[BC] Re: interest in/Availability of HD gear

[Davis, Steve - SVP]

> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 20
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:08:24 -0600
> From: Alan Kline <akline at netins.net>
> Subject: Re: [BC] Interest in/Availibility of HD gear
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20060116220824.0156ea70 at pop3.netins.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> ------ At 05:20 PM 1/16/2006 -0600, The Most Honourable 
> Davis, Steve - SVP wrote: -------
> >
> >However broadcasters didn't begin to adopt it on any sort of 
> methodical basis
> >until 2004 (when the codec was changed).  The FIRST AM AND FM DIGITAL
> >BROADCASTS DIDN'T OCCUR UNTIL 2003!  
> 
> So why wasn't it until late 2005 that the industry learned of 
> the great
> HD Alliance?  What was being done during that period of 2+ years to 
> develop the killer programming that would drive terrestrial digital
> radio?

There wasn't any alliance until late 2005.  Having such an alliance made
no sense until the FCC permitted multicasting.  Even now that is still
only allowed under experimental authority, although we expect that to
change in 2006.  We do wish we could have gotten a faster start on this.
The alliance was no secret.  When it was formed, it was widely
announced.  The alliance is merely stations agreeing to work together to
provide many programming choice.  The alliance has no programmers on
staff and does not (and will not) make programming decisions.  Think of
it as the NFL administering the draft.

> 
> I'd be willing to bet that XM and Sirius didn't sit around waiting for
> the birds to be launched before they started developing the 
> programming
> that would make people want to buy their radios and service...

You would be right of course.  As soon as they won the bid for the
spectrum and had the financing they began to work on programming.
Hopefully other broadcasters in the alliance have done as Clear Channel
has done: started working on new formats, concepts and programming long
before this alliance was formed.

> 
> I'm sure Rich can relate how long it takes to develop a 
> concept, sell it,
> engage talent, and launch it.  Multiply that by the number of 
> concepts that
> are required here, and I think the HD folks are way behind, even now.

Our programmers also know how long formats take to launch and sell.  As
has been said elsewhere I'm not a programmer and am not qualified to
speak to that.  I agree we ARE way behind the satellite folks but I
don't agree that means we're too late.  We're looking at this as a
long-term investment in our medium.  Many seem to think we either need
to turn this around in a year or we're finished.  I have no crystal
ball, but I hope and expect that they are overly pessimistic.  

> 
> Seems to me that the biggest hurdle faced by digital broadcasters is
> convincing consumers, who have turned away to iPod's and 
> satellite, that
> the same radio companies which produce the programming that 
> they're ignoring
> now will suddenly, magically, make radio shows that justify 
> the investment
> in new technology.

Actually while we have seen some erosion to free radio listening I don't
think you can say that consumers are "ignoring" free terrestrial radio
now.  Many people on this list may be, but there are still over 200
million people who listen to terrestrial radio a week versus around 8
million for satelliite.  And remember, unlike Soylent Green, not all
satellite listeners are people:  as soon as a radio is manufactured with
either a Sirius or XM receiver in it, they claim a "listener" (since
they get a free introductory subscription).  Also our research (which
I've seen and so can speak to with authority) shows that while there has
been some siphoning off of listeners from terrestrial to satellite
radio, and some to iPods and other personal entertainment appliances,
all the promotion the satellite folks have done has actually HELPED free
terrestrial radio -- it has raised consumers' awareness to audio-only
"broadcast" entertainment.  Rather than merely taking a piece of the
pie, satellite has actually helped us to GROW the pie.  We hope that
programming on secondary channels, which will appeal to people who are
not being served or served well with current free terrestrial offerings,
will likewise grow the pie.  As others I'm sure will be quick to point
out, that remains to be seen.  Also let's remember that even Apple sees
radio as a viable medium.  Apple gets no "iTunes" royalties from
broadcast radio content and yet faced with consumer demand they have now
released an iPod which contains an FM tuner.  No HD yet but no need for
it (remember no content).  We believe when a single chip solution that
does HD and "standard modulation" radio is available mass produced it
will be practical to include this feature with MP3 players such as iPod.

Thanks,

Steve Davis
(just an old, mossy-backed radio engineer)