[BC] IBOC "secrets" and my opinions.

[padrino]

Steve,

I fully understand your position...and...I'm not defending the HD Radio
platform, although I could see where some may think so. I do not profess
to be heavily entrenched in the RF side, but if it's not as good as it
needs to be, I'm sure there's a tweak in there somewhere. (Yes, I'm an
optimist.)

My point to this, most new tech requires hand-holding when first released.
As a developement company we understand this discipline. I'm not ready to
throw out the AM method...yet. If, after further study, research, and
effort, there are still issues that broadcasters can't live with, then
we've got a new discussion.

-Frank Foti

Broadcasters' Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net> writes:
>Frank...
>
>
>As an analogy to the FCC decision; If my doctor said it would be better
>to 
>walk off a cliff than to remove my bad kidney and live, what choice do
>you 
>think I would make? (I actually had this done last year so it's VERY
>fresh 
>in my mind) Just because it's FCC has spoken doesn't make it right. At
>the 
>risk of getting political here, look at some of the decisions that are 
>coming out of D.C. these days. I'm getting sick of making lemonade. With 
>greed at an all time high I'm sure Ibiquity isn't going to re-invent the 
>square wheel they designed. The AM model is not right. Make it right or
>(and 
>I could live with this one) say it can't be done on the AM band without 
>consequences. I see this as a "back to the drawing board" scenario or 
>canning it for AM. That's my point. I'm not soured on the idea. If you 
>caught my other post, I'm very excited about the prospect of the
>digitizing 
>on the AM band but it has to work as advertised. Is that too much to ask? 
>Looks to me like we have a round hole with a square peg. We need the
>right 
>tool for the right job. Bending things to make them fit just doesn't
>work. 
>That method only put strain on something else down the line.
>
>
>Steve