Question time

[EricStein]

This is for both the pro- and anti-HD/IBOC posters on this board. Please, no flaming:

1. Why are you for or against HD/IBOC?

2. If you are pro HD/IBOC, do you think it has a chance for mass adoption, given the lack of distribution channels so far?

3. Pro HD/IBOC posters: If you work in the industry, have you or someone you know received complaints about decreased reception and/or interference?

4. If you're against the technology, and find it "fraudulent" and "defective," tell me what has it done to ruin your livelihood? If possible, give me some first-hand accounts.

5. Anti-HD/IBOC posters: If there was a digital radio system that was free of the "defects" and flaws that you claim HD/IBOC is full of (other than the Leonard Kahn system, which has no receivers I know of), would you support it? Or, do you want terrestrial radio to be forever analog?

6. Do you think that the engineering heads for major radio companies would buy into a technology that would hurt the industry without doing any research on it?

7. Shouldn't the free market decide on whether or not HD/IBOC succeeds or fails?

I just want to start some intelligent discussion and input, and not just the name-calling and shouting that has been going on for the past months on this discussion board. My opinion: there are more important things to worry about than HD/IBOC.

 

[davideduardo]

This is for both the pro- and anti-HD/IBOC posters on this board. Please, no flaming:

1. Why are you for or against HD/IBOC?

-- Pro. It is the only chance to preserve AM, and will nehance FM for future competitiveness.

2. If you are pro HD/IBOC, do you think it has a chance for mass adoption, given the lack of distribution channels so far?

--> The roll out just began 3 days ago. Ask that question in two or three years.

3. Pro HD/IBOC posters: If you work in the industry, have you or someone you know received complaints about decreased reception and/or interference?

--> Not one, with over 25 HD stations on the air. There is no degradation of the analog signal on FM, and the reduced bandwidth on AM may actually help in analog mode.

4. If you're against the technology, and find it "fraudulent" and "defective," tell me what has it done to ruin your livelihood? If possible, give me some first-hand accounts.

--- How can something that may save many tens of thousands of radio jobs hurt anyone?


6. Do you think that the engineering heads for major radio companies would buy into a technology that would hurt the industry without doing any research on it?

--- No, they would not and did not. The adoption of HD probably followed an experience similar to mine: all areas of management, engineering and programming looked at the systems (AM and FM) and did so over a decade ago. We decided on HD (Then called IBOC as a working name or description) and actually invested in iBiquity, as did a group of the larger broadcasters. Nobody at a big company does that kind of move without due diligence.

7. Shouldn't the free market decide on whether or not HD/IBOC succeeds or fails?

--- And it will decide, one way or the other.

I just want to start some intelligent discussion and input, and not just the name-calling and shouting that has been going on for the past months on this discussion board. My opinion: there are more important things to worry about than HD/IBOC.

--- Absolutely. HD does not change radio for 99.9% of listeners in any form or fashion. It does ruin the day for some DXers, though

 

[vsa]

ERIC STEIN WROTE: "If there was a digital radio system that was free of the "defects" and flaws that you claim HD/IBOC is full of (other than the Leonard Kahn system, which has no receivers I know of), would you support it? Or, do you want terrestrial radio to be forever analog?"

Ah, you say anything other that Kahn's CAM-D system. That's like saying, name the most populous city in the state of New York, but you must exclude "New York City" from any answer you give.

See some other threads. There's no point of cutting and pasting everything into this thread.

I would definitely suppport a digital system that actually works as promised without causing substantial, new interference to existing stations and almost 1 billion analog receivers currently in circulation.

 

[Ai4i]

iBOC was never intended to be a good technology. It was designed to be a "good enough" technology which will preserve the status quo of existing station owners. A hybrid system is a compromise system. The military uses 1.4GHz in this country? Fine, this new 700MHz band which is about to open up would work fine for terrestrial DAB. Why preserve the AM band anyway? Just give all AM and FM stations an equal signal with an equal bandwidth within their markets.

