HD radio missed it's window of opportunity two years ago. Mobile Internet access, which is ramping up, is already passing HD by. It's too little, and too late.
-
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
What does that Inside Radio Poll tell us?
- Thread starter radioskeptic
- Start date
SirRoxalot said:
I suppose we should just go ahead and turn off the analog transmitters too, because we all know consumer satisfaction with the performance of cellular networks is flawless, and everyone will be more than happy to pay out the nose when they exceed their 2GB monthly usage caps.
SirRoxalot said:
No question aboput it. Bad timing, bad technology, no demand ....... therefore no need for it.
No, Gooroo, the old analog transmitters probably have a few years left. I'm not too sure that we need more signals to fragment the audience any further, and to add expense to an industry that's already reeling from massive cuts. I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of groups that would love to have their money back from Ibiquity so they could rehire some of the talent that they've lost in the last few years.
There's a reason that stations are turning off the HD. It's simply not cost-effective, and not likely to be.
There's a reason that stations are turning off the HD. It's simply not cost-effective, and not likely to be.
SirRoxalot said:
Fragmentation to some degree is inevitable. Radio as an industry might as well try to retain as many listeners as possible with its own diverse offerings. As for expense, there are a lot of would be program directors roaming the halls of radio stations right now who would love to take a crack at it via HD channels. They'd work cheap.
If there were some company that lamented the money spent on HD, it wouldn't be regret over being unable to afford talent. The only regret would be that the corporate executives didn't just pocket that money as increased salary and bonuses for themselves. If you think it would be used any other way, you're just fooling yourself.
I don't know of any FMs that have turned off HD. Since it's starting to be monetized with data services, I think it's pretty unlikely that any will.
I have a few fm stations on my website listed as having the hd turned off. The one that pops immediately to mind is WJOX in Birmingham, when they flipped to sports. Of course hd would still benefit them if they used it wisely, to carry multiple games at the same time like the sports station in Memphis does.
Anyway, I don't think the answer to the internet's infinite playlist is for radio to shrink the number of choices available. One of the reasons people are slowly abandoning radio is it has too little format diversity.
Anyway, I don't think the answer to the internet's infinite playlist is for radio to shrink the number of choices available. One of the reasons people are slowly abandoning radio is it has too little format diversity.
If you're pushing "more music, and nothing but the music", there's no way that you can compete with somebody's iPod, or Slacker, or Pandora, or any other music service that let's you skip to the next song, and tailors the stream to your personal taste. If you're not adding something to the music, you're in trouble. With the FCC's push to extend high-speed wireless as a solution to bridging the digital divide, radio's going to have to figure out how to be relevant to the next generation of listeners.
When you're arguing that HD provides "more music choices," you've got to keep that assertion in perspective - paying particular attention to what HD actually delivers.
The potential for two or three additional streams - all bandwidth-strangled low-bit services? And you think the public is likely to be impressed by that, with all the quality and choice offered by satradio and the internet? Especially when - contrary to your assertion elsewhere on this board - the subchannels intermittently mute?
Reality-check, please. :
The potential for two or three additional streams - all bandwidth-strangled low-bit services? And you think the public is likely to be impressed by that, with all the quality and choice offered by satradio and the internet? Especially when - contrary to your assertion elsewhere on this board - the subchannels intermittently mute?
Reality-check, please. :
Reality check? Ok.
Satradio and audio quality are practically a contradiction in terms.
Streaming audio gets blocked at the corporate firewall, so it's not always available. In fact, the larger the service (Pandora, Slacker) the more likely it is to be blocked.
AT&T is capping mobile data plans at 2GB and the overage costs are painful. Aside from that, you have the normal cell drop outs, particularly during peak use periods like drive time and the fact that cellular is afraid of heights. Cell phones also don't perform in high rises.
How much proof do you need that there's ample room for alternatives to broadband delivered audio entertainment?
