• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Video clip of WOAI AM HD 60 miles

R.F. Burns said:
Chuck said:
R.F. Burns said:
For the millions living on the edge due to out fabulous economy, $40 extra a month is too much. No matter, terrestrial radio is still very healthy and continue to be for many years. Why is it that television stations continue to broadcast over the air when cable has beeen around for so many years?

Actually, R.F.  for many people, that $40 per month will be INSTEAD of the $50-60 per month they are already spending.  A lot of people will probably want it because it is cheaper.  The fact that it is also better will be icing on the cake. 


Chuck, I'll believe it when I see it. The economy is in the dumps and there's no sign of a turn around for the foreseable future. That and the fact that neccessary costs keep rising;

http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/bridges/html/tolls.html

Yep, 8 dollars just to cross the river to work each day. That doesn't include the 3 dollar a gallon gas (Jersey gas is amongst the cheapest. In NY gas is 3.40 or more a gallon for reg) and the 15 dollar daily parking cost. $40 a month for unlimited wireless internet? Is that the new HMO? C'mon sign up, its only $40 a month, but wait awhile and soon the $40 becomes $100 and more. In my part of the country, nothing has gone down. Even my DirecTv monthly charges have risen over time.

The problem is not higher prices. That's a symptom of rapid growth in the Federal Reserve generated (fiat) money supply. Unfortunately, it'll probably get even worse, much worse. Trying to stay on topic, maybe there's hope for HD radio if Congress votes to mandate that part of that tax "rebate" later this year must go toward the purchase of an HD radio.  ;D
 
vsa said:
R.F. Burns said:
Chuck said:
R.F. Burns said:
For the millions living on the edge due to out fabulous economy, $40 extra a month is too much. No matter, terrestrial radio is still very healthy and continue to be for many years. Why is it that television stations continue to broadcast over the air when cable has beeen around for so many years?

Actually, R.F. for many people, that $40 per month will be INSTEAD of the $50-60 per month they are already spending. A lot of people will probably want it because it is cheaper. The fact that it is also better will be icing on the cake.


Chuck, I'll believe it when I see it. The economy is in the dumps and there's no sign of a turn around for the foreseable future. That and the fact that neccessary costs keep rising;

http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/bridges/html/tolls.html

Yep, 8 dollars just to cross the river to work each day. That doesn't include the 3 dollar a gallon gas (Jersey gas is amongst the cheapest. In NY gas is 3.40 or more a gallon for reg) and the 15 dollar daily parking cost. $40 a month for unlimited wireless internet? Is that the new HMO? C'mon sign up, its only $40 a month, but wait awhile and soon the $40 becomes $100 and more. In my part of the country, nothing has gone down. Even my DirecTv monthly charges have risen over time.

The problem is not higher prices. That's a symptom of rapid growth in the Federal Reserve generated (fiat) money supply. Unfortunately, it'll probably get even worse, much worse. Trying to stay on topic, maybe there's hope for HD radio if Congress votes to mandate that part of that tax "rebate" later this year must go toward the purchase of an HD radio. ;D

In this case the economy is a valid argument. The arguments against HD radio all involve a monthly outlay of money. In many cases this is money which people just don't have.
 
I would suspect that west of the Mississippi, where both population AND station densities are much lower, extended coverage like this would be much more common. And necessary, as people are more spread out!
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
R.F. Burns said:
Mark Ramsey has opinons, you have opinions, I have opinions. SO WHAT! You can keep repeating the mantra but its going to be years before Wi-Fi covers more than small geographic areas of this country. For those of us who aren't shut ins, the promise of internet radio is no answer in todays world. For the DXers amongst us remember, when Wi-Fi takes over DXing dies completely. JRC has stopped producing radios for SW & BCB Dxing, who's next?

Uh - you are forgetting cell phones. Those networks are already built out, and a small change like putting bluetooth in the phone, and you got internet radio in the car - all it will take is a bluetooth enable car radio. Combined with flat rate for internet access plans from the providers, and everybody is carrying around a streaming device that will work in any populated area and along most major highways. The moment the cell phone companies realize there is a market for streaming - its a done deal.

Sure, if you're talking WiFi-enabled bluetooth cells, but what cell company is gonna be able to fit anything in their already over-exploited bandwidth? Let's get some good-sounding phone calls available first, then we can further the entertainment options on the phone.
 
R.F. Burns said:
In this case the economy is a valid argument. The arguments against HD radio all involve a monthly outlay of money. In many cases this is money which people just don't have.

It is also a decent argument about why people may not be standing in line to buy a new radio just to be able to hear a few extra stations that don't offer a lot that is new. As long as their current radios are working, they'll probably spend their money on things that are more urgent.
 
Chuck said:
R.F. Burns said:
In this case the economy is a valid argument. The arguments against HD radio all involve a monthly outlay of money. In many cases this is money which people just don't have.

It is also a decent argument about why people may not be standing in line to buy a new radio just to be able to hear a few extra stations that don't offer a lot that is new. As long as their current radios are working, they'll probably spend their money on things that are more urgent.

Maybe, but If you want country in NYC you have to buy an HD radio. The Smooth Jazz outlet which had been on FM for 20 years has been moved to the HD 2 channel. I know of more than one person who has bought an HD radio for that format. Your right, money is tight but there's a big difference between a one time fee and a monthly fee.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom