[BC] The best place for HD radio is.....

[Robert Meuser]

Dana

You are off base on this one.  Cross polarization will not offer enough 
protection in the real world. Reflections tend to skew polarization so the 
concept will never work in this context.  Secondly the chip rate required for a 
CDMA spread spectrum service that could support any degree of decent audio 
requires much more bandwidth than is available at 950 Mhz. Finally, so called 
analog cell phone spectrum is being converted to digital and is far from unused.

As for "the rest of the world" digital radio is a gigantic flop, so why follow 
and walk off a cliff??

Radio is no longer relevant and you will not sell a new radio service if the 
receivers cost more than 3 to 5 dollars. Even then you have to have something of 
interest on the air.  Heck, I just bought a TV for $12.


R

DANA PUOPOLO wrote:
> The best place for HD radio is the current aural STL band (947-951 mHz),
> vertically polarized. Perfect propogation for this service. If spread spectrum
> was used with a common transmitter per market (multiplex everyone in one data
> stream the way the REST of the world does), you could even keep most existing
> paths in use, albeit with a slight increase in noise. Many stations are using
> data lines for their STL these days anyway, relying on the 950 band only for
> back up use. This spectrum is just too valuable for that! Also, horizontal
> polarization could still be used with virtually no problem whatsoever, so
> there'd still be some spectrum left for the stations that REALLY need 950 mHz.
> Radio stations could also be allowed to use (splinter) TV STL frequencies to
> offset the loss of spectrum. Another viable possibility would be the some of
> the old analog cell spectrum that's now virtually unused. Also, I believe
> there's some other non broadcast 950 ish spectrum that sits virtually unused
> too. Of course, we all know that this would never happen here in the U.S., as
> these are creative, elegant solutions and the FCC is neither creative nor
> elegant!
> 
> -D
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 03:19:43 PM PDT
> From: "Dan Strassberg" <dan.strassberg at att.net>
> To: "Sid Schweiger" <sid at wrko.com>Cc: broadcast at radiolists.net,
> Towers at mre.com
> Subject: [BC] Another iBiquity goof
> 
> Sid Schweiger (I think) wrote:
> 
> By the time the HD radio was designed for that model, it was already
> obsolete
> -----
> 
> And therein lies probably the worst flaw of HD Radio as it is currently
> conceived. A major (and essential) feature of a digital radio is its high
> software content. The software embedded in a properly designed digital radio
> can be upgraded periodically to rectify design flaws or to incorporate
> improvements developed after the radio was produced. This capability is
> essential in consumer products that cost hundreds of dollars and even more
> important in such consumer prducts when they are built into other consumer
> products that cost upwards of $40,000 (cars, for example). As far as I know,
> software upgrades are not envisioned in radios built to iBiquity's HD Radio
> standards, however. This is a truly fatal flaw and iBiquity deserves to be
> rewarded with bankruptcy for attempting to inflict such a stupid design
> concept on the public.
> 
> I realize that software upgrades can be implemented in a variety of ways. It
> might, for example, be possible to transmit upgrades over the air (over
> stations that transmit HD Radio signals), but that approach might be just
> too complicated to be manageable. Mandating a USB (or comparable) port might
> be a better approach. With Wireless USB on the horizon, the problem of where
> to locate the connector may just go away. Yes, any version of USB will add
> cost, but the radios are expensive enough that a $15 increment in selling
> price should be acceptable to avoid premature obsolescense--or hobbling an
> unproven system with characteristics that prove to be unworkable and can't
> be changed economically.
> 
> --
> Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg at att.net
> eFax 707-215-6367
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
> http://www.radiolists.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: http://www.radiolists.net/
>