 

[sbe1]

You dont realize it, but you just revealed the real reason we have this digital system called HD. You stated why not have it digital in a new band where AM and FM and all stations in a market would have an equal signal. Do you think the several large 50kw blowtorches in Chicago will stand for parity with a lowly 1000 class C AM? That the problem, the big guys will never tolerate it. Again, I can see the gain for digital on the FM band, but I see no gain for AM. And when it comes to multicasting, since supposedly the public owns the airwaves, how can all these new radio stations be created without a licensing process that gives other people a shot at getting into the business? What's fair about that. Is it right for one company to control 30 or more program streams in any single market? That debate needs to be had, and has not happened.

 

[calstymes]

Eric Stein did ask of the general populace:

1. Why are you for or against HD/IBOC?

I do not support any technology that is developed to be a mediocre solution for a problem that did not previously exist. Obviously it is only my opinion that there was no previous problem but as far as I am concerned, HD/IBOC was developed to help the broadcasting industry and consumers spend some money so that some speculative investors can earn some money. Unfortunately, neither of them will help solve the real problem which is simply that the radio broadcasting industry as a whole has forgotten how to utilize talented PEOPLE to provide QUALITY and INTERESTING programming to LISTENERS. No amount of digital processing is going substitute for improving the product itself.

Now that this is established, questions 2 and 3 do not apply to me.

4. If you're against the technology, and find it "fraudulent" and "defective," tell me what has it done to ruin your livelihood? If possible, give me some first-hand accounts.

This technology has done absolutely nothing to ruin my livlihood. I don't care about it enough.

5. Anti-HD/IBOC posters: If there was a digital radio system that was free of the "defects" and flaws that you claim HD/IBOC is full of (other than the Leonard Kahn system, which has no receivers I know of), would you support it? Or, do you want terrestrial radio to be forever analog?

Of course I would support a digital radio system that was "free" of defects and flaws and no, I do not believe that terrestrial radio has to be analog forever. Please note that I said "has to be". Quite honestly, I find nothing wrong with analog transmission (AM or FM). Commercial radio has been using these methods of transmission and they have kept us entertained for many, many years. But I do question ANY new technology that is not 100% backwardly compatible with our current analog technology such that its (analog) quality must be lessened as a sacrifice in the name of "progress". Just exactly who appointed Ibiquity to decide that I didn't need to listen to analog modes of transmission anymore? Oh that's right. I forgot. Ibiquity was formed as a consortium of some large broadcasters, so I guess it was them.

6. Do you think that the engineering heads for major radio companies would buy into a technology that would hurt the industry without doing any research on it?

THIS is an excellent question! Engineering heads for major radio companies have absolutely no say whatsoever on whether or not a technology like this is adopted. The "major" radio companies have already made the investment in this technology. regardless of whether or not it merits it. Now it is up to the engineering heads of these companies to make it work. The engineering heads are now REQUIRED to get HD/IBOC on the air, regardless of whether or not they think it is any good. This is how it works in large companies. To think otherwise is to be naive about this.

The fact is, Ibiquity paid a LOT of money so that competing technologies would NOT be developed. When Ibiquity was challenged with some of these technologies that actually worked better than HD/IBOC did, it came up with a way to make sure they (the competing technologies) would never see the light of day. These are the sorts of things that happen "behind the scenes" and which the public never finds out about. Whether or not anyone believes this is immaterial. It is fact. And the fact also is, we WILL have HD/IBOC whether or not we WANT it (see next question).

7. Shouldn't the free market decide on whether or not HD/IBOC succeeds or fails?

Of course the free market should decide on whether or not HD/IBOC succeeds or fails, however, the free market won't really have much of a say in this. This technology will not be permitted to fail. Ibiquity has committed too many resources to the development of HD/IBOC and they will not let it fail. They can't let it fail. To do so would mean that a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money and they are going to do everything they possibly can to make sure that doesn't happen. Absolutely nothing will prevent them from having their IPO. Ibiquity will force this technology down the throats of the free market regardless of whether or not it really wants it.

I just want to start some intelligent discussion and input, and not just the name-calling and shouting that has been going on for the past months on this discussion board. My opinion: there are more important things to worry about than HD/IBOC.

A very laudible goal! Yes, there are lots more important things to worry about other than HD/IBOC. What I have not quite been able to understand is the vehemence that has been expressed by both those who like and dislike this technology. This technology isn't worth it. Believe me.

