[BC] IBUZ opinion from an outsider

[Robert Meuser]

Phil:


You are too weak kneed. If you don't like the system, please don't lie down and 
spread your legs. Do something. I am getting tired of this apologist approach of 
"it is all we have". Ever hear of the Boston Tie Party?

R

Phil Alexander wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2005 at 15:42, Ernie Belanger wrote:
> 
> 
>>Can't agree with you here Phil.
> 
> 
> And I completely respect your right to do that Ernie. Who knows, you could
> be correct, but OTOH, it is possible you could be thinking wishfully. <g>
> I do understand how serious this is for you, especially if Ibquity is 
> allowed to lock up the tech as their own private retirement plan.
> 
> 
>>1 There is nothing which says new cars will automatically have IBOC 
>>receivers. Like satellite radio or AM/FM/ CD's it will be an option for the 
>>consumer to purchase, not an automatic. Until the analog is gone, the 
>>standard radio in most car models will remain as AM/FM analog.
>>
>>It might be a price point thing where all cars over say $25K have them as 
>>standard but not defacto.
> 
> 
> You mean like AM radios are the "standard base selection" - er, like they
> were 35 years ago before FM's started to appear in quantity? :)
> 
> 
>>While I do agree that you can't delete the radio, but you can only provide 
>>the cheap analog  base radio. 
> 
> 
> It is a matter of volume and production variants. At some point it became 
> cheaper to make AM/FM the standard, then AM/FMS complete with stereo audio
> system and the incremental cost was less than the cost of multi-variant
> production. So too with IBOC/HD. I know you disagree, but only time will
> answer this one.
> 
> 
>>With everything else being an optional 
>>upgrade. They may bury the upgrade with some sexy option package like, 
>>electronic mirrors, or heated seats or something like that... but it will be 
>>an upgrade from a base radio which is AM/FM Analog.
> 
> 
> MAY?  YA THINK? <ggg>
> 
>>2 Your comment  ...at some point being "told" to shut off the Analog???? 
>>Possibly but with the monoply issues surrounding HD Radio it needs to remain 
>>voluntary implimentation.  Forcing any owner who chooses not to go digital, 
>>to go digital using the HD standard, is a whole different legal ball of wax 
>>one which can force the whole thing into court..
> 
> 
> That is something the Commish must confront, now or later. IMHO, it is 
> something better done now because the entire process can be stopped when
> billions are riding on it if they wait.
> 
> However, if you carry it to its ultimate extent, there is no need to turn
> off analog except a station may "want" to do that so it can become full
> digital an participate in the increased benefits of doing that - more
> power etc. etc. Those stations which "choose" to stay with analog will be
> squashed under the noise of digital carriers in analog detectors.
> 
> 
>>3 I have to agree with Bob, what the FCC has agreed to allow happen with 
>>totally destroy AM which has been hanging by a thread.  
> 
> 
> That's were we differ. I see it differently. AM  HAS BEEN  destroyed by
> inept allocation, leaderless regulation and aerial power line proliferation 
> since 1970.  In IBOC, however poorly designed, I see an opportunity for 
> resurrection and re-birth. Not that it will happen, but at least an
> opportunity to get to full digital broadcasting.
> 
> 
>>Long ago the FCC 
>>should have heeded the advice of Craig Fox and others who wanted AM moved 
>>into a different band where they could do audio of the same quality of FM 
>>and didn't have the night time skywave issues.
> 
> 
> In an all digital system, skywave becomes less a problem and quality for
> many if not most listeners will be very satisfactory.
> 
> 
>>With all of the noise on AM most listeners will take the course of least 
>>resistance which does not cost them anything. That is stop listening to AM. 
>>The noise most likely will not force them to invest in a more expensive 
>>radio.  They will simply cease to exist as AM listeners.
> 
> 
> Again, we see the same thing differently. The better quality of MW-IBOC
> may attract them as MW listeners as many will not discern a significant
> difference between "AM" and "FM" when both are digital.
> 
> 
>>OTOH Most of the programming found on AM can also be found on FM in many 
>>markets. Many may have already switched to the less noisy side of the dial. 
>>The noise our new technology is causing may further the exodus.
> 
> 
> While the FM noise is not a grating, it is there, and as FM IBOC deploys
> the complaints are sure to rise. If you think about it, the adjacent noise
> is an unintended benefit to force IBOC radios into cars, thus limiting the
> warranty complaints from new owners. <g>
> 
> A final comment - I don't like the system because better things are 
> available. I do see a real need for digital broadcasting in the "AM"
> band, but the ham-handed way Ibiquity has managed their part of the
> exercise has been inexcusable, and I can say the same for the FCC.
> Never-the-less, it is what we have, and it is all we are going to get
> so we should buckle down and make it work as best we can and get the
> transition to full digital over with as fast as we can IMHO. YMMV
> (And I could be wrong.)
> 
> 
> Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
> Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
> (a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
> Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037
> 
> 
> 
> 
>