[BC] IBOC

[Mike Gideon]

Bill,

You're briging up an argument that was put to bed a LONG time ago. It's what 
it is. It's not just about technology. Somebody is going to have to pay for 
all of this (and it ain't gonna be us geeks). Those guys decided that it had 
to be "on channel".

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Harms" <wharms at comcast.net>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [BC] IBOC


>I am not sure this is where should be going. I have seen the pros and cons 
>of IBOC
> in this list and elsewhere and remain firmly unconvinced. Furthermore, no 
> one has
> fully and thoughtfully answered the question I have had. I am not looking 
> for a
> canned off the cuff answers. The question is why can't a digital band be 
> opened up
> on another piece of spectrum and AM analog be left alone? The article I 
> recently
> posted noted that some of the analog TV band will be opened up for 
> bidding. Why
> nor use at least part of that spectrum for digital broadcasting?
>
> Regards;
> Bill Harms
> Elkridge, Maryland
>
>
> On 13 Jul 2005 at 18:09, Phil Alexander wrote:
>
>> It's been explained over and over by many, including yourself, Tom
>> Ray and several others, but those who won't listen will never
>> understand. There are many reasons for moving to digital and we
>> are doing it very late in the game. IBOC is clearly not the best
>> way to make the transition, but it will get us there. Since it is
>> what we have, perhaps we should take advantage of that. It will
>> be gone soon enough and be replaced by real digital anyway.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/