David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic from Cleveland once again
failed to make any sense when he wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo the fake Hispanic from Cleveland once
again
made no sense when he wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


There's nothing 'free' about the IBOC QRM destroying two adjacent
channels.

... that nobody listens to.

Nobody listens to the adjacent channels that are next to local stations. So
there is no loss if there is nobody there anyway.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

Most listening is NOT to AM anymore. Why not accept tha tthis may be an
opportunity to make AM move viable for the future?


[snip]

So, how does the future of AM radio differ if nighttime IBOC is approved
or
not?

The quality is vastly better and can attract listeners for a change.

People tune for content first, then comes quality. I hear HD isn't as
good as XM, which makes is not as good as standardm FM.

Improving the signal to noise ratio or bandwidth of Gene Scott or
Brother Stair would not make me listen.

wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

Most listening is NOT to AM anymore. Why not accept tha tthis may be
an
opportunity to make AM move viable for the future?


[snip]

So, how does the future of AM radio differ if nighttime IBOC is
approved
or
not?

The quality is vastly better and can attract listeners for a change.

People tune for content first, then comes quality. I hear HD isn't as
good as XM, which makes is not as good as standardm FM.

The quality of HD on FM is higher than CDs. On AM, it is slightly less. On
XM, it is like a 128 kbs MP3. You choose. To me, satellite sounds the worst
of all.

Improving the signal to noise ratio or bandwidth of Gene Scott or
Brother Stair would not make me listen.

It is about the fidelity, and openness on AM. It is close to current FM
analog quality.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


There's nothing 'free' about the IBOC QRM destroying two adjacent
channels.

... that nobody listens to.

You know, I take great umbrage at your continued assertion that myself and
4 million others are "nobody". We are real, we don't conform to your
narrow view of the world, and we form a significant part of the economy.

You got that figure from me. 2% of the population 12+ ( of about 220
million) is the number of people who listen to AM at night (7 to midnight is
night), and they do listen, but to local stations. There is no discernable
listening to skywave out of market signals at night.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...


Actually, I am a programmer and a pretty good one. I am in favor of
anything that extends the life of AM radio or terrestrial radio in
general.
The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio is
free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges.



So, digital modulation is an attempt to extend the life of commericial
radio. Will digital modulation always remain free?

Frank Dresser

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...



AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of night
listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night
interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference coming
from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete
better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out
about 75% of all AMs anyway.



Has the radio establishment lobbied as hard for a reduction of
electromagnetic pollution from home electronics as it has for IBOC?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...


Actually, I am a programmer and a pretty good one. I am in favor of
anything that extends the life of AM radio or terrestrial radio in
general.
The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio
is
free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges.



So, digital modulation is an attempt to extend the life of commericial
radio. Will digital modulation always remain free?

Yes. The model is free for listener, paid by advertiser. There are nearly a
billion analog radios out there, so there is no effective way to do pay
radio, and the entire licensing system would have to change, something I
doubt the FCC and the folks on the Hill would stand for.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...



AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of night
listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night
interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference coming
from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete
better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out
about 75% of all AMs anyway.



Has the radio establishment lobbied as hard for a reduction of
electromagnetic pollution from home electronics as it has for IBOC?

Since it only affects Am significantly, and does not affect AMs with good
signals, we are talking about very few stations that are otherwise viable
being affected. he real issue is that most AMs in the US do not serve
today's metro areas, and in more rural areas, most AMs were killed already
by docket 80-90 drop ins.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

Actually, I am a programmer and a pretty good one. I am in favor of
anything that extends the life of AM radio or terrestrial radio in
general.

Is AM radio or terresterial radio really going to die? If so, how?

It is, in business terms, in full matruation and in slow decline. It will
not grwo in usership, and will only grow slightly ahead of inflation in
revenues. At some point in time, the deliver system will be obsolete, but
HD
can extend that somewhat.

What's the timeframe? When might the delivery system become obselete?


If you mean "die as we know it", well, that's always happening. The
radio
of 1966 is dead, as is the radio of 1926. Big deal. If nighttime IBOC
AM
somehow timecapsules the radio of 2006, it's hardly worth it.

Radio will become a content driven industry, rather than a delivery system
model. Radio companies that move desirable content through new delivery
methods will survive. Others will not.

For 84 years, radio has been the same model. Get listeners, sell ads to
reach them. As long as that model is viable, radio will not be changed at
all.


The consumer, too, should be in favor of this as commercial-based radio
is
free, and every other option has ongoing delivery charges.

Most podcasting is free, unless you count the cost of the internet
connection. However, downloaders would have the internet connection
anyway,
so there's no additional cost.

Many of the more desirable podcasts are radio content, available for
listening on demand. It is just like TV wiht a TiVo.

But there's no additional costs with most netcasts. Is there any guarantee
that IBOC won't have a pay radio angle?



I can see how the internet might cut into the radio establishment's
profits.

It has not so far, and probably the model that will work will be WiMax
once
there is adequate bandwidth, low cost and an easy way to find content. A
radio dial is easy. A computer is less easy.



Sure. It's easy to imagine Pandora like programs autoloading individualized
net programming into portable players and car radios in the near future.

So, who needs IBOC?

Frank Dresser

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

AM underindexes FM at night. In other words, a higher percentage of
night
listening is to FM than in the daytime. Part of this is the night
interference on most AM channels,a nd the additional interference
coming
from home electronics. HD at night would give AM the ability to compete
better at night by those stations with decent signals, which leaves out
about 75% of all AMs anyway.



But FM loses most of thier listeners at night. AM underindexes that.
So,
at best, AM might lose only the same percentage of audience as FM.

No, if AM has 30% of all radio listening in the day, it has 15% at night.

I'm not clear on what I'm wrong about. Doesn't FM also lose most of their
listeners, in absolute numbers (not percentage) during the night? What are
those numbers?


Would the new, improved nighttime IBOC AM stations be luring listeners
from
other distractions such as TV and the internet, or would they just be
stealing audience from the non-IBOC AM stations and FM stations?

I have no idea, as we don ot know where they go. But if the big AMs get
decent daytime numbers, it is possible they will keep thse shares at
night.

But, if the entire radio industry is really, really facing an impending
doom, redistributing the audience is little different than rearranging
the
deck chairs on the ...

there is no short term danger. Radio is pretty resilient. HD is one
example
of how we come up with ways of protecting our franchises. I have seen
45's,
cassettes, 8-tracks, CDs, VHS, BetaMax, CATV, HDTV, Video games, pay per
view, DVDs, computers, the Internet, and plenty more come, and some go. I
think I can survive one or two more attacks before going to live among the
pine trees in Arizona.



Agreed. Radio is pretty resilent. And there will always somebody who wants
to get on the air, even if there isn't big money in it anymore.

Frank Dresser