"A Browne" wrote in message
...

"There was continued top-down advocacy of HD Radio from David Rehr,
but little support from attendees...

Just like FM.

Very little interest from the ground up in the late 50's/early 60's when a
lot of them were signing on.

Actually, there was good interest in FM in it's beginning. Hundreds of
thousands of FM radios were sold while FM was still in the experimental 40
MHz band. Also, many companies thought there was enough of a FM market to
develop different circuits in order to try to get around Armstrong's
patents.

Have as many HD radios sold as 40 MHz FM radios? If I recall correctly,
nearly a million radios were made to receive 40 MHz FM.

Is anybody bothering trying to work around Ibiquity's patents?


That never took root either, did it?


There was plenty of interest in FM in it's early days, but FM had a hard
time establishing itself in competition with new entertainment technology,
that is, television. Early FM didn't have the money to develop interesting
independent programming. While FM didn't die, it was in the doldrums for a
generation, despite it's superior sound and plenty of available channels.

Frank Dresser

"There was continued top-down advocacy of HD Radio from David Rehr,
but little support from attendees...

Just like FM.


That never took root either, did it?


There was plenty of interest in FM in it's early days, but FM had a hard
time establishing itself in competition with new entertainment technology,
that is, television.

Well, it's a good thing people didn't promounce it a failure after a couple
of years.

FM was a technological success but a business failure. Stations went dark
and millions were lost. After the bust, FM had to subside on simulcasts,
ethnic and brokered programming and some classical music and such.

FM finally found it's audience...

And look where it is now.

Lucky no one declared it a "failure" after only a couple of years!

"Radio Ronn" lq6dpvk02-at-sneakemail.com wrote in message
news

FM finally found it's audience...

And look where it is now.

Lucky no one declared it a "failure" after only a couple of years!


OK, let's imagine HD radio never develops any significant unique
content.

It already has developed lots of unique content. People just don't know
about it yet.

And as long as people don't know about it, it's hardly significant.


It becomes just a dismal collection of jukeboxes, scam infomertials, and
evangelists.

Sattelite radio is full of "jukebox channels". And many of the largest
stations WABC/WLS/KFI also air some infomercials.

Yeah, that makes a few bucks for the broadcasters and they don't have
actually produce a program. We'll be hearing alot more of that stuff.


As far as televangelists....do you want to start regulating content...or
do
we allow for free speech?

Broadcasters already regulate content, but it has nothing to do with
evangelists or televangelists. The FCC fines broadcasters who don't follow
guidelines.

Broadcasters are obliged to oversee everything they broadcast. While it
might make sense from a creative standpoint to have original cutting-edge
content on all the new HD channels, the necessary oversight is alot cheaper
if they just broadcast the same old low rent stuff.



If HD radio never rises above junk radio, isn't it a failure?

There's a lot of "junk radio" out there now that makes money and gets
listeners. Is that a failure?



Failure depends on what you expect. Junk radio pays a few bills. And it
seems that letting someone shill colloidal silver is less risky than taking
a chance on someone blurting out the F-word.

If we expect the sort of radio which will attract a huge mass market and the
sort of radio which will change out culture, HD radio has failed and will
continue to fail.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Radio Ronn" lq6dpvk02-at-sneakemail.com wrote in message
news

FM finally found it's audience...

And look where it is now.

Lucky no one declared it a "failure" after only a couple of years!


OK, let's imagine HD radio never develops any significant unique
content.

It already has developed lots of unique content. People just don't know
about it yet.

And as long as people don't know about it, it's hardly significant.

Just because you don't know there's treasure burried in your bacyard,
doesn't meant the treasure isn't significant.

As far as televangelists....do you want to start regulating content...or
do
we allow for free speech?

Broadcasters already regulate content, but it has nothing to do with
evangelists or televangelists. The FCC fines broadcasters who don't
follow
guidelines.

So, you are complaining that there are evangelists on the radio?

have original cutting-edge
content on all the new HD channels, the necessary oversight is alot
cheaper
if they just broadcast the same old low rent stuff.

Should they spend lots of money on channels people don't even know exist?
That makes sense, doesn't it?

If HD radio never rises above junk radio, isn't it a failure?

There's a lot of "junk radio" out there now that makes money and gets
listeners. Is that a failure?

Failure depends on what you expect.

Again, some of the most listened to stations in the country run so-called
junk radio.

What DO you expect.

If we expect the sort of radio which will attract a huge mass market and
the
sort of radio which will change out culture, HD radio has failed and will
continue to fail.

You expected HD radio to attract a huge mass market?

At best it's an ancillary service that adds functionality to standard radio
broadcasting.

That's the expectation. In that regard, it's a sucesss.