The true motivation behind HD.

[rbrucecarter5]

Read the current issue of Radio World. New technology to allow stations to charge for access to HD-2 service. ALL new HD radios to have a unique identification number - and the station can therefore keep a record of which radios are authorized and which aren't. The ones who aren't - the signal is scrambled.

Don't take my word for it, read it yourself. Page 24 - "NDS Reveals Conditional Access Details"

OK - my take: This is so ill advised as to be laughable. Why would anybody pay for access to ONE channel when they can pay a very simlar low fee and have access to 150 channels on satellite? The big hurdle either way is convincing them to pay - not necessarily the amount. One of the ONLY cards HD radio has had to play has been the "FREE" vs. "PAY" aspect. I'm not a fan of HD radio, but even I feel sorry for them because they have just shot themselves in the back and just about doomed their only bright spot - the HD-2 service - to consumer backlash and apathy.

Now, the ONLY reason I would have to buy an HD radio is that the HDT-1 has outstanding ANALOG performance and first adjacent reception. And some of my home tuners seem to have been zapped by lightning.

 

[clouseau]

Read the current issue of Radio World. New technology to allow stations to charge for access to HD-2 service. ALL new HD radios to have a unique identification number - and the station can therefore keep a record of which radios are authorized and which aren't. The ones who aren't - the signal is scrambled.

Don't take my word for it, read it yourself. Page 24 - "NDS Reveals Conditional Access Details"

OK - my take: This is so ill advised as to be laughable. Why would anybody pay for access to ONE channel when they can pay a very simlar low fee and have access to 150 channels on satellite? The big hurdle either way is convincing them to pay - not necessarily the amount. One of the ONLY cards HD radio has had to play has been the "FREE" vs. "PAY" aspect. I'm not a fan of HD radio, but even I feel sorry for them because they have just shot themselves in the back and just about doomed their only bright spot - the HD-2 service - to consumer backlash and apathy.

Now, the ONLY reason I would have to buy an HD radio is that the HDT-1 has outstanding ANALOG performance and first adjacent reception. And some of my home tuners seem to have been zapped by lightning.

OK here's MY take.

An occasional HD stream could be conditional access. This would allow for a degree of "SCA ization" of HD2 under very limited cirsumstances.

Your cable system has conditional access. Is that a bad thing?

Sirius has conditional access. Is that a bad thing?

This message board is conditional access. Is THAT a bad thing?

Same deal for HD. Some very few things you might have to pay for. Most will be free.

IMHO this is NOT the motivation for HD radio. The motivation is more choice. Also this "MIGHT" open up the door for getting uncensored stuff on the radio. If you had to sign up or it was blocked, would this possibly open up the return of "Stern Like" content? Since you would have to request it? Interesting

Now THAT might be a motavator. (Hope Not)

Clouseau

 

[rbrucecarter5]

IMHO this is NOT the motivation for HD radio. The motivation is more choice. Also this "MIGHT" open up the door for getting uncensored stuff on the radio. If you had to sign up or it was blocked, would this possibly open up the return of "Stern Like" content? Since you would have to request it? Interesting

VERY bad example. Howard Stern has no business being on radio anywhere for any reason. When the Columbine massacre occurred, he was making comments about the sexual characteristics of the dead female shooting victims. I would not pay 2 cents for the "privilege" of hearing that pervert. I do not, as a rule, allow someone to come into my living room and pour raw sewage in the middle of my carpet. Why should I have audio raw sewage coming through my speakers?

I would, however, pay for a Radio Disney feed. I'll take my top-40 filtered of inappropriate language, please!

 

[Mike Walker]

Fortunately no one person deciding who "has any business being on radio anywhere, for any reason" has any authority to do anything about it. It's just THEIR OPINION!

Somehow Americans have gotten the idea that they have an inalienable right to not be offended. Cow Patties! The price we pay for the freedom to express our opinions freely is that occasionally we'll be smacked "upside da' head" with those of other people. Nothing is more offensive than the other guy's opinion. And neither you, nor I can, or should be able to do a damn thing about it!

"Conditional access" will allow another way for stations to occasionally monetize HD by serving VERY small niches. That's about it. A pay-per-listen concert here, a sporting event there, background music for businesses, reading services for the blind, perhaps a channel for medical professionals with VERY specialized programming that the vast majority of people wouldn't give a crap about...THAT is what "conditional access" is about. It's a capability satellite had, that terrestrial stations didn't. Now they do. BFD!

 

[clouseau]

Fortunately no one person deciding who "has any business being on radio anywhere, for any reason" has any authority to do anything about it. It's just THEIR OPINION!

