[BC] Implementation

[DANA PUOPOLO]

Kent, 

People in Canada aren't interested in HD radio because they're not interested
in HD radio! It has nothing to do with what band it's in.
In Europe, it's doing okay, though not great. 

Maybe we need to take a lesson from Canada. Why build a HD radio system that
no one really wants AND interferes with the present analog one?
Radio (still) does well for two reasons: It's free and the hardware is cheap.
Why make it's quality worse to transmit a signal that no one listens to?

Yes, I know that many of us are hopeful that digital radio will be successful
(I also want it to be, just not at the expense of analog).

But if Canada's experience is anything like ours, it just might wind up being
a product in search of a customer.

-D



------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:42:07 AM PST
From: "Kent Winrich, K9EZ" <kwinrich at gmail.com>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: [BC] Implementation

OK lets talk about a separate band.... Take a look at what other 
countries and what they are doing.

Canada...  The are running Eureka.  According to the engineers there, 
there is no real run to get Eureka.  In other words it is not 
successful.  No one seems to be interested.  So why implement that here?

In regards to TV....  it seems similar to what we are doing.  They 
have separate channels on the same band that still requires new 
hardware for the user.

It is not a matter of being desperate, but trying new things to keep 
radio fresh.  I dont see a problem with that at all.  If we dont at 
least TRY this, we sit back on our duffs doing nothing watching the 
world go by.

Is HD Radio prefect?  Nope.  Why not at least try it?  Dana do you 
have first hand experience with this technology?  Have you worked 
with it?  Do you have an HD receiver?

It sounds like I am being a cheerleader for HD Radio.  The only 
reason is that it is the technology that is being presented.  I need 
to be able to at least try to work with it.

DANA PUOPOLO wrote:

>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" <mailto:kwinrich at gmail.com><kwinrich at gmail.com>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" 
><mailto:broadcast at radiolists.net><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.



_______________________________________________
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/