RADIO SHACK Drops HD Radio Price Again

[700WLW]

Gosh, you get so emotional, but I would too, if I had wasted money on an HD radio. Don't worry, analog radio will be around for many decades (the Bridge Ratings have it going out into the middle of this century), and if my little hand-held Sony is soon-to-be-forgotten, it will be due to portable Internet Radio, not HD Radio. BTW, quote me, where I stated that I thought WiFi Radio was new. Enjoy your 2" speakers, clunky antennas, clunky HD radio, and your problematic HD channels that will eventually have commercials !

And yes, portable Internet Radio will kill HD Radio:

"Wi-fi Radio in the Wings"

"What this means, of course, is that Wi-fi radio is poised to be widely available on belt clips and dashboards sooner rather than later. Factor in the appearance of proposed Wi-max networks, some of which are rolling out as this is story being written, and it's not hard to see where radio may be heading. And while it's a great time for those who love the idea of unlimited choice in radio programming, it's just one more shot across the bow for the traditional broadcast model across America."

http://beradio.com/digital_radio_update/digital_radio_update_122006/#wifi

 

[Mike Walker]

No "Wi-Max" network will go for 70+ miles, as does HD radio on a class c fm! And most wi-max networks will require a monthly fee, unlike HD Radio, which is FREE.

Apples and oranges, dude! Personally, I don't make so much distinction between analog and digital, internet and over-the-air. It's all radio as far as I'm concerned. WDAV, my local (only 60 miles away) classical station booms in on HD, but also sounds great over the 'net at 128kbps mp3. Horses for courses.

Pocket internet radio is available NOW, in the form of wi-fi equipped PDAs (some alot less expensive than my Dell). But wi-fi coverage will never go everywhere the way terrestrial radio does, and will never be entirely free the way terrestrial radio (analog and digital) is.

Horses for courses. Apples and oranges. Dogs and cats. Jews and Gentiles. Democrats and Republicans. Two different, only marginally related animals. You get the idea.

 

[700WLW]

Point is, that WiMax is being implemented in many areas - it will use existing cell phone infrastructures, as Cingular's G3 network, so where ever there is cell phone service, there will be services available through WiMax. And, HD Radio is already out-foxed, with these new technologies - HD Radio is already a dead horse !

 

[Mike Walker]

I hate to break it to you, but HD Radio is (much) "newer technology" than cell networks. And again...it's FREE.

I have never owned a cell phone. Shocker, huh? Perhaps I never will.

My wife has one. I'm legally blind, don't drive, so I'm never far from a land line. I simply don't need one...and I sure as hell don't need a 70 dollar a month "data plan" to listen to the radio...which I can do NOW, for free (or through my home's broadband connection and wi-fi network, which I'm already paying for). Data plans capable of passing broadband radio reliably are expensive, Dude. XM and Sirius have had trouble getting more than a few million subscribers after five years...at 13 bucks a month. SEVENTY (or even forty) dollars a month...when you can get (in large markets) dozens of channels for free, on inexpensive radios? This is truly a no-brainer!

 

[700WLW]

I hate to break it to you, but HD Radio is (much) "newer technology" than cell networks. And again...it's FREE.

I have never owned a cell phone. Shocker, huh? Perhaps I never will.

My wife has one. I'm legally blind, don't drive, so I'm never far from a land line. I simply don't need one...and I sure as hell don't need a 70 dollar a month "data plan" to listen to the radio...which I can do NOW, for free (or through my home's broadband connection and wi-fi network, which I'm already paying for). Data plans capable of passing broadband radio reliably are expensive, Dude. XM and Sirius have had trouble getting more than a few million subscribers after five years...at 13 bucks a month. SEVENTY (or even forty) dollars a month...when you can get (in large markets) dozens of channels for free, on inexpensive radios? This is truly a no-brainer!

