"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The radios were designed before HD became a standard. So they were not
designed to receive analog signals when HD was being broadcast
simultaneously, as the design predates HD. Duh.

HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios Eduardo. Oh! I see
now that was just another lie. You got me good that time.

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

Such marginal reception areas outside the primary contours of AMs is
exactly what both the FCC and American broadcasters were willing to
sacrifice to get digital capability. Everything has tradeoffs.

Ah yes the signal strength fallback position. You are about the only
person that thinks this is a good tradeoff.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving an
in band on channel system.

What can I say about your reading comprehension that is already known to
readers of the news group. He did not ask why or if a station should
have HD he asked how HD could be used more than it is now.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if AM
is even around that long.

The digital side bands could be
increased in power or bandwidth.

We can hope the power is eventually raised; on FM there have been
studies of raising the digital signal by as much as 10 db.

You can hope that. I don't and I think most people reading the news
group would not want that either.

and how many people would that be?