Keith & Kevin,
Comments would not have made any difference. The FCC has to ask for
them. That is in the rules. Like so many things, they had made up their
minds long before anyway. Second, with maybe 1,000 MW DXers in the US
(If that many), we don't count. We don't count as listeners, as in most
Keith,
I agree, IBOC will no be mandated. It wont be popular enough to be
mandated. The stations are not going to shoot themselves in the foot.
The only way that IBOC will win out is that people have to buy the
radios and there in no interference and we know those are big issues. It
will go the wa
Patrick,
Just as when I asked you and others to comment every time that it was
open and you never did, when I warned you that this day would come, I
can tell you I told you so.
When digital is mandated, I will again say, "I told you so."
Its gonna happen.
Kevin
On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:24 PM
Kevin,
Where is all this money you are talking about? First people have to be
willing to buy the radios. I don't see that happening. The FCC is not
going to mandate something that is a total flop. The US is run on money.
Money talks and there is a lot more money going out the door than coming
in a
Keith,
SDTV will still be around for a long long time. First off, few
programmers are jumping up and down to go HD. Second if most did, there
is not enough space on cable systems or satellite to handle them. I
recently bought a Toshiba EDTV, better than SD, but not quite HD. It
gives me 480i/480p
Kevin,
If the FCC tomorrow mandates AM & FM IBOC with no analog, then goodbye
radio. 10 years from now, who knows. We all might be wearing antennas on
our head to listen to the internet. :)
73,
Patrick
Patrick Martin
KAVT Reception Manager
___
IRCA m
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The FCC will only mandate it if there are conversion units available
> to the general public (the way they are now for HDTV) for all the
> existing analog radios that are currently out there (within reason
> and of course including car radios). HDTV also has the ad
--- Scott Fybush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is no such advantage to be gained from forcing stations in the
> existing AM and FM bands to go all-digital. Absent that, there's no
> motivation for a forced conversion.
>
> It's simply not an issue that's on the table right now in any of
kevin redding wrote:
> I have a much darker view of corporations and government. I can see
> iBiquity and the many corporations that fund them pay whomever they
> have to in order to get their way.
>
> I can see a lot of money changing hands to make it happen.
But where's that money supposed
kevin redding wrote:
>> Cash doesn't just "change hands" in this business without some reason
>> for it to do so. Show me the economic model to make your theory make
>> sense, and I'll start listening, but just making a reference to "the
>> corporate people,"
>
> I suppose you are telling me iBiqu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The FCC will only mandate it if there are conversion units available
> to the general public (the way they are now for HDTV) for all the
> existing analog radios that are currently out there (within reason
> and of course including car radios). HDTV also has the advantag
I have a much darker view of corporations and government. I can see
iBiquity and the many corporations that fund them pay whomever they
have to in order to get their way.
I can see a lot of money changing hands to make it happen.
I could be wrong, but I can also point to Duke Cunningham, Bob
> Cash doesn't just "change hands" in this business without some reason
> for it to do so. Show me the economic model to make your theory make
> sense, and I'll start listening, but just making a reference to "the
> corporate people,"
I suppose you are telling me iBiquity has no reason to want IBO
The FCC will only mandate it if there are conversion units available to the
general public (the way they are now for HDTV) for all the existing analog
radios that are currently out there (within reason and of course including car
radios). HDTV also has the advantage since most people now receiv
kevin redding wrote:
>> So you keep saying.
>
> Cash will probably change hands and the corporate people will get
> their digital.
There's no incentive for that to happen, at least not for AM. Note the
significant number of AMs owned by even the biggest broadcast groups
with the deepest commi
> So you keep saying.
Cash will probably change hands and the corporate people will get
their digital.
Kevin
___
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@hard-core-dx.com
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
Opinions expressed in messages on this mailin
kevin redding wrote:
>> No one is going to shut off their analog. No way.
>
> Keep your head in the sand. The FCC will eventually mandate it.
So you keep saying.
The motivation for the digital conversion on TV was marketplace-driven:
it allowed the OTA TV spectrum to be collapsed into a smaller
> No one is going to shut off their analog. No way.
Keep your head in the sand. The FCC will eventually mandate it.
Kevin
___
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@hard-core-dx.com
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
Opinions expressed in messages on
kevin redding wrote:
> I work for a big corporation but it is not in any way involved in
> broadcasting of any kind.
>
> If I worked in broadcasting, there is no way I could toss rocks at
> the business the way I do...
It all depends who you work for. There are indeed some companies in the
Scott,
As with Craig, you see this first hand. where the rest of us don't. I
used to have a bit more connection with the industry when Bob & I wrote
for RW, but all I see now is what the rest of us see. I do remember you
commenting at the IRCA convention banquet, when I asked you if you
fiqured AM
Craig,
No need to apologize. We all value your "Real World" comments on IBOC.
