[BC] Comparing IBOC and the introduction of FM

[Phil Alexander]

On 17 Jan 2006 at 22:58, R J Carpenter wrote:

> I think comparing the investment and faith in IBOC with that in the 
> early days of FM is flawed.
> 
> With FM, one invested in an additional broadcast channel ... and 
> continued to hold that channel in the face of years of losses in hopes 
> that it would be valuable someday. If you didn't hold the FM facility, 
> someone else might have more faith, obtain the channel and you'd be 
> out in the cold if it ever became valuable.

The history of the business is replete with those who took out 
licenses in 1947-48, and turned them in shortly afterward only
to try to scramble back on the bandwagon in the late '60's.
Since all the good allocations were gone, they paid dearly for
their error in the 80's as AM waned and all they had was a Class 
A, or rimshot.

> In the case of IBOC, it's associated with your present channel so you 
> don't need to put in your territorial claim now or lose the chance in 
> later years.  You'll still own the channel with or without IBOC. Add 
> IBOC llater if it turns out to make business sense some years from 
> now.

Which is exactly what happened with FM stereo.

> Essentially nothing to lose if you fail to act today - except perhaps 
> a change in iBiquity license fees, but they might change any day.  Do 
> you really think they'll later refuse you a license if you don't act 
> now?

No, but like those who delayed in adopting FM stereo, you may have 
some catching up to do, both technically and programwise.


Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
(a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 1/18/06