[BC] IBUZ opinion from an outsider

Sun Oct 16 12:59:42 CDT 2005

Bob, I fear you are 100% right.

Tom
ACN Network

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Young" <youngbob53 at msn.com>
To: "broadcastLISTnoDX" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:24 AM
Subject: [BC] IBUZ opinion from an outsider

>I thought some of you guys might want to hear the opinion of an outsider, 
>someone who just listens to the radio, I'm a DXer and avid AM listener. I 
>am still startled every time I do a band scan and hear that terrible noise 
>that surrounds locals WBZ and WTAG, makes me want to jump out of my chair, 
>what's wrong with my radio??. The other day my local WKOX 1200 dropped 
>their daytime to nighttime power at 6 pm, I then switched to WLIB 1190 (yes 
>Airamerica) and all I could hear for a solid hour was IBUZ from WHAM 1180 
>and this is not the DXer in me, I like Airamerica and listen a lot. I was 
>very annoyed that I could not listen to one of my favorite stations because 
>of this noise. I have read that the industry expects everyone to endure 
>this noise for 12 more years until all conventional radios become obsolete 
>doorstops as AM will be all IBUZ at that point, the millions and millions 
>of radios that have been manufactured for the past 80 years will have all 
>become obsolete including the Nice Nationals that have been mentioned here 
>previously. From all the stuff I have read pro and con I believe that IBUZ 
>if anything will be the end of AM radio as people are not going to buy 
>these radios unless they are forced to, especially with all the trouble 
>free alternatives. The noisier the AM band becomes because of IBUZ the more 
>people are going to turn it off permanently and I have not seen one written 
>word that convinces me that IBUZ is not an exercise in futility, a waste of 
>precious time and possible an end to a legitimate medium that has changed 
>yes but is still alive. At least AM stereo was a good idea and didn't 
>interfere with adjacent channels and generate a terrible noise, if that 
>didn't work and catch on why do some of the industry think IBUZ will, is it 
>because ???DIGITAL!!! is a new buzz word and everyone is going to buy it 
>because of the cache of the word like some people buy ahem, 1000 watt 
>boomboxes? Please most of us are not that stupid. Or is it because with the 
>present atmosphere the FCC will mandate us to accept this noise and have to 
>buy new receivers? I don't think so, the FCC can mandate us to throw the 
>millions and millions of AM radios into the ocean but they can't mandate us 
>to buy new radios and especially can't mandate us to listen, and if the 
>industry thinks most people will just blindly follow a dictate like that 
>again I don't think so. Most people listen to and accept AM the way it is 
>and like it and couldn't care less whether it is ???DIGITAL!!! or not. OK 
>back to lurk mode, couldn't hold it in any longer,
>
> Bob Young
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:52:01 -0400
> From: "Michael Bergman" <mbergman42 at comcast.net>
> Subject: [BC] RAIN report: HD Radio s Creative Thinking
> To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID: <200510152053.j9FKr5G23387 at mailscanner.virtbiz.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> All,
>
> This is a rant, pure and simple.  Fair warning...
>
> Rich:
>
>> You seem to
>> be asking us to roll over and play dead so we don't slow the rollout
>> of potentially deadly technology. Ain't gonna happen. I don't
>> subscribe to the premise that bad digital is better than good analog.
>
> Actually, if you were doing SOMETHING other than complain, that would be
> fine.  But you aren't, you're posting here over and over.  I tend to agree
> with Mr. Orban.
>
>> Let's get IBUZ working right before we dump other things on top
>> of technology with 3 flat tires.
>
> You can say "Let's", but you're not going to do any heavy lifting, are 
> you?
>
>
>> It appears that, in the rush to collect money, this technology wasn't
>> very carefully thought out.
>
> You haven't studied it, you don't understand the technical and business
> tradeoffs that people made to get here, and you're not really qualified to
> discuss it.  Real people made real tradeoffs.  I know you hate the result 
> of
> these tradeoffs.  But you did nothing to help, and you're not offering to
> help.  Stop complaining and help build something new--if you think you can
> get the industry consensus for your new technology.  Or just stop
> complaining.
>
>> Greed doesn't inspire my respect. It inspires my ridicule.
>
> Please.  Don't be naive.  "Those big companies are greedy!"  What a 
> childish
> rant.  Wake up, dude, this is America.  This is a market-driven
> communications business with FCC oversight.
>
>> I'd like
>> to think my comments have some impact. I doubt my comments have any
>> effect on what anyone involved is going to do. If this is stopping
>> the easy rollover of the broadcast industry by iBorg I'm glad.
>
> Regarding your comments having the impact you want--not the slightest,
> remotest chance in the farthest quarters of hell.  Who, with real 
> "impact",
> hasn't already made their decision?  The top 20 out of 20 major broadcast
> groups have endorsed IBOC and are rolling it out.  That's 100%, for those
> keeping score.  You're not influencing key broadcast leaders to tell
> iBiquity to change their technology.
>
> So what ARE you doing, by hurting the rollout?  Well, since the bulk of
> broadcaster industry is committed to IBOC, and the receiver makers are
> pretty much in, the ones remaining are retailers, car OEMs and consumers.
>
> So...retailers who read your posts stay with satellite radio...car OEMs 
> who
> read your posts stay with satellite radio...consumers, the same...and the
> broadcast industry loses a few more ears thanks to your efforts...OK, got
> it: You're hurting radio.
>
> Yes, you are hurting your industry.  Radio is committed to a path that you
> don't like, and you're hurting it as a result.  More ears to satellite. 
> You
> don't like IBOC, radio has gone to IBOC, so you're doing your darndest to
> damage the industry and keep important segments focused on satellite.
>
> I doubt you'll give it up.  I may only be fanning your fire.  'Dems da
> breaks; I had to get this off my chest.  (Did I mention that you're 
> hurting
> radio?  That was, every time you post your hatred for IBOC, car OEMs 
> flinch?
> Yes, you...you're doing this...you...hurting radio...)
>
> Mike Bergman
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.1/135 - Release Date: 10/15/2005
>
> 