up that went into my fringe I would see what I could do about it. But if it is outside of my protected conture there is not a lot I can do about it.
>
> > Another voice of reason. I agree with you and Doc
> concerning
> > the acronym freaks. It would seem that most of these folks
>
> > have no real electronic/RF knowledge....their postings
> prove
> > it!
> >
> I have no respect for this system, or the way it has been
> shoved down our throats by the collective known as iBiquity.
> I actually have extensive knowledge of electronics and RF,
> having been a DOE for some 20 plus years. This system was
> birthed by the owners of the existing facilities, in concert
> with the NAB, to prevent their analog properties from losing
> value, and to extend their inventory of spots to sell. The
> people who really understand this nonsense are the ones who
> stand to gain the most dollars from sales of equipment.
>
And your point is???? Soudns like a decent BUSINESS decision to me! Radio is a BUSINESS after all.
> What no one seems to realize is that the technology on the
> horizon holds the potential to render terrestrial
> broadcasting meaningless. If you don't know what I'm
> referencing, you should do some research. Dinosaur RF is
> about to be history as far as a viable compeitor for
> entertainment services.
>
> Again, hide and watch.
>
I have done a LOT of research. Installed a few HD systems myself. Tested them out. If you are talking about wireless phone radio, there are more problems with that than people believe. (Shall we talk about serving the fringe areas? Shall we talk about bandwidth availability?) And even if it did take off, so what? Broadcasting would just use another route other than towers and high power transmitters. Broadcasting would not have changed that much.
R
RadioEngineer
Guest
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
>
> If you were a DoE for 20 years you would know that you
> typical audience does not listen to "distant" stations.
> Most people have a few push buttons (if that) and dont tune
> around. Us DXers however are always tuning :-D
>
That's ridiculous. I've fielded many calls from people that wanted advice on how to get a station from my market before streaming existed. I've sent them designs on high gain antennas with filtering networks so they could hear the programming they desired. Notice they were interested in programming that they weren't able to receive in their distant market. Programming. Content.
> That being said, as a DoE myself, I am always trying to find
> ways to get my singals out further. If someone put a signal
> up that went into my fringe I would see what I could do
> about it. But if it is outside of my protected conture there
> is not a lot I can do about it.
>
Of course. It's cake to get budget for a better antenna or move to a better site or even put up an ERI LAMBDA section because we all know how easy it is to pry money for capital out of the hands of the accountants.
It's particularly easy to get the $16,000 or so you need for the spectrum analyzer that will allow you to keep your analog/IBOC aligned. They would never object to this as they're the ones who said to put the system up and they really want you to be able to maximize the quality of the service. The really savvy ones want you to spend the extra $100k for a Nautel system with adaptive pre-correction.
>
> And your point is???? Soudns like a decent BUSINESS decision
> to me! Radio is a BUSINESS after all.
It's not a decent business decision when the evidence is that the business plan ultimately will fail. A better business plan would be to address the real issue of content and good engineering practice. Put on good programming and make your analog station sound excellent and the reason for IBOC vaporizes. If you want to catch up to the additional channels of IBOC down the road, assuming IBOC exists down the road, you have the luxury of getting in on fifth, sixth or greater generation equipment that will be far better than what is out there now, and the capital expenditure will be reduced with a real potential for ROI.
>
> I have done a LOT of research. Installed a few HD systems
> myself. Tested them out. If you are talking about wireless
> phone radio, there are more problems with that than people
> believe. (Shall we talk about serving the fringe areas?
> Shall we talk about bandwidth availability?) And even if it
> did take off, so what? Broadcasting would just use another
> route other than towers and high power transmitters.
> Broadcasting would not have changed that much.
And then what of all of the money that's been poured into a marginal digital system? We simply abandon and move on? Do I get to keep my spectrum analyzer?
>
>
> If you were a DoE for 20 years you would know that you
> typical audience does not listen to "distant" stations.
> Most people have a few push buttons (if that) and dont tune
> around. Us DXers however are always tuning :-D
>
That's ridiculous. I've fielded many calls from people that wanted advice on how to get a station from my market before streaming existed. I've sent them designs on high gain antennas with filtering networks so they could hear the programming they desired. Notice they were interested in programming that they weren't able to receive in their distant market. Programming. Content.
