WYSL: "WHY YOU DON’T NEED, OR WANT, 'HD-AM' RADIO"

[Savage]

I really have no interest in debating why someone said anything in this thread, or judging the motivations of anyone for what they've said or written, regardless of where they stand on the IBOC-AM issue...no "who struck John" here.

I wrote an article about iBiquity HD-AM on the WYSL site which criticizes the system for what I feel are technical shortcomings. I wrote similar pieces which were published in Radio World. Judging from other editorial content in RW and elsewhere, there are many who agree with me, but I have always - on the WYSL HD-AM page and in RW - labelled my statements as opinion and, as such, invited proof that my comments are wrong or unsupportable. Don't believe me? Go to the WYSL site and check out the headline on the HD-AM page. Think I'm being inaccurate or unfair? So set me straight already on the issues. There won't be any adjacent-channel problems? Nighttime IBOC won't reduce AM listenership in the forseeable near term? The public really has sufficient interest in this system? IBOC won't unfairly disadvantage non-corporate indy operators? This system really makes sense overall?

And the response of pro-IBOC people has - judging from the comments made here and the Wikipedia libel - been to attack our station. I think any fair-minded person following this thread can readily understand why my parttime employee Mark Giardina or other WYSL people whose comments have not appeared here, or my wife and I as owners, would react strongly to defend our 20-year successful business against undeserved public ridicule.

I've been in broadcasting for 40 years. I can't recall a single instance of a technological development (note I did not refer to HD-AM as an "advance") which has provoked public attacks on a fellow broadcaster's livelihood when that radio person doesn't automatically embrace some new system. AM operators didn't attack new FMs in the 50s and 60s. C-QUAM stations didn't publicly disparage mono AMs. TV didn't ridicule radio.

The WYSL attacks by pro-IBOC people on WYSL are unconscionable. And infantile. "By their acts, shall ye know them (IBOC zealots.)"

 

[davideduardo]

I wrote an article about iBiquity HD-AM on the WYSL site which criticizes the system for what I feel are technical shortcomings.

Speaking as someone you said the industry should be ashamed of, I've got to ask why is it OK for you to have an opinion regarding HD, yet I am "shameful" when I state that I think stations such as yours should never have been licensed?

You, at least, have a chance to remedy any harm you believe HD has or will cause you by filing with the FCC. On the other hand, my grievance goes back about 70 years to the start of the FCC's botch of the Medium Wave band in the US. My sorrow is watching AM die when a better allocation plan, more useful power levels and fewer, if any daytimers or virtual daytimers would have kept the band clear and viable.

I wrote similar pieces which were published in Radio World. Judging from other editorial content in RW and elsewhere, there are many who agree with me, but I have always - on the WYSL HD-AM page and in RW - labelled my statements as opinion and, as such, invited proof that my comments are wrong or unsupportable.

As they say, opinions and orifices are so common everyone has a few. Radio World is interesting in that they definitely do like to present controverisal points of view in the publication...

I could use the many articles defending VOA shortwave as an example; practically nobody in this hemispher uses SW, yet the articles abound. Like the HD issue, those in group engineering positons and with such will generally not write articles as, indeed, it may be against company policy no matter what the opinion is.

Yet obstructionists like Lenard Kahn seem to have no small amount of time to write over and over about their pet peeve. What I notice on the Short Wave issue is that those displaced by progress or those whose pet ox is being gored protest; those who are moving into a new era of alternate distribution are most pleased with the death of Short Wave broadcasts. The same applies to HD.

Don't believe me? Go to the WYSL site and check out the headline on the HD-AM page. Think I'm being inaccurate or unfair?

I think you are, in the broadest sense, being unfair. You have the "it's my bat and I'm taking it home" attitude. It impedes, in my opinion, the salvation (if such is possible) of AM but, in the short term, preserves your vested interests. You certainly have the right to state your opinion, but I don't have to agree with it.

So set me straight already on the issues. There won't be any adjacent-channel problems?

There probably will be some. I believe that the vast majority will occur either outside the protected contours of other staitons or outside the areas where any useful signal is provided. After studying countless markets, I realize that there is essentially no listening outside the 10 mv/m contour in metro areas, so interference outside that contour is irrelevant based on empirical evidence that says that, no matter what contour is "protected" listeners will not use AM unless the signal is considerably more intense.

And the FCC stated in approving night HD that there would be remedy and / or a mechanism for determining situations such as you fear may happen.

Nighttime IBOC won't reduce AM listenership in the forseeable near term?

