[BC] Digital vs new (was: stamping opinions)

[John Buffaloe]

The people I deal with on a day to day basis aren't the big groups, they're
the smaller operators choking over a $2000 exciter.  Almost every one of
them is under the impression that IBOC is going to be mandated, and they're
facing bankruptcy if it happens.  I'm guessing that some 75% of stations out
there aren't affiliated with a big name group owner, and they just don't
have the bucks to do a $125,000 conversion and installation.  I agree that
this should have been done in its own band, but it may well be that the
horse is out of the barn.

John A. Buffaloe
Bext Inc
888-239-8462 Toll Free
619-685-3919 Direct
901-628-6615 Cell
www.bext.com

-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Dana Puopolo
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:53 AM
To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
Subject: [BC] Digital vs new (was: stamping opinions)

I think that the broadcasters want digital because DIGITAL meanns "new" to
the
average person, while analog means old.


Finally, let's get real. Radio's salvation isn't IBOC. Digital radio needs
to
go into its own band. TV was able to pull this off; now radio needs to do
the
same. The big consolidators should be using their bully pulpits to help make
this happen. The NAB should also 'get real' about IBOC and use their
considerable lobbying efforts to get Congress to do for digital radio what
it
did (succesfully and well) for digital television.  This CAN HAPPEN, but
only
if radio as a group and business wants it to, and works for it.

No, analog radio sin't dead. But  the patient is sick and needs tender
loving
care and nurturing. Let's help it get better instead of wasting our
resources
killing it faster with IBOC.

Comments?

-D

------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:06:42 AM EDT
From: "Phil Alexander" <dynotherm at earthlink.net>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] stamping opinions

On 21 Jul 2006 at 11:59, Rich Wood wrote:

> I think I've asked questions people fear answering. As a matter of 
> fact, I'm the person who has been pushing for 24/7 operation of AM 
> IBUZ. 

I agree with you completely on that point, however there should be
a mechanism for subcarrier reduction or discontinuance in the 
event of primary interference clearly the fault of the IBOC emitter.
This in in the nighttime proposals but lacks sufficient range to
deal with a coincidence of problematic factors.



_______________________________________________

Do you have a BDR? http://www.oldradio.com/bdr.htm