Struble's Latest Commentary

[Play Freebird]

It's time for another Bob Struble commentary.

http://www.ibiquity.com/about_us/message

Gotta love this: "Put HD2s and HD3s on air, keep them on... once the HD2 is on, make sure the engineers keep it on. Dead air sounds as bad in digital as it does in analog."

Well, Bob -- if your system actually performed properly, it would stay on the air without the constant attention that puts excessive demands on the ever-increasing workload of local engineers. But you don't dare blame the corporate CEOs who bought into this faulty scheme; instead, you point the finger at the poor guys in the trenches who struggle daily to keep up with this maintenance nightmare.

How many years has it been since IBOC was introduced, yet it's still unstable and unreliable. One of the top 5 FM stations in Philadelphia has developed a serious analog delay problem this week on their main channel -- the timing has slipped by about a second, making it pain - painful to listen to out here - out here in the west - western suburbs, where blend - blending occurs in many, many - many spots. The engineers at the parent group are very competent but they just don't have time to babysit this gear constantly. Another major-group owned station in the Buffalo market has had extremely low audio levels on their HD-2 program for days at a time. But their engineer has set his priorities correctly -- in favor of keeping the analog money makers on the air, rather than wasting time chasing the elusive "long tail". I commend him for that. HD transmitting equipment is expensive, why it is so defective?

Struble tells HD-2 operators it's time to Monetize: "So sell it! Others are. I know there are no ratings and only hundreds of thousands of radios... Set a budget number for multicast sales. The industry needs the top line help, here’s something new to sell."

How about delivering results for clients, Bob? Small-market radio has outperformed big group radio over the past year because we still do a fine job of providing meaningful service to our communities. Our direct advertisers see the results and know that their radio ad dollars are well spent.

The last thing Big Radio needs to be doing right now is taking money from advertisers and not providing any return on investment.

"False Promises - IN DIGITAL!" is the underlying theme of HD Radio.

 

[Savage]

"So sell it.....set a budget number for multicast sales!"

Wow! What's wrong with us?? Why didn't someone think of that up to now?!? It's a forehead-smacker. :

Just what radio management needs: another "armchair sales manager." Like the GM's wife who helpfully calls up the GSM to point out she just stopped by the new dry cleaner, or car wash, or bistro, or movieplex: "They've got a really nice cute little place there. I'll bet THEY'D be interested in advertising!!"

Obviously iBiquity's geniuses have never sold ANYTHING, much less radio advertising. The naivete is a foot thick. Anyone who's been in radio sales for five minutes knows "setting budget numbers" is the easy step taken by any given nitwit manager. The dollars come from closing. And you don't "close" unless you offer value to your client. Attention Strew-bull: that would be "value," as in something which will improve clients' businesses, as in something with an audience with dollars to spend. No listeners? No coverage? No reliability? Then: no audience, no value. If you waste your client's time by promoting zero-value dreck, you won't stay in business long, HD or no.

(Closed circuit: Radio-info management: the little laughing face is fun, but we need a little Bozo face here for reactions to Strew-Bull exhortations.)

 

[Carmine5]

I had a myopic moment and thought the heading said 'Struble's Last Commentary'. We can only hope.

The consumer has shut the door on HD Radio's long tail. Only a stub remains.

Talking to a good friend of mine who works for a CC cluster in the Midwest he said that they have such a small crew working their 5-station group that they are having a hard enough time just trying to produce content and sell their main channels, let alone any side channels.

To these radio employees, side channels just represent more work without more money or staff.

C5

 

[calstymes]

Wow, the unhappiness with IBOC is spreading fast! It seems like more and more people who are "in the business" are speaking up.

No longer do we hear, "wait until 6 months from now or next year even and we'll see where we are". It seems like the calls are out there to just simply let the dead carcass die.

And I had such high hopes for IBOC, too.

Where are all the message board responders who used to have nice things to say about HD? I miss them.

 

[clouseau]

Where are all the message board responders who used to have nice things to say about HD? I miss them.

Great timing, Cal...