It certainly has not reduced listenership on AMs that run it daytime, and some uf us have stations going into their third year in HD. I don't see any loss of listenership. Nor do I think there will be any at night. Of course, AM night listening in the 300 rated markets is so low that there is scant little to lose, in any case.

My hope is that as FM creates, slowly, interest in HD, and developments such as the several new low power, low cost and small size HD chipsets come to market in ever cheaper receivers, AM will benefit by being in the same system and with competitive fidelity. It may be a long shot, but going down the drain as AM is now is not much of an alternative.

The public really has sufficient interest in this system?

No, there is still only a nascient interest in HD, but it is building. The most important thing is that there is huge manufacturer interest... as evidenced by one of the largest electronics companies in the world, Samsung, developing a new chipset with shipping within perhaps 7 to 9 months.

Remember, in the year CDs came out, the nice Uher player cost $1,400 dollars. It took almost a decade for a CD walkman to go below $100, yet in the first 9 months of consumer marketing of HD, we have $50 receivers already. As the price improves, and we flush out the not-so-good early models, the interest will gradually increase.

IBOC won't unfairly disadvantage non-corporate indy operators?

That's the WalMart question. It's a case study in a frree market economy.

This system really makes sense overall?

It makes better sense than doing nothing.

And the response of pro-IBOC people has - judging from the comments made here and the Wikipedia libel - been to attack our station.

I don't think the Wikepedia "attack" is from a pro-HD individual; it smacks of the kind of foul play that several of the rabid anti-HD posters on this and other boards... some of whom have e-mailed those who support HD with the vilest of rhetoric.

As to the station, I find that it is only representative of a class of stations that never should have been licensed: those who rode on the coattails of the clear channel breakdown, a move intended to serve gray areas, but which created dozens and dozens and dozens of suburban staitons near metros with low night power due to the protection requirements and a great ability to produce more noise on the band. That's my opinion... and part of why AM is so messed up today.

I think any fair-minded person following this thread can readily understand why my parttime employee Mark Giardina or other WYSL people whose comments have not appeared here, or my wife and I as owners, would react strongly to defend our 20-year successful business against undeserved public ridicule.

You have all the right in the world to defend the license you have acquired. I just think it should never have been granted, along with a thousand or so others.

I've been in broadcasting for 40 years.

So have many of us. And?

I can't recall a single instance of a technological development (note I did not refer to HD-AM as an "advance") which has provoked public attacks on a fellow broadcaster's livelihood when that radio person doesn't automatically embrace some new system. AM operators didn't attack new FMs in the 50s and 60s. C-QUAM stations didn't publicly disparage mono AMs. TV didn't ridicule radio.

I can cite one article in Broadcasting form about 1956 where no less than Dr. Roslow states that "anyone who puts his money in FM is throwing it down the drain." Some of the brightest among us, now and in the past, have failed to recognize progress. Or have identified as progress something that isn't in the end.

The WYSL attacks by pro-IBOC people on WYSL are unconscionable. And infantile. "By their acts, shall ye know them (IBOC zealots.)"

The Wikepedia thing, if the post her accurately reflects it, is more than unconscionable. It is the sign of an amoral person.

But saying to you, by these posts, that I think you are wrong and that AM is in trouble due to the licencing of staitons such as yours is simply an opinion. I, no doubt, feel as strongly against your view of HD as you do about my views on AM radio. And that is what debate is... maybe I will learn a bit from you and broaden my viewpoint... or maybe not. But not having the debate is worse.

 

[Savage]

It's amazing: I keep coming back to this board. It's like driving by a traffic accident, I guess - you just can't NOT look. But this morning i'm glad I did. I think I finally understand David Eduardo.

So: the attacks on WYSL in this thread most likely originated from the people who AGREE with me; e.g., the ANTI-IBOC crowd. Not the PRO-IBOC people. Well, THAT makes sense.

And: because you have a beef with the FCC about allowing secondary stations to apply for licenses starting over a generation ago, and lawfully receive those CPs and build those stations to serve the public - for example, WYSL, that justifies your attacking our station and repeatedly insisting we really shouldn't exist. That's right: you attack us, not the FCC, not the NAB nor scores of others who supported widening the allocations scheme 50 years ago, etc., etc. And presumably the reason WYSL was singled out for ridicule on this message board is NOT because we happen to oppose HD-AM? Well, THAT makes sense too.

And: when I ask for him to refute my argument that AM-IBOC will cause destructive adjacent-channel interference at night, driving away listenership, the response is: well, there haven't been any DAYTIME problems. (Sounds like a concession to me.)