I hate to break it to YOU, but it doesn't matter how new a technology is - what matters is consumer acceptance, which HD Radio has none. HD Radio is just a poor re-do of old technology, with low bit-rate digital streams. With HD and Satellite Radio doing so poorly, looks like consumers are apathetic towards radio, in general. You are definately in a very small minority, of people not owning cell phones, and millions are willing to pay for extra services on their cell phone plans (e.g., Wireless Internet). The Bridge Ratings have Internet Radio overwhelming HD Radio:

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

The new portable Internet Radio devices are poised to sell between $50 - $60, and whether there is a small monthly fee, is wait-to-be-seen. For a few bucks a month, one could get thousands of stations, including local stations, instead of HD Radio's few local stations. And, HD Radio is not free - you pay the fee up-front, with the outrageous price of the radios (and, the HD channels will eventually have commercials). The no-brainer is, that 55% of households have Broadband Internet connections, and can get Internet and HD Radio free - no need to buy expensive, ugly, clunky, non-portable HD radios ! An estimated 70 million analog radios continue to be sold every year - HD Radio has probably sold in the tens-of-thousands, with I'm sure, many returned due to poor reception and lousy programming ! HD Radio was dead, even before it got out of the starting-gates !

 

[Mike Walker]

The average bitrate for internet radio is a helluva lot lower than 96kbps, (and some HD stations are poised to offer higher bitrates than that) and the codec is a lot less sophisticated than aac+. Bitrate isn't as important as coding efficiency. AAC+ at 96kbps is better than mp3 at 192kbps or higher. Not simply conjecture, I've proven it with blind listening tests in my studio.

By the way...there are some aac and aac+ streams on the 'net at bitrates of 56, 48, and even 32kbps that sound just fine, thank you. And there are mp3 (and other) streams at 128 that sound horrid.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign in '92...."it's the codec, stupid".

 

[700WLW]

To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign in '92...."it's the codec, stupid".

Hey, I'm just a software engineer - that's not fair ! And, as far as Internet Radio bitrates, they can go up to 128 Kbit - I just checked the Web.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

The average bitrate for internet radio is a helluva lot lower than 96kbps, (and some HD stations are poised to offer higher bitrates than that) and the codec is a lot less sophisticated than aac+. Bitrate isn't as important as coding efficiency. AAC+ at 96kbps is better than mp3 at 192kbps or higher. Not simply conjecture, I've proven it with blind listening tests in my studio.

By the way...there are some aac and aac+ streams on the 'net at bitrates of 56, 48, and even 32kbps that sound just fine, thank you. And there are mp3 (and other) streams at 128 that sound horrid.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign in '92...."it's the codec, stupid".

Internet stations and podcasts are migrating to higher bitrates, better, newer codecs, and 5.1 surround sound. Since even HD radio is bandwith limited, and broadband internet, and WI-MAX is expanding coverage and bandwith, why would people spend their money on replacing all their radios, instead of just joining the new media revolution?
Most people already have an internet connection and Windows Media Player or Winamp, (both have AAC+ plug ins) or iTunes or Quicktime, and can listen while they are working at their computer, or surfing the net, at no additional cost. Yes, they can even hear HD, Sirius, XM, Shoutcast, AOL, Yahoo, Tuner2, (and many more) as well as tens of thousands of other stations, and podcasts.
Wireless internet offers 2 way communication, robust error correction, data transmission, that one way limited bandwidth radio, can only envy and imagine.
Some AM and FM stations are already reporting more listeners to their streams and podcasts then to their AM and FM over the air signals.
The internet is worldwide, and not just local, as are AM and FM stations.
The switch to L band, channels 5 and 6, DRM, Eureka, and all these other proposals are either decades away, or are failing, and require people to replace all their radios. Replacing radios is something the public has clearly demonstrated thy are not willing to do, and would take decades, anyway.
Most stations are already on the internet, and there is no widespread public uproar over the fidelity or coverage of existing analog AM or FM stations. So, "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
FMeXtra-the only digital system that is full power, does no harm, causes no interference, and requires no frequency reallocation, rule changes, or extraordinary expense. It just makes sense. www.dreinc.com
HD fidelity aac PLUS streaming, with the option of 5.1 surround. Possibly the future of net radio and podcasting. www.tuner2.com

 

[Mike Walker]

Here's an idea. Because all internet bandwidth costs SOMETHING. Every time someone new listens, a new, individual connection is made from server to listener hardware. Ka-Ching! The more people listen, THE MORE IT COSTS! Every new listener is connected point-to-point. Yes it can sound great. I'm an avid internet radio listener. But it's a freaking horrible business model!

HD Radio (or analog radio for that matter) is just the opposite. The more people listen, the LESS the distribution costs (per listener). Distribution costs are fixed (and low), no matter how many people listen.