Somehow Americans have gotten the idea that they have an inalienable right to not be offended. Cow Patties! The price we pay for the freedom to express our opinions freely is that occasionally we'll be smacked "upside da' head" with those of other people. Nothing is more offensive than the other guy's opinion. And neither you, nor I can, or should be able to do a damn thing about it!

"Conditional access" will allow another way for stations to occasionally monetize HD by serving VERY small niches. That's about it. A pay-per-listen concert here, a sporting event there, background music for businesses, reading services for the blind, perhaps a channel for medical professionals with VERY specialized programming that the vast majority of people wouldn't give a crap about...THAT is what "conditional access" is about. It's a capability satellite had, that terrestrial stations didn't. Now they do. BFD!

Oh boy. I hate to do this, but I DO think that I have the right to not have filth on my radio. That is, radio is a public service. If we allow ANYTHING on it then we have done a disservice. We've decided this for cable as well. (Remember you don't get filth when children may be watching UNLESS YOU SIGN UP FOR IT) Look at the offerings on BASIC cable. (And to a lesser extent - Expanded Basic).

Mike, I believe I have the right to be able to give a radio to my child and not have to worry. Not a SIRIUS or XM radio. A regular radio.

That's the difference. Even the most filthy porno TV channels are sent via "Radio waves" to your cable company. It's not about filth on the radio to me. Its about generally available broadcast filth.

So I guess My opinion is "I do have a right to not endure obscene material in public".

That's my Opinion. YMMV

Clouseau

BTW I have no problem with Howard on Satellite. I would never listen and do not care, but he's got the right to yak as much as the next (Insert you favorite orafice here).

 

[dbdigital]

Fortunately no one person deciding who "has any business being on radio anywhere, for any reason" has any authority to do anything about it. It's just THEIR OPINION!

Somehow Americans have gotten the idea that they have an inalienable right to not be offended. Cow Patties! The price we pay for the freedom to express our opinions freely is that occasionally we'll be smacked "upside da' head" with those of other people. Nothing is more offensive than the other guy's opinion. And neither you, nor I can, or should be able to do a damn thing about it!

"Conditional access" will allow another way for stations to occasionally monetize HD by serving VERY small niches. That's about it. A pay-per-listen concert here, a sporting event there, background music for businesses, reading services for the blind, perhaps a channel for medical professionals with VERY specialized programming that the vast majority of people wouldn't give a crap about...THAT is what "conditional access" is about. It's a capability satellite had, that terrestrial stations didn't. Now they do. BFD!

Oh boy. I hate to do this, but I DO think that I have the right to not have filth on my radio. That is, radio is a public service. If we allow ANYTHING on it then we have done a disservice. We've decided this for cable as well. (Remember you don't get filth when children may be watching UNLESS YOU SIGN UP FOR IT) Look at the offerings on BASIC cable. (And to a lesser extent - Expanded Basic).

Mike, I believe I have the right to be able to give a radio to my child and not have to worry. Not a SIRIUS or XM radio. A regular radio.

That's the difference. Even the most filthy porno TV channels are sent via "Radio waves" to your cable company. It's not about filth on the radio to me. Its about generally available broadcast filth.

So I guess My opinion is "I do have a right to not endure obscene material in public".

That's my Opinion. YMMV

Clouseau

BTW I have no problem with Howard on Satellite. I would never listen and do not care, but he's got the right to yak as much as the next (Insert you favorite orafice here).

For once, I can throughly agree with you, Clouseau. After all, if someone tried to expose themselves in public and perform a lewd act, they would be arrested. Should it be any different when someone uses a public forum like radio to spew aural pornography?

Although lately, I think the FCC, under the heavy hand of Kevin Martin, has gotten out of control with censorship and was glad to see the Appeals Court rule against them.

But as far as conditional access, who would pay for one niche channel? I suppose if it's a once-in-a-lifetime event, like a Beatles-type reunion or a sold out super hot concert, and I can record and burn the event to a CD, then ummm....maybe I'll spring a few dollars for it.

But if it's just a niche channel, no doubt there's already an internet or satellite radio channel to cover it.

db

 

[Mike Walker]

Maybe I didn't make my point well, because I think I'm being misunderstood. I don't think ANYONE has the right to say obscene things on free radio. But I don't think anyone has the right to silence someone just because they don't agree with them either.

