[BC] Documented harmful interference

[Phil Alexander]

On 21 Jan 2006 at 12:20, Barry Mishkind wrote:

> At 11:28 AM 1/21/2006, Kent Winrich, K9EZ wrote
> >Fine I guess I have been out voted.
> 
>          I don't think so.

Indeed not. There are some on this list who are both knowledgeable
and concerned with the transition problems of IBOC as introduced
by Ibiquity. I'll include myself in that category although I've
not had the time to devote to reading the FCC proceedings and all
the supporting documentation for NRSC-5 as I'd like.

> >If you folks consider Jabba The HD, IBUZ, et al to be a quality 
> >discussion about how we can improve the situation, then I have not 
> >much else to say.

Both those terms originated with Rich Wood in an attempt at satire.
I appreciated the humor, but agree that after the 1000th reiteration
it begins to wear thin and approach the point of boredom. (No offense
intended Rich, but constant repetition tends to wear anything thin.)
> 
>          I think most of those that do are merely reflecting their
>          frustration at what they see as a "broken process."
>          However, the reality is that the FCC has mandated what
>          we have right now.

And that mandate was developed through the accepted political
process of this country/society. Remember that same process includes
elections from time to time.

>          NOTHING SAID ON THIS LIST will mean anything unless
>          the various proponents get out and DO something.

I think a part of the frustration is timing. At this juncture,
there is not much anyone can do about IBOC because Ibiquity won
the first battle. They did not, however, win the war.

>          Does someone support IBOC?  Start installing them.
>          Does someone detest IBOC? Give us the reference number of
>          the petition you filed with the FCC.

While a petition might be filed, it would be out of order at this
time because there is an ongoing Docket, which, at the moment, is
not open for comments.

>          We KNOW there are problems.   We KNOW this can be
>          done better from a technical aspect.

Some of the problems can be overcome within the IBOC system. What is
anything but clear is if that will be enough to make it generally
useful, or if the benefits including eventual migration to full
DAB justify the disadvantages which cannot be overcome IOW those
rooted in the laws of physics.

>          Who is going to do it?

There are always two classes in a situation like this; those who are
doing something about it, and those who spend all their time talking
about why nothing should be done,

IMHO analog AM became obsolete about 35 years ago. HOWEVER, there is
no substitute for what can be done with MW frequencies in broadcasting.
Something about the curvature of the earth as I recall. Therefore IMHO
we do need to do something in the AM band. A similar argument can be
made for a need in the FM band. Technically, the last change was the
advent of stereo in the late '60's, and has been obsolete since the
mid-80's when other methods became practical as microprocessors evolved.

> >All I was trying to do folks is to generate quality discussion on 
> >improvements.
> 
>          Then let's get it on.
> 
>          How would *you* improve things?  What do you see
>          as the first step?

Put a neutral party in charge of driving the bus. Realistically,
that might be difficult, but it is what is needed.

After that, open the system to multiple modes such as DRM by
making the receivers "smart" enough to recognize and switch to
the appropriate mode for the transmission tuned.

Finally, develop and enforce a common, open, method of simple user
transparent OTA system upgrade to keep pace with developments that
are inevitable as we gain experience over the next 10 to 20 years
as the technology matures.

> >There is nothing really to learn here...... and that is why I was a 
> >part of this.
> 
>          That is totally untrue, and a very unfortunate generalization.
>          For example, Steve Davis (you've maybe heard of him?) has taken
>          the time and effort (several times) to share information with this
>          group. Is there nothing you can learn from Steve?
>          Some took the opportunity to merely deride him.

Like throwing the teacher out the window so everyone can get an "A" on the
test, but in the end, the grade is meaningless because nothing was learned.
> 
>          Frankly, there are days when I look at the posts on this
>          list and heave a sigh.

And you are not alone. Far from it. Recently, I received a "vent" from
one who rightly felt constrained from posting publicly. I'm sure there
are others for whom the "humor" has become stale.

>          As I've mentioned before, we have several options, some of which
>          I consider poor. We can set the list for "vetting" each post, and we
>          can prevent any negative views (and remember, depending upon
>          your position, this can mean quite different things) from reaching
>          the list.  If someone wants to pay me to sit and do that all day,
>          we can reach a suitable arrangement. <g>
> 
>          I can save about 60-90 minutes a day by not moderating, not
>          trapping some threads and re-directing them (many of you know
>          that I send out many private emails each day, trying to help
>          keep things in a positive spirit) and just letting anything through.
>          That would kill the list in about a week.

There is no good solution except for consideration of other list members and
self-restraint.
> 
>          I'm open to constructive thoughts, but unless this is a very
>          "confined" list, with no chat, no dissension, narrowly focused
>          (remember, we are trying to bridge engineering, IT, and programming
>          folk on this list) topics, there is going to be some "wandering" of
>          the threads.
> 
>          One thing is for sure ....
>          Those whose reaction to anyone posting information is
>          merely to attack will be finding themselves invited elsewhere.

As well they should be. If I wanted Dial-a-joke, there are other venues, but
for broadcast information, the choices are limited and this is one of the
best sources.


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: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/06