"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...
Then the bad news is for AM... its obsolescence is now assured. I'll
bet, if
the night issue is either real or is not reparable, that a decent LA AM,
for example, has probably lost $8 to $10 million in stick value because
of the fact that there may be no future at all for them.

I still maintain that all AM plants should be sold to local owners that
actually WANT to do with the stations what is SUPPOSED to be done with
them. Serve the public interest!

In the LA area, stations like 830 and 930 are decent facilities, owned
locally. The first, bought for in excess of $40 million, is a money faucet
emptying into the ocean. 930 makes a little money, but not much.

Most AMs sold lately in the LA area, like 900, 1190, 1230, 1280, 1390, 1430,
1580, are brokered or brokered ethnic. Since none of these has a decent
signal, an issue you ignore, they can do nothing else.

Unless a station, whoever owns is, can cover its market, there will not be
enough listeners to sustain a quality operation. Eventually, you have to
accept that, local or owned by a Martian, a station has to get revenue to do
any format. A local AM format, which means talk, is horribly expensive and
can not be sustained long by inexperienced local operators... every bigger
broadcaster today started out as a local broadcaster. Only the good ones
survived and grew (our roots are with KGBT in Harlingen, TX, a 60-year
Spanish language broadcaster that always servid its communities) while the
majority, resold and someoene else gave it a stab.

There are 4000 different licensees for the stations in the US. No company
owns even 5% of all stations... nearly all are locally owned, and most of
the groups are some guy or woman who owns a couple of stations in a couple
of adjacent communities.

You can not serve any intrest if there is no income.

I would personally love to be able to operate a station this way, with
possibly a minimal profit, but in the public interest, as a public
service. And not narrowcast to only certain demographics. Small town
radio was done this way for many decades, and obviously was able to make a
profit and stay on the air.

And in big towns, there are so many staitons serving specific interests that
generalist staitons, tried over and over again by well meaning fools (who
are soon separated from all their money) get no listenership or so litttle
they do not produce any results for advertisers. It does not even work that
way in little places, like Prescott or Traverse City or Lake City or Manatí,
PR, any more.

The problem with radio in the US these days is it is done the same way the
Koreans do small businesses:

If one new business (say, a store selling cell phones) does well, then 10
or more duplicates show up (this happens often even in this small town).
Of course, the town can't support that many cell phone stores, so most of
them end up going out of business. US radio is doing precisely the same
thing: a format does OK, so you have several stations in a market that
pick up the same format. This makes none (or perhaps only one) really
profitable.

That was the case in the 50's into the 70's. Post consolidation, there are
more formats in every market than there ever were. An example I use often is
Cleveland, OH. 1960: 3 Top 40's, 3 MOR's and two R&B stations. No FM
listening at all. Today, there are 5 kinds of rock format alone, from
classic rock to alternative. There are several African American formats, a
hot AC and a soft AC, an oldies station, a country station, a sports
station, several talkers, a gospel station, a smooth jazz station, and
several more.

Generally, nobody goes after the same format any more... direct format
battles are no-win and costly, and you simply divide the existing audience
in two pieces. Stations look for niches, the holes between stations, and
fill them... giving a new alternative in the process. Since there are more
formats than stations in every market, only the most appealing get picked
up. HD offers the second tier of formats a home, and they can be successful
there.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Edtardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Awwww... poor little fake boy with the fake amateur license!


You are a jingoist xenophobe, who does not realize that in many places in
the world, particularly 40 to 50 years ago, a test was not a requirement
for
a ham license.

Absolutely pathological... there is no record of you ever having a valid
amateur
radio license!

There is no record of lots of things in less developed countries. So what?

When I was offered a general manager's job in Mexico City in the 70's, I
pointed out that I was not a born Mexican citizen, as the law required. The
owner said that this was not even a minor issue, and explained that many
equivalents of the county courthouse had burnt down, been destroyed, etc.,
since my date of birth, and he would find one; sworn statements by residents
of the locality would be accepted as proof of birth and, thus, citizenship.
Voila! Instant citizen.

Of course, you think that Ecuador had a test for ham licenses in the 60's.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha h. That's funny.

Would say you were easily amused? I would.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I am telling you the radio broadcast industry opinion, the opinion of the
major broadcasters who invested in iBiquity, the NAB, the FCC and many
others. All of us are concerned with the approaching obsolescence of
AM...
even investors, as each AM decline will force potential write-downs of
the
asset values of the goodwill of each AM.

You do not speak for the industry. You speak for yourself. This is your
opinion Mr. Pretender.

The opinion of the need to make both AM and FM digital within the current
allocations is something stated by all the entities I mentioned. The general
feeling is that a separate AM solution would fail and AM would fail with it,
as no manufacturers would back a separate solution, while HD offered a piggy
back ride to AM into digital.

That's the FCC view in its rulings, the NAB position paper and the reason a
half-dozen major broadcasters invested in iBiquity to give it some seed
capital.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Would say you were easily amused? I would.


