[BC] IBOC in trouble?

[Mike McCarthy]

Phil,

You should file these as reply comments to both the NIST and MS comments.

MM

At 11:19 PM 7/26/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>On 26 Jul 2005 at 21:31, Barry McLarnon wrote:
>
> > Then read this one by Jonathon Hardis of NIST, who, unlike Microsoft,
> > has no dog in this race:
> >
> > 
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518010460
> >
> > This is a tremendous piece of work that eclipses all the other filings
> > on NRSC-5, and yet the online radio mags haven't even mentioned it.
> > I wonder why...
>
>It is indeed a great work, and carefully lays out the battleground for
>the litigation that is almost sure to follow if NRSC-5 is codified
>without change.
>
>In hindsight I believe the FCC erred in three areas in formulation of
>the policy for a standard for IBOC. (It's pointless to debate the wisdom
>of IBOC one more time IMHO. It is what it is and few including myself are
>happy with it.)
>
>1. They treated both the modulation/demod schemes and the codec essentially
>         as hardware devices that could not be changed, when, in fact, 
> they are
>         essentially software or firmware that could be changed by means 
> common
>         in the computer world
>
>2. Not realizing the potential for change demonstrated by computer technology,
>         they did not require a means for upgrading the receiver 
> demodulation system
>         via OTA transmission.
>
>3. They also failed to require a means for similarly upgrading the codec, and
>         did not require codec identification that would allow multiple 
> codecs in
>         the future.
>
>Considering the 25 year record of evolution in computer technology it is
>reasonable to expect significant evolution in DAB, but as NRSC-5 now stands,
>there is no provision for it, except by never ending transitions of
>receiver hardware.
>
>Hopefully, the Commission will correct at least some of their errors to
>prevent the litigation that will likely arise from the comments by
>Mr. Hardis and Microsoft.
>
>An idle thought: I wonder if Ibiquity has the RIGHT to reveal any of the
>codec information? IOW, did they simply buy the use of a private label
>codec with just enough changes to make it non-compatible with AAC+ ???
>
>Perhaps, now, Ibiquity will get their ducks in a row before IBOC stalls
>and they face bankruptcy. This would only set deployment back about a
>year IMHO, because Chapter 7 is unlikely, but it would mean a new
>management team would enter the picture. Wouldn't that be nice? <g>
>
>
>Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
>Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology
>(a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation)
>Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 7/25/05
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/