Make AM HD Radio not interfere here and I'll support it

[radiopilot]

A hidden agenda? It's got to be for all the circling of the wagons against all those that oppose HD for obvious reasons.

There is an agenda: keeping free terrestrial radio viable. Some trade-offs may be needed, but the price is acceptable to broadcasters.

What??? The price is acceptable to the 'broadcasters'? Sorry if this struck a cord but please... the price is not acceptable to the general public at large and WE are the ones that the broadcasters must live up to... If Iboc HD does not live up to the standard by which alot of listeners with their existing equipment are listening now and get tired of the lameness on the air due to the fatigue of listening to hiss all day long... you'll then see the price that'll be acceptable to the broadcasters.

Advertising revenue is the REAL measure of how a broadcaster views their enterprise and when that falls due to falling listenership because of HD's failings bean counters begin the cutting crusade.

Radiopilot

 

[paul vincent zecchino]

HD Cost is acceptable to broadcasters? Spoken by one who poses as a radio afficianado yet in truth has a vested interest in HD. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

So, why deny it? Why be false? Oh, I see, just going with the HD stooge-flow?

Ask any cop, what get's their attention? Beyond suspicious conduct - it's always the denial.

FCC licenses broadcasters to serve the public, not make their costs 'acceptable'.

How very tedious. Make a salient point, and HD cheerleaders reply - by a different orifice.

Dr. Paul Vincent Zecchino
Manasota Key, Florida
22 March, 2007

 

[davideduardo]

What??? The price is acceptable to the 'broadcasters'? Sorry if this struck a cord but please... the price is not acceptable to the general public at large and WE are the ones that the broadcasters must live up to... If Iboc HD does not live up to the standard by which alot of listeners with their existing equipment are listening now and get tired of the lameness on the air due to the fatigue of listening to hiss all day long... you'll then see the price that'll be acceptable to the broadcasters.

Advertising revenue is the REAL measure of how a broadcaster views their enterprise and when that falls due to falling listenership because of HD's failings bean counters begin the cutting crusade.

Incredible. This comes as a response to a post where I pointed out that just about every word you said was wrong, ranging from the little two-decade error on AM stereo to the need to "change" transmitters to broadcast CQuam.

Free terrestrial radio is supprted by advertising. Without it, we would have the same sort of government radio that Zimbabwe proudly offers. And if a station is not successful commercially, it can not exist for long... and gets sold to the next guy who thinks they can make a go of it.

Radio has morphed from a network-based source of programs in the night before televeision to a music based medium in the 60's and 70's to a split with talk on AM and music on FM today. And now, we are moving again as an industry to add free channels on HD2 and to improve the quality of the viable AMs to remain relevant. Any change comes at some cost, but the degree of this change comes with minimal sacrifices since radio listening and usage is also different than it was 10, 20 or 80 years ago.

HD will not negatively affect the usage of radio (no interference of significance to signals that are acutually used) or it's revenue model. In LA, for example, nearly every significant FM and quite a lot of the good AMs are HD, and there are no complaints after as much as two years on air for some of the early test installations.

 

[moderator7]

Some posts in this topic have been moved to Take It Outside.

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=66700.0