[BC] The HD Alliance is a good idea, but...

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 01/16/2006 6:21:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
SteveDavis at clearchannel.com writes:

> Those who really dislike the idea of an HD Alliance can take some
>  comfort in this: it is a temporary solution, designed to get normally
>  competitive broadcasters not known for cooperation, to launch together
>  and maximize the offerings to the listeners until there is sufficient
>  receiver penetration and consumer acceptance for the HD and HD2 channels
>  to be self-sustaining.  Projections are that this will take 18 - 24
>  months, but that may be optimistic.

Lest you misunderstand where I'm coming from... I don't have a problem with 
the Alliance, as you've described it. I think it's a great idea, actually. 
Unfortunately, I can't help but get the feeling that this is going to be like 
herding cats in a field full of mice! Everyone wants to do their own thing, and 
listen to nobody else. (That's probably why there are over 20 stations with a 
"top 40" format among 51 listenable signals, here.)

What I have the biggest problem with, is the way the AM system destroys the 
signals of other stations on the band. (Two signals destroyed for every one 
that lights-up IBUZ.) Someone needs to tell this emperor what he's *not* wearing.

I don't think there are any local IBUZ FM's, yet, so I can't really address 
the interference issue, there.

Willie...