Cal

 

[dougw9wi]

1. Why are you for or against HD/IBOC?

Against, for two reasons:
- We could have had something better, both in terms of better audio quality and in terms of greater listener choice.
- Especially on AM, but to a lesser degree on FM, IBOC interferes with useful service, limiting listener choice.

5. Anti-HD/IBOC posters: If there was a digital radio system that was free of the "defects" and flaws that you claim HD/IBOC is full of (other than the Leonard Kahn system, which has no receivers I know of), would you support it? Or, do you want terrestrial radio to be forever analog?

The Eureka 147 system is the "something better" I mention in my answer to question #1. As it operates in different spectrum from the analog signals, there is no interference, and it offers additional program streams beyond the 2-3 available with IBOC. And there *are* receivers available, as this system is on the air in a number of countries and is seeing a fair amount of success in Britain.

6. Do you think that the engineering heads for major radio companies would buy into a technology that would hurt the industry without doing any research on it?

They will if their bosses order them to.

Seriously, I think IBOC benefits larger stations; their engineers have reason to support the technology. Unfortunately it does so at the expense of the listener and smaller stations. On the one hand, engineers at larger stations are of course paid to maximize the return on investment for their owners - on the other, the FCC is paid to ensure the public interest is served and shouldn't be authorizing technologies that artifically limit audience choice.

7. Shouldn't the free market decide on whether or not HD/IBOC succeeds or fails?

It probably will.

The market is rarely truly free. One could argue that one of the primary purposes for the adoption of IBOC is to limit the market - to ensure that the 1,000-watt suburban AM daytimer doesn't acquire the ability to deliver a noise-free full-time competitive signal across that desirable suburb south of town; to ensure that the crosstown FM competitor doesn't become six crosstown FM competitors.

(I am suggesting the other reason for IBOC is to avoid the political beating TV has been taking over their "free" (uh, yeah) use of a second channel for DTV and the "slow" (or so some seem to think) transition to digital. That does strike me as a valid reason for IBOC but not enough to balance the negatives..)

My opinion: there are more important things to worry about than HD/IBOC.

Both inside and outside radio, absolutely true.

 

[davideduardo]

Ah, you say anything other that Kahn's CAM-D system. That's like saying, name the most populous city in the state of New York, but you must exclude "New York City" from any answer you give.

---> There will never be a separate AM system. We in broadcasting are smart enough to know that AM must tag along with whatever the digital technology for FM is, since there is little listener interest in AM in the age groups that advertisers buy and that also buy radios!

---> When AM has a 10% (and shrinking) of listening in 12-44 year olds, no one is going to buy any other AM system. And manufacturers will not support it, as it raises costs with two chipsets. FM will set the standard, and AM can tag along. We already have that system, 16 years in development: HD.

 

[calstymes]

The "other" David said:

We already have that system, 16 years in development: HD.

Yup, we sure do. And although the estimate of 16 years is a tiny bit high (it has been more like 10-12 years) there has been LOTS and LOTS of BIG investor money poured into it even when they knew they were squashing better technologies. If nothing else, the illustrious head of Ibiquity is quite a salesman and has managed to obtain an awful lot of funding.

It is just such a shame that leadership in the radio industry has deteriorated to the lowest common denominator of know-nothing and highly-compensated executives combined with accountants who know only how to count beans and that these are the people who are making the technical decisions that will affect how we listen to radio for years and years to come.

Cal

 

[autopaint-1]

"Yup, we sure do. And although the estimate of 16 years is a tiny bit high (it has been more like 10-12 years) there has been LOTS and LOTS of BIG investor money poured into it even when they knew they were squashing better technologies. If nothing else, the illustrious head of Ibiquity is quite a salesman and has managed to obtain an awful lot of funding."

This is an allegation I can not counter because I don't have access to all of the other systems which went up against IBOC. If you don't like the single system IBOC you can thank Mr. Khan for that. The industry will not do another multi system marketplace decides anymore. As I stated elsewhere in the early days of color TV the RCA compatible system was not the best, CBS had a better system color-wise. Yet, RCA won (and it was the right decision). Color TV has developed since the early days of the technology and the same will happen for IBOC. In the end the discussion of alternate systems is way too late and no one in here has the power to do anything but gripe. IBOC is going to be the adopted system of digital radio in America.

