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

[Phil Alexander]

On 14 Oct 2005 at 18:53, Cornelius Gould wrote:

> I agree with Cowboy here.
> 
> Sure, IBOC may not be the perfect solution.  I don't think anyone claims 
> it is...but it *is* what we have, and we must make sure it works 
> according to specs.  That's our job as engineers!
> 
> I've seen many posts here talking about how DAB would be so much better 
> if we would just use (insert DAB idea here).  That's fine.  In the event 
> that someone DOES come up with something better in the future, what 
> makes you think the consumer electronic manufacturers will even trust us 
> at all with such a new system if we as broadcasters botch the existing 
> one so bad that they end up losing money replacing most of the radios 
> they manufacture with older tech?

While I agree with Cowboy and you about making what we have play, and I
believe we are too far down the IBOC/HD road to make substantial changes
now, your point above shows up the biggest single flaw in Ibiquity IBOC.
This flaw is IMHO bigger than AM nighttime problems, bigger than adjacent
interference problems, bigger than digital/analog synch problems, and may
ultimately be the thing that brings radio down as a useful service.

That flaw is the LACK OF SIMPLE UPGRADE CAPABILITY.

IBOC radios are essentially digital technology, yet it appears far more
than is necessary is being "hardwired" into the technology. All we can
do is speculate as to WHY Ibiquity has chosen this restrictive route to
digital radio, and why it appears the FCC will let them get away with it.
However, we need look no further than the developments in PC tech from
1980 thru 2000 to see the reason we need maximum flexibility in sets and
a user transparent way of introducing software modifications.

If we don't get this part of it right, two possibilities are apparent:

	A.	We can struggle trying to upgrade a system while catering to
		legacy technologies and doing a very poor job.

	B.	We can declare radios to be essentially the same as computers,
		needing replacement every five years or less, and eventually
		(more or less at 10 year intervals) scrap the system and start 
		over.

Ibiquity seems determined to force the market into the second option.
To me, this seems like it is a long way from "getting it right."

The only remaining sector with leverage to force Ibiquity to take a 
longer view for the good of the industry are the set makers, who appear
to be content to follow Ibiquity's lead. In the long term this will not
enhance their prospects for future business selling sets IMHO, and I 
see and even bleaker picture for our industry.


Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
(a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/137 - Release Date: 10/16/05