WYSL has generated millions of dollars of revenue over 20 years of operation, paying taxes ($100K in property taxes alone), feeding scores of families, providing entry-level jobs to scores of young people embarking on careers in this industry, and being an exemplary citizen in its home community and in radio in general. Notwithstanding the insults posted here, WYSL is, IMHO, a great example of how entrepreneurial locally-operated radio CAN be successful in this era of bigger-is-bigger radio. And only in the Surreal World of David Eduardo is all this a BAD thing. Once again: I guess that's because we dared suggest publicly that HD-AM is flawed.

I have no idea what Mr. Eduardo means by "riding on the coattails" of clear-channel allocations. WYSL has lawfully applied for, and duly received, six CPs from the FCC, which we have built and operate with strict adherence to the rules. We pay regulatory and filing fees like anyone else. Nobody associated with WYSL has ever engaged in anything like "riding on" someone else's "coattails," a frankly preposterous suggestion. CPs are issued or denied because they either pass muster by the Mass Media Bureau, or they don't.

And what Leonard Kahn, the VOA, international shortwave, or a 1956 article about FM by Dr. Roslow have to do with public ridicule of WYSL (here or in Wikipedia) or the merits of IBOC-AM is anyone's guess.

One more thing: if Mr. Eduardo can't spell "nascent" correctly he probably shouldn't use it.

 

[PocketRadio]

I don't think the Wikepedia "attack" is from a pro-HD individual; it smacks of the kind of foul play that several of the rabid anti-HD posters on this and other boards... some of whom have e-mailed those who support HD with the vilest of rhetoric.

I email links to other peoples' work, which doesn't constitute libel - these links are not vile rhetoric, but simply the truth. It is a whole different matter, when a member of the HD Radio Alliance may have posted flaming remarks about a station that is anti-HD/IBOC (for very good reason), on a highly-visible site, such as Wikipedia. I am sure, that Wikipedia keeps records of logins, and the HD Radio page would probably be accessible by only members of the HD Radio Alliance. I thought that the wording, concerning WYSL, on the Wikipedia HD Radio page was VERY interesting. If HD Radio wasn't in such a precarious situation, then this type of inappropriate behavior may have never happened.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't think the Wikepedia "attack" is from a pro-HD individual; it smacks of the kind of foul play that several of the rabid anti-HD posters on this and other boards... some of whom have e-mailed those who support HD with the vilest of rhetoric.

I email links to other peoples' work, which doesn't constitute libel - these links are not vile rhetoric, but simply the truth. It is a whole different matter, when a member of the HD Radio Alliance may have posted flaming remarks about a station that is anti-HD/IBOC (for very good reason), on a highly-visible site, such as Wikipedia. I am sure, that Wikipedia keeps records of logins, and the HD Radio page would probably be accessible by only members of the HD Radio Alliance. I thought that the wording, concerning WYSL, on the Wikipedia HD Radio page was VERY interesting. If HD Radio wasn't in such a precarious situation, then this type of inappropriate behavior may have never happened.

Apparently the shoe fits and you are wearing it.

P.S. I don't think, based on content of thee posts, that any member of the HD Alliance posts here.

And with giant Samsung enering HD chip design and fabrication, that "HD is dead" arguement is simply a falsehood.

 

[clouseau]

It is a whole different matter, when a member of the HD Radio Alliance may have posted flaming remarks about a station that is anti-HD/IBOC (for very good reason), on a highly-visible site, such as Wikipedia.

Just a note. Are you any better than the WIKIpedia person?

It is a whole different matter, when a [size=12pt]member of the HD Radio Alliance may have...

I am sure, that Wikipedia keeps records of logins, and the HD Radio page would probably be accessible by only members of the HD Radio Alliance.

Shessh, you are clueless. Do you think that the HD radio Alliance would write that? You don't give free publicity to your detractors. The HD radio alliance is not engaging individuals like you. Ther're mass marketing a product. YOU ARE THE ENERGETIC SPEARHEAD OF THEIR DETRACTORS.

Show of hands, who here ever saw the WYSL anti HD page before this thread?

Bueller?

Frankly, I thought that the wording, concerning WYSL, on the Wikipedia HD Radio page was VERY interesting.

As did I. A lot of it looked "REAL" familiar.

If HD Radio wasn't in such a precarious situation, then this type of inappropriate behavior may have never happened.

