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

[snip]


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.

[snip]

You don't know where the listeners are going when they aren't listening to
the radio? It sounds like the industry has no idea what it's competing
against. Yet they seem to think IBOC is going to fix -- ahhhhhhh --
something.

Frank Dresser

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...


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.



As I understand, the FCC already allows SCA channels to be subscription.
I'm sure the FCC allowed some TV channels to go subscription about 25 years
ago.

The government has already allowed pay broadcasting.

Frank Dresser

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

texting alone is not a salable benefit. I can't think of a way to make it
so. It is, however, an added benefit, especially to HD digital audio.



Seems like the benefits of texting would be the same regardless of the
method of audio modulation.

Frank Dresser

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
news

"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.

I take it that electromagnatic interference from home electronics isn't
significantly reducing the radio audience even though they are listening to
analog radios.

Frank Dresser

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
news

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.



I might be familiar to the issue, but I don't know what "docket 80-90 drop
ins" is.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...
texting alone is not a salable benefit. I can't think of a way to make it
so. It is, however, an added benefit, especially to HD digital audio.



Seems like the benefits of texting would be the same regardless of the
method of audio modulation.

Frank Dresser




Text is more easily implemented, without potential artifact, with
more possible versatility in digital modulation, than as an analog adjunct.

David,

David Eduardo schreef:
Right, but RDS would make a good low cost starting point for an expanded
FM
text service. And we'd have it, if somebody thought there was real money
in
it.

Nobody wants to fight for RDS as it has no competitive advantage and is not
applicable to AM. As I said, it was developed for European simulcasts to
allow automatic signal seeking, which is not an issue in the USA.

It can also be used for other applications.

In Brussels, there is a service where all signs on the busstops are
dynamically updated based on the real possition of the busses. The
information broadcasted by the central server of the bus-company to
update the signed is done in a RDS channel of a FM station.

Another applications are DGPS and TMC (real-time road traffic
information) which are broadcasted over FM/RDS.



BTW. There is now also a AM-version of RDS: AMSS.
See he http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_305-murphy.pdf

It's already in use by the BBC WS (on 648 Khz on MW and on SW) and by
RTL (234 Khz LW).
There are not a lot of receivers which use it, but the new FM/AM/DAB/DRM
receiver of Roberts does.
http://www.drmrx.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1411




These kind of systems have been in use for quite a long time now.
The LW-transmittor of France Inter (162 Khz) is used to broadcast
time-signals (actually the same format at the DCF77 transmittor in
Germany but with a different modulation-sceme).
The BBC radio4 transmittor at 198 Khz is used to control (IIRC) day- and
night-tariff for electricity.



Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...
texting alone is not a salable benefit. I can't think of a way to make
it
so. It is, however, an added benefit, especially to HD digital audio.



Seems like the benefits of texting would be the same regardless of the
method of audio modulation.

Frank Dresser




Text is more easily implemented, without potential artifact, with
more possible versatility in digital modulation, than as an analog
adjunct.

OK, I see the point. RDS has the same problems as SCA as far as FM goes.
But, as I understand, there's some unused overhead in RDS such as font
selection and such which could be better used in an text service.

And the problem with digital modulation can't be all that different. The
bits used for text are bits which can't be used for audio.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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?

We don't even know if we are going to be useing towers and transmitters 10
or 15 years from now. technology is moving radpidly enough to consider that
the current bands and distruibution systems will become obsolete, while
content may be moved on other carriers. However, we weredall told that the
Internet and streaming would kill radio back in the late 90's, and that
never happened.

Nobody has any basis for making a prediction as the device that will move us
from towers and transmitters probbly does not exist yet

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?

There is no system with adequate bandwidth to satisfy the needs of a quarter
billion people at present. There is also no system that can do it free, like
radio is today. The major impediment to satellite and other systems is the
cost of delivery on an ongoing basis.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

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?

The difference is that FM actually increases share of available listeners at
night, while AM decreases. All radio has different listening levels at
differnt times. From 6 Am to 7 PM, it is around 22%, while at night it is
more like 7%... keeping in mind that 7 PM is "daytime level" and 11 PM most
people are asleep and it is around 3% of the universe.

Whaterver the listening level, FM takes more of it at night.