Satradio and audio quality are practically a contradiction in terms.
Streaming audio gets blocked at the corporate firewall, so it's not always available. In fact, the larger the service (Pandora, Slacker) the more likely it is to be blocked.
AT&T is capping mobile data plans at 2GB and the overage costs are painful. Aside from that, you have the normal cell drop outs, particularly during peak use periods like drive time and the fact that cellular is afraid of heights. Cell phones also don't perform in high rises.
How much proof do you need that there's ample room for alternatives to broadband delivered audio entertainment?
radiogooroo said:
I have XM and have had it for close to three years, it's audio is not too bad, it's listenable, not as good as analog FM or good AM analog but it's content is great which is why I got a lifetime subscription for me and my girlfriend last year. I very rarely even listen to FM now, AM once in a while in my car but not FM.
radiogooroo said:
One of my clients turned it off a year ago and asked me to bypass the split-level combiner to save on the power bill. Energy savings are nearly $2000/month with no loss in revenue -- it's just one less thing to be concerned with. I changed configuration of the digital PA to operate in Class C, so now the station has a 10 kW auxiliary available if needed.
Also -- when I was in the Syracuse area several months ago for the local SBE show, I noticed WNTQ had taken their HD off the air, reportedly for the same reason.
But as the recent buyer of a Garmin GPS, I would be interested to know more about the revenue Clear Channel derives from traffic data sent via IBOC. The Garmin 255WT is supplied with an RDS-TMC receiver at no extra cost, which receives Navteq's ad-supported service free of charge: http://www.navteq.com/rdstraffic/
I realize that Clear Channel now uses IBOC for traffic data in some markets (in addition to RDS), but doesn't Total Traffic require a paid subscription? I just wonder how much longer CC's paid service can compete with "free".
Admittedly, the throughput of RDS is slow (by today's standards) for this kind of information -it takes my GPS about 5 minutes from a cold start to display the traffic jam map. However, a wide data subcarrier injected in the 60-99 kHz range of a conventional FM baseband could probably pass a higher ancillary data bitrate than hybrid IBOC (once those sidebands are loaded with HD2, HD3, HD4, etc), so if traffic data turns out to be the "killer app", it could still be offered at a faster rate without HD. This would circumvent the need for broadcasters to share revenue with iBiquity.
Play Freebird said:
Navteq already has the answer to your slow RDS traffic woes.
http://press.navteq.com/index.php?s=4260&item=4802
As for circumventing iBiquity, I don't think the real players are too concerned with that. They already have everything they need to implement this in place.
radiogooroo said:
Wow. Talk about missing the point...
The folks up there in their ivory towers, who have most likely never worked ten-hour shifts in the newsroom during blizzards or pulled repeated overnighters when the directional array went haywire, haven't the first clue what life is like down in the trenches. I'd value the opinion of a line employee or a small-market owner/operator any day over that of a sales person who has the luxury of a 9-to-5 job.
I'd also value the opinion of a bookkeeper, when questioned about that little detail known as ROI...
dumber than a box of hair said:
I'll give you the opinion of an "Ivory Tower" dweller perspective. Yes I have worked overnights, weekends, 12 or more hours a day in the interest of covering major news events live on the air. No, I haven't done a directional-whatever, assuming it has something to do with AM antennas, because I've not worked in engineering, nor have many in "The Tower" come from the engineering ranks. Other than the directional whatever, that pretty well shoots your theory down doesn't it?
We're all paid to do our jobs, whether it starts as someone who works their way up through the company pulling overnighters, to those who spend time running the business that employs guys like you. The point being; maybe I couldn't fix a directional antenna thing, but that's what you're paid to do. Could you run a broadcast business and make it successful? No. That's what people in the "Ivory Tower" as you disparagingly call them, do. Oh and people like me, employ people like you. This whole stereotype that management sits around in big chairs lighting their cigars with fifty dollar bills made off your back is beyond absurd, it's primarily just ignorant in my opinion.
