The Big A said:
I don't see why you keep bringing up a lot of unrelated stuff into this, such as consolidated radio or various anecdotes about people at big radio companies. All of that has no relevance in this discussion.
Unrelated? What’s unrelated?
As for my use of “industrial McCarthyism,” what kind of metaphor would you use to describe a climate where one is afraid to speak one’s mind for fear of being fired, if not exactly blacklisted?
That's not the issue here. So why bring it up?
But it is germane. This thing is on life support only because so many bigwigs in commercial and public radio – and in the FCC – have invested their money, their personal prestige or both in it. And they aren’t disposed to brook any criticism of it from their employees, no matter how cogent.
I don't see why you keep bringing up a lot of unrelated stuff into this, such as consolidated radio or various anecdotes about people at big radio companies. All of that has no relevance in this discussion.
Actually, the similar top-down management style of big corporate radio and big public radio is relevant, as I think I’ve demonstrated, because in both it fosters group think, or a reasonable facsimile of it, at least in public.
There are hundreds of small, independent NPR stations in this country that don't have to follow the corporate NPR line if they don't want. They can use FM Extra, if they choose. Only one or two have. It would benefit them to use FM Extra, because it would be cheaper. And yet they haven't. Not because of ignorance, McCarthyism, or anything else. It's simple choice, which they have. So I'm not buying this big is bad, corporate conspiracy theory you're selling.
Interestingly, neither the underpowered Class A “NJN” stations of New Jersey’s Public Broadcasting Authority nor Rhode Island’s WRNI—small NPR member stations that seem to be unloved step-children of the system—are “HD” stations, and they don’t use “FMeXtra” either. And while I don’t know the whole story in New Jersey (though I know that the state in a financial crisis), I do know the situation in Rhode Island, because I had the chance to speak with their chief engineer.
He told me that he had a chance to try the system with a borrowed encoder, and was very favorably impressed from an engineering perspective. Nevertheless, he didn’t recommend that WRNI invest in buying the equipment. Why not? Because with only one receiver, the rather pricey ($200) Aruba, readily available, he didn’t expect any ROI in the foreseeable future—not when that receiver price point would keep the audience for any multi-casts too small to make the effort worthwhile.
And now, let’s turn to our old friend David Eduardo, who said:
Well, today engineers in consolidator commercial radio and big public radio (meaning NPR and the big stations) know better than to speak their minds about “HD,” too.
Well, that is certainly a good example of hyperbole. While many engineers may be skeptical of the prospects of HD, and find it just makes life more difficult, most approach their doubts with nowhere near the vehemence that some posters here demonstrate. And there is no evidence that questioning HD would have any consequences for them.
I think I’ve already answered your main point, David. But hyperbole? Is my characterizing the climate of fear that inhibits our own “Cal Stymes”—an employee of a major radio company in a major market—from using his real name here as “industrial McCarthyism” any worse than, or even as bad as, some “HD” boosters’ use of the loaded term “Luddite” to describe “Cal,” Tom Wells, Bob Savage, and anyone else who has the temerity to offer well-reasoned criticism of a flawed technology?
And I’m not responding to your comments about worthwhile commercial secondary programs, David, because there we are firmly in the realm of opinion. But there is a relevant question: When they see a “hole” in the market, do they make a serious attempt to fill it, or just set up a computer in a closet and put somebody with too many other responsibilities in charge of updating it once a week?
