[BC] The Ibiquity system just won't cut it

[Robert Meuser]

Bob


I would normally agree with your statements. IBOC has one big problem 
the other technologies you mentioned do not - Ibiquity. IBOC can not 
evolve as well when there are proprietary closed systems that are 
basically handed down from on high.  There is also a political 
problem. The DRM model with some experimentation would be a better 
fit in the AM bands but politically will never happen here if things 
remain as they are. There is also a lot of cutting edge work with the 
VHF version of DRM that goes way beyond what we are even thinking 
about here.  Will we have digital broadcasting?  YES  Will it look 
like the model we now have?  I don't think so.  I really wish the 
concerned parties would buy out the other Ibiquity share holders and 
turn that operation back into a research organization, open the 
system and back down on licensing.  The real money to be made is in 
selling radios and selling airtime not being a middleman that holds 
back progress.

R


Bob Tarsio wrote:

>Jim:
>
>Right on brother! The spirit of invention is purely the reason that we are
>as advanced as we are. This is in every one of mankind's endeavors. This
>will not happen with digital radio if the naysayer mentality has its way.
>Sure the system isn't perfect. What system is? These are the opportunities
>that individuals and corporations alike are presented with to make things
>better.
>Even if we did what the Europeans and our neighbors to the north did and
>adopted a system that utilized a new band there would be problems. Eureka
>has its problems too. There is a parallel to DTV here. I was involved with
>its implementation a few years back and the receivers were terrible. There
>was little provision for the correction of pre ghost time delays. Now, the
>latest generation of receivers has near symmetrical correction of pre and
>post ghost signals. This has made a huge difference in total system
>performance. Coding and compression algorithms have also improved making for
>a more robust transmission medium. This didn't happen overnight. Millions of
>dollars and thousands of smart people working on the problem made the system
>better. The same will be true with digital radio.
>I think we need to face facts. America needs a good, robust over the air
>radio broadcasting infrastructure. We have one that is getting better. The
>business model is changing but the business still has legs. Satellite, the
>internet, etc. are all great but there is still something to be said for the
>practicality of a simple point to multipoint transmission system such as
>AM/FM/digital broadcasting. In emergency situations satellite operators will
>be reticent to use precious air time to disseminate information to a
>localized emergency like New Orleans. Terrestrial broadcasting will continue
>to fulfill the role of emergency communicator. The internet can't do this as
>it relies too heavily on ground based distributed infrastructure to be of
>use in natural disaster scenarios. Perhaps some of the others on the list
>can tell of how long it took to get high speed internet up and running after
>Katrina. Or for that matter what its effectiveness was during the disaster.
>In the final analysis Jim is right. It will get better. More to the point,
>it better get better because we all need broadcasting for the vital role it
>plays in our daily lives.