I haven't been on this board for a while and I come back to this.

Perhaps the responders have found something better to do with their time than participate in the festering sewer which is this board's demeanor lately.

I read Insignia introduced two new models of HD radio last week. News of it posted here? Nope. Y'all are just too busy tossing mudballs at anyone who doesn't scream "HD SUCKS" to even notice. Or care.

If you're wondering where the message board responders are, it's "Somewhere else". I'm sure they feel as I do. It's almost not worth the time to try to interact with the mob mentality of the school yard bully population which lives here.

Of course that's just MY opinion. I could be wrong.

Clouseau

 

[KB1OKL]

Where are all the message board responders who used to have nice things to say about HD? I miss them.

Great timing, Cal...

I haven't been on this board for a while and I come back to this.

Perhaps the responders have found something better to do with their time than participate in the festering sewer which is this board's demeanor lately.

Clouseau

Yes reality can be like a festering sewer sometimes, look at the political landscape lately.

 

[Savage]

Excuse me, Inspector.....didn't you just express your opinion here? I haven't seen any evidence of anyone bashing you or denigrating your sentiments about HD. Why don't you just post the news about the Insignia units you note?

 

[Tom Wells]

G'day, Inspector.

It is good to see you here again. Do not be offended when it seems contentious here.
I personally mean no ill will but must speak when I feel there has been misrepresentation.
I'm not much of an activist, never have been , but when somebody comes along and tries to run a
digital service in a medium and particulary a wavelength that is optimized for analog service, it's wrong,
and my job is to testify about things RF/computer from the position of one who went to the oldest radio school
in North America.

According to the terms of service we are all entitled to our opinions, and we are just as convinced that
our opinion is correct as ibiquity is about theirs.

Maybe moreso, as some of us are here to set the record straight engineering-wise, and others, like Mr Savage
are being directly interfered with.

And from very different angles, we are in agreement.

 

[Savage]

Hey Clouseau: you and I have had some pretty good jousts, one of which was live on internet radio. I happen to think you're a pretty smart cookie and your belief in HD Radio is passionate and, from what I can see, sincere. I respect that.

I'm sorry you feel that the pro-HD side is somehow being silenced on this board. But the truth is, IBOC boosters can still post here and argue their case as much as opponents can. I honestly don't think the pro side is being shouted down. I think there's another more fundamental reason they're gone.

Let's a have an honest assessment of The State Of HD Radio as of October 2008: which would be, "not good." C'mon now. NOBODY is buying the radios. Example: SONY's acclaimed tabletop radio which has gotten much favorable comment here. As good as this receiver was, most of them came back with purchaser complaints because the HD system just doesn't work well enough. Now they're being steeply discounted as closeouts. Radio Shack has given up on HD, with the Accurian now on the Manager's Special display. HD installs have flatlined; iBiquity doesn't even talk about station conversions any more. AM-HD is an unmitigated disaster which has done nothing for the venerable band but screw up nighttime reception and raise the analog noise floor by an enormous amount, precisely the opposite of what AM needs. FM-HD has been declared dead by major broadcasters without a tenfold increase in digital power, which most observers agree is not going to happen outside of a few high-profile test installations.

The reason IBOC-boosters are hard to find is not because mean old Savage, Hipporadio, Tom Wells and Freebird harangued them away. They see the writing on the wall. There's little point in constantly protesting the innocence of a cadaver. It can't be convicted or acquitted; it's DEAD.

Essentially here's where we are with HD: the radio industry "leaders" know they have a stiff on their hands, but given their Wall St. woes and eroding image, they can't just admit HD is a flop and drive on. So they've declared "victory!" and will simply let HD stumble along, hoping nobody notices it's been abandoned, and quietly shelve it a few years from now when everybody's attention is focused elsewhere. In the meantime they'll put on the brave face (including a heaping dose of lying) and keep braying about the wonderfulness of multicasting. Nobody's listening? "Hey, critics, prove your negative!"

