Not that I have any faith in Bridge Ratings, but...

[clouseau]

It's been pretty quiet around here today, so I thought I would post some "October" data from everyone's favorite... Bridge Ratings. This originally appeared on the podcasting board, but I migrated it over here Since it has a good deal of relevence to HD radio.

Here's the link

http://www.bridgeratings.com/press_071906-digitalprojectionsupdwradio.htm

This shows what the highly questionable Bridge Ratings thinks about the state of the world. My guess is Actual Mileage may vary... A LOT, but it's still interesting to see how it has been mischaracterized in the recent past by some.

Now before you get to interpreting this the way it was spun on the other board, realize that "Internet Radio" and "Wireless internet penetration" are NOT CUMULATIVE. That is... just because you have wireless internet does NOT mean you listen to internet radio. Wireless internet refers to "Penetration". Conversely, XM would be cumulative with Sirius to get a category of "Satellite Radio". (If it showed.) "HD Radio" and "Terrestial radio" are not cumulative either. HD radio is 100% terrestial radio.

What does all this tell us? First off, The methodology is highly questionable, but taken with a grain of salt...

This is only my opinion.

1) Despite a gradual roll off, Terrestial radio (And it's subset HD) are still top dog as far out as the data goes. (2020)

2) There is a continuing market for satellite service, but not when they need so many more PAID subscribers. Satellite needs to get their costs under control. They have overpaid for most of their BIG programming and that's because there isn't any Big Time support for it. It's a good niche product. Sell it that way and rake in the cash.

3) Phone streaming is really anemic. I would have thought it would rate better. Maybe the whole thing is that only radio geeks like phone streaming. I'm perplexed.

4) In 2020 terrestial radio has a higher cume than Wireless internet penetration. Now I don't know about you, but RIGHT NOW I have wireless internet on 2 computers at home, One additional laptop, and nothing in the car. Now if only Half the wireless connectivity these folks project in 2020 is in cars, Terrestial radio (And HD) are looking ok for a good long, LONG while.

5) Podcasting is irrelevant and is projected to REMAIN irrelevant through 2020.

As these Bridge folks have done their shopping mall serveys, I wonder if they asked "How would $39.95 HD radios affect you response? How would an increast to $18.95 for the cost of Satellite radio affect your response? Based on new "very high" streaming royalties, how would 66% fewer internet stations available affect your response?"

I'll bet not.

Still even if we believe their numbers, the sky is NOT falling for terrestial radio (And HD).

Anyone interpret the data differently?

Clouseau

 

[IBOCRocks]

Great job on the interpretation. I think you were spot-on!

 

[SUPERCASTER]

It's been pretty quiet around here today, so I thought I would post some "October" data from everyone's favorite... Bridge Ratings. This originally appeared on the podcasting board, but I migrated it over here Since it has a good deal of relevence to HD radio.

Here's the link

http://www.bridgeratings.com/press_071906-digitalprojectionsupdwradio.htm

This shows what the highly questionable Bridge Ratings thinks about the state of the world. My guess is Actual Mileage may vary... A LOT, but it's still interesting to see how it has been mischaracterized in the recent past by some.

Now before you get to interpreting this the way it was spun on the other board, realize that "Internet Radio" and "Wireless internet penetration" are NOT CUMULATIVE. That is... just because you have wireless internet does NOT mean you listen to internet radio. Wireless internet refers to "Penetration". Conversely, XM would be cumulative with Sirius to get a category of "Satellite Radio". (If it showed.) "HD Radio" and "Terrestial radio" are not cumulative either. HD radio is 100% terrestial radio.

What does all this tell us? First off, The methodology is highly questionable, but taken with a grain of salt...

This is only my opinion.

1) Despite a gradual roll off, Terrestial radio (And it's subset HD) are still top dog as far out as the data goes. (2020)

2) There is a continuing market for satellite service, but not when they need so many more PAID subscribers. Satellite needs to get their costs under control. They have overpaid for most of their BIG programming and that's because there isn't any Big Time support for it. It's a good niche product. Sell it that way and rake in the cash.

3) Phone streaming is really anemic. I would have thought it would rate better. Maybe the whole thing is that only radio geeks like phone streaming. I'm perplexed.

