Naysayer, defined in one dictionary as “someone with an aggressively negative attitude”. That is just about the way it is applied in this forum so I will go with that definition for the sake of this on-going argument. Now I am not interested in changing anyone’s mind as the respective camps are pretty well entrenched now. As for me, I am not opposed to advancement in technology at all. If that weren’t the case, I would still be working with transcription lathes and wire recorders, so I don’t particularly care for being stereotyped and branded based on a single system preference. Indeed at the onset, I had high hopes for HD being the answer to the technological handicap of AM radio. It almost seemed too-good-to-be-true as the upside was portrayed like one of those late-night television commercials that are usually “per inquiry” marketing gimmicks selling a kitchen appliance that flawlessly performs all of these neat tasks. Every new technological advancement has some issue or series of problems in startup until a degree of “in the field knowledge” is gained and adjustments made. Commensurately, when a vendor is not forthcoming about these issues or denies there are any problems and declares product perfection, I tend to get apprehensive and start to ask questions. Now when a proponent starts to get angry with me because of the questions I am asking, that just makes me ask more questions. That’s about the time I just say “thank you for your time”, move on, consider other alternatives and seek a higher plane, which is exactly what I am doing.
The vast majority of the stations employing HD technology exist in the class of the largest broadcasters that are heavily invested in the brand with a direct ownership stake in the inventor and capital investment in the equipment. The majority of mid to small stations are forever frozen out of participation due to the capital cost and ongoing licensing fees that represent additional expense in a time when it is difficult to pay the FICA tax or light bill, others taking a wait and see attitude. Absences of HD in these geographic regions present a discontinuity of coverage and setback for receiver sales. I contend the large groups are committed but only to a degree as most (if not all) have not yet stuck their neck out far enough to invest in back-up or redundant HD transmission systems. Some of the equipment is now into its second if not already third generation, all in a very short period of existence.
The 10db power increase that’s being talked about for FM may help the digital but will have a negative impact on the analog, which is currently paying ALL the bills. As an example, even a well-integrated 92 and/or 67 kHz relatively narrow-band subcarriers can wreak multipath havoc with an FM signal in some markets. The sheer capital cost of the power increase (if approved) will be staggering considering most of the current hardware and ancillary equipment will have to be replaced.
Where robust in reach, radio is an ailing medium that is undergoing yet another adjustment to bring expenses inline with revised revenue; so another big outlay in capital is not likely. Many station staff level people look on HD as something that was added to their task list with no operational funding and dwindling resources. Sales people are concerned that additional channels may compete for revenue they have running on other stations even in their own cluster. Again, I am talking about the real world conditions, as they exist down here at the street level not in some high-rise corporate office hundreds of miles away from where the action is.
Is the demise of HD eminent? No! The investment in the technology is in the (B) billions and the people who sold the concept and pressed for the approved these capital investments are still employed and I am sure want to remain that way. To walk down the hall to the money folks and declare the concept a failure with all that investment still on the books may indeed be one of those career-altering admissions.
“And the beat goes on.”
W/
The vast majority of the stations employing HD technology exist in the class of the largest broadcasters that are heavily invested in the brand with a direct ownership stake in the inventor and capital investment in the equipment. The majority of mid to small stations are forever frozen out of participation due to the capital cost and ongoing licensing fees that represent additional expense in a time when it is difficult to pay the FICA tax or light bill, others taking a wait and see attitude. Absences of HD in these geographic regions present a discontinuity of coverage and setback for receiver sales. I contend the large groups are committed but only to a degree as most (if not all) have not yet stuck their neck out far enough to invest in back-up or redundant HD transmission systems. Some of the equipment is now into its second if not already third generation, all in a very short period of existence.
The 10db power increase that’s being talked about for FM may help the digital but will have a negative impact on the analog, which is currently paying ALL the bills. As an example, even a well-integrated 92 and/or 67 kHz relatively narrow-band subcarriers can wreak multipath havoc with an FM signal in some markets. The sheer capital cost of the power increase (if approved) will be staggering considering most of the current hardware and ancillary equipment will have to be replaced.
Where robust in reach, radio is an ailing medium that is undergoing yet another adjustment to bring expenses inline with revised revenue; so another big outlay in capital is not likely. Many station staff level people look on HD as something that was added to their task list with no operational funding and dwindling resources. Sales people are concerned that additional channels may compete for revenue they have running on other stations even in their own cluster. Again, I am talking about the real world conditions, as they exist down here at the street level not in some high-rise corporate office hundreds of miles away from where the action is.
Is the demise of HD eminent? No! The investment in the technology is in the (B) billions and the people who sold the concept and pressed for the approved these capital investments are still employed and I am sure want to remain that way. To walk down the hall to the money folks and declare the concept a failure with all that investment still on the books may indeed be one of those career-altering admissions.
“And the beat goes on.”
W/
