[BC] IBOC Thoughts /was/ IBOC Query

[Mike McCarthy]

I agree.

It's high time licensee's stopped thinking someone else will protect them 
and fight for their own rights.

A licensee who doesn't file a complaint when a valid interference case 
exists doesn't deserve the protection.

That simple.

MM

At 11:15 AM 2/6/2006 -0500, Paul Smith W4KNX wrote
>If I were the rimshot, I would immediately notify my counsel and have a
>formal interference complaint filed against the other station.  This will at
>least get it on record.  There are rules about interference.  Let the FCC
>decide which one of their rules is correct, the IBOC rules that allow the
>interference or the other rules that prohibit interference.  I know the
>final R&O is not out yet but several complaints like this might get the
>FCC's attention.  And dont let anyone think that the consortium that is
>behind IBOC doesnt know of this benefit on FM.  We've talked it to death on
>AM.  Its just that on most receivers, you cant hear the FM buzz because the
>receiver thinks its some kind of AM noise and mutes on the ibuz.
>
>Paul Smith
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
>[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net]On Behalf Of DANA PUOPOLO
>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:37 AM
>To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [BC] IBOC Thoughts /was/ IBOC Query
>
>
>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/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/