Again speaking from a management perspective; if I paid however many hundreds of thousands of dollars for HD radio gear, I'm not going to throw out the option just to save a few dollars a month. Whether you think management made an incorrect decision by investing in HD radio is really none of your business. If management tells you to turn it off, then that's what you do. If management wants to leave HD radio on in the hope that something will come of it, or even to amortize the expense over time, then that's their decision to make. They don't need your opinion to run their operation.
And that is something we both can agree on.
With no offense intended, Guru, this sounds like the a boat captain who won't listen to the crew member who says there's a leak.
I don't deny what you say...but it's a poor manager who 1) doesn't try to hire people smarter than he or she is and 2) doesn't then listen to them. I'm not saying that's you, but to my ears (eyes?) that's the tone of the last post. ;D
I don't deny what you say...but it's a poor manager who 1) doesn't try to hire people smarter than he or she is and 2) doesn't then listen to them. I'm not saying that's you, but to my ears (eyes?) that's the tone of the last post. ;D
The point is a good manager listens, but ultimately, for better or worse the manager makes the final call. Successful businesses, broadcasting or otherwise, require managers who are willing to step up and make the call and assume the responsibility for the results. Depending on the employee's personality, they may be in disagreement with the final decision, but as Zach mentioned, management writes the check.
As an example, let's say Dumber worked for me and I came to him and said.. 'Hey Dumb, we've invested $250,000 in HD radio equipment at our facility-X. So far we've not seen much result from HD radio, so should we turn it off, knowing we lose the chance to amortize the cost over say ten years, plus potentially lose traction in the event HD radio becomes more adopted by consumers? Or should we leave it on?' 'But here is the downside Dumb; in the event your decision is wrong, you assume responsibility and will immediately be terminated or at least will have 30 days to determine how to recover the costs.' Given the stakes, I'd be willing to bet that, even someone with a name like Dumber Than A Box of Hair, would look at all the options before making a quick decision. Hopefully he would put aside his hobbyist views and do what's best for the company. Agree or not, management makes those types of decisions on a daily basis.
What somewhat offended me was Dumber's broad-strokes characterization that management have no idea what the rank and file go through, to the point of having only lived in the "Ivory Tower", or aren't somehow held accountable for decisions. At least in the broadcast community, I've not met any of my peers where his stereotypes hold true.
As an example, let's say Dumber worked for me and I came to him and said.. 'Hey Dumb, we've invested $250,000 in HD radio equipment at our facility-X. So far we've not seen much result from HD radio, so should we turn it off, knowing we lose the chance to amortize the cost over say ten years, plus potentially lose traction in the event HD radio becomes more adopted by consumers? Or should we leave it on?' 'But here is the downside Dumb; in the event your decision is wrong, you assume responsibility and will immediately be terminated or at least will have 30 days to determine how to recover the costs.' Given the stakes, I'd be willing to bet that, even someone with a name like Dumber Than A Box of Hair, would look at all the options before making a quick decision. Hopefully he would put aside his hobbyist views and do what's best for the company. Agree or not, management makes those types of decisions on a daily basis.
What somewhat offended me was Dumber's broad-strokes characterization that management have no idea what the rank and file go through, to the point of having only lived in the "Ivory Tower", or aren't somehow held accountable for decisions. At least in the broadcast community, I've not met any of my peers where his stereotypes hold true.
TVradioguru said:
Please explain why a company would lose its chance to amortize this equipment cost, if retained and assigned to standby service or other uses.
Needless to say, much of the equipment would remain in active service (for example, digital console, STL, audio processors, exciter, monitor tuner, etc.). The digital FM transmitter and/or antenna would still be available as an auxiliary transmission system for the analog signal, and the HD Importer (basically a PC) could easily be reassigned to another use elsewhere in the plant.
A responsible manager understands the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" and avoids throwing good money after bad.
- Status