[BC] IBOC Thoughts /was/ IBOC Query

[Robert Meuser]

Dana

Please give the calls and the city. We'll have GPS guy go and verify so we can 
report back to Chicken Little. So far there are no creditable reports of IBOC 
interference on FM channels.

R

DANA PUOPOLO wrote:
> But, But Phil...there's one truly unique thing about IBOC- and it isn't good!
> 
> In the entire almost 90 year history of radio, IBOC is the first development
> out there that does not affect your frequency. Instead, it adversely affects
> your neighbor's frequency.
> 
> Just this should have relegated it to the scrap heap before it began!
> 
> I suspect that adoption of IBOC might have sales related ulterior motives that
> we might not comprehend as engineers. 
> 
> True example: In one major market there are two class B FM stations 400 kHz
> away that have the same formats. One is established, with a long heritage,
> well respected in what it does. The other is newer, trendier, but frankly not
> nearly as good.  The older of the two is a rimshot about 22 air miles out of
> the city. The newer one has it's transmitter right downtown on a skyscraper.
> 
> The newer one turned on IBOC a while back - obliterating the other one within
> a 5 mile radius of downtown. This is WELL within their 2 mv/Meter contour.
> This benefits the newer one - not by offering better quality, or more/better
> programming to the public, but instead by interfering with the competition's
> signal WITHIN its FCC authorized coverage area.  
> 
> Do I blame the newer station?  No. What they are doing is 100% legal.
> 
> The FCC is to blame....for ALLOWING a system that does this to stations.
> 
> WE as engneers are to blame....for ALLOWING it as well!
> 
> Again, in the almost 90 years history of radio, this has never been allowed to
> happen before. Indeed, the FRC (later FCC) came into being in the 1920's with
> the mandate to ELIMINATE interference beytween stations. 
> Now the FCC is responsible for makiing it worse, and we as engineers are
> rolling over and letting them!
> 
> We should all be ashamed of ourselves.
> 
> -D
> 
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:02:54 AM PST
> From: "Phil Alexander" <dynotherm at earthlink.net>
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Subject: [BC] IBOC Thoughts /was/ IBOC Query
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>