[BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!

[Robert Orban]

At 04:51 PM 10/14/2005, you wrote:
>From: DANA PUOPOLO <dpuopolo at usa.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <715JJoaB62752S19.1129334517 at cmsweb19.cms.usa.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Bob,
>
>You and Frank both have something to sell, so that (automatically) makes your
>posts suspect.
>
>Of course you support IBOC. Your company stands to make a KILLING from it!!

We stand to pick up some sales. But "a killing?" Hardly. Please remember 
that we sell worldwide, and HD Radio processing is a _very_ modest portion 
of the worldwide market for processing.

I also believe that AM, in particular, cannot stick its proverbial head in 
the sand and, 20 years from now, expect to remain a viable business for 
more than a few stations. To give an example, San Francisco's KGO (AM) is 
still the #1 radio station in the Bay Area. But its share has dropped by 
about 40% in the last decade. My old friend John Higdon posted (to the 
USENET group ba.broadcasting) something to the effect that none of the 
people he talks to under the age of 50 even know what KGO is. while he was 
indulging in some hyperbole, the fact remains that AM's demographic is 
skewing older and older and it won't be long before the medium is not going 
to be sellable to advertisers going after the highly prized 18-49 crowd.

KGO's programming is mostly live, local, and superbly done. That kind of 
quality costs money to produce, and losing the ability to sell advertising 
because the audience is too old can only lead to a death spiral of forced 
budget cuts, concurrent loss of programming quality, and then further loss 
of audience.

I don't know if HD AM will help or if AM is beyond saving in the long term 
and will eventually become a graveyard filled with nothing but satellite 
feeds, infomercials, ethnic programming, and religion regardless of what 
broadcasters do. Bur complacency is _not_ an option for AM if it wants to 
survive as a business. There are certain fixed costs involved with running 
and maintaining the transmitter plant, if nothing else. You have to pay the 
utility bills, paint the towers, and turn down offers from people who want 
to buy the land on which the towers stand.

I think that the people who volunteered their time over the last 15-some 
years on the NRSC are well aware of this. They are also well aware of the 
IBOC tradeoffs in terms of interference. There is no free lunch with this 
technology, particularly on AM, and no one denies this.

In the early 90s, the NAB rejected Eureka 147 as a appropriate avenue for 
digitalization of radio because of the business models of that time. It may 
turn out that this was a very bad long-term decision. But it was made, and 
now we're stuck with it.

>But please don't trash Rich's, mine or anyone else's posts critical of it in
>the process. We all have the right to disagree with you!

Of course you do and I'm always ready to read fresh information and new, 
informed opinions. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't complain about the 
same stale points being made over and over and over again like a broken 
record (remember those? :-).

Bob Orban