[BC] IBOC Query

[Robert Meuser]

Phil:

That may have been the thinking in the early 90s. Post '96 de-regulation there 
is plenty incentive to maintain the analog component.  Stay tuned, it could get 
interesting.

R

Phil Alexander wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2006 at 20:18, Robert Meuser wrote:
> 
> 
>>There is not time frame for dropping analog nor will there likely ever be one. 
>>There is nothing in this for the FCC or the government. Unlike digital TV there 
>>is no spectrum to recover and resell.
> 
> 
> Never-the-less, that was the theoretical raison d'?tre of IBOC, 
> and that theme runs through the proceedings of the FCC dockets 
> and the NRSC as I read them.
> 
> It is true in the present scenario (written by Ibiquity) that
> it is in their interest to preserve their monopoly for the
> foreseeable future. This is probably the reason they have
> elected the "trade secret" route rather than patent disclosure
> for technology protection. That, however, is a double edged
> sword when/if IBOC gains traction. In the Street, there
> are bulls, bears and hogs. The bulls make money on the upside,
> bears make it on the down side, and hogs ultimately get their 
> throats cut. Ibiquity may offer yet another proof of this wisdom.
> 
> If we speak of DAB rather than IBOC, the route to REAL service
> demands increasing signal strength by an order of magnitude
> if primary market penetration (IOW city center buildings) is to
> be achieved.
> 
> Then, there is also the day and night adjacent interference 
> problem which is sure to intensify as stations deploy IBOC. 
> The only long term answer for this is elimination of adjacent 
> channel radiation, and that means using the entire ASSIGNED 
> channel for digital information.
> 
> It appears the 'temporary' use of the adjacent infringement
> might not prevail in Court unless there is a clear benefit,
> and it is doubtful that benefit can be shown absent an
> analog sunset at a yet to be determined time certain.
> 
> Regardless of motivation, it remains incumbent on the Commission
> to regulate equally or, at some point, face a Court mandate.
> 
> IMHO we have been spending too much time looking at the trees 
> to see the forest.
> 
> But to Stanley's question: If terrestrial broadcasting continues
> long term, at some point it probably will be DAB, but Ibiquity
> has so clouded the picture that predicting if or when has now 
> become impossible. However, in 2001, the best thinking was 2013
> to 2016. The automotive market forces a minimum time frame of
> about 8 or 9 years depending on the automotive scrap rate if you
> look at it from a practical standpoint. That does not mean it
> can happen in that time frame, just that it is unlikely to 
> happen in a shorter time frame regardless of circumstances.
> 
> 
> Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
> Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
> (a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
> Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037
> 
> 
> 
> 
>