Of course the courageous, nonstupid thing to do would be to admit failure and announce a new initiative/innovation simultaneously with the axing of HD. But they'll never do that because the nitwits responsible for the disaster are too self interested and possessed of massively fragile egos. So instead our industry will continue ludicrously bleating about the wonders of New Coke and new Edsel models that nobody wants, to radio's great detriment.

Look around and smell the coffee, my friend. The pro-HD posters weren't scared or disgusted away. Maybe you can point us to those happy fora which still bristle with upbeat discussions about HD's bright future. I'd enjoy reading them.

 

[fybush]

Maybe you can point us to those happy fora which still bristle with upbeat discussions about HD's bright future. I'd enjoy reading them.

There's always the public radio engineering forum, Pubtech. (www.pubtech.org)

While I tend to agree with most of Bob's assessment of the state of HD in the commercial radio arena, I think many of us who cross the line to the public radio side of things find that the situation there is a little different.

Unlike commercial radio, where HD was a solution in search of a problem, and FM HD multicasting even more so, many public stations had (and have) a different set of worries - lots and lots of available programming, an audience eager for more programming choices, and (in many cases) not enough available spectrum on which to expand their offerings.

(What's that you say? Why yes - it does indeed all come back to content in the end.)

A real-world case study that should be very familiar to Bob (and Freebird, and several others here): WXXI in Rochester, which has a full class B FM that's 24/7 classical and a 5 kW DA-N AM that carries the NPR news and talk lineup and local programming. The AM signal loses big chunks of the market when it switches to night pattern, including areas where many would-be listeners and members live. It's been a problem for most of the quarter-century since the AM went on the air.

It's not hard to see why FM HD multicasting was a welcome solution to the problem - and from where I sit (disclaimer: I do some part-time work for WXXI's newsroom; I don't speak for the station), it's the best available solution right now. The FM transmitter and antenna were due for upgrades anyway, and the incremental cost of upgrading it to HD was minimal compared with what a new analog-only installation would have cost. Buying a commercial FM signal and converting it to news-talk would have cost well into the millions of dollars to replicate the coverage of WXXI-FM's HD signal, which has proven thus far to be pretty darned respectable, thanks to a fairly compact market and a well-situated central transmitter site. Streaming audio? It's one piece of the puzzle, for now, but the station rolls its own stream in-house and the bandwidth costs of large-scale listening add up very quickly, whereas the HD transmission costs the same to serve 10 listeners as to serve 10,000. And it provided an HD3 channel, as well, to provide some of the programming listeners have asked for, but couldn't fit on the existing AM and FM schedules.

The biggest complaint so far from listeners? Not enough receivers available. And from what I understand, there are listeners - or at least, someone's calling when the HD's off the air. (That's true, too, at the handful of commercial stations that have found useful niches for their multicasts; I had an interesting conversation not long ago with the folks at Marlin's WCCC-FM in Hartford, who have a small but fiercely loyal audience for the classical programming on WCCC-HD2.)

Is FM HD, used this way, going to reshape the entire face of American broadcasting? No way.

Will it even still be around in 20 years? I doubt it, if only because large-scale, inexpensive mobile broadband had better be a reality by then, and we'll all be either streaming or dead.

But for now, given the other real-world options out there, HD FM - and in particular the multicast aspect that was developed by NPR Labs specifically for this purpose - is the best solution many public broadcasters have found to the equation that tries to balance available programming, listener demand for new content, and the cost of distributing that content.

In short, it's a niche product, not a mass medium...but within that niche are some interesting small-scale success stories.

(Does this make me an "IBOC booster"?)

 

[Chuck]

(Does this make me an "IBOC booster"?)

I think it makes you a fair and balanced reporter. (Apologies to the TV network that seldom is). I wish there were more discussion of this nature on this Board, and I'm not even a big fan of HD.