As for wi-fi being "superior technology" to HD Radio...this is laughable. BOTH deliver packets of digital information from point a to point b, via RADIO. One costs money, the other doesn't.

The argument that people shouldn't "replace all their radios" for HD radio is silly, when the flip of your argument is that they should replace them with "wi-fi radios". Actually the beauty of HD Radio (if there is one) is that analog and digital co-exist in the same spectrum at the same time, so unlike HDTV, there is no compelling reason to EVER turn off analog transmission. And as a collector of old radios, I hope they never do. Or at least I hope they wait for 40 years or so. I'm 48, so I should be a worm-feast by then

 

[Tom Wells]

Here's an idea. Because all internet bandwidth costs SOMETHING. Every time someone new listens, a new, individual connection is made from server to listener hardware. Ka-Ching! The more people listen, THE MORE IT COSTS! Every new listener is connected point-to-point. Yes it can sound great. I'm an avid internet radio listener. But it's a freaking horrible business model!

Thank you, Mike for pointing out one of the most important problems not often mentioned.
Nothing is free, especially bandwidth on someone's infrastructure.
It should be ours, because we have been paying for this infrastructure on our phone bills since Al Gore's inception in 90-?
However it is not, and we will still pay to use it.
The RF spectrum is FREE, forever, warts and all.
Which is why it was doled out sparingly, and managed like a public trust, until the FCC became filled with business types,
with little regard for history or engineering realities.

And it is a horrific engineering model, where rampant success, increased listenership require ever more servers and dedicated one-to-connections! And another dedicated slice of bandwidth on other servers...and more complexity as this grows...
This was my first consideration upon first hearing about webcasting, when ever that was, back in the 90's.

Compared to this, putting all the expenditure for delivery AND encoding right there in your existing service seems far simpler.
But that's what radio does best.

 

[clouseau]

The more people listen, THE MORE IT COSTS! Every new listener is connected point-to-point. Yes it can sound great. I'm an avid internet radio listener. But it's a freaking horrible business model!

Without attacking anyone personally, that's the problem with this whole internet radio thing. There isn't ANY business model. It's all more or less like ham radio. That is "look, I got 60 people listening and some are from New Zealand". It's not viable for sales under the traditional RADIO business model. and everyone in the universe is trying to make it work some other way.

Then there's the Technical end of it. There is not now nor will there ever be enough bandwidth for it to become ubiquitous.

My unlimited wireless broadband from Sprint is $60 a month. If everyone that has that service used it like I use my radio, they'd be in a world of hurt.

Clouseau

 

[SUPERCASTER]

clouseau said:

Without attacking anyone personally, that's the problem with this whole internet radio thing. There isn't ANY business model. It's all more or less like ham radio. That is "look, I got 60 people listening and some are from New Zealand". It's not viable for sales under the traditional RADIO business model. and everyone in the universe is trying to make it work some other way.

How is HD Radio like the "traditional RADIO business model"?
Everyone who wants to listen to the analog duplicated HD1 digital stations, or the new HD2, 3 (etc.) "stations between the stations" directly over the air, has to buy an expensive, special, new, hard to find, hard to use, unfamiliar, limited production, limited selection, power hungry, foot warming, ugly looking, short range, specially built, junk radio, often with 2 inch speakers, just to get a couple of stations that are mostly available on the computer and internet connection they already have.
Everyone already has several analog AM and FM radios. To listen, all they have to do is tune in. Over the air HD Radio, on the other hand, is more like short wave broadcasting, SCA, Muzak, Storecast, XM, or Sirius, because to listen over the air you have to buy a special radio.
The "traditional RADIO business model" does not apply to over the air HD Radio.
Multicasting HD2, HD3 streams operate under strictly noncommercial FCC experimental authority only.
HD1 streams are authorized only to be duplicates of the analog main channel.
Where is the revenue?
Obviously there is much less promise of any HD Radio revenue ever being made from iBiquity/HD radio, then any of the other systems many of which are already generating revenue. There is certainly no money to be made from HD Radio any time in the near future, except by their duplicated internet streams, to which broadcasters can add commercials.

 

[vsa]

Clouseau wrote: "Without attacking anyone personally,  that's the problem with this whole internet radio thing...there is not now nor will there ever be enough bandwidth for it to become ubiquitous."

Be careful when you say it can't be done. Have you heard about "cognitive radio"?
 