Several of you see the industry first hand in working in it. So many
engineers I know would never speak out publicly against it or even
comment on it. Some wont even talk about it off the record, fearing
losing their cli
Kevin,
No one is going to shut off their analog. No way. The station knows that
without analog they are dead in the water. The station will go silent as
few have IBOC radios and few will ever have them. They are trying to
force the public to buy these by creating a terrible amount of noise.
They w
> My paycheck from
> 10watts.com (which, as yet, isn't even including HD Radio
> information in our data, though we're considering it) is as closely
> affected by what Clear Channel Radio does with AM IBOC as Kevin's
> (assuming he's still working where I think he is)
I work for a big corporat
Scott,
WELL SAID !!
Lee Freshwater
Ocala FL
Scott Fybush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: kevin redding wrote:
> You have a dog in the fight. Nothing super wrong with the corporation
> you work for, its just another big corporation just like the one I
> work for, but mine isn't i
Bob, Craig & IRCA friends -
Isn't the bullying unmistakeable? What type of salesman bullies customers?
One selling a lousy product, one working a 'carny scam'.
z
**
AOL now
offers free email to everyone. Find out more about
iBLOCkers are well aware of the market. That's why they've steadfastly tried
to deny and manipulate their way around their magic jamming bullet which they
hope will short-circuit market forces.
It may well do just that, but in favor of citizens who don't want this noisy
jalopy and increasingly
kevin redding wrote:
> You have a dog in the fight. Nothing super wrong with the corporation
> you work for, its just another big corporation just like the one I
> work for, but mine isn't in radio. If I worked for that corporation I
> would try to put lipstick on the IBOC pig also. I don't
--- Mike Brooker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do iBiquity really believe the
> public will jump like Pavlov's dog at anything "HD", "digital" or
> "CD-quality"? They seem to be unaware of something called THE
> MARKET.
*** That appears to have been one of their core beliefs all along,
base
--- kevin redding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> I have said this many times. Set a date and just cut off the analog.
>
> I think that IBOC will end up being a success on the VHF BCB but AM,
>
> who decided to do what they are doing?
>
> Unless MW changes to digital all at once, then it wi
your case,
Bob Young
Millbury, Ma
KB1OKL
>From: "Craig Healy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of
>America
>To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of
>America"
>Subject: Re: [IRCA] Another perspe
>
> 1) As Scott stated, the push for more AM IBOC seems to have abated with
> the energy focused on FM
>
> 2) Most of the listening public doesn't care enough about AM to spend
> the bucks needed for an HD radio
>
> 3) Of those who do, likely less than half will be able to hear what
> they expect
On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Craig Healy wrote:
> To be clear, I truly believe a move to digital transmission is highly
> desireable. I have been a huge proponent of streaming, and wait
> anxiously
> for WiFi-enabled iPod devices that can receive it. Analog will
> probably
> fade slowly ove
> I think there's a significant and compelling business case to be made
> for many, if not most, AM stations to avoid using IBOC. You've certainly
> made that case, successfully, to your clients. That's likely, I think,
> to mean the AM IBOC system isn't going to take off in the long run. (And
> it
--- Barry McLarnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry you feel that way, but neither you nor any of the other 'glass
> is half
> full' folks have given me any solid reasons to feel optimistic. It's
> all
> just wishin' and hopin'... meanwhile, I'll continue to state the
> facts as I
> see the
--- Scott Fybush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Even if every station in America fired up with daytime IBOC, I still
> have plenty of channels here that have no significant first-adjacent
> daytime that would throw hash over me, starting at 590 and going up
> to 1600.
>
*** But, realistically
Kevin,
I will never buy an HD Radio. Many of us wont. That being said, if IBOC
becomes a reality wall to wall, then I will move back to Short Wave.
That is if I cannot fight it with directional arrays and the like. I
have been at the dials way to long not to give it a good fight. I have
even consi
On Mar 27, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Scott Fybush wrote:
> But they've got nothing on this crowd when it comes to turning over
> every possible rock to find the gloomiest possible way to reframe any
> discussion of what might - or might not - happen.
Scott,
You have a dog in the fight. Nothing super wro
Scott,
I sure hope you are right and AM IBOC goes the way of the horse and
buggy.
For some reason Crawford BC seems to like IBOC. I don't find Salem to be
going in that direction. In looking at the supporters of IBOC, most are
the big boys like CC & Entercom.