I DESPISE Howard Stern...and I have actually written commercial copy for the jerk when he was on a Charlotte station. What I MEANT was that stations should be allowed to air Howard on "conditional access" channels...channels that can only be accessed with a credit card, not on the "free" over the air channels, analog or digital. I agree that you (or I) should be able to give a child a radio without worrying too much. But you're not going to also give your (small) child a credit card, are you? Without access to one, it doesn't matter what is on the conditional access channels...your child can't access them. My point is that, having created these satellite radio services, it's not fair that THEY should be able to skirt decency laws with pay only "adult" content, while terrestrial stations are locked out. It's like nudity and violence on HBO/Showtime/Cinemax. If your child is able to watch hours of that without your knowledge, well you have bigger problems than the kids watchin' nudie pics. He or she isn't being supervised!

I think the thing about speech is that we all have a right to say what we please...what we think. But nobody has a right to an audience. Back to that radio your child has been given...I would point out that he or she might hear some things come out of it that are just as harmful as sexual content or "dirty words". Nationally syndicated talk hosts routinely spout hateful, bigoted rants designed to make their listeners hate, or at the least dislike and/or distrust other Americans simply because their beliefs, religion, ethnicity, or politics are different. THAT is pretty harmful too. But what are you gonna' do? The world is full of the most dangerous thing of all...other people's ideas!

 

[jras20]

I said it before and I'll say it again, I'll never pay extra for terrestrial radio. NEVER. If they start charging I'll just pull the plug out of the coaxal and plug it back into my old analog tuner. I'd almost would pay 12.95 for a 150 channels and I know I can recieve them clearly. Anyway thats my thoughts.

 

[4dude]

I wouldnt doubt this 1 bit!!!!

Everything is about $$$ today and its sick.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

I said it before and I'll say it again, I'll never pay extra for terrestrial radio. NEVER. If they start charging I'll just pull the plug out of the coaxal and plug it back into my old analog tuner. I'd almost would pay 12.95 for a 150 channels and I know I can recieve them clearly. Anyway thats my thoughts.

And, you won't have to pay for terrestrial radio. So what if K-Blah-Blah-Blah decides that instead of running an HD-3 channel, they run a subscription channel like Hellenic Radio or Books for the Blind. We've had SCA for years and nobody has been screaming about not being able to hear these subscription channels. Remember when Pay-TV channels operated on OTA TV stations, nobody had to starting paying for over-the-air television. And, the worst case scenario at the time was 3 stations running scrambled channels in a market with more than 12 channels. This is an even "kinder" situation because stations can't devote 100% of their HD Radio signal to subscription services, so there is no net loss like there was with OTA Pay-TV.

Now, from the technical and logistics perspective, it probably makes more sense for stations to implement FMXtra for these subscription channels. But, subscription channels via the HD Radio bitstream isn't going to do any more harm to terrestrial radio than it hasn't already done to itself.

 

[jras20]

I dont even plan on upgrading to HDTV if that is what your talking about, when analog TV dies I'll let it die with it, I can just use the Internet for news/weather, and my Direct TV will still work.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I dont even plan on upgrading to HDTV if that is what your talking about, when analog TV dies I'll let it die with it, I can just use the Internet for news/weather, and my Direct TV will still work.

Same here - I'll buy boxes to decode the signal if the cable system doesn't do it for me. The last time I saw HDTV it looked garish and unnatural. I could really tell the compression was there. The longer the news anchor stayed still, the more pores and imperfections I could see on her skin. She moved, all that went away, then slowly came back. Surreal if you ask me.

 

[radiopilot]

I dont even plan on upgrading to HDTV if that is what your talking about, when analog TV dies I'll let it die with it, I can just use the Internet for news/weather, and my Direct TV will still work.

Same here - I'll buy boxes to decode the signal if the cable system doesn't do it for me. The last time I saw HDTV it looked garish and unnatural. I could really tell the compression was there. The longer the news anchor stayed still, the more pores and imperfections I could see on her skin. She moved, all that went away, then slowly came back. Surreal if you ask me.

Imagine what that compression could do for the faces behind the mikes at most radio stations, wouldn't that be an improvement besides IBOC! ;D

Yeah, I haven't watched regular on air TV or HDTV or any cable or satelite either, I know most people would think I'm a nut, but my kids don't miss it, we're total musicians in the house so dvd's do most of the showing on the TV's.

Most of the crap that's on the air besides some educational shows aren't worth the copy they were written on, there's really nothing worth watching.

Radiopilot

 

[jras20]

In Honestly I havnt watched Primetime TV in years, only time I may watch it is sports thats it. I agree with you Bruce, I was not impressed at all with those HDTV's or how they look. I like my 27" flatscreen analog a hell of a lot better than those new ones.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

In Honestly I havnt watched Primetime TV in years, only time I may watch it is sports thats it. I agree with you Bruce, I was not impressed at all with those HDTV's or how they look. I like my 27" flatscreen analog a hell of a lot better than those new ones.