 

[Ai4i]

Do you think the several large 50kw blowtorches in Chicago will stand for parity with a lowly 1000 class C AM?

The question really becomes, would your blowtorch AM be willing to have signal coverage parity with low power AM's if it also enjoyed penetration parity with all the local FM's?

 

[autopaint-1]

Coverage is only part of the story. If coverage was everything their are 3 class 1A, 50K station in NYC and none of them are all that successful) WABC gets the 55 plus group. We have another seven 50 KW stations, so in total that's 10, 50 KW stations and other than one news station and the old folk conservative talk WABC at 10, none are top ten 12 +. What does that say? It says that these powerful AM stations with their huge coverage are beaten by NY FM stations with much less coverage. Coverage is a small part of what makes a station succesful

 

[Ai4i]

I think that is what I just said!

 

[davideduardo]

Coverage is only part of the story. If coverage was everything their are 3 class 1A, 50K station in NYC and none of them are all that successful) WABC gets the 55 plus group. We have another seven 50 KW stations, so in total that's 10, 50 KW stations and other than one news station and the old folk conservative talk WABC at 10, none are top ten 12 +. What does that say? It says that these powerful AM stations with their huge coverage are beaten by NY FM stations with much less coverage. Coverage is a small part of what makes a station succesful

All the full B's on the ESB cover everything that is needed for the Metro (MSA) so the extended coverage of some of the AMs is useless to them... nobody in trenton is going to pay NYC rates to be on WCBS or WFAN or WABC.

On the other hand, 50 kw is really a bare monimum to cover the dense parts of the City well, especially apartment and office buiildings. 100 to 250 kw would be better, but the FCC long ago made a fatal decision that is now killing AM... most AMs don't adequately cover their markets.

AM sounds bad for anyone under 45, and it is not even recognized by the 25 and under demos.

 

[Ai4i]

...100 to 250 kw would be better, but the FCC long ago made a...decision...

No they did not. The commission would have been plenty happy to continue and expand on the famouse WLW experiment. An act of congress encouraged by plenty of lobbying capped the AM power limit at 50KW.
Congress created the FCC, but they (congress) ocassionally need to remind them (the FCC) that they (trained engineers) are not as smart as them (trained politicians).

 

[SUPERCASTER]

This is for both the pro- and anti-HD/IBOC posters on this board. Please, no flaming:

1. Why are you for or against HD/IBOC?

A-Against. It causes far more interference, expense and problems then any possible benefits to the public.

2. If you are pro HD/IBOC, do you think it has a chance for mass adoption, given the lack of distribution channels so far?

A-Time will tell. Why am I only allowed to answer if I accept your premise?

3. Pro HD/IBOC posters: If you work in the industry, have you or someone you know received complaints about decreased reception and/or interference?

A-Yes, many, mostly ignored, and denyed. As Barry McLarnon said in his article "IBOC Power Levels" "Radio World" July 19, 2006, HD Radio supporters are in denial.
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/commentary/2006.07.19-03_rw_hd_guest_barry_2.shtml
The FCC got more complaints then support for HD Radio. That premise thing again. Why are my answers subject to prejudice and preconditions?

4. If you're against the technology, and find it "fraudulent" and "defective," tell me what has it done to ruin your livelihood? If possible, give me some first-hand accounts.

A-What does my livelyhood have to do with whether something is fraudulent or defective?
HD Radio negatively effects all radio listeners (virtually everyone) regardless of their income, or source of income.

5. Anti-HD/IBOC posters: If there was a digital radio system that was free of the "defects" and flaws that you claim HD/IBOC is full of (other than the Leonard Kahn system, which has no receivers I know of), would you support it? Or, do you want terrestrial radio to be forever analog?

A-I support FMeXtra www.dreinc.com because it is fully compatible with analog and does not use adjacent channels or create analog reception or spectrum allocation problems. I would support Kahn CamD also if it proves to be technically superior and more compatible then HD Radio.

6. Do you think that the engineering heads for major radio companies would buy into a technology that would hurt the industry without doing any research on it?

