[BC] RE:IBOC

[Barry McLarnon]

On Friday 15 July 2005 02:26, Jerry Mathis wrote:
> 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.

For the traditional broadcasters, this is true.  The die was cast in the 
early 90's when the NAB declared that IBOC was the only acceptable way to 
go digital.  This approach closed the door to new competition and 
prevented any leveling of the playing field.  But history may show that in 
their zeal to protect their turf, they shot themselves in the foot.  They 
end up with a proprietary digital system with limited capabilities that 
degrades their existing broadcast services, with the promise of something 
a little better many years down the road.

In the meantime, broadcasting in new bands IS happening, but with other 
players.  After the broadcasters took themselves out of the game, the new 
guys stepped in: XM, Sirius, Qualcomm, Crown Castle, and a host of other 
telecom types.  Without the constraints faced by the IBOC folks, they're 
rolling out offerings that have real pizazz, and people are noticing.  And 
then of course there's podcasting and other forms of portable info/
entertainment that don't require broadcasting at all.  Looks like a bumpy 
road ahead!

Barry

-- 
Barry McLarnon VE3JF  Ottawa, ON