[BC] FCC Deletes digital report from today's meeting

[Rich Wood]

------ At 11:14 PM 7/13/2006, Steve Newman wrote: -------

>Aren't there just some things that are just not meant to be? Aren't 
>we trying to get something out of a medium that is not setup for it? 
>Something's rotten in Denmark. I can't believe companies are 
>spending money on a thing that doesn't work right. Hey, more power 
>to whomever figures out how to make it work correctly with AM but I 
>have a bad feeling about all this. Then again, to quote you...there 
>are no known problems with IBUZ.

If the HD Dominion declares it to be, it will be. Stations are 
barrelling ahead installing it, most likely at the insistence of 
corporate managers rather than engineers. I really don't believe 
anyone has actually put pencil to paper and tried to project the 
economic impact of the glut of inventory nearly 7,000 new FM 
"stations" will create. We've seen the impact of Docket 80-90 and the 
addition of a fraction of what IBUZ will create. We've listened to 
those complaints for years. Too many stations, they said.

It's interesting to see AM stations improving their sites while 
dumping their response into the 5kHz toilet. When I recommended that 
XTRA fix an aging site it was to improve the fidelity of the station, 
not just to ensure the towers didn't fall down. We did it and had one 
of the greatest sounding AMs on the air. It held its own for a long 
time against a well promoted Group W FM. XTRA changed format in the 
middle of a book that came out with a 4.7 share - never to be 
repeated. Building a new AM format is an incredible challenge. Hell, 
building an FM format is a challenge. Just ask Jack.

For those of you not subscribed to AF, you missed a great satirical 
memo from Kenneth Lay (Enron) to Joel Hollander (CBS), posted by Rachel.

I'm glad to see neglected sites repaired. My animosity toward this 
system comes from the deceptive hype, much of it coming from our own 
industry in the form the HD Dominion and the "HD Radio" web site 
declaring a revolution and ignoring the many AM and FM reception 
problems. Even the manufacturer seems to have abandoned all hope of 
pure digital.

I know several General Sales Managers soiling their Calvins trying to 
figure out how to hold their rates when HD-2 and HD-3 double and 
triple what's already unsold. Of course, they've bought into the 5 
year IBUZ revolution time frame and actually expect salable audiences 
for digital even when receivers actual listeners use haven't even 
been conceived. They should look closer and see that inventory won't 
be salable until well after several generations have come and gone. 
Remember, 600-800 million receivers must be replaced. My market is 
Hartford-Springfield with a population of 1.5 million. Three 
receivers have been sold in the past three months by retailers. At 
one receiver per month that comes to 125,000 years to replace 
receivers in this market, alone. I hope the math is right. It's a 
long time, anyway.

I can understand why the manufacturer fears 24/7 AM IBUZ operation 
and sees the need to delay approval as long as possible. Except for 
the degradation of the analog signal there's no real need, without 
receivers, to take the terrible risk of wiping out the viability of 
AM nighttime operation. We've had a taste of what'll happen during 
Winter critical hours.

I've heard only two AM IBUZ stations. WBZ, Boston and WTAG, 
Worcester, MA. WBZ sounded terrific. WTAG had extremely bad 
processing and their analog sounded better. I assume that's been 
fixed. I've actually heard an early incarnation of WOR-HD. It was 
hard to listen to. I suspect Tom Ray has made significant 
improvements since then.

The fix is in. AM IBUZ will, eventually happen. If it does it MUST be 
24/7. Listeners won't accept a dramatic loss of quality and the 
resumption of interference at night. The difference is too great. 
Even the most tone deaf won't tolerate it after being spoiled by an 
expensive radio that becomes defective at sunset.

Rich