A-Absolutely! Many are primarily driven by greed, self interest, security, and the necessity to make ever increasing profits for their bosses and shareholders. For the most part, they aren't stupid and know which side their bread is buttered on.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
-Upton Sinclair

7. Shouldn't the free market decide on whether or not HD/IBOC succeeds or fails?

A-The free market will eventually decide. In the meantime it is up to the public to stop the digital interference and prevent HD Radio/iBiquity from obsoleting 1 billion analog radios.

I just want to start some intelligent discussion and input, and not just the name-calling and shouting that has been going on for the past months on this discussion board. My opinion: there are more important things to worry about than HD/IBOC.

 

[calstymes]

autopaint-1 (the Dave who has been working as a master control engineer for a large network in the #1 broadcasting market for lots and lots of years and from whose listening post at home in Rockland county he can report that all IBOC signals come in crystal clear with no sacrifices to ancient forms of modulation) writes:

In the end the discussion of alternate systems is way too late and no one in here has the power to do anything but gripe. IBOC is going to be the adopted system of digital radio in America.

Agreed! It is way too late. IBOC IS going to be the adopted system of digital radio in America because Ibiquity PAID for its unimpeded development and now it wants to be reimbursed by the unwashed public for it. Well of course it does. That's how BIG business works. And you should know this. You work for a BIG business.

It is certainly not because Ibiquity earned the right of adoption because it developed a technically superior system. I am surprised that you had no "access" to any competing technology particularly since you work in the nerve center of the most exciting and largest broadcasting market in the country, but specifically, the system that represented the largest threat to Ibiquity and for which it paid heavily NOT to have developed any further was actually technically superior but it lost out because the startup company that had developed the first chips for it didn't have the BIG money. Ibiquity got the BIG money.

Salesmanship and BIG money in corporate America. Gotta love it! Money talks, nobody walks. Which just goes to show us that success does not always arrive because you have the best product but rather because you have the best salesmanship and advertising. This system which is frought with problems is being forced down our throats and I, for one, resent it.

 

[autopaint-1]

Hey Cal, if you know me fine. If you don't fine. Buty stop typing my resume. I find it an invasion and insulting.

 

[calstymes]

Dave wrote:

Hey Cal, if you know me fine. If you don't fine. But stop typing my resume. I find it an invasion and insulting.

I have absolutely no desire to invade your privacy or insult you. And whether or not I know you personally is immaterial and of absolutely no consequence. I have only repeated what you have been posting on these message boards about yourself. Let me explain:

You take most opportunities which present themselves to remind other posters that by virtue of the fact that you have been employed as a master control network engineer for many years in the New York City market and that you have had only pleasant listening experiences to HD/IBOC on New York City AM and FM radio stations alike, you are therefore qualified to state without reproach that IBOC is a wonderful technology that will be with us forever and have implied that the rest of us who have had poor listening experiences are either lying or don't know what we are doing/talking about.

You like to needle us by reminding us about your professional experience so I am simply needling you back, but I am only utilizing information that you have posted on these message boards yourself and you certainly shouldn't take things so personally. You make blanket statements like "IBOC is going to be the adopted system of digital radio in America" without even allowing for the possibility that you just might not have the whole story. Although your constant glowing reports about HD/IBOC has often tempted me to ask about just how much stock in Ibiquity you own I have decided that this WOULD be insulting so I have refrained from doing it.

I do not know whether or not you have had direct exposure to actually implementing IBOC technology yourself but you have stated in posts on these message boards that you have had discussions with your colleagues about IBOC and that they all agree this is the wave of the future and it is here to stay (paraphrased). While I have no right to question the authenticity your discussions, I will hazard a guess that if that is indeed what your colleagues have said then it is not at all because they LIKE the technology but rather it is because this is what they have been told to do by their upper management and that they had no engineering input in the choice that was made.

Cal

 

[autopaint-1]

Right, this way it's known from the outset that I'm not a radio wanna be like many people who populate these boards.


"how much stock in Ibiquity you own"

None.

" I will hazard a guess that if that is indeed what your colleagues have said then it is not at all because they LIKE the technology but rather it is because this is what they have been told to do by their upper management and that they had no engineering input in the choice that was made."

They are upper management and they are senior engineers. They are members of SBE 15 as well. I've asked them about the competing systems and they shake their heads and say they don't come close technically, although they have looked at them, both what they say they can do and what they actually do and they feel IBOC is far superior.