The Public Radio sector is the one place where some kind of multicast system seems appropriate, for all the reasons you mention. The problem is not every public station is a power-house. There are plenty that have analog signals that could be described as "challenged." As with anything, there is a point of diminishing return for this system to be effective. There just isn’t enough power available to be effective in HD. Maybe the FCC will establish some kind of minimum power for small stations wishing to adopt this technology. That might work, but it is hard to negate the laws of physics when it comes to interference. In the short spaced reserved band, that could become very significant issue if everyone lit up in HD. As you know, interference issues are why NPR Labs is very cautious about the proposed 10 db power increase. I think they are right.

In fact, I remember that on the Pubtech Board, the Chief Engineer from WEOS was complaining that they had lost significant listenership (read paying members) because of new adjacent channel interference from HD. The reply was that they had no legal right to those listeners, since they were beyond the station's protected contour. That's probably true, but if your subscribers stop sending in money (from wherever they are) there is a problem. I think WEOS is in your neck of the woods, isn't it? How has that worked out for them?

I must admit I finally gave up on the Pubtech Board, but I'd encourage others to take a look. I took it as a digest version for nearly a year. Although it was very interesting, it was just way too much to read every few hours. These guys like to post. I still have friends who are regular participants. I even have friends at Public HD stations that are very happy with the new channel offerings. For them it seems to be working. I think that is great.

On the other hand, I’m quite sure HD is a very bad idea for AM as it stands right now, and more trouble than it is worth for most commercial broadcasters. It certainly is for small stations in small markets. The issue is more than just interference. Part of it is competing with your existing analog station. If a 10 db power increase is allowed, Interference will become a major issue. How couldn't it, unless you are in rural Wyoming....

That said, I do think there are many good uses for multicasting. I can think of a few myself. On the other hand, I think we could have chosen our tools and methods more wisely.

 

[fybush]

The Public Radio sector is the one place where some kind of multicast system seems appropriate, for all the reasons you mention. The problem is not every public station is a power-house. There are plenty that have analog signals that could be described as "challenged." As with anything, there is a point of diminishing return for this system to be effective. There just isn’t enough power available to be effective in HD. Maybe the FCC will establish some kind of minimum power for small stations wishing to adopt this technology. That might work, but it is hard to negate the laws of physics when it comes to interference. In the short spaced reserved band, that could become very significant issue if everyone lit up in HD. As you know, interference issues are why NPR Labs is very cautious about the proposed 10 db power increase. I think they are right.

As do I - and you're quite right about the many very real challenges that exist for noncomm FMs that are lower in power and more tightly spaced than ours at WXXI-FM.

The solution, if there is one, most likely is to be found in better receiver technology. Bruce Carter, who posts here often, has written about this at some length - if I understand what he's thinking, the idea is to apply separate DSP to the HD sidebands, thus allowing receivers to dig out usable HD from signals that are too weak to decode on the current generation of receivers.

(And I should note that, at least in my limited work with it so far, even the finest HD receiver thus made - Sony's XDR-F1HD - is a more stellar performer on analog than on HD. Even with a good rooftop antenna, I still can't get the superpower Bs less than 80 miles away in Buffalo and Syracuse to decode HD. That's disappointing.)

In fact, I remember that on the Pubtech Board, the Chief Engineer from WEOS was complaining that they had lost significant listenership (read paying members) because of new adjacent channel interference from HD. The reply was that they had no legal right to those listeners, since they were beyond the station's protected contour. That's probably true, but if your subscribers stop sending in money (from wherever they are) there is a problem. I think WEOS is in your neck of the woods, isn't it? How has that worked out for them?

WEOS' general manager posts here from time to time, too. Perhaps he'd like to chime in with an update.

I know WEOS is pursuing a channel change and power increase that would alleviate a lot of the adjacent-channel mess it's in right now. As I understand it, the FCC erred in granting at least one of the moves that created the short-spacing between WEOS (89.7B1) and WRVO (89.9B). It's certainly a fairly egregious case of short-spacing, but not atypical of the messes that exist below 92 MHz in too many crowded areas.

Perhaps an answer, in areas where HD simply won't work well on an overcrowded noncom band, would be some sort of tax break for commercial broadcasters who donate their multicast capacity to noncom stations?

