[BC] Re: HD Receiver returns

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 02/17/2007 11:17:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richwood at pobox.com writes:

> >Yes, even coming from me, an IBUZ doubter since the thing first 
launched... 
> I
>  >find it sad because so much capital has been invested in this thing, yet 
it
>  >is being neglected to the N'th degree. It is unfathomable to me to spend 
so
>  >much and care so little.
>  
>  That's where we part company. IBUZ has prompted major investment in 
>  outdated plants. If nothing else comes of it we'll have better 
>  facilities for the next 30 years. Correct me if I'm wrong but it 
>  seems to me the high cost of  IBUZ isn't the IBUZ equipment but the 
>  repair and replacement of the aged equipment you need to shove it 
>  through. Ultimately the biggest expense will be the royalties 
>  stations will pay year after year after year.

I see your point... but I dont' see where we really part company... not far, 
anyway. You're right, a lot of stations invested big bux in this clunker and a 
significant side-effect of this was a dramatic improvement in facilities. 
That is a good thing. However, how many of these stations *needed* to add 
high-power diplexors and/or additional antennas, other than to make IBUZ fly? Having 
spent all those bux on all of *that*... that's why I am dumbfounded by the 
utter disregard for the system that you and now Bob Orban have pointed out! 
**Days** of dead air? That is utterly inexcusable! Silence monitors don't cost 
*that* much!

If the *broadcasters* don't give a flying donut about this thing, I can't 
imagine consumers caring at all. It's just such a senseless *waste*! Stop the 
ride, and let's get off, now... before that cement-filled bathtub hurts someone.

Willie...