That might be a good take. Especially if one thought HD radio WAS in a precarious position. For those of us who don't, it's just another garbage conclusion. I also need to say that earlier I posted that the entry in Wikipedia was "Unconcienable". I think that is overstated. It's got an unfair lean to it similar to the Pocket Radio "Opinion as fact" thing, but it's not really all that bad. It's more an indictment of the cesspool that is Wikipedia than WYSL.

Just one more reason to NOT use Wikipedia. I avoid it wheneve possible.


Clouseau

 

[radiopilot]

Wikipedia in the past have been sued over erroneous information which hurt certain parties and the interests of some and have denounced having erroneous information and plagarism on this website, that's the reason why you must be registered with them as a contributing editor... now that being said, surely if Savage were to go on record and issue a liable suit against Wikipedia, the legal department at Wikipedia will be able to determine who posted the article against WYSL.

It would be VERY interesting who sent the article in but, I'm with Savage on this... there would be no reason why an anti-HD would gain by posting that article as David has suggested... The article in Wikipedia skirts the reasoning behind HD Radio Alliance and or one of the pro-HD types who thought posting that in Wikipedia would help it's cause.

I find it very hard to believe that David would think it's in the interests of the FCC not to have allowed small radio stations to exist... really David if people like Savage and Josh didn't have these small stations who would have them the corporate monopolies like CC, Infinity, Cumulus, etc.

Thank GOD someone like Savage had the funds available to buy these stations and program them such that people actually listen, too bad more of these stations are not put up for sale by the corporate broadcasters so that REAL radio people can get them out of the gutter the corporate broadcasters have run into the ground!

I want to buy one NOW... but none are for sale in my area.. too bad as the ones we have now owned by the corporate broadcasters are 24/7 filled with trash!

Radiopilot

 

[Mike Walker]

Again another uninformed conclusion, that most stations "have no listeners". Listenership is steady, and profits are UP. Much as I hate the corporate structure of today's raido, it is quite successful.

 

[davideduardo]

It would be VERY interesting who sent the article in but, I'm with Savage on this... there would be no reason why an anti-HD would gain by posting that article as David has suggested... The article in Wikipedia skirts the reasoning behind HD Radio Alliance and or one of the pro-HD types who thought posting that in Wikipedia would help it's cause.

A pro-HD broadcaster or member of the public would gain only animosity by posting something as vidictive and negative about WYSL. Which is why I would bet money that one of the "running dog" anti-HD folks is behind it. It smacks of the rhetoric used by some (not you, I hasten to add) against anything HD.

Further, I really doubt anyone on the HD Alliance committees is here posting. I have not seen any evidence, at least.

I find it very hard to believe that David would think it's in the interests of the FCC not to have allowed small radio stations to exist...

I said NOTHING about small stations. I said that allocations were botched going back to the 30's, with local market AMs being given way too little power... not even enough to serve their trade areas in most areas. And daytimers were just a bad idea, which is why only two countries, Mexico and the US, have them any more (the few in Canada are all gone or going) and Mexico lets them run till 1900 hours all year round. WYSL is an example of the kind of crazy licencing and band planning the FCC has foisted on us, and the best proof that I can offer is that nationally less than 80% of listening is to AM, and nearly all of that is among people over 45... two generations of Americans don't care much or at all about AM.

really David if people like Savage and Josh didn't have these small stations who would have them the corporate monopolies like CC, Infinity, Cumulus, etc.

There is something oxymoronic about pluralizing "monopoly" since there can only be one monopoly in a field in most cases. And those small stations with inadequate power and livited coverage go back to the 30's... consolidation began in 1996. And, as evidenced of late, the bigger owners have absolutely no interest in smaller markets or stations with limited viability.

Thank GOD someone like Savage had the funds available to buy these stations and program them such that people actually listen, too bad more of these stations are not put up for sale by the corporate broadcasters so that REAL radio people can get them out of the gutter the corporate broadcasters have run into the ground!

Clear Channel just sold most of the 488 small market stations it had. Why didn't you try to buy some of those? The average price was under $2 million each.

I want to buy one NOW... but none are for sale in my area.. too bad as the ones we have now owned by the corporate broadcasters are 24/7 filled with trash!

With a high proportion of radio stations not making a profit, you will find many, many smaller stations on the market at any time, some for about what a house would cost in most big cities. Search for broadcast brokers, or look at the listings at the Inside Radio or R&R sites in their service directories. There is nothing stopping you.

