[BC] RE: DRM

[Mark Humphrey]

Makes sense to me.  Those bands would be affected by skip once in a while,
rather than every night.  (Let's say there would be just enough skip to keep
the DXers interested.)

Another discussion of DRM (and DRM +) can be found about halfway through the
following:

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/Advantages_of_Modern_Digital_Radio_Systems.pdf

Anyone concerned about HD Radio licensing fees should be relieved to read
the DRM Consortium's stated policy on royalties (from the User's Manual):

"Broadcasters, unless they are also manufacturers and/or essential patent
owners,
should not have any direct contact with DRM Patent/licensing issues.
Unless there is a radical change in policy, Patent royalties will be paid by
manufacturers of DRM equipment, usually when the goods leave the factory. In
the case of consumer receivers, the public ultimately ends up paying for
receiver
royalties (which are included within the wholesale price).The situation is
similar for
professional transmission equipment, in that the broadcaster ultimately pays
through
the purchase of DRM equipment.
The DRM Consortium has from the start sought to ensure that no "running
royalties" are imposed on broadcasting, (i.e. charging royalties for use of
the system
according to hours transmitted or similar).The DRM Project Office should be
notified of any attempt to impose such a regime on a broadcaster or
transmission operator."

Mark


On 2/11/06, DANA PUOPOLO <dpuopolo at usa.net> wrote:

>
> There's lots of 26 meg band here that sits either unused or used by pirate
> CBers. I say why not put a digital band for AM there if the tests work out
> okay...
>
> Not to mention that the 30-50 meg public safety band is but a shell of
> what it
> once was user wide. Refarming some of this could also accomodate DRM.
>
>