[BC] IBUZ in the nulls (Was: Absorbtion by Foliage)

[Jerry Mathis]

The answer is the one that's not possible. The answer is not trying to make 
a silk purse out of a sow's ear by doing IBOC.  Create a new standard 
broadcast band for digital, with channel bandwidth adequate for digital, and 
forget the hybrid crap. Also make the frequency band high enough so skywave 
at night isn't a problem.

Makes sense, right? It's logical, right? That's why it will never happen. 
That, and the powers that be, have decided it won't happen.

I can't help but wonder why SOMEONE in the upper echelons of this madness 
(Iniquity or the FCC) can't have the balls to admit, Hey, Guys, we made a 
mistake. This is wrong. This won't work. We need a different approach.



Jerry, watching for flying pigs, Mathis
Clear Channel Radio, Tupelo & Meridian MS





>From: Stu Engelke <engineer at nycradio.com>
>Reply-To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] IBUZ in the nulls (Was: Absorbtion by Foliage)
>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:20:38 -0500
>
>There has been a lot of talk (by me included) that IBOC is not the answer 
>for AM. Especially if we can't do it at night. I'm wondering what -is- the 
>answer for AM? In my mind one of the bells and whistles we need to be cool 
>is a way to put data on the radio display.
>
>Stu Engelke
>
>
>WFIFeng at aol.com wrote:
>>In a message dated 10/31/2005 09:52:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>>Towers at mre.com writes:
>>
>>
>>>I can't imagine the Ibiquity signals meeting the mask if the reference AM 
>>>carrier is used to center the mask.
>>
>>
>>Since IBUZ begins where the normal sidebands end, it will be even more 
>>pronounced by the fact that it's frequencies are that much more removed 
>>from carrier. (Let alone the fact that the reference -the carrier- is many 
>>db lower.) I don't see any way to make this thing work properly at all 
>>azimuths in a DA. It may be possible on paper, but not a chance in the 
>>real world.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>My little grapevine has told me that AM IBOC is in deeper trouble at the 
>>>FCC than FM.
>>
>>
>>To those of us who love (and live by) AM, this is very good news! Seeing 
>>and hearing those two 1mv/m hash signals above and below WOR is proof 
>>enough for me that IBUZ is not the answer for AM.
>>
>>Willie...
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/
>>
>>
>
>--
>Stuart Engelke
>WMCA NY
>201-298-5700 x208
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/