[BC] IBOC "secrets" and my opinions.

[Barry McLarnon]

On Sunday 25 March 2007 22:25, padrino wrote:
> >    I am glad to see that you at least admit the possibility that this
> >technology may not work. I think the issue is when do we determine
> >enough is enough if it is not working. The problem with making effort to
> >make it work is that it may cause damage to what is already there.
>
> Well, at least I'm honest enough to admit the possibilities of it going
> either way. Too bad that the nay-sayers won't admit to the same. If, as
> you say, the nay-sayers see something that others don't see, it would
> behoove them to provide concrete, comprehensive information that was
> acquired via realworld field testing. As of yet, this has not occurred
> from them. To date, their position is based upon casual observations, as
> compared to researched testing that was gathered to support their claims.

Sounds like you haven't bothered to read any of the relevant filings on Docket 
99-325 in the last few years.  There is a lot of well-researched information
from the nay-sayers there, myself included.  No, we didn't conduct 
comprehensive field tests, it being kinda difficult to do that unless you're 
part of the iBiquity cartel.  The fact is, the havoc that will be wreaked by 
nighttime AM IBOC is pretty much predictable without conducting field tests.
All it requires is a sound engineering analysis, which it didn't get from the 
NRSC.

> >    In order to find out if this will work or not, it should be treated
> >as an experimental technology.  I see too many people thinking that it
> >is going to happen no matter what. One thing that has not been
> >adequately tested is nighttime operation and its effects.  That needs to
> >be done first before we decide this is what needs to be done.
>
> If so, then why would the FCC give its approval? This from a governing
> body that is very sensitive to interference.

Hmmm... either you're stunningly naive, or you have tongue firmly planted in
cheek!

> >    Perhaps the IBOC nay-sayers are seeing something that some others
> >don't see.
>
> If so, then they need to provide credible information that the industry
> can review.

Been there, done that, been ignored.

Barry

-- 
Barry McLarnon  VE3JF  Ottawa, ON