A different tack .... was: [BC] One other IBUZ zzz

[DANA PUOPOLO]

The SOLUTION is to build it RIGHT in the FIRST PLACE!
The SOLUTION is to put it in it's OWN BAND....AWAY from things it can
interfere with.

Why do y'all want SO HARD to support this faulted technology? Are things truly
THAT DESPERATE??!!

The TV people FINALLY figured it out! They didn't make "compatible" HDTV!
They made GOOD HDTV!!!

Why can't radio learn from THEIR example???

FIX IT...

Once and for all...FIX IT!!!

-D




------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 05:08:06 PM PST
From: "Kent Winrich, K9EZ" <kwinrich at gmail.com>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: A different tack  .... was: [BC] One other IBUZ zzz

AMEN Barry!!!  Bravo!

What if we educated each other on the benefits and pitfalls of said 
technologies?  What if we shared experiences on how to improve what we 
are doing, as opposed to just being nay sayers.  Isnt that why we are 
here?  This is a professional discussion board after all.

All I can say is that I wish I was on the bandwagon of FM in the early 
70's!  Could this be the same thing?  Hard to say yet.  But we need to 
at least investigate, IMPROVE and ENGINEER what is going on.  That is 
what we are paid for.  If we can offer suggestion on how to improve that 
would be GREAT!  Sitting back and being an arm chair quarterback is 
easy.  Coming up with SOLUTIONS takes work.  I suggest we offer 
solutions.  I know my employer looks for that.

Can you imagine if I went to my regional VP of Engineering whining about 
this and that?  He would look at me like I was crazy.  If I dont come 
with a suggested solution, what good am I?  Whiners a a dime a dozen (OK 
enough with the cliches.....)



Barry Mishkind wrote:

> Tom,
>
> No ... education is fine.  I did not see any education in that post.  
> I only saw invective.
>
> Look ... everyone on this list that has a technical background (and 
> most everyone who does not) is aware that digital transmission as set 
> up in the "transition" period has problems. Some are solvable in time 
> , some are not.
>
> However, there are a lot of companies trying to enhance terrestrial 
> broadcasting, with a lot of expenditure. Whether we agree or not, we 
> have to admit they are trying. (The cynical will merely point to the 
> "jamming," a real issue, but not one that cannot be "handled.")  
> Manufacturers respond to demand. Surely that is not bad, is it?
>
> One thing is for sure. If folks simply repeat that the situation is 
> not optimal, we get nowhere. Blasting the proponents will only cause 
> them to retreat from public discourse.  Is that what you want?  How 
> can you educate someone who will not listen to you?
>
> I think Steve Davis has done this list an immeasurable service by 
> taking the time to post the material he has. However, I know there are 
> others who will not post, because they do not want to (nor have the 
> time to) be engaged in an endless debate over the things we already know.
>
> Instead of focusing on the problems, repeating them over and over (OK, 
> it is useful to be reminded  of the problems - want to do a top ten 
> list of IBOC problems?  I'll put up a web page and we can direct 
> people to it) instead rehashing the same negative thoughts.
>
> What can we do to engage USEFUL conversation?  What can we do to 
> improve the technology?
>
> How many on this list have petitioned the FCC with some solution, as 
> opposed to merely being opposed?
>
> There are, after all, at least three positions: Opposed, For, and 
> those that are directed to implement the technology and want to be 
> educated.
>
> If we chase people like Steve Davis away .. .how will you LEARN about 
> digital radio?  How will you know what can be done and is being done 
> to help terrestrial radio meet the MANY challenges in this current time.
>
> The disconnects are obvious.  The mistakes made in the past are 
> apparent.  Can't we move ahead and be constructive - after all that is 
> what radio people are .... creative, constructive.  Those who merely 
> want to bellyache really don't add anything to the lives of those that 
> have to produce.
>
> Right or wrong. Good or bad. Digital is here. Cheap and easy pot shots 
> do not help.
>
> Having the ear of a Steve Davis, a Michael Bergman, even some 
> programmers and FCC folks who lurk, is a positive. Should we drive 
> them away, so we can continue to note what we know - there are 
> problems?  Or should we continue to engage these folks in sincere, 
> productive discussion that will help our stations and the industry?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
>


_______________________________________________
This is the BROADCAST mailing list
To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/