On the other hand, I’m quite sure HD is a very bad idea for AM as it stands right now, and more trouble than it is worth for most commercial broadcasters. It certainly is for small stations in small markets. The issue is more than just interference. Part of it is competing with your existing analog station. If a 10 db power increase is allowed, Interference will become a major issue. How couldn't it, unless you are in rural Wyoming....

Nobody's seriously talking about a 10 dB increase for HD AM, that I know of. That way lies insanity.

The consensus at this point among most of the engineers and station managers that I talk to is that AM HD is effectively dead, though the corpse hasn't quite stopped twitching just yet.

You can count the number of new AM HD installations this year on one hand, with a thumb left over for twiddling. In many markets, group owners are suddenly adding AM simulcasts on FM HD subchannels, a tacit assumption (even among the groups that are the biggest supporters of the technology) that AM HD coverage has not lived up to expectations. And many of the AMs that are running the system still don't have it up at night, or shut it off because of delay issues during live sport events.

That said, I do think there are many good uses for multicasting. I can think of a few myself. On the other hand, I think we could have chosen our tools and methods more wisely.

Isn't that always the case, though? There are compromises in our analog FM standard (especially the 70 us pre-emphasis curve) that would probably be avoided by anyone starting from scratch. That's even more true of both the NTSC analog TV standard and the 8VSB transmission system the US and Canada have adopted for DTV.

Then there's the proprietary nature of Ibiquity's system. Would we have been better served by an open-source effort, perhaps led by the technologists at NPR? I'd think so...but the train is already pretty far gone from the station at this point.

 

[audioguy]

I would like to see more consideration of "flash cutting" to all digital transmission. An all digital signal:

• would likely not interfere with adjacent channel stations
• would not interfere with its own analog signal (since there wouldn't be one)
• should provide superior coverage as compared to HD
• should be technically viable, even for low power stations
• might help drive sales of digital receivers

Unfortunately, it still would not be an inexpensive option for those operating on a tight budget.

By the way, I'm a big fan of WXXI's programming, having been a regular listener to "With Heart and Voice" over affiliate WFMT for some years now.

 

[fybush]

I would like to see more consideration of "flash cutting" to all digital transmission. An all digital signal:

• would likely not interfere with adjacent channel stations
• would not interfere with its own analog signal (since there wouldn't be one)
• should provide superior coverage as compared to HD
• should be technically viable, even for low power stations
• might help drive sales of digital receivers

Unfortunately, it still would not be an inexpensive option for those operating on a tight budget.

The cost of running all-digital wouldn't be any higher than running a hybrid analog/digital FM - in fact, the power bill would be substantially less - but of course the receiver penetration's just not there to make it work.

I know some of the Alaska noncomm AMs were mulling the idea of going all-digital a few years back. The motivating factor was the incredibly high cost of power to the remote transmitter sites - apparently someone had the thought that it would be cheaper to buy all the listeners in those small towns new digital radios, and make up for that cost with the reduced power consumption of all-digital transmissions. I don't think anything ever came of the idea, and I don't know how seriously it was ever pursued.

Back here in the "Outside," the established analog listener base is far too large, and the available digital receivers too few and far between, to seriously consider going all-digital any time soon.

Could that change? If stations like WCNY in Syracuse, which is now doing oldies with local jocks on its HD2, succeed in giving listeners enough reasons to seek out radios, nothing's impossible...but I sure wouldn't bet on it any time soon.

By the way, I'm a big fan of WXXI's programming, having been a regular listener to "With Heart and Voice" over affiliate WFMT for some years now.

Hey, thanks! We take pride in "WHV" and the other national productions that come out of our little content factory - and there are some fantastically talented people who make it all happen, without ever getting the recognition they deserve.

 

[Chuck]

The solution, if there is one, most likely is to be found in better receiver technology. Bruce Carter, who posts here often, has written about this at some length - if I understand what he's thinking, the idea is to apply separate DSP to the HD sidebands, thus allowing receivers to dig out usable HD from signals that are too weak to decode on the current generation of receivers.