Smart radios and other new wireless devices will avoid transmission bottlenecks by switching instantly to nearby frequencies that they sense are clear. Engineers right now are working to bring this kind of flexible operating intelligence to future radios, cell phones and other wireless communications devices. During the coming decade, cognitive radio technology should enable nearly any wireless system to locate and link to any locally available unused radio spectrum to best serve the user. Read more in this fascinating article published earlier this year in Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000C7B72-2374-13F6-A37483414B7F0000

Like it or not, the Internet will be wireless and ubiquitous. Plan accordingly.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

Smart radios and other new wireless devices will avoid transmission bottlenecks by switching instantly to nearby frequencies that they sense are clear.

Funny, my RDS-capable receiver does this extremely well, flipping between 89.5 WBEW Chesterton or 91.5 WBEZ Chicago, almost unnoticeably. Unfortunately this is the only broadcaster that takes advantage of RDS AF in my area.

 

[clouseau]

How is HD Radio like the "traditional RADIO business model"?

It is like the traditional radio business model because the idea is to take in revenue from a 3rd party in return for providing specific content to listeners.

Everyone who wants to listen to the analog duplicated HD1 digital stations, or the new HD2, 3 (etc.) "stations between the stations" directly over the air, has to buy an expensive, special, new, hard to find, hard to use, unfamiliar, limited production, limited selection, power hungry, foot warming, ugly looking, short range, specially built, junk radio, often with 2 inch speakers, just to get a couple of stations that are mostly available on the computer and internet connection they already have.

Besides the comical charactarizations... In the traditional radio business model, everyone has to buy a radio. It's actually interesting, for what you describe I'm sure is a fairly accurate description of radio in the very early days. Not so much with the short range, but those early AMers we only a couple of hundred watts at first. Nothing you say above has any bearing on "Traditional radio business model".

Everyone already has several analog AM and FM radios. To listen, all they have to do is tune in.

Unless you're born with one in your ear, you aquired every radio you have from somewhere. The traditional radio business model is "Advertiser based." It certainly requires one to get a radio.

Over the air HD Radio, on the other hand, is more like short wave broadcasting,

Much Short Wave broadcasting is still advertiser based, although mot as much as before. Lot's of "NPR" type models there. Go Radioevangelists.

SCA

Some SCA "Stations" are trying to go with the traditional model, http://htradio.net But by design, SCA is restricted listenership. FCC rules specifiy that you may not receive it without broadcaster permission. It's totally diffferent.

Muzak,

Muzak is subscription. Totally different

Storecast,

Storecast is in house produced produced for private in store use. Again not even close to traditional radio. Care to guess again?

XM, or Sirius, because to listen over the air you have to buy a special radio.

Memo to you. Buying a special Sirius or XM radio does not entitle you to listen to XM or Sirius. Getting a free trial subscription with your Sat Radio will. It's subscription. You always end up paying. That's why sat radio is hovering around 50% in new car renewals after the free Trial period. This is NOTHING like the traditional radio business model.

The "traditional RADIO business model" does not apply to over the air HD Radio. Multicasting HD2, HD3 streams operate under strictly noncommercial FCC experimental authority only.

Actually I believe there are some HD's simulcasting a sister AM New station. One could argue the legality of this under the current rules, but I'll bet some would argue that 73.1510 C-6 would allow this. Also, Clearly HD-2 and HD-3 "WHEN AUTHORIZED" will follow that model. An advertiser based model. You think Clear Channel plans to run this extra stuff for free??

Funny how you ANTI HD guys are quick to HD a marketplace failure and compare it's roll out speed to satellite when it HASN'T Even received final approval yet.

HD1 streams are authorized only to be duplicates of the analog main channel. Where is the revenue?

It has better audio specs on FM. Better Sound = More Money. And lots better on AM (Although AM ain't gonna happen IMHO)

Obviously there is much less promise of any HD Radio revenue ever being made from iBiquity/HD radio, then any of the other systems many of which are already generating revenue.

HUH?? Why would this be obvious. Your assertion is just plain wrong. And clearly broadcasters think you're wrong or they wouldn't be doing it.

There is certainly no money to be made from HD Radio any time in the near future, except by their duplicated internet streams, to which broadcasters can add commercials.

That would assume that the FM standard won't be approved soon. And I think you way off on that. Look for it VERY soon. Count it in Months.