73,
Patrick
Patrick Martin
KAV
Craig,
Of course I am no longer in broadcasting, but it does affect me in two
ways, my listening to distant stations for enjoyment. Face it, there
isn't much of interest in local radio here on the coast. hi. So 99% of
my listening are distant AM stations, be it KKOH-780-Reno, KGO-810-SF,
KPOJ-620-
Scott,
Maybe I was a bit too pessimestic by my statement, but Scott, as you
know I live in an area that it pretty clear of electronical noise and
away from many powerhouse stations. I am sure with a series of phased
EWE antennas, I will be able to combat a lot of the noise regarding DX
from Asia a
On Tuesday 27 March 2007 21:11, Scott Fybush wrote:
> Patrick Martin wrote:
> > Barry & Chuck,
> >
> > Then in layman's terms, we have two choices if IBOC becomes a reality
> > across the band. One, we move on to another band or move pyhsically to
> > another location. Any other choices?
>
> That's
Craig Healy wrote:
>> But as I keep trying to point out, there's nothing magical about
>> IBOC sidebands and skywave. If I can null WWL's 50 kilowatts of
>> analog on 870, I'm going to be able to null its 500 watts of
>> digital on 860 and 880, too. (If WWL even runs IBOC, which isn't a
>> done dea
Chuck -
Is this the eight-hundred-fifty-thousand-one-hundred-forty-eighth trial
balloon floated by HD promoters to cover the noisy little non-secret about
jamming?
HD's big score depended upon stealth and speed. They kept citizens in the
dark, but time ran against them.
Years passed. A ho
>But as I keep trying to point out, there's nothing magical
>about IBOC sidebands and skywave. If I can null WWL's 50
>kilowatts of analog on 870, I'm going to be able to null
>its 500 watts of digital on 860 and 880, too. (If WWL even
>runs IBOC, which isn't a done deal AFAIK.) Ditto for WBT,
>or
But we know exactly what will happen. Plenty have experienced it already,
haven't they?
HD jams. What's left to determine? The body count? What fun.
Yeah, some hobbies are changing. Radio is a tad more than a hobby. Peoples'
lives depend upon it in times of crises, as Katrina most recently and
Patrick Martin wrote:
> Barry & Chuck,
>
> Then in layman's terms, we have two choices if IBOC becomes a reality
> across the band. One, we move on to another band or move pyhsically to
> another location. Any other choices?
That's a somewhat pessimistic way of putting it, which is very much in
Russ,
The all digital mode on MW does not sound practical either with IBOC.
According to every source I have read, getting that HD signal more than
a few miles is impossible. So unless all stations decide all they want
is local coverage, the analog has to stay. But with the "Hiss", it is
going to
Barry & Chuck,
Then in layman's terms, we have two choices if IBOC becomes a reality
across the band. One, we move on to another band or move pyhsically to
another location. Any other choices?
73,
Patrick
Patrick Martin
KAVT Reception Manager
___
IRC
Craig,
It did sound promising, but apparently we are still in the beginning of
"The Nightmare"/ No quick and easy fix on the horizon I guess. Thanks
for the input.
73,
Patrick
Patrick Martin
KAVT Reception Manager
___
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@hard-cor
> Forget the magic IBOC filter. The Cubs will win the World Series first.
No. The Cubs will win the Stanley Cup first.. (grin)
Craig Healy
Providence, RI
___
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@hard-core-dx.com
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
> The Blaupunkt Digiceiver comes to mind..
I have a Blaupunkt MP74 in my truck, and can A/B easily with the Palstar
that's also there. While the Blaupunkt is good, the Palstar is better on
about every benchmark of performance.
On FM the Blaupunkt is probably the best receiver I've tried, beating
merica,nRC-AM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [IRCA] Another perspective on AM IBOC,from the broadcasters'
>mailing list
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:40 -0400
>
>This caught my attention over on the [BC] mailing list, and I suspect it
>may stir u
--- Patrick Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Very interesting. So it sounds (If I am correct?) that a
> communications
> receiver could be built to solve our IBOC issues? I asked that
> question
> a couple of times early on with the IBOC discussion along with a
> noise
> blanker to
On Tuesday 27 March 2007 11:25, Scott Fybush wrote:
> This caught my attention over on the [BC] mailing list, and I suspect it
>
> may stir up some discussion on the DX lists:
> > I have been investigating some of what has been said on this
> > list about IBOC on AM. It appears as though it is real
>Very interesting. So it sounds (If I am correct?) that a
>communications receiver could be built to solve our IBOC
>issues? I asked that question a couple of times early on
>with the IBOC discussion along with a noise blanker to
>take it out and several responded saying it could not be
>done. So I
Scott,
Very interesting. So it sounds (If I am correct?) that a communications
receiver could be built to solve our IBOC issues? I asked that question
a couple of times early on with the IBOC discussion along with a noise
blanker to take it out and several responded saying it could not be
done. So
This caught my attention over on the [BC] mailing list, and I suspect it
may stir up some discussion on the DX lists:
> I have been investigating some of what has been said on this
> list about IBOC on AM. It appears as though it is really a
> receiver problem. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocat
57 matches
Mail list logo
