[BC] More important: the Nighttime Answer

[Barry Mishkind]

Rich,

not everything has to be serious to the max.

However, you do make a good point.

The sales figures you cite are definitely daunting. The "installed 
base" is quite an "inertia," if you will.

And, as has been hashed out many times, at least on this list, 
Ibiquity does not really want to hear from the tech folks at all. 
Furthermore, even most engineers understand and agree that content is 
important; a significant portion will acknowledge the success of the 
satellite services is content more than quality.

Added to all that is the reality that in the future, car listening 
will still be important. Audio cannot be permitted to drop below 
ambient level. Dynamic range must be restricted. Those that believe 
IBOC can be processed and programmed successfully for those with 
$30,000 home systems are either in non-comm radio (where economics 
take a whole different path) or afraid that if they don't give 100% 
support to IBOC, they - and others - would doom it.

Meanwhile, AM stations, which have had a rough decade, and being 
asked to take a double hit - going digital, but then taking it away 
each evening ... if they get through the twilight hours with listeners.

That brings us to your call for immediate nighttime operation of AM IBOC.

Have you petitioned the FCC as yet?   Perhaps you should do so, and 
help everyone else understand the way to make a petition/comment, etc 
to the FCC.   If there were a ground swell of petitions, it would not 
only get some attention at the Portals, but would become known ... 
perhaps even broadcast by some of the AM stations in the country. (Oh 
sorry ... some of the remaining news stations ... the rest are on 
automation "watch.")

Why don't you ... since you say you can't be fired ... take the first 
step and launch the petition drive?

barry


At 10:16 AM 11/14/05, Rich Wood wrote
>------ At 06:47 AM 11/14/2005, DHultsman5 at aol.com wrote: -------
>
>>Hey man thanks for one of the best posts in a while.   In the mix  of
>>IBOC/IBUZ arguments it was good to get back to something technical.
>
>Ask yourself which one has the greatest impact on our future. I see 
>guessing which station is more powerful is trivia. If everyone 
>explained how it got to be powerful it would be technical. Include 
>lots of formulas.
>
>Isn't IBUZ technical? Isn't trying to figure out how to use it at 
>night technical? Wouldn't it be interesting to see which stations 
>will have to modify their facilities? I would think so, since many 
>on this list will make a fortune redesigning IBUZ sites.
>
>Personally I would have drowned Capt. NEMO after the first few 
>hundred messages in AF and dumped the game show trivia in with the 
>religion on AF. There's certainly more Intelligent Design in a 
>transmitter site than in Creationism.
>
>Maybe we should guess how many years it'll take to replace 1.5 
>billion receivers with IBUZ. Forrester says 9.7 million households 
>by 2010. By my calculations, at that rate, all will be replaced in 
>154.6 years. Even the satellite services combined haven't made the 
>9.7 million mark after nearly 5 years. That's with aggressive 
>promotion, a significant selling proposition and cheap receivers.
>
>Why doesn't anyone care about how we'll deal with nighttime IBUZ?
>
>The other all-encompassing issue is the processing of IBUZ. I've 
>travelled to Boston, Springfield, Hartford and Albany with a very 
>good HD receiver and audio system. I'm amazed at the hodgepodge of 
>processing I'm hearing. It takes me back to the very early days of FM stereo
>
>I realize the Program Directors who lurk here can't participate for 
>fear of losing their jobs. I'll be happy to act as a conduit and 
>keep your identity confidential if this issue is concerning you. I 
>can't be fired.
>
>Rich