[BC] Open discussion.....

[Phil Alexander]

On 21 Jan 2006 at 15:51, Williams, Chris (Albuquerque) wrote:

> Remember the FCC said develop IN BAND technology not Ibiquity. I am 
> surprised that that isn't debated more then how bad IBOC by Ibiquity is.

Actually, they said In Band ON CHANNEL, which the Lucent system appeared
to be. USADR actually proposed what WAS recognized at the time as an IBAC
(In Band Adjacent Channel) system.

I can't fault Ibiquity for employing an ancient free enterprise solution
for competing with a better technology, buy 'em up and shut 'em down.

I can and do fault the FCC for accepting a non-competitive solution when
the competition was supposed to protect the system users.

There was a time when the FCC did their own testing and arrived at
conclusions that were somewhat independent. Sadly, those times have passed.

I am neither an opponent nor proponent of IBOC. I realize it is what we
have and I'm disappointed we didn't do a better job choosing, because it
is now clear there are better way. DRM is one of them IMHO.

I will do what I can to make it work. Hopefully that will be enough in 
most cases. If Ibiquity fails, what we have done in the transmission 
systems will prepare for its successor, so from my perspective there is
little lost. If it succeeds, nothing is lost. Thus, making "HD" (oh how
I dislike that tag) work as best we can looks like a win - win to me.


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