Clouseau

 

[SUPERCASTER]

How is HD Radio like the "traditional RADIO business model"?

It is like the traditional radio business model because the idea is to take in revenue from a 3rd party in return for providing specific content to listeners.

A-That may, or may not be, what your "idea" is, but right now iBiquity/ HD broadcasters are just desperately trying to peddle defective, deaf radios with external antennas, and sell people on the false idea that more radio buzz means better radio reception and fidelity (and failing miserably at promoting this HD radio nonsense).

Everyone who wants to listen to the analog duplicated HD1 digital stations, or the new HD2, 3 (etc.) "stations between the stations" directly over the air, has to buy an expensive, special, new, hard to find, hard to use, unfamiliar, limited production, limited selection, power hungry, foot warming, ugly looking, short range, specially built, junk radio, often with 2 inch speakers, just to get a couple of stations that are mostly available on the computer and internet connection they already have.

Besides the comical charactarizations... In the traditional radio business model, everyone has to buy a radio. It's actually interesting, for what you describe I'm sure is a fairly accurate description of radio in the very early days. Not so much with the short range, but those early AMers we only a couple of hundred watts at first. Nothing you say above has any bearing on "Traditional radio business model".

A-Everyone already has an AM and/or FM radio, or has access to listen to at least one. It is 70 years past the "early days" when there was not much competition for media. Now there are many of new ways to occupy our ears.

Everyone already has several analog AM and FM radios. To listen, all they have to do is tune in.

Unless you're born with one in your ear, you aquired every radio you have from somewhere. The traditional radio business model is "Advertiser based." It certainly requires one to get a radio.

A-The operable word here is aquired (past tense) therefore virtually everyone already has or can listen to an analog AM and/or FM radio. As much as the iBiquity/HD radio cartel would like me to, I am not "required" to get a new HD radio, and neither is anyone else.

Over the air HD Radio, on the other hand, is more like short wave broadcasting,

Much Short Wave broadcasting is still advertiser based, although mot as much as before. Lot's of "NPR" type models there. Go Radioevangelists.

A-So you don't like NPR or evangelists. Then listen to something else, but don't force this HD buzz and interference down everyone elses radios. No one is forcing NPR, or evangelists on you. It is all about freedom of choice.

SCA

Some SCA "Stations" are trying to go with the traditional model, http://htradio.net But by design, SCA is restricted listenership. FCC rules specifiy that you may not receive it without broadcaster permission. It's totally diffferent.

A-Not so. FMeXtra is digital broadcasting, freely accessible to the public, occupies the SCA bandwidth, and does not require specific broadcaster permission slips. www.dreinc.com

Muzak,

Muzak is subscription. Totally different

A-Only from your biased perspective.

Storecast,

Storecast is in house produced produced for private in store use. Again not even close to traditional radio. Care to guess again?

A-Storecast sounds like radio to most listeners.

XM, or Sirius, because to listen over the air you have to buy a special radio.

Memo to you. Buying a special Sirius or XM radio does not entitle you to listen to XM or Sirius. Getting a free trial subscription with your Sat Radio will. It's subscription. You always end up paying. That's why sat radio is hovering around 50% in new car renewals after the free Trial period. This is NOTHING like the traditional radio business model.

A-Subscriptions may be the way HD2, and 3 streams go. No definite decision has been made, and it will be decades before there are enough listeners to make an advertising based model viable and profitable. There are only so many listeners, and they are not growing extra sets of HD Radio ears. Divide your audience, lower your ratings, reduce your revenue.

The "traditional RADIO business model" does not apply to over the air HD Radio. Multicasting HD2, HD3 streams operate under strictly noncommercial FCC experimental authority only.

Actually I believe there are some HD's simulcasting a sister AM New station. One could argue the legality of this under the current rules, but I'll bet some would argue that 73.1510 C-6 would allow this. Also, Clearly HD-2 and HD-3 "WHEN AUTHORIZED" will follow that model. An advertiser based model. You think Clear Channel plans to run this extra stuff for free??

A-No, the plan is (now becoming, was) to peddle defective radios, to the gullible public who (they believed) are buying up tons of anything digital, no matter how useless.

Funny how you ANTI HD guys are quick to HD a marketplace failure and compare it's roll out speed to satellite when it HASN'T Even received final approval yet.

