> Maybe the reason Clear Channel is not selling these non
> performing AM's is because IBOC will make AM's on par with
> FM. Maybe CC is a step ahead of us. Who knew.
>
YES!! This is the reason! 5-10 years down the road it will be about who owns the most bandwidth...and CC is well positioned in this race. In theory, with digital radio you could drive from Maine to California and listen to the same program the whole way without touching the dial (the radio would automatically change freqs as you progressed to keep you on the same program.) This is not to say local radio will disappear, but expect some of the smaller non-performing stations (and even some of the big ones) to be used to support coast-to-coast broadcasts capable of interjecting local information/spots. For example a trucking or road trip channel with local road conditions/weather/spots inserted. A nice one-up on satellite radio. ...not to mention easy as pie to sell with very little overhead (my understanding is that CC will recognize most of the capital expense of digital upgrades in 2005).
As for the cost of digital radios....do you know where CCs first (or one of the firsts) digital station was launched? Detroit. Guess who got digital radios for XMAS last year from CC? Yup...auto execs. It also seems like I read that CC (in typical vertical integration style) was involved in the making of the chips that allow digital radio reception for the sole purpose of keeping the cost down. (i'm too lazy to fact check here) Bottom line....expect digital radios to take about as long as FM radio or auto cassette decks or cd players to catch on. Expensive at first, but hardly a car without them in the future. if it is there people will use it.
It is also quite likely that instead of 103.7 "A" AND 103.7 "B" radio will do the same thing cable did (remember channel 4a and 4B on you cable box)and just expand the dial. In otherwords, have a digital station that appears to the user to be on 112.2, but is really broadcast on 103.7A.