> That being said, as a DoE myself, I am always trying to find
> ways to get my singals out further. If someone put a signal
> up that went into my fringe I would see what I could do
> about it. But if it is outside of my protected conture there
> is not a lot I can do about it.
>
Of course. It's cake to get budget for a better antenna or move to a better site or even put up an ERI LAMBDA section because we all know how easy it is to pry money for capital out of the hands of the accountants.
It's particularly easy to get the $16,000 or so you need for the spectrum analyzer that will allow you to keep your analog/IBOC aligned. They would never object to this as they're the ones who said to put the system up and they really want you to be able to maximize the quality of the service. The really savvy ones want you to spend the extra $100k for a Nautel system with adaptive pre-correction.
>
> And your point is???? Soudns like a decent BUSINESS decision
> to me! Radio is a BUSINESS after all.
It's not a decent business decision when the evidence is that the business plan ultimately will fail. A better business plan would be to address the real issue of content and good engineering practice. Put on good programming and make your analog station sound excellent and the reason for IBOC vaporizes. If you want to catch up to the additional channels of IBOC down the road, assuming IBOC exists down the road, you have the luxury of getting in on fifth, sixth or greater generation equipment that will be far better than what is out there now, and the capital expenditure will be reduced with a real potential for ROI.
>
> I have done a LOT of research. Installed a few HD systems
> myself. Tested them out. If you are talking about wireless
> phone radio, there are more problems with that than people
> believe. (Shall we talk about serving the fringe areas?
> Shall we talk about bandwidth availability?) And even if it
> did take off, so what? Broadcasting would just use another
> route other than towers and high power transmitters.
> Broadcasting would not have changed that much.
And then what of all of the money that's been poured into a marginal digital system? We simply abandon and move on? Do I get to keep my spectrum analyzer?
>
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
FCC policy since at least the 80s with breakup of the clears, Docket 80-90 and LPFM has been that no one has any right or reason to listen to out-of-market stations. If you're in Dayton, you don't have any reason to be listening to Cincinnati, etc. As a result, stations will not have any coverage outside their normal protected zone. There was a thread on another board about a couple of Michigan super-power FMs applying to drop power..turns out they're only protected to the maximum for their class, and all the drop-ins have nibbled away substantially at their signals. So if all you can get is your locals, that's clearly the FCC's intention.
FCC policy since at least the 80s with breakup of the clears, Docket 80-90 and LPFM has been that no one has any right or reason to listen to out-of-market stations. If you're in Dayton, you don't have any reason to be listening to Cincinnati, etc. As a result, stations will not have any coverage outside their normal protected zone. There was a thread on another board about a couple of Michigan super-power FMs applying to drop power..turns out they're only protected to the maximum for their class, and all the drop-ins have nibbled away substantially at their signals. So if all you can get is your locals, that's clearly the FCC's intention.
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
> FCC policy since at least the 80s with breakup of the
> clears, Docket 80-90 and LPFM has been that no one has any
> right or reason to listen to out-of-market stations. If
> you're in Dayton, you don't have any reason to be listening
> to Cincinnati, etc.
You might get some disagreement with WSM, Nashville, and the Grand Ole Opry. Maybe from stations like WBAP with trucker shows. Actually, satellite radio can take that one over. Maybe we don't need any more 50Kw stations.
Rich
> FCC policy since at least the 80s with breakup of the
> clears, Docket 80-90 and LPFM has been that no one has any
> right or reason to listen to out-of-market stations. If
> you're in Dayton, you don't have any reason to be listening
> to Cincinnati, etc.
You might get some disagreement with WSM, Nashville, and the Grand Ole Opry. Maybe from stations like WBAP with trucker shows. Actually, satellite radio can take that one over. Maybe we don't need any more 50Kw stations.
Rich
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: I'm with Doc on this one!
> Maybe we don't need any more 50Kw stations.
>
Gee, looks like you've broke the code! That's your conspiracy right there...<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Maybe we don't need any more 50Kw stations.
>
Gee, looks like you've broke the code! That's your conspiracy right there...<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
- Status