4) In 2020 terrestial radio has a higher cume than Wireless internet penetration. Now I don't know about you, but RIGHT NOW I have wireless internet on 2 computers at home, One additional laptop, and nothing in the car. Now if only Half the wireless connectivity these folks project in 2020 is in cars, Terrestial radio (And HD) are looking ok for a good long, LONG while.

5) Podcasting is irrelevant and is projected to REMAIN irrelevant through 2020.

As these Bridge folks have done their shopping mall serveys, I wonder if they asked "How would $39.95 HD radios affect you response? How would an increast to $18.95 for the cost of Satellite radio affect your response? Based on new "very high" streaming royalties, how would 66% fewer internet stations available affect your response?"

I'll bet not.

Still even if we believe their numbers, the sky is NOT falling for terrestial radio (And HD).

Anyone interpret the data differently?

Clouseau

First you say you have no faith in Bridge Ratings. Then you put your own spin and suppositions on Bridge Ratings results to prove your imaginary allegations that "the sky is NOT falling for terrest(r)ial radio".
Who said it was?
HD Radio's success requires that the public buy the new HD Radios in large numbers. The public has shown very little interest in buying new HD Radios.
With few HD Radios sold, and almost no listeners, the only other thing HD Radio does is create new interference, reduce fidelity (half-fi for AM), and jam "the stations between the stations".
You claim this additional HD Radio noise is good for terrestrial broadcasting?
Who's fantasy is it that the public will buy anything just because it is digital?
Thousands of digital products fail or have limited success, usually dependent on whether the public sees adequate need or usefulness for the product.
HD Radio technology is a deficient product (radios) and service (HD broadcasting) that fills no need, except for large broadcast conglomerates or radio manufacturers.
HD Radio does far more harm then good, and is not in the public interest, convenience, or necessity.

 

[clouseau]

It's been pretty quiet around here today, so I thought I would post some "October" data from everyone's favorite... Bridge Ratings. This originally appeared on the podcasting board, but I migrated it over here Since it has a good deal of relevence to HD radio.

Here's the link

http://www.bridgeratings.com/press_071906-digitalprojectionsupdwradio.htm

This shows what the highly questionable Bridge Ratings thinks about the state of the world. My guess is Actual Mileage may vary... A LOT, but it's still interesting to see how it has been mischaracterized in the recent past by some.

Now before you get to interpreting this the way it was spun on the other board, realize that "Internet Radio" and "Wireless internet penetration" are NOT CUMULATIVE. That is... just because you have wireless internet does NOT mean you listen to internet radio. Wireless internet refers to "Penetration". Conversely, XM would be cumulative with Sirius to get a category of "Satellite Radio". (If it showed.) "HD Radio" and "Terrestial radio" are not cumulative either. HD radio is 100% terrestial radio.

What does all this tell us? First off, The methodology is highly questionable, but taken with a grain of salt...

This is only my opinion.

1) Despite a gradual roll off, Terrestial radio (And it's subset HD) are still top dog as far out as the data goes. (2020)

2) There is a continuing market for satellite service, but not when they need so many more PAID subscribers. Satellite needs to get their costs under control. They have overpaid for most of their BIG programming and that's because there isn't any Big Time support for it. It's a good niche product. Sell it that way and rake in the cash.

3) Phone streaming is really anemic. I would have thought it would rate better. Maybe the whole thing is that only radio geeks like phone streaming. I'm perplexed.

4) In 2020 terrestial radio has a higher cume than Wireless internet penetration. Now I don't know about you, but RIGHT NOW I have wireless internet on 2 computers at home, One additional laptop, and nothing in the car. Now if only Half the wireless connectivity these folks project in 2020 is in cars, Terrestial radio (And HD) are looking ok for a good long, LONG while.

5) Podcasting is irrelevant and is projected to REMAIN irrelevant through 2020.

As these Bridge folks have done their shopping mall serveys, I wonder if they asked "How would $39.95 HD radios affect you response? How would an increast to $18.95 for the cost of Satellite radio affect your response? Based on new "very high" streaming royalties, how would 66% fewer internet stations available affect your response?"

I'll bet not.

Still even if we believe their numbers, the sky is NOT falling for terrestial radio (And HD).

Anyone interpret the data differently?

Clouseau

First you say you have no faith in Bridge Ratings. Then you put your own spin and suppositions on Bridge Ratings results to prove your imaginary allegations that "the sky is NOT falling for terrest(r)ial radio".
Who said it was?