 

[radiopilot]

WYSL is an example of the kind of crazy licencing and band planning the FCC has foisted on us, and the best proof that I can offer is that nationally less than 80% of listening is to AM, and nearly all of that is among people over 45... two generations of Americans don't care much or at all about AM.

With a high proportion of radio stations not making a profit, you will find many, many smaller
stations on the market at any time, some for about what a house would cost in most big cities. Search for broadcast brokers, or look at the listings at the Inside Radio or R&R sites in their service directories. There is nothing stopping you.

Will I admit that alot of listeners are not on the AM dial it's because of the lousy programming i.e. 'Rush', 'Hannity', 'Savage', 'Bortz' and a host of others which pollute the spectrum with garbage... if it were programmed just right with the proper content I'm sure listeners would migrate... if not why is it that ethnic broadcasting does well on the AM dial, if it weren't the case why does stations like WONQ in Orlando work so well and have plenty of listeners?

While I will admit alot of smaller markets were sold off by the corporate broadcasters, they are not in my area...

One did get sold just recently and had I known (I think it was sold without the public knowing) in Savannah WHGM for a mere 300k with 500 watts day and night operation...

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,69136.0.html

Like I said when the right one comes along then I'll buy it but I'm not buying something outside my area simply cause it's for sale, I want locality first!

Radiopilot

 

[davideduardo]

Will I admit that alot of listeners are not on the AM dial it's because of the lousy programming i.e. 'Rush', 'Hannity', 'Savage', 'Bortz' and a host of others which pollute the spectrum with garbage... if it were programmed just right with the proper content I'm sure listeners would migrate... if not why is it that ethnic broadcasting does well on the AM dial, if it weren't the case why does stations like WONQ in Orlando work so well and have plenty of listeners?

Ethnic broadcasting does "well" on marginal AM facilities, in many cases, for the same reason that the first big wave of Spanish stations in the Southwest were on that kind of facility. In the 70's, FM made many inferior AMs unable to compete so in places like Salinas, Fresno, Bakersfield, etc., they went Spanish because at the time, most Hispanics were "ghettoized" in small areas a limited signal can cover.

This is comparable to the Black targeted daytimers and limited facilites of the 50's and 60's.

Over the years, changes in societal values and the recognition of the Black and Hispanic markets made it feasable to move to FM for some, or start FMs for others. Hispanics use AM less than non-Hispanic whites, especially int he Sothwest. So there is a decreasing number of Hispanic AMs in this region.

In Orlando, WONQ has had less than a 1 share for the last four or five years, while the two Spanish langauge FMs together have around a 7 share they split. WONQ bills just under $1 million, while the two FMs share $13 million in revenue.

If you think, for the general market, Rush and other talk hosts are trash, what would you suggest to get listenership? These shows are on because they have been proven to be the one way to get audience, albeit an ageing one, on AM.

While I will admit alot of smaller markets were sold off by the corporate broadcasters, they are not in my area...

I count 14 owners in the Savannah metro; Clear has apparently sold its stations in a multi-market package.

One did get sold just recently and had I known (I think it was sold without the public knowing) in Savannah WHGM for a mere 300k with 500 watts day and night operation...

Stations must run announcements if there is a sale. The only sale on record this year is WHGM, which was a corporate reorganization, not a sale.

Like I said when the right one comes along then I'll buy it but I'm not buying something outside my area simply cause it's for sale, I want locality first!

That's market 158, so any decent FM facility is going to start in the multiple millions... and the directional AMs miss a big piece of the three county market area.

 

[PocketRadio]

Show of hands, who here ever saw the WYSL anti HD page before this thread?

Google Trends for "hd radio", wikipedia, ipod, mp3:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+wikipedia,+ipod,+mp3&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Searches for "Wikipedia", are just as popular as, searches for iPods and MP3 players - yea, I bet a ton of people saw it, with all those folks searching for "HD Radio" !

 

[clouseau]

Show of hands, who here ever saw the WYSL anti HD page before this thread?

Google Trends for "hd radio", wikipedia, ipod, mp3:

Have you ever see a post you didn't think an ireelevant link was a good response for???

Here's a suggestion...
1) Read Post

2) Understand post

3) If you have a relevant thought - Respond to post.

4) Exercise restraint in #3 ABOVE.


Enjoy...

Clouseau

 

[PocketRadio]

"HD Radio"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio

How interesting - the "sour grapes" comments about WYSL have now been removed, as of May 16, 2007. Yea, it must have been a slick move by some anti-IBOC folks to post flaming comments about WYSL, then remove them two weeks later.