[BC] extras?

[Clive Warner]

<So then you are also saying that broadcasters have no chance of charging
for
<the extra  programming they could provide with HD Radio since it is limited
<also???
<Ernie

Very interesting comment. Hmm. Let's imagine for a moment...
Argument 1:
========
Radios for satellite broadcasting are already available. I know that's a
fact because for ages I have been seeing stupid adverts like the one with
the idiot taking his car into the office (literally).
So presumably car manufacturers are already fitting them as an option.

Now, presumably these sat radios only cover sat frequencies, right? Not your
'regular' AM and FM.

So, having fitted one sat radio, is there still space in the dash to
conveniently fit an extra AM/FM radio? I doubt that.
And if there is, how will you combine them into the car speakers? Who's
going to do the installation??The user? I doubt it. Is the user going to pay
for an extra to be painfully installed? I doubt that, too!

So . . . is the new car owner going to have the sat radio ripped out and a
more traditional one installed? Hmm? I don't think that's likely either, do
you?

Therefore, my take on this in *pure marketing terms* is that by the time
so-called 'HD' radio is available as a receiver option ** that includes
satellite channels also** traditional radio will have taken such a beating
that it might be only viable as a home listener medium. And where does that
leave your listener figures? Your stock value?

Argument 2
========
Suppose the Radio Fairy comes along tomorrow and waves a magic wand and
creates a radio that will accomodate not only sat radio, but also regular AM
and FM, and, even, "HD" radio's extra channels!
Now, please imagine yourself driving in your car. You tune around, and you
find . . . what exactly?
Are there going to be three bands on the dial? One for AM, one for FM, one
for satellite?
Bearing in mind that the FM ones get all thin and noisy as you move towards
the edge of the service area, and not only that, they are chock full of
adverts, versus the sat channels that don't carry adverts but instead rely
on subscriptions, which band is the average Joe going to listen to?
Is s/he going to listen to YOUR voicetracked channel with Borg programming
involving ghastly playlists and payola AND adverts, or sat radio's
voicetracked channel with Borg programming and NO adverts? Especially when
the sat band has 80 channels on it?

I imagine some of you are going to say 'oh look at the many many powerful FM
stations we have in (San Francisco, New York . . . ) but the reality for
*most Americans* is not like that; and those 80 channels blow away any local
services one might find driving around, for instance, Texas.

No. The FCC have completely blown it. The way to compete would have been to
take an existing format like DAB in the UK, where there are lots of radios
already available, and used - like in the UK - a different band. Preferably
Band III and force the damn terrestrial TV people to use Bands IV and V like
they should have done many years ago.

Then you would get:
1. A direct 'new band' to compete with satellite radio.
2. Receivers already in existence!
3. NO money needed to be spent messing around with existing FM services.
4. Very little money needed to be spent on new DAB services because:
  a) It is multiplexed and many stations can go out from one antenna
  b) It is low power and therefore cheap.
  c) Can be installed cheaply on the same mast as Band 2.

It seems to me, that in all this, it can be summed up by:
** DOG IN THE MANGER: Band III television. **
Which has already been made totally obsolete by satellite and cable, anyway.
Just switch it off.

Clive Warner
www.citiria.com