[BC] IBOC Thoughts /was/ IBOC Query

[Phil Alexander]

On 5 Feb 2006 at 2:34, Steve wrote:

> Some of the things you mentioned below I'll buy but this whole 
> IBOC and FM HD bit I'm having a real problem with because "a 
> difference to be a difference MUST make a difference" Rich Wood 
> has seen the blank stares at stores he's visited when he talks 
> about this. I've gotten the same. I use his name because he 
> lives closer to a big city where people should be more hip about 
> these things. Yes, I know some of the reasons this is all taking 
> place. Reaction to satellite radio, Internet streaming, iPods 
> and on and on ad nausium but to the average person it's not a 
> shift big enough to make a "difference" in their lives. It's like 
> a hit record. Ya gotta have a good "hook". At least satellite 
> radio does. Drive across the country and keep the same program. 
> iPods allow you to carry around a couple thousand of your favorite 
> songs. Internet stations that allow you to punch in a request and 
> BANG, you get it within a few minutes. Terrestrial radio 
> broadcasters are not offering a competing service or, if you will, 
> a different flavor that's far enough from vanilla. 
> 
> Yep, the big elephant is in the room (or squeezing itself through 
> the door) and, frankly, I honestly believe the big guys in 
> terrestrial radio don't know how to handle his arrival other than 
> to use things we already have. No big difference. The global village 
> is alive alright but I don't know how well it is.
> 
> We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us. We're on that 
> track right now.


First, I agree with you more than I disagree, and where I 
disagree it is a matter of perspective on the future, 
outlook on consumer electronics as a whole, with some 
politics thrown in.

Broadcasting always has been and always will be about 
content.

Content is about creativity. Large corporations cannot 
afford the risk of creativity. The cost of success or 
failure make earnings, thus the stock price, too 
unpredictable. The market reacts unkindly to surprises. 
Thus, while radio was locally owned, and SERVED its 
audience it prospered. To me this is Radio 101. I know 
a few small towns and a city or two where this model 
works today, but it requires stable ownership whose
first concern is not the stock quote of the minute.

Content is, however, a programming issue that has little 
to do with IBOC *except* that IBOC will permit full audio 
spectrum programming in the "AM" (MW) band. That has not 
been true for decades. When developed to its ultimate, 
IBOC is supposed to populate digital sets across the 
landscape for a seamless transition to full DAB at some 
point in the future. Full DAB will be technically superior 
to analog, at least in the MW band as it exists today and 
as it will exist under IBOC.

There is no question IBOC is a poor system. Its original
intent was one of transition for a limited number of years,
perhaps 12 or 15 at most. Now, it appears some would like
to keep it indefinitely. IMHO, the system is so poor this
will ultimately prove impossible, but I could be wrong.

However, good or bad, IBOC is the system we have, and it
appears it is the only system we will be getting. You say
correctly that we shape our tools, then they shape us.
Radio is, has been for decades, technologically stagnant.
Unless we reshape this tool into one that can participate
in the future, it is only a question of when, not if, we
turn the switch one last time and put out the lights 
because we are irrelevant.

Can IBOC fix this? I don't know, nor does anyone else. The
sure thing about invention is its unpredictability. Unless
we start, we remain stuck where we are as we slowly become
less relevant day by day, year by year. The history of new
technology is stimulation of new ideas. We have been given
IBOC. Can we fix it, at least partially? Probably, if the
FCC opens it enough to prevent total Ibiquity domination.

Make no mistake, Ibiquity's management should be trying
to dominate radio technology, controlling it and holding
their licensees in bondage in perpetuity. That is simply
good business, and is their duty as corporate managers.
However, invention by reverse engineering is an entrenched
part of the computer age, and is likely to prevail.

So, IMHO it is time to quit "jawing" about it, get started,
and let the invention begin.

A couple of thoughts about programming. Satellite cannot
effectively commercialize while it has strong, free
competition, even though the programming may otherwise be
similar. Eventually, radios will tune both free and
subscription broadcasts IMHO.

Unless one of the large group owners adopts a "3M"
entrepreneurial management philosophy, we are probably doomed 
to the current *brilliant* programming. Given time, enough
management blood will be imported into the business from
other industries that there may be change from the more or
less loose broadcast mode to the disciplined management
that is more common in general industry. To some extent
this has already happened in some of the larger groups.
Eventually, we will probably see tight fiscal management
coupled with local operating autonomy because this is the
model that works in most large corporations. All it takes
is one outstanding success and others will try to jump on
the same bandwagon - and some will make it.


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 Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/06