[BC] Documented harmful interference

[Paul Ford]

Rich Wood wrote:

> ------ At 07:45 AM 1/21/2006, Kent Winrich, K9EZ wrote: -------
>
>> The problem Rich is that you are not offering anything concrete about 
>> how to improve it.  You are just a whiny little kid now.  OK you have 
>> done a lot IN THE PAST.  What have you done for us lately except 
>> WHINE about something you dont like.
>
>
> Actually I "whine" about something I consider destructive. I'm 
> offering things you're unwilling to accept. Things like not promoting 
> something that's not ready. Something consumers can't have at a price 
> they're likely to be willing to pay. You're in an industry where you 
> can promote a new product long before it's even in prototype. 
> Broadcasters will simply have to wait. There are only a few companies 
> that make similar products. You sell to a very limited universe. 
> Broadcasters "sell" to millions.
>
> Listeners won't wait. They'll move on to something else. There are 
> many, many options. They can't get receivers in the quantities we need 
> and the content is the very stuff people have complained about here 
> for years - voicetracked jukeboxes. Now voicetracked jukeboxes with 
> ultra niche formats are our salvation. If it's bad for the analog 
> main. It can't be much better for an unreceivable secondary.  You 
> don't want to hear that, so it's negative.
>
>> With your experience I expected some concrete INFORMATION on how to 
>> improve the system.  Why cant we put our heads together and discuss 
>> how we can make things better?
>
>
> I'm not an engineer. I can't tell you how to get rid of the adjacent 
> channel interference. As a longtime programmer I can tell you what 
> it'll do to your audience. You don't want to hear that, so it's 
> negative. I've offered my opinion that programming must be compelling, 
> not just jukeboxes, they must be real radio stations and they must be 
> in place when the consumer goes to the retailer to see and hear what 
> they're considering buying. You don't want to hear that, so it's 
> negative.
>
> I post something positive "There are no known problems with IBUZ." You 
> consider it negative. I could say a sunny day is beautiful and you'd 
> consider it negative.
>
> It's interesting that few people comment on the deceptive hype 
> surrounding this technology. It must be because it's all so positive. 
> I honestly don't know what your RF or programming background is, so I 
> can't make insulting remarks about your qualifications. Over the years 
> my background has been posted here, so I'm fair game. Maybe it's 
> boasting, but I'll bet I know how listeners act better than you do.
>
>> I *used* to read every post you put up.  Now I may have to go to the 
>> filter as EVERYONE of your posts is a not so funny comment on HD Radio.
>> Gets old Rich!
>
>
> I won't lose any sleep but I'll miss you. Fire up the filter. If the 
> rest of the list would like me to go, just let me know and I'll 
> unsubscribe.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Wood
> Rich Wood Multimedia
> Phone: 413-303-9084
> FAX: 413-480-0010
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
Hang in there, Rich!

Paul Ford