I thought that had been alledged here. You say not. I guess we can agree the sky ISN'T falling. My mistake. I'm glad to hear that even from an outfit with random phone calls and Shopping Mall Interviews as a database, the terrestrial radio outlook isn't all that bad.

...HD Radio technology is a deficient product (radios) and service (HD broadcasting) that fills no need, except for large broadcast conglomerates or radio manufacturers.

You're kinda painting with a broad brush there. How about small stand alone FM stations? A quick Google showed this station in Texas.

http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_5204388,00.html

Typical local news story - riddled with errors, but the message is clear. This guy owns exactly 2 Radio Stations according to CDBS at the FCC. A Class C3 in market 139 and a powerhouse 1000w day 500 watt night Directional AM. I wouldn't call HIM a "large broadcast conglomerate". He's figuring he needs HD for another reason. Maybe we always don't know everyone's needs. There was a post about an FM currently broadcasting two different football games on Fridays at the same time - One on the left channel and one on the right. Now I would assume HE'S not a big conglomerate based on the programming. And I'll bet he's talked about HD as well.

I'm sure there are many stories like this out there. I Googled and this is what came up. I didn't look for any more.

HD Radio does far more harm then good, and is not in the public interest, convenience, or necessity.

Again, I think it's a little presumptuous to proclaim what "IS" or "IS NOT" in the public interest by either of us. Opinions are like a certain body part. Everyone's got one. However the people who actually legally determine "the public interest, convenience, and necessity" are the FCC. Apparently they have a different view.

Clouseau

 

[Mike Walker]

I produce radio commercials for a living. For one of my client stations I produced forty commercials in March of 2006. I produced SIXTY commercials for them in March of 2007. How's that for real-world insight into how the "sky is falling" in terrestrial radio? If the sky keeps falling like this, I'll be able to afford a whole lot nicer vacation this year!

 

[SUPERCASTER]

clouseau said:

However the people who actually legally determine "the public interest, convenience, and necessity" are the FCC.

The public determines "the public interest, convenience, and necessity", the FCC is mandated to act on behalf of "the public interest, convenience, and necessity", not to force it's will on the public.
So you are wrong, as usual.
In our representative democracy, no tyrants are allowed.

Pro-IBOCers are the only ones here who keep saying

how the "sky is falling".

Is that their only justification for defective, destructive HD Radio?
If there is no justification, why does anyone need, HD Radio?

 

[calstymes]

clouseau said:

However the people who actually legally determine "the public interest, convenience, and necessity" are the FCC.

Yes, and it's too bad the agency known as the FCC isn't doing its job with respect to this technology on the AM broadcast band.

 

[R.F. Burns]

clouseau said:

However the people who actually legally determine "the public interest, convenience, and necessity" are the FCC.

The public determines "the public interest, convenience, and necessity", the FCC is mandated to act on behalf of "the public interest, convenience, and necessity", not to force it's will on the public.
So you are wrong, as usual.
In our representative democracy, no tyrants are allowed.

Pro-IBOCers are the only ones here who keep saying

how the "sky is falling".

Is that their only justification for defective, destructive HD Radio?
If there is no justification, why does anyone need, HD Radio?

WHo is forcing IBOC technology on anyone. Nowhere did I read that a radio station must adopt IBOC digital technology to continue operating. you own a station and want to do high fidelity analog, go right ahead. As long as it's legal you are free to do what you want. If another operator finds that his station within its protected contour is being interfered with by an IBOC operator than take him to the FCC and let them prove it. It's really no big deal.

 

[clouseau]

the FCC is mandated to act on behalf of "the public interest, convenience, and necessity", not to force it's will on the public.

Yes they are. However you and I are not.

You may have any opinion you want. You are allowed to try and force your view on the public. So am I. I would propose the following.

1) The FCC has more technical expertise than either you or me.
2) The FCC is REQUIRED to act in a ethical manner and review existing data when making decisions. You and I are not.
3) The FCC is called before Congressional commitees to explain their actions on a regular basis. You and I are not.

So you are wrong, as usual.

I think you're a little quick to declare your correctness or my incorrectness, one way or the other.

Pro-IBOCers are the only ones here who keep saying

how the "sky is falling".

Is that their only justification for defective, destructive HD Radio?
If there is no justification, why does anyone need, HD Radio?

As many people have said, no one needs it. It has, however, been determined to be in
"the public interest, convenience, and necessity".

Clouseau