I find it amusing that a dxer who is so full of himself as to call himself
an "ace" in the hobby knows so little about the cultures and idiosyncrasies
of other nations. It makes me doubt he even DXes.

blitz wrote in message ...
David Eduardo writes...

Then the bad news is for AM... its obsolescence is now assured. I'll bet,
if
the night issue is either real or is not reparable, that a decent LA AM,
for
example, has probably lost $8 to $10 million in stick value because of the
fact that there may be no future at all for them.

Reconcile that with your stats about night coverage and ad buys... I
seem to recall you saying that (essentially) AM is about the daytime
listening. If that's true, what percentage of listeners would be
affected by losing HD at night?

In the more northern latitudes, like Chicago or Boston or New York, where
sunrishe happens half way into drive time b oth morning and afternoon, it
means literally all AM listeners are affected.

On Oct 6, 10:27 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



I am telling you the radio broadcast industry opinion, the opinion of the
major broadcasters who invested in iBiquity, the NAB, the FCC and many
others. All of us are concerned with the approaching obsolescence of
AM...
even investors, as each AM decline will force potential write-downs of
the
asset values of the goodwill of each AM.

You do not speak for the industry. You speak for yourself. This is your
opinion Mr. Pretender.

The opinion of the need to make both AM and FM digital within the current
allocations is something stated by all the entities I mentioned.

Okay. Fine. They've "stated" it. Wow.

The general
feeling is that a separate AM solution would fail and AM would fail with it,

Okay. Fine. They have a "feeling". Big deal.

as no manufacturers would back a separate solution, while HD offered a piggy
back ride to AM into digital.

A piggy back ride into oblivion is hardly going to help the situation.


That's the FCC view in its rulings, the NAB position paper and the reason a
half-dozen major broadcasters invested in iBiquity to give it some seed
capital.

They invested in iNiquity in order to make money...in order to make a
lot of money at the expense of the listening public, the idea being
that after AM fails they'll have made their money and all will be
well.

On Oct 6, 10:18 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:


You can not serve any intrest if there is no income.


You're not serving anyone's interest as it is. In fact, the more money
people like you make the less the public interest is served.

On Oct 6, 5:26 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Oct 6, 1:56?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...

wrote:

Is that bad news for Eduardo?

Just getting up in the morning and having to fake it through another
day
is bad
news for 'Eduardo'.

It's not good or bad news. It is one company which wants to further study
and maybe request modifications of night HD. What the bad news is has to
do
with the declining and ageing listenership of AM... HD was a hope that
had a
slim chance of reversing this.

You know Goddamn well this is bad news, because others surely will
follow - there is NOTHING iNiquity can do to change the laws of
physics - if ther ewas, something would have been done before Sept.
14th.

Then the bad news is for AM... its obsolescence is now assured. I'll bet, if
the night issue is either real or is not reparable, that a decent LA AM, for
example, has probably lost $8 to $10 million in stick value because of the
fact that there may be no future at all for them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On the contrary. It now at least has some chance of survival, no
thanks to corporate stooges such as yourself.

On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 6, 1:56?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...

wrote:

Is that bad news for Eduardo?

Just getting up in the morning and having to fake it through another
day
is bad
news for 'Eduardo'.

It's not good or bad news. It is one company which wants to further study
and maybe request modifications of night HD. What the bad news is has to
do
with the declining and ageing listenership of AM... HD was a hope that
had a
slim chance of reversing this.

"Because of lackluster performance, limited benefit, and reports of
significant interference to other stations, please reinstitute daytime-
only procedures for IBOC-AM...."

You forgot something, dirtbag!

No, nothing is forgotten. Without a technology advance, AM is on its way
out. When AM listening is now below 10% in many smaller markets, and does
not exceed 20% anywhere (SF, where the market definition is based on the
coverage of three AMs), the issue is that any inability to get HD going,
technically, via marketing, etc., has doomed the AM band in the US:- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The operative word here is "advance". What you're proposing is a
technological retreat that would condemn AM to a rapid, painful death.

On Oct 6, 9:48 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 6, 5:26 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

If its obsolescence is assured, it's people like you who assured it.
You wasted valuable time giving AM a digital facelift when what it
needed was programming angioplasty.

There is no mass appeal programming other than talk that works on AM
because the quality sucks so badly for the ear of the last two generations
of Americans who came of age when FM was the dominant band. Any "solution"
that does not fix the audio problem is going to fail... and the US will go
the way of Canada, Austria, South Africa and many other nations where AM is
being reduced, phased out or eliminated. Even nations like Ecuador and Chile
and Panama have severely reduced the number of AMs over the last decade or
so, because they are irrelevant to anyone under 45 or 50.

Talk is a broad category. There is good talk and there is bad talk. I
suggest you try to master the distinction.

You'll say anything to promote the agenda of your corporate masters.