I discovered a new source of family TV, as good as anything in the 60's. So now - I proudly admit that I watch Disney Channel, Teen Nick, and Discovery Kids. When they are reruns, I'm on the science channels. At least on the so called kids shows (and those kids do a heck of a good job acting, the writing is excellent) nobody is breeding, nobody is cussing, nobody has blood spurting all over the place, nobody is drunk or on drugs, and the families seem to be functional. And - from the people I see advertising on those networks, there must be a massive adult audience because kids don't hire lawyers after car wrecks, buy cars, etc. The ads are aimed at adults.

 

[Tom Wells]

I dont even plan on upgrading to HDTV if that is what your talking about, when analog TV dies I'll let it die with it, I can just use the Internet for news/weather, and my Direct TV will still work.

Same here - I'll buy boxes to decode the signal if the cable system doesn't do it for me. The last time I saw HDTV it looked garish and unnatural. I could really tell the compression was there. The longer the news anchor stayed still, the more pores and imperfections I could see on her skin. She moved, all that went away, then slowly came back. Surreal if you ask me.

I remember watching somewhere in a hotel room one morning....Katie Couric (sp?) doing a remote from somewhere, and the digi-feed tripped over its feet,
and the image of her face melted into that of a cyber-monster with leering eyes and horrible huge gnashing teeth.

It was more than surreal. I do like perception to be somewhat dependable.

A loss of signal would have been better than an image of a monster.

 

[raydofan]

VERY bad example. Howard Stern has no business being on radio anywhere for any reason.
<SNIP>
I would not pay 2 cents for the "privilege" of hearing that pervert. I do not, as a rule, allow someone to come into my living room and pour raw sewage in the middle of my carpet. Why should I have audio raw sewage coming through my speakers?

As an unrepentant pervert, I must say that is a great deal of [EDIT] silly hyperbole.


[EDIT-profanity]

 

[PhilJSmith67]

Wow. I can hardly stomach analog TV anymore. Yes, DTV stations have some artifacts, but with an OTA DTV tuner, the video isn't recompressed like it can be for cable, and like it ALWAYS is for satellite TV. Via Comcast or OTA, I find that shows with good content are very much enhanced by a deadly-clear picture. When I'm at other people's houses I feel like I want to "focus" their TV. Then there's the sound quality. 5.1 digital audio at 384 kbps blows away the FM audio from analog TV.

But, everyone has their preferences. Lots of people listen to satellite radio and think I'm nuts when I say I can't stand the poor audio quality. I'll take analog and/or HD Radio over XM or Sirius any day.

 

[radiopilot]

But, everyone has their preferences. Lots of people listen to satellite radio and think I'm nuts when I say I can't stand the poor audio quality. I'll take analog and/or HD Radio over XM or Sirius any day.

Unfortunately millions don't share your views, they'd rather listen to satelite and it's programming with no commercials even though the sound quality might not be up to par compared with commercials and diatribes of dj's on terrestrial radio analog or digital, and I'm one that will listen to satelite any chance I get.

Fix the lousy programming on terrestrial radio and maybe more people will tune their radios to it.. so far the corporate broadcasters haven't learned that lesson yet, now it's a 'Less is More' concept and they believe this is the holy grail to geting more listeners but it's too late, HD and 'stations within stations' isn't going to do it.


Radiopilot

 

[R.F. Burns]

But, everyone has their preferences. Lots of people listen to satellite radio and think I'm nuts when I say I can't stand the poor audio quality. I'll take analog and/or HD Radio over XM or Sirius any day.

Unfortunately millions don't share your views, they'd rather listen to satelite and it's programming with no commercials even though the sound quality might not be up to par compared with commercials and diatribes of dj's on terrestrial radio analog or digital, and I'm one that will listen to satelite any chance I get.

Fix the lousy programming on terrestrial radio and maybe more people will tune their radios to it.. so far the corporate broadcasters haven't learned that lesson yet, now it's a 'Less is More' concept and they believe this is the holy grail to geting more listeners but it's too late, HD and 'stations within stations' isn't going to do it.


Radiopilot

If XM & Sirius had enough subscribers interested in what they are selling, they wouldn't be seeking a merger. Broadcasting is a business and as of this time, terrestrial radio is a success and very profitable. So far satellite radio is a failure. Think about it, both XM & Sirius give their product away (Mercury announced free 3 years of satellite service when you buy a car) and they still can't attract enough listeners to make a profit. People will listen to the sats for free, but when it comes to that monthly charge so far, most people aren't interested.