[BC] RE:IBOC

[Jerry Mathis]

Guys, this has been said before. Many times. And in fact I agree with it. 
I've said it myself quite a few times. So what is my point?

Like others here have pointed out, it's **TOO LATE**. The decisions, like 
'em or not, have been made. A separate band is NOT going to happen. It's 
done. Now, a lot of us don't like it. But, as Phil and Mike have pointed 
out, it's NO LONGER AN ISSUE. We have what we have.

If you don't like IBOC and don't plan to use it, fine, that's your decision. 
Others will decide or have decided to use it. That's THEIR decision.

While I don't want to be accused of stifling debate, this particular one is 
useless. Better to argue the best way to either use IBOC, or how to survive 
without doing so. And discussions of alternative digital systems are useful, 
at least for now. But the alternative band idea is DEAD.



Jerry Mathis
Clear Channel Radio, Tupelo & Meridian MS




>From: Mike Erickson <wirelessmedia at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] RE:IBOC
>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:37:32 -0400
>
>There you go Mark, making sense.  If it makes sense, it has no
>business in radio.
>
>Man, when will he LEARN!
>
>=Mike Erickson=
>
>On 7/14/05, Mark Humphrey <mark3xy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jack,
> >
> > I share your opinion.  Is this an impossible dream?
> >
> > Is it really too late to reassign a couple of low-band
> > channels from TV to radio?   The TV broadcasters
> > appear to be giving them up voluntarily.  (Here in
> > Philadelphia, both Chs 3 and 6 have elected to keep
> > their DTV facilities on UHF following the analog
> > sunset.)
> >
> > This could provide the "new spectrum" needed for AM
> > stations to migrate to digital without the drawbacks
> > of trying to make it work in hybrid mode.  Incumbent
> > AM licensees would be assigned a new digital channel
> > (with same characteristics as full digital IBOC FM) in
> > the former TV channels 5 and 6, they would simulcast
> > the analog programming through the end of the
> > transition period, and we would end up with a single
> > digital radio band between 76-108.
> >
> > The following (laws-of-physics) problems would be
> > solved:
> >
> > 1)  Domestic IBOC skywave issues and Canadian
> > objections to new nighttime interference.
> >
> > 2)  All daytimers could operate at night.
> >
> > 3)  Atmospheric (lightning) interference, powerline
> > noise, etc. is much less of a problem at 76 MHz than
> > at 540 kHz.
> >
> > 4)  Building penetration would greatly improve at the
> > shorter wavelengths.
> >
> > 5)  AM stations would finally offer the same audio
> > quality as their FM competitors and gain the
> > opportunity to broadcast a secondary service.
> >
> > 6)  On-channel digital boosters could be employed to
> > fill in dead spots caused by terrain.
> >
> > 7)  No more limitations on non-commercial FM due to
> > Channel 6 protection rules.
> >
> > 8)  Multi-tower arrays would no longer be needed --
> > all that real estate could be sold for other uses.  DA
> > maintenance would be a thing of the past.  (Some
> > stations might keep a single tower to support their
> > VHF bay)
> >
> > Note that the first six are clear "consumer benefits"
> > that could actually convince listeners to run out and
> > buy a new radio.
> >
> > Let's kick this idea around some more before we decide
> > it's too much of a threat to the status quo.
> >
> > Mark
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/