[BC] Can traditional AM and IBOC co-exist?

[CBoone]

Ask anyone at ANY dealership about AM Stereo and you will get just as many
blank stares.
My Ford E350 van doesn't have it......neither does any of the F150 or 250s
my company buys...
So just because one model has an AM Stereo rcvr in it, this is a reason to
keep AM Stereo? Personally, I am a supporter of AM Stereo, but let's look at
it realistically..If I had a AM station, I would probably put stereo on it
rather than IBOC (that's for sure!) BUT no matter what, AM stereo is pretty
much over ..the buzz word is IBOC (I can think of another 4 letter word that
better describes it!)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net 
> [mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Tekel
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 9:09 PM
> To: broadcast at radiolists.net
> Subject: [BC] Can traditional AM and IBOC co-exist?
> 
> "Reader" wrote:
> > Since AM stereo is all but dead, why not have the FCC 
> invite IBOC only 
> > operation above 1600? Non-directional.
> 
> Two points:
> 
> 1. Based on the number of stations on the air and the number 
> of receivers in the marketplace, AM IBOC is much more "dead" 
> than AM Stereo is.  Ford will be happy to sell you a brand 
> new 2005 Mustang with an AM Stereo- equipped receiver in the 
> dashboard, but ask for one with an HD Radio- equipped 
> receiver and you'll just get a blank stare.
> 
> 2. The Expanded Band is skywave land.  I've gotten strong 
> skywave DX in the Expanded Band even during broad, sunny 
> daylight.  And we all know IBOC and skywaves don't mix.  
> Therefore, using IBOC in the Expanded Band could make things 
> very, very messy: it won't help to improve these stations' 
> already poor local groundwave coverage, but it will spew out 
> enough adjacent-channel hash to ruin the local groundwave 
> reception of stations hundreds of miles away -- even during 
> daytime hours!
>