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

[Bob Tarsio]

Robert:

The Ibiquity situation is a political one not a technical one. The politics
do impact the technology but I am merely saying that there can be
improvement with more study, experimentation, and implementation. You can't
blame Ibiquity entirely for the present situation. Where was the rest of the
broadcast community, manufactures, system proponents, and the FCC when all
of this was being decided? Apparently not enough in the broadcast industry
cared. Not enough manufacturers thought they could ever make a buck doing
this. Most importantly the FCC and other government agencies in this age of
big business is better looked the other way. There are two expressions that
come to mind. One is that the wheel is round and the other is the pendulum
swings both ways. This will work its way out. I still think that the
technology will evolve over time. My real point was that we need terrestrial
broadcasting and we'd better figure out a way for it to remain competitive
and a money making venture.

Bob 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Robert Meuser
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 15:48
To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
Subject: [BC] The Ibiquity system just won't cut it

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.



_______________________________________________

The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More! 
www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com