A-You are far to easily amused. You are right about HD not having final FCC approval. I would not repace any of my radios for an experimental broadcasting system that may fail and/or dissappear, as so many have before.

HD1 streams are authorized only to be duplicates of the analog main channel. Where is the revenue?

It has better audio specs on FM. Better Sound = More Money. And lots better on AM (Although AM ain't gonna happen IMHO)

A-I doubt advertisers are seeking new digital (better sound-higher fidelity-better reception for HD is questionable) ways to increase their Cost Per Thousand. HD radio has far less coverage area then analog. Far less area (square miles) covered, means far fewer potential listeners.

Obviously there is much less promise of any HD Radio revenue ever being made from iBiquity/HD radio, then any of the other systems many of which are already generating revenue.

HUH?? Why would this be obvious. Your assertion is just plain wrong. And clearly broadcasters think you're wrong or they wouldn't be doing it.

A-Broadcasters have often been wrong before. Nothing new here.

There is certainly no money to be made from HD Radio any time in the near future, except by their duplicated internet streams, to which broadcasters can add commercials.

That would assume that the FM standard won't be approved soon. And I think you way off on that. Look for it VERY soon. Count it in Months.

A-FCC approval is one thing, and it is not at all as certain, as you claim. The public rushing out and buying HD radios in large enough numbers is quite another.

Clouseau

"But inspector, radio broadcasting is a priceless treasure, like a Seinway".
(Inspector) "Not anymore!"

 

[HHH]

How about some comments on the PROGRAMMING available on these HD-2 (or HD-3) feeds?

Seems to me that the desirability for the PROGRAMMING (or not) is going to determine how these radios sell more than anything else.

In the earlier days of FM (after the split rule in the mid-1960s), it seems that underground rock stations (with their live jocks, distictive music selection, club reports, inteviews, poltical spin, etc) drove the purchase of an FM radio because you just HAD to have one to get "plugged in" to the emerging culture which was completely ignored by AM. Add stereo to that, and you had a real reason to seek out an FM tuner.

Is there any compelling programming going on with the multicasts? Most seem to be mysterious broadcasts that are unpromoted (the ads on the main station RARELY say just WHAT I am going to hear on this new radio....it just says "more stations"). Most also seem to be thrown together hard-drive playouts of music that I can get elsewhere easily.

Think about how FM got going. Now think of HD. Does an HD radio offer the same "gotta have it" experience as early FM?

 

[Mike Walker]

Early FM didn't really have much "gotta' have it" appeal for the average consumer. Which is why it took about four decades (end of WW-II to the mid 80s) for FM's audience size to equal that of AM!

Elevator Music, drug-soaked djs playing their own records, and "educational" offerings were about all one could find on "early" fm stations, other than simulcasts.

My point? These things take time. I've found, even in my rural area, a couple of HD-2 stations which more than justify the cost (formats not available otherwise). These things take time.

 

[700WLW]

HD Radio certainly doesn't have any "gotta have it" appeal to consumers:

"Another body blow for HD Radio"

"Ninety-five percent (95%) of respondents say it is unlikely that HD Radio technology, as an audio enhancement, will reengage them as listeners of AM/FM. Forty-two percent (42%) indicated that the improved sound quality promised by HD Radio does not outweigh concerns about AM/FM programming. Twenty-five percent (25%) say that HD radio is not likely to reclaim them as listeners because they are now satisfied with satellite radio."

http://www.hear2.com/2005/08/bill_figenshu_h.html

"HD Radio: Confusing Value with Technology"

http://www.hear2.com/2005/06/hd_radio_confus.html

HD Radio will never approach critical mass, especially with portable Internet Radio starting to reach consumers.

 

[700WLW]

If they don't, either a compromise such as that suggested by Radio World (between Ibiquity and DRM) will take place, an alternate band (or solution) for AM HD will be found, or AM HD will become but a footnote (I find the last least likely, by the way).

With this other comment that I found, just as with Canada and likely the UK, DRM has also failed to generate any public interest. Analog cannot be shut off, and allocating an alternate band, or solution, for AM HD will also fail in the US - THERE IS NO PUBLIC INTEREST IN DIGITAL RADIO, AND NOT MUCH INTEREST IN THE SUCCESS OF TERRESTRIAL RADIO, AS A WHOLE !