[BC] IBOC

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 07/13/2005 12:57:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
scott at lagrange-com.com writes:

>  The suits are trying to get everyone into the state of mind that IBOC
>  MUST be on the air and it MUST be on the air now.  I don't understand the
>  push, except to make a much money as possible in the shortest amount of 
time
>  before people figure out what's going on.
(SNIP)

Scott, you are not alone! I agree with everything you've said. Others have 
said it, too: "Just follow the money".

>  two signals on their analog signal?  I'm afraid a lot of people have jumped
>  on this without following through on the ramifications of it.  What if
>  nighttime IBOC is never authorized?  Why would I spend the money on a 
system
>  I could only use for half of my broadcast day?  If you can't tell, I'm 
very,
>  VERY skeptical of the Ibiquity system.

As am I... and we're a Daytimer!

Even though AM Stereo flopped with the Public, at least it didn't make a mess 
of two 1'st adjacent freq's while it was operating! If the masses weren't 
impressed with AMS, which only added a nominal amount to the price of a radio, 
what's going to impress them enough to pay 5 times as much for a radio? Then, 
why will stations want to invest so much in the system *and* the never-ending 
monthly fees, if John Q. Public yawns at this as they did AMS?

There may be a "small" (or medium) station out there with just enough $$ (or 
a good lawyer working for low/no cost), to bring a lawsuit against a "big" 
station that fires-up it's IBOC noise generator. Once that happens, it may spark 
an "uprising" of smaller stations, sueing the IBOC stations for the harmful 
interference which disrupts their coverage areas. How long will it last once 
that starts happening?

Willie...
WFIF