(And I should note that, at least in my limited work with it so far, even the finest HD receiver thus made - Sony's XDR-F1HD - is a more stellar performer on analog than on HD. Even with a good rooftop antenna, I still can't get the superpower Bs less than 80 miles away in Buffalo and Syracuse to decode HD. That's disappointing.)

If this is to work, I think you are right that the answer lies in better receivers. My Sony XDR-FH1 is a remarkable tuner, but it has problems from time to time with my "local" NPR station 65 miles away. Sometimes, it works fine, sometimes it doesn't. It probably has as much to do with meteorological conditions, as it has to do with the radio.

Don't get me wrong, this is by far and away the best FM tuner I've ever owned. Like most people, the great majority of my radios are several orders of magnitude worse than the Sony. If it happens at all, HD will be a long time coming to be considered "universally available." I suspect that wide spread Internet coverage will be the norm long before most existing radios are replaced with something that is roughly the equivalent of the Sony.

 

[clouseau]

G'day, Inspector.

It is good to see you here again. Do not be offended when it seems contentious here.

Tom,

I'll respond to this sentence from you because I think it pretty well sums up a feeling I get around here.

I take no offense whatsoever. I can see how some may have gotten that idea from what I posted, but that's not the case. It's not about offense at all.

Frankly, what is posted is becoming a waste of ANYONE'S time. There is only one real discussion that "I" feel is beneficial and that is "What does radio do with what they have". It's pretty clear to me that there is NOT going to be an alternative to HD. I suspect the vast majority of folks here wouldn't care for that either. No problem, but what's the point in continuing the alledged "Discussion". The overwhelming opinion seems to be that Radio's problem, as a whole, and AM's in particular is content. What we need are the "golden days of yesteryear". Talk about head in the sand.

With due reverance to the AM guys here, the transmission system of AM radio is not competitive. I use that diplomatic phrase in place of what I am thinking, which was DEAD. Selected AM programming works. The transmission system does not. Give someone a comparable signal in your market and they can beat you running YOUR PROGRAMMING. While, for the moment, a single AM does well in many markets, ANY full market FM with comparable programming will beat the AM hands down.

As AM has done in the past, they have found a way to maneuver around so there is NOT any comparable content available. Until Limbaugh & Hannity & to a lesser extent Beck, Boortz, etc..etc.. are truly cloned, there is no legitimate, cost competatove alrenative that works. So as long as AM hangs on to the talk format, they'll do OK. But sooner or later, all the good stuff will migrate to FM. Just like everything else but talk has already.

As I see it, "HD sucks" is not really a take. The entire "HD is dead" discussion reminds me of trying to discuss US politics while advocating a totally different poliical system, because the masses are too stupid to govern themselves. It might be true or not-- but is it relevant? What radio needs to do is maximize the effectivness of what it has.

There is a growing underpinning that radio as an industry has destroyed itself. I don't know that I disagree, but how so many folks transpose that feeling to the HD technology is amazing to me. Radio aggregation and corporate ownership certainly display signs of being broken. Radio? I'm not so sure.

There is a similar complaint about 8-VSB on HDTV. There's accasional discussions about how much better off we'd be with COFDM. I don't get the point of bitching about it. In February they will implement 8-VSB 100%. Then I would suspect every HDTV station in he country will be screaming for a power increase and then they'll deal with what they have and figure out what to put on THEIR subchannels and how to get them on cable and the bird. (Sound familiar?)

So no offense taken. I just don't see the allure about debating (Or should I say "RESTATING") whether or not we "should". Right or wrong, WE DID. Use it or don't use it. Light it up or leave your station in analog. If it's a discussion of what's on it - great. If it's a question of how well it works, great.

Anyone in the industry with any sense knows "It is, what it is". Life's too short to lament what could have been or how things suck. KB and Pocket seems top have covered that with an abundance of detail anyway.

I would suspect that is why you don't see the number of industry people on this board that you used to. What's the point?

All the above IMHO...

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

In the intervening hours since my post on "The State Of HD" Chuck has succinctly made most of my points for me, in response to Scott Fybush's quite insightful and level-headed response from the NCE perspective. And no, Scottso, I don't think that makes you an "IBOC booster" either.

There's no question that if there is such a thing as an "HD success story" it's with NPR, where the technology provides an answer to those stations' unique needs (that would be multicasting) and where, in many cases, the cost of HD installation can be at least partly be covered with available grants. And WXXI-HD, with its high power, lack of adjacent-channel concerns, central TX location and flat terrain, would represent an atypically best-case scenario for HD success.

But as is usually the case with HD, there are drawbacks which are gathering momentum instead of being worked out. Coincidental to this board discussion, I had a long phone conversation with the manager of an NPR AM-FM outlet just this past week, and the topic turned to HD Radio. He has absolutely no plans to convert his AM to AM-HD, which he regards as a total waste. While multicasting has certainly provided new programming options, he expresses the same concerns often expressed here. The dwindling availability of receivers is one; their lackluster performance when you can buy one is another. Penetration of HD into not only office buildings but luxury high-rise and condo complexes, where many NPR listener-contributors live, is not good. Nor do his listeners generally think that HD represents a quantum leap in quality listening, even given their higher motivation to appreciate fine sound in listening to classical music. And he is watching the proposed HD-FM increase to 10db with mingled suspicion and alarm.

So it appears most of the advantage HD provides to at least this NPR outlet is almost solely: multicasting. FMxtra could have gotten that done at a fraction of the cost and with no objectionable interference.

Notwithstanding NPR's somewhat conditional success with HD, that's not enough to put HD "over" as a successful transmission system. IBOC has to be something approaching universal in order to succeed in the marketplace. And THAT is a train which long ago left the station.

 

[Carmine5]

I don't know about anyone else, but I find the complacent thinking of, "it's what we have now so let's make the best of it", dangerous. If HD is an aspirin when what radio really needs is an operation, especially AM, then now is the time to sow the seeds of discontent with IBOC.

There are some exciting proposals on the FCC's docket and now is the time to let the Commission know that what we have is inadequate. HD has little or nothing to offer the small market FM, LPFM or AM broadcaster. There are just too many broadcasters left out in the cold with HD. If radio is to truly go digital than what we need is a whole re-thinking of the how the AM and FM bands are being utilized and apportioned.

But if the Commission thinks that HD Radio is the panacea that the radio industry has been asking for (interference complaints notwithstanding), will they give serious thought to the radical surgery radio really needs to survive? I doubt it.

C5

 

[KB1OKL]

G'day, Inspector.

It is good to see you here again. Do not be offended when it seems contentious here.

Anyone in the industry with any sense knows "It is, what it is". Life's too short to lament what could have been or how things suck. KB and Pocket seems top have covered that with an abundance of detail anyway.


Clouseau

Yes it is good to see you hear again inspector, but I love life and many things in it, the only thing I've ever said sucks (at least on this board) is HD and yes, let me count the ways, ;D. And yes, it is what it is today, but what will it be tomorrow, HD? Fat chance, wifi, Internet radio, even Satrad blows the doors off HD, in fact analog AM and FM is much better than HD for obvious reasons. Being civil with each other is much better but with the nature of our strong beliefs pro and con it is difficult sometimes. AND the simple fact is that HD is as dead as a door nail and everyone knows it. It was a half baked idea that never took off with the public.

 

[pocket-radio]

In an era of smarter competition, television continues to pump millions into rich content. TV is trying new ideas! Radio, has IBOC and so far offers listeners more jukebox formats. And a small percentage of operators offer different jukebox brands, like Boson’s Irish Channel.

Expect smart jukeboxes (ipod like devices) to become smarter, fully mobile and free to access all kinds of online content.
Expect Flat screen TVs to come with internet protocols.
Expect fast, cheap wireless internet access.
Expect auto manufacture to include wireless internet access as standard equipment
Expect radio to move towards more syndicated programming.

In a marketplace with unlimited media choices, broadcasters will have to invest in talented people and rich media content. Playing more jukebox music stations, when “free music is available everyplace” won't cut it.