[BC] RAIN report: HD Radio s Creative Thinking

[Michael Bergman]

Sorry to take so long to get back to this listserv; I stopped receiving
digests for some reason.  I?ll have to resubscribe.

I?ve read the posts on the RAIN topic.  I?m a little surprised at the
arguments.  Here are some extracts:

> respect on the committee agree with you. On the other hand there are 
> fewer listeners and receivers of IBOC now than there were viewers of 
> CBS sequential color when the FCC reversed itself in favor of NTSC. 

> It does seem that at every juncture, "it is too late in the game" is 
> the refrain offered to the technical community.

> While I don't lay all of this off on the receiver manufacturers, it 
> is symptomatic of a process that all along has had money as its goal, 
> nothing more.

I?m going to rant a little.  For those who haven?t been following this
debate, let me say that the proposal to change the way multicasting is
announced and tuned (from the current ?97.3 HD2? or ?97.3-2? style, to a new
numbering scheme) has generated a lot of discussion.  At first, multiple
broadcasters were interested in the idea, but the receiver makers resisted
because there is no apparent consumer value, and even if there were, it is
clear that the current style will be firmly in use by the time any new
method could be out in volumes.  

No one is making the decision based on listeners or installed base.  The
hardware industry cares about the time and money spent on existing designs,
vs. the value in either cost savings or product features.  If there were a
reason to make the change, we?d do it.  However,

A) There isn?t a technical proposal to change to.  No one has a spec or even
a detailed white paper on how to deal with the issues raised with the ?new,
creative? tuning ideas.  

B) Tuning is a solved problem, from our point of view.  We (receiver makers)
are putting resources on new things, some IBOC, some not, but we?re not
going back to decisions and discussions from 2004 to try again.  Note that
those discussions in 2004 did not exclude the broadcast industry, as some
have complained?but not every major broadcast group was polled, of course.

C) No one is offering to cover hardware makers? costs to make a change

D) The installed base of receivers is not as much of a deterrent as the base
of stable, completed designs.  Why change them, when so many broadcasters
are opposed to the change as well?  These are broadcasters, by the way, who
already are launching multicast channels, in many cases.

E) The IBOC roll-out has momentum.  This multicast tuning debate is helping
kill some of that momentum.  If you hate IBOC, or you?re behind your
competition in deploying it, definitely you will want to stir this pot.  The
hardware makers and the car OEMs do not like uncertainty; the discussion has
reportedly already caused one manufacturer to postpone IBOC product
deployment for a year to let the spec settle.

F) For the next few years, regardless of this ?new, creative? debate,
broadcasters will be announcing in the ?97.3 HD2? style.  How else to reach
listeners?  There isn?t a scenario where the hardware industry changes over
overnight, or in a month or two.  A reasonable scenario is that around 2008
there will be some critical mass of ?new, creative? multicast receivers in
the market, mixed with the current ?97.3 HD2? style receivers.  Broadcasters
will be announcing HD2 style for years to come. 

And here?s a key point: If broadcasters will be announcing a la ?97.3 HD2?
for years to come, why should a hardware maker switch to an equivalent style
that:
-- Does not make it easier to use (if you don?t agree, better have data to
argue your point)
-- Does not reduce cost
-- Does not increase sales
There is a proposal that changing the tuning method will help promote
multicasting.  Even if this were true, the current style will be
well-established by the time the new method becomes truly available (enough
manufacturers shift designs and ship product) around 2008 or so.  Why not
use the promotional budget on something else?


Mike Bergman


PS--To those who posted: Look, folks.  This is a grown-up world.  Please
consider how na?ve your requirements sound before demanding that:
* Money/profit should not be the goal of companies in the U.S.; or
* Companies that have invested time and money should altruistically step
aside, in favor of people or companies that have come late to the
multicasting party, i.e., after the launch; or
* That the hardware industry should adopt a broadcast industry ?priority?
that was rejected by nearly all the broadcasters at the NRSC.

One point I can?t emphasize enough: IT ISN?T A TECHNICAL ISSUE.  For pete?s
sake, of course hardware could be changed.  It?s all about the roll-out,
killing momentum, asking a completely different industry to pay for someone
else?s cool new ideas and then bitching about it when we say, ?hey, we did
